A DEFENCE OF A BOOK ENTITLED, The Snake in the Grass.  
IN REPLY To Several ANSWERS put out to it by George Whithead, joseph Wyeth, etc.  
London, Printed by M. Bonnet, for C. Brome at the Gun, W. Keblewhite at the Swan in St. Paul's Churchyard. And Geo. Strahan at the Golden-Ball, over against the Royal-Exchange, in Cornhill. 1700.   

CONTENTS OF THE First Part.  
The Preface Vindicated in an Advertisement.  

SECT.  
I. GEorge Whitehead's Pleasantry upon the Author of The Snake. Page 1.  
II. His Meek and Lamblike Treatment of him. Page 2.  
III. His Cry of Persecution against him. Page 3.  
iv His Address to his Work. Page 8.  
V His Shuffle about their Answer to the Seven Quaeres given to their Yearly-Meeting. An. 1695. Wherein a short Scheme of the QUAKER'S Principles and the MONSTROUS Foundation of their Faith. Page 9  
VI His Sober Caution considered, as to those Quakers who were Possessed with the Devil. Wherein the Wonderful Story of John Gilpin. Page 25.   

The Excuses which G. W. makes for this.  
1. That this ought not to Reflect upon the Generality of the Quakers, or their Principles. ibid.  
2. That Satan, in a Mad or Possest-Man, is not Transformed into an Angel of Light. ibid.  
3. That such Persons are fit Objects of Pity than Raillery. Wherein of the Quaker-Euthusiasm. Page 26.  
4. That not more Quakers than others have run Mad. Wherein their Excuse for Gilpin, etc. is Considered. Page 30.   

Proofs of the Quakers being Mad.  
1. In those who went Naked. Page 42.  
2. In their strange Singularities. Page 48.  
3. In thinking Themselves to be Free from Sin, and Equal to God. Page 50.  
4. In Assuming to be Prophets. ibid.  
5. In their Prater-Natural Quaking, etc. Page 54.  
6. In their Silent-Meetings. Page 68  
7. In the New-Quakers of America. Page 69.  
8. In their Vindicating of Madmen. Page 70.   

The Abuses and Mistakes which G. W. Alleges in The Snake. As to  
I. The Necessity of Preaching. Page 72.  
II. The Comparison of Fox and Muggleton. With G. W's: Malicious Innuendo as to the Act of Toleration. Page 73.  
III. Their Order against Carrying Guns in their Ships. Page 74.  
iv Their Principles Dangerous to Government. Page 75.  
V Their Opposition of Tithes. Page 77.  
VI Their Treasons and Rebellion, in Abetting Oliver and the Rump. Page 83.  
VII. George Fox, his Assuming to be Equal with God. Page 87.  
VIII. Their Asserting the Sufficiency of their Light within to Salvation, without Christ. And Assuming the Name of Christ to Themselves. Page 90.  
IX. Their turning the Death and Sufferings of Christ into an Allegory and a Type. Page 105.  
X. 

1. Their Spiritual Body of Christ, which they suppose He had from Eternity. And their Denial of His Now Human Body in Heaven. Page 116.  
2. Their Denial that Christ had any Human or Created either Soul or Body, while He was upon Earth. Page 120.  
3. Their BLASPHEMOUS Contempt of Christ. Page 131.    
XI. Their Contempt of the H. Scriptures. Page 144.  
XII. Their Conforming and Transforming to every Turn. Page 146.  
XIII. Their making no Confession of Sin, or Praying for Pardon. Page 149.  
XIV. Three Matters of Fact relating to the QUAKER'S Contempt of the H. Scriptures. Which G. W. Denies after his Fashion. Page 160.  
XV. G. W's. Defence of Ed. Burrough for his Contempt of H. Scripture. Page 166.  
XVI. G. W's. Defence of himself for the same. Wherein is shown, That the Quakers are Direct Deists, and the Worst sort of them. Page 169.  
XVII. G. W's. Sincerity and Ingenuity in some Objections with which he Concludes the First Part of his Book.  
Wherein the Sum of the Quaker-Doctrine is laid open. viz. That they Deny the Humanity of Christ; and the Divinity of Jesus. Page 179.   

CONTENTS OF THE Second Part. SECT.  
I. COncerning the Author. Page 1.  
II. The QUAKERS Method in Answering of Books 

1. Railing, Personal Reflections, and Nastiness. Page 4.  
2. Insolence and Threaten against any who Oppose them. Page 32.  
3. Bringing of Contrary-Testimonies. Page 51.  
4. Double Meanings and Cross Purposes. Page 78.  
5. Not to take an Answer. Page 82.  
6. Pretending that the Quotations brought out of their Books are not True, because more than is Pertinent is not Quoted. Page 85.  
7. Appealing from their own Printed Books to the Original Copies. Page 94.  
8. Falsifying the Meaning of Others. For which by Will. Penn 's Rule, they are Excluded from being Christians. Page 100    
III. The Quakers Cleared from Contradiction in those Seeming Contrary Testimonies, which are Produced in this Appendix, to Defend them from the Heresies Charged upon them. 

1. As to Christ come in the Flesh. Page 112.  
2. As to the Reality of His Death and Sufferings. Page 123.  
3. As to the Resurrection and Future Judgement. Page 124.  
4. Their Testimonies Allowed to be Contrary upon the Point of Government and Fight. And why. Wherein a Deep Secret of their Government is laid open. Page 127.    
iv Their Witty Answer and Repartees upon the Point of their Denying Marriage, and Preaching up of Fornication. Page 134.  
V Their Reasserting of their own Infallibility, and Sinless Perfection. Wherein of their Idolatry. Page 148.  
VI Their Defence of not taking off their Hats, or giving Civil Titles, considered. Page 162. 

And of the Pure Language (as they call it) of Thee and Thou. Page 185.  
Both of which are shown not to be mere Clownishness or want of Manners: But that it Proceeds from a Design they have Formed to Subvert all Government, that is not in their Own Hands. For that they think, none but Themselves have any Right to Govern..    
VII. The Absurdity and Blasphemy of the Quaker Notion of The Light within, shown from Will. Penn 's Defence of it, and others. viz. 

1. That there is no Natural Light or Reason in Man. But that all in him is Divine. Page 194.  
2. That by this, they are not only Equal to God, in some sense; but that they are very God Himself. And that every Creature is God, Even the Devil. Page 206.  
3. Some Texts of H. Scripture Rescued from the False Glosses which the Quakers put upon them, to favour the Universality of what they call The Light within. Page 224.     

THE COLLECTION. Numb.  
I. THE Quaeres given to the Yearly-Meetings of the Quakers at London the 17th. of May. 1695. With an Answer given to the same Quaeres by the General Meeting of the Reformed Quakers at Philadelphia in Pensilvania, the 18th. of Sept. 1695. Page 1.  
II. George Keith 's Relation of Two Remarkable Meetings of the Quaker Preachers at London. An. 1678. Concerning Three Great Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith. Page 16.  
III. Some Passages taken out of a Ms. of Humphrey Norton 's which is Mentioned in The Second Part. p. 99 100 Page 39  
iv Some of the Omissions and Alterations, that the Quakers have made in the Reprinting of the Works of their Deceased Prophets. Page 52.  
V A Letter of John Feild and Will. Bingley to Sir Thom. Lane Lord Mayor of London. An. 1695. Page 78.  
VI A Paragraph which the Quakers put into The Post-Man. 14. Jan. 1699. Page 81.  
VII. A Declaration against Wigs, or Periwigs. Page 83  
VIII. The Excommunication of Will. Wilkins, for Marrying one who was not a Quaker: And And for being Married by a Clergyman. Page 90.  
IX. Their Denial of Burial to Thom. Bradly for the same. Page 92.    

I must trouble the Reader to Correct the Errata of the Press, as he finds them. For I am quite Tired.   

Advertisement.  
AT the end of the First Part there is mention made of a Preface. In which I have laid open the ways and means by which George Fox and the first Quakers came by all that Complication of the Ancient Heresies, with further Improvements, upon which they have set up. For it was none of their Invention. They had neither Parts nor Learning sufficient for such an Enterprise. But the Second Part Swelling so much, with the Collection, beyond the first Intended Bounds: And the Quakers last Answer to The Snake, which they call Anguis or Switches, having come out since: And it being thought necessary, That something should be said to it particularly (because the Quakers make such Boasts of it) tho' in Effect it is Answered already in this Reply; I have, to Eease the Bulk of this, Reserved the Preface to my Reflections upon the Switches, which will be the shorter, because there will need little more than Applying their Answers in the Switches, to those Methods (set down in the Second Part) which they use in Answering of Books that are wrote against them. And so that will serve as a Third Part to this; And be the Last I intent upon this Subject. Because I think to make it very Plain, that by their Answers in the Switches, they must be Satisfied and Know in their Hearts, that these Heresies, etc. are Justly Charged upon them; And that they have Taught them.  
Only here let me take Notice of an Answer lately come out to the Preface of the Snake, concerning Mis. Bourignon, in an Apology wrote in Defence of her, and her Principles.  
Wherein the Author shows, That he is not without Passion at what he calls Passion in others. But he vents it not in that Furious, Nasty Fashion as the Quakers. He calls that Zeal which is Expressed in the Preface against Bourignonism, Spiteful and Malicious. But that Author could have no Malice against her Person, whom he knew no otherwise than by her Writings. And if the Doctrines she Taught were such as he has there Represented them, believe it, there was Cause for all that Concern, and more than is there Expressed.  
Now whether they are truly Represented in that Preface, will appear plain enough by the Answer to it. Which Denies not the Quotations, but by Contrary Testimonies, and some other of the Quaker-Methods here set down, would Squeeze and Force the Words out of their Natural Signification, which yet can not be done.  
The Apologist accuses the Author of that Preface of Prejudice and Un-charitableness. Why? Because he does not Insist upon and Recommend the Good things in Ms. Bourignons' Writings, as well as Expose what he thought Dangerous and Destructive. But this was Blaming without Cause. For it was Dangerous things only which ought to be Exposed. And they were the more Dangerous, because they were Mixed with Good things, as Satan when Transformed into an Angel of Light. To Praise whose Light would not be the way to Discover him. No. We must look for the Cloven-Foot.; And Pull off the Sheeps-clothing to find out the Wolf.  
The Apologist sets down his Belief, in most Orthodox and Moving terms. And I do Believe him. And think him a Man of Piety and Sincere Intentions. And that he has been deluded by the seeming Devotion, Self-denial, and Abstractedness from the World that Appears through the Writings of Ms. Bourignon. Therefore I do with Great Charity, and an Hearty Concern, Beseech him and others who follow her Devotion, to consider, whether it could come from God, and Cover such Terrible Doctrines, as overturn the very Foundation of our Christian Faith? Such as CHRIST's Dying being only by Accident:— That He came not with a Design to Suffer:— That it was not Consistent with the Glory of God.; Nor needful as a Satisfaction for our Sins:— And other things mentioned in that Preface. I would Provoke their Zeal to be more for the support of the True Christian Doctrine, than for the Flights of Ms. Bourignon or any other, which we do not Want. We have the Lives of the Holy Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, and of Christ Himself for our Examples. There is no Addition to them in the Life of Ms. Bourignon.  
As to the Rest of this Apology in Answer to Dr. Cockburn's Narratives concerning Ms. Bourignon, I meddle not with them. He is of Age, and can Answer for himself. My Province now is only The Snake in Grass, And so much of Bourignonism as is there Contained, for which I think this short Advertisement to be sufficient; And that her Pretensions to the Spirit of Prophecy, or Miracles have no better Foundation than Fox or Muggleton had. And stand Chargeable with the same Enthusiasm and Blasphemy.   

A DEFENCE Of the BOOK Entitled The Snake in the Grass.  
Against George Whitehead's Antidote, etc.  


George Whiteheads Pleasantry upon the Author of the Snake.  I. IN his Epistle to the Reader. P. 1. He tells that the Quakers did not Intent to write any Answer to The Snake in the Grass, that it was not worth an Answer, etc. It was slighted by Us (says he) and laid aside— as scarce deserving any particular Answer. Till the Importunity of some People, he says, did Extort this Answer from them. And yet, p. 265. I must Advertise the Reader (says he) that this Officious Author should have spared his other Discourse (against the Quakers) until he had seen an Answer to his Snake in the Grass.  
This was very Cunning! Here He had that Author at a why not! For the Author, as others, did believe that the Quakers had no stomach to Answer that Book (which made them so long in doing it) because nothing is so hard to be Answered as Matter of Fact, of which that Book does chief consist: And the Author was so Careful of his Quotations, that all G. Whitehead's sagacity has not found out one False Quotation in the whole Book. This George knew, and therefore he was brought to this Answer, like a Bear to the Stake. But an Answer there must be, because, as he confesses, People did call for it, and thought the Quaker-Cause Lost without it.  
And this Forced Answer, will sink it much Deeper in the Mire: for the Excuses are so slight, so Guilty, so Confessing, that every Discerning Eye must see through these Fig-leaves, which they are not able so to Patch together as to Cover their Nakedness:  

His Meek and Lamblike Treatment of him.  II. This has Enraged them, out of All measure against the Author: And tho' in The Snake, Sect. xvii. one would think there were so much of the Venom and Bitterness of their Spirit set forth, as at least to Prevent their Falling, for some time, into the like again; yet they verify the Character that Author has given of them (while they are Pretending to Clear themselves from it) and show that Bitterness and Fury are so Engrafted into their very Natures, that they cannot Refrain from it, even when they are Pleading not Guilty to the Charge; and call themselves, The Lambs of Christ, and The Meek of the Earth! There is hardly a Page in this Antidote that is not be speckled with the Meek Froth of these Lambs. Such as calling the Author of The Snake, 
Ep. to Reader. p. 2. Book. p. 3.  and all that take his Part, The Devil and his Agents. Furious, Foul-mouthed, Persecuting Agents, Precipitated by the Devil and Malice— A Poor Dissembling Hypocrite, through whom the Devil and Malice do Invent, 
44.88.188.251.253.255.257.262.264.  etc. Screwed up by the Father of Lies to such a Height of Malice and Outrage.— Like some Mercenary Soldier of Fortune— A Persecuting, skulking Adversary— Persecuting Incendiaries— This Author's Great Malice, Cruelty, and Persecuting Spirit— Most Hideous and sordid Calumny— The sink of his Gross Calumnies and Malice— Such Dirty Kennels of Lies and Abuses, as the Books of the said Author. etc. This is enough for a Taste of such Delicious Fare. I should Transscribe Great Part of his Book, if I gave you a Collection of all of this sort that runs through it. And after all this Outcry, he has not shown one False Charge, or Calumny cast upon the Quakers in All The Snake, as you will see in the Examining of those which he does Allege. But this Bluster and Confidence (by way of Meekness!) he thought would gain Credit with some, who would take his word, rather than be at the Pains to Compare or Read Defences.  

His Cry of Persecution against him.  III. And such would think, by his Exclamations, that some Grievous Persecution were stirred up against them; that the Author of The Snake had Incited the Civil Power, to Hang, Draw, and Quarter the Quakers, to Confiscate their Estates, Imprison, Banish, Torture, or some Terrible Proceed against them! But not a word of this, or any thing like it in The Snake, no, not as Alleged by G. W. himself; but, on the Contrary, there is nothing else there Proposed, but to Reason and Argue with them Fairly, and upon the Square; to Convince them out of their own Books and writings, and Undeniable Matters of Fact. Which if any man Quote wrongfully against them; or Deduce Unjust Consequences from them, he Exposes himself, and gives them the Fairest opportunity can be to vindicate themselves.  
Indeed, if I should Traduce and Defame in the General (as G. W. here serves the Author of The Snake) without Descending to Particulars; and Producing my vouchers clearly and above board, whereby the Accused may have free scope to disprove the Charge, if False; this would be a Persecution of the Tongue; and that is a Persecution, and a Severe one.  
But if I Quote Book and Page (as the Author of The Snake has done) and Recite fairly; and Argue from thence in the Common way of Reasoning, this cannot be called a Persecution.  
Or it is such a one to which the Quakers have always Invited, Encouraged, and Provoked us. Edw. Burrough, in his Return to the Ministers of London. A. D. 1660. Page 657. and 658. of his Works. Reprinted A. D. 1672. says to them, Search the Scriptures, and that Religion and worship and Ministry, which is not according to the Scriptures— let that Religion, worship, Church, and Ministry be utterly Condemned of The Lord, and all his People; and let such Ministers as cannot Prove their Call, their Maintenance, and Practices to be according to Scriptures, let such Ministers be Confounded, and silenced for ever; And come to try this Matter when ye will. For whereas you cry out against us, as if we were Denyers of Scriptures, as if we were Enemies to Church, Deceivers, Heretics, etc. But I say unto you, these things have you never yet justly Proved against us, but rather Accused us behind our Backs— And tho' for divers years together we have been Public, yet when did ever any of your Ministers seek by Lawful means to Convert us, or show us our Errors? If we were as you say of us, Oh, it had been your time to have sought our Conversion!— If we be in an Evil way, as you say, let us hear your soundest Arguments, by the Spirit of God, and according to the Scriptures, to Prove those things which you say of us; Prove it by Evident Arguments, that we Deny Scriptures, that we are Heretics— I challenge you All, in the Name of the Lord, even All you Ministers of London, Let us hear your sound Reasons openly— Come out you Ministers, we are willing to be Tried according to the Scriptures, and by the Spirit of God, in our Religion, and in Every Part of it; and if you be the same, then come forth— and let us have fair Dealing Openly, that Truth may be Manifested Publicly, and Error may be Discovered— And this would be a Christian like way; we would hear what you have to Charge against our Religion, by sound Arguments, that we may Answer it— and come out when you will in such away as this, and this would Satisfy thousands— and this is the way to Exalt Religion: and we would think it a Happiness, more than otherwise, to be joined in sober Debate and Dispute against you, that all may be satisfied who are Doubtful, and may hear your Principles and our Principles discussed, in the Presence of the People, who may Judge by the Light and witness in their own Consciences, for to that, in All, we do appeal; And in such a Proceeding, come forth when you will etc.  
But all this Daring was soon Quashed when it came to the Trial. How have they Exclaimed, of late, aghast George Keith for Provoking them to Dispute in Public; and have Quit the Field, crying out, and that in Print, that they would meet in no such way, lest it might Provoke the Government; tho' the Lord Mayor had given his leave for the Meeting in one of the Public Halls of the City, and one of the Sheriffs was himself Present, and his Officers attending, to see order kept: But all that was nothing, the Quakers said it was a Turbulent way; And that the People were not Competent Judges of such matters; as they Printed in the Reasons they put out, for their Declining to give G. Keith a Meeting, two years after one another in Turners-Hall, the first on the 11. June 1696. the other upon the 29. Apr. 1697. To take away both which Pretences, four Reverend Divines of the City of London were appointed by the Lord Bishop of London to meet at Turners-Hall the 21 of Apr. 1698. And there to Hear and Examine the Charges of False-Doctrin and Heresies, which G. Keith had Exhibited against the Quakers, and to Inspect the Quotations which he had brought out of their Printed Books. And Timely notice was sent to Will. Penn, G. Whitehead etc. of this meeting; and they, or what other Quakers pleased were Invited to come and vindicate their Doctrine and Principles: But they were still the same men, they would not come (unless a few for Spies) but Reprinted their former Reasons, new vaumped, against any such Meetings: And they cried out that Printing was the only method to Decide their Controversies, and they would take no other.  
But G. Whitehead is as much Displeased at that. And Appeals to his Reader. p. 2. and 3. whether The Snake be not as severe a Persecution, To Destroy and Murder our Reputations (says he) both as men and Christians. And I am told that they are Resolved to write no more Defences; for they have had as ill luck that way, as in Personal Disputes. It is a Grievous Persecution this, that men can neither Speak nor Write, but it is the worse for them! G. Whitehead their present Champion, seeks to Hid his Head behind an Act of Parliament, and would Gladly find shelter under the Plenitude of that Indulgence lately Granted to Dissenters, which he says (p. 2. to the Reader) these Malicious People (whom he calls The Devil and his Agents) do Envy them, because they will not give over writing against them.  
This Plea was put in, by Council Learned at the Law, for Mitigation of Damages, upon their Declining so many meetings for the Defence of their Cause at Turner's Hall; And that they Fled for the same.  
But they sent in their Room A solemn Protestation in behalf of the Act of Toleration; which they thought Reached even unto them; and that it was a sufficient Justification of their Principles. But the Reflections which were soon after Published. 8. May, 1697. upon that Protestation (and which they have not yet Attempted to Answer) has Disarmed them of the Advantage they proposed by that Act of Indulgence; and left them no other Choice, but to Defend their Cause, either by word or writing (tho' that be a downright Persecution!) or by their future Silence, to let it Sink.  

His Address to his Work.  iv Therefore, since it must be, George, let not your noble Courage be cast down, Cock your Hat, Look Big, and Enter the Lists with the Best Grace that you can. And he does it, in the Road he is most used to, the old Blasphemous Rant, of putting all upon The Lord. I confess then (says he p. V) a holy Zeal the Lord raises, and has raised in my very Heart and Soul, against such Bitter Implacable, and Persecuting Spirits. And the Lor'ds Power I have felt, and do feel it to Aecompany and Enable me in Defence of His Blessed Truth and People. Now this Power which he calls the LordsLords was nothing else but the Spirit of Rancour and Revenge; which soon Discovers itself; for in the very next words, instead of Justifying or Defending his Cause, he falls upon Threatening his Unknown Adversary. 'Tis pity (says he) but this Defaming Author should be Publicly Exposed by Name for his Folly and Outrage— that he may not be suffered to sculk and Hid himself like a Snake under the Grass. That was witty! There he was Even with the Snake in the Grass! Here he had some body in his Eye, tho' he knows not whom, and some mischief or other, which he thinks it a Pity should not be Inflicted upon him, by those in whose Power it is: whom he thus Instigates to do it. This was the Holy Zeal which was Raised in his very Heart and Soul! His Meek Heart that hates the thoughts of Persecution! If he had found such an Indication towards it in all the Sn. what Tragical Improvements could his way of Reasoning have made upon It! But, George, the Author gave some Reasons for Concealing of his Name, at the close of Sect XXIII. to which he thinks not fit to add any thing now, but only this, That if G. Whitehead and Will. Penn will set their Names, to all that they have Printed Incognito, he promises to put his Name, to the next Edition of the Sn.  

His Shuffle about their Answer to the seven Queres. With a short Scheme of the Quakers Principles and the Monstrous Foundation of them.  V All that follows in G. W's Ep. to the Reader is concerning the 7 Queres which were sent to their yearly Meeting. 1695. the Provocation that was given them to Answer two of them Directly, since they would not the whole, as they Pretended, for their Length and Intricacy. And what G. W. says to this is considered in the Suplement to the Sn. N. VII. All to be added here is the Queres themselves, which was Promised in the Sup. and are Inserted in the Answer which the General Meeting of the Reformed Quakers at Philadelphia, in Pensilvania, Returned to these Queres. Which I have Added in the Collection, at the End of this: to show the Difference of those who Answer sincerely, and those who, when forced to it, Answer with Craft, and Dissimulation: And that we may see the Honesty and sense of that Excuse given in the Answer of the London Quakers, That these Queres were not so Plain and Direct, as that a Plain Yea or Nay could be given to Each Quere, as was Desired: And therefore, That they Give one General Answer; against which they were Cautioned. But would not be Forbidden. For the same Reason given in the Conclusion of the Sn. and in the Sup. N. VII. Because they could not otherwise Cover their Frightful Heresies. Tho' this has not done it.  
To show which Effectually, I will give a short Scheme of the Quakers Principles: And lay open the Monstrous Foundation of them: whereby not only the Foul Fallacy of their Answer is Detected; but their Blasphemous Heresies made more Apparent.  
First then I will Grant that that Paragraph in their Answer to the Queres, We sincerely Believe in Jesus Christ, etc. is set down in most Orthodox words, mostly in the Terms of the Creed. Why then should we Quarrel with them? Why will we not let men tell their own Meaning? Why will we not Believe what they Profess? Would this seem Equal Dealing with other Men? What more ought to be Expected from them, than to bring them to subscribe the very words of our Creed? What Better, or other words can we find as a Test for them?  
But it was told in the Conclusion of the Sn. That they could Subscribe the whole Creed, and yet not mean one word of it, of a Personal Christ Existing now in Heaven, in His own true Human Nature, without all other men etc. Therefore they were Desired to give a plain Yea or Nay but to Two short Queres, upon that Head. Which they will not do.  
Now lest this should seem an Unreasonable Imposition upon them: and to show the Reader, that there was good Grounds, and even Necessity for all this Caution with them, I will set down in as Clear a Light as I can, the Bottom and Foundation of this their Mystery of Iniquity; which indeed is wonderful: And without Understanding of which Exactly, it is Impossible to Dive into their Hidden Meanings that they have, whenever they speak of Christ.  
1. We must know then, That they do hold (with the Anthropomorphits and Muggletonians) that God has a Body, of Flesh, Blood, and Bones: And that Christ, as God, had such a Body from Eternity. And that this was an Human Body. And consequently, that God or Christ was a Man from Eternity.  
This Humanity of Christ they call Spiritual, Heavenly, Uncreated. And they Distinguish it from that Manhood which He took of our Nature, in the Womb of the B. Virgin: which they call Earthly, Corruptible, Created, and Outward Manhood.  
2. They say that He took upon Him this Outward Manhood, but not into His own Person, so as to become Truly and Really His own Manhood, or Part of His Nature: But only as a Veil, Vessel, Garment, or Clothing to His Heavenly Manhood. As when Angels assumed Bodies to Appear in, they took them not into their Nature, but only as a Veil or Garment, for a time, and then laid them down again. Tho', while they Appeared in them, they might be called Their Bodies, as being used or Possessed by them. So, and no otherwise, the Quakers call the outward Body of Christ, His Body.  
3. The Heavenly Manhood of Christ, Flesh, Blood, and Bones, they say Dwells in them. This is what they call their Light within.  
4. They Attribute the whole of our Redemption, of the Atonement, and Satisfaction made for our Sins, to the Madly supposed Sufferings, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of the Heavenly Manhood, or their Light within: Which they say, is all Performed Within them. Of which, they say, the Outward Sufferings of Christ were a Type or Figure.  
5. They Vilify the outward Christ, and His Sufferings, as of no Efficacy towards our Salvation, more than the Sufferings of other Goodmen, as an Example or Encouragement to us. For they say, That their Light within is sufficient to their Salvation, without, any thing else, i. e. without the outward Jesus, what He did or suffered for us. And they Deny that He is now in Heaven, in the Outward Manhood of our Nature, or that He will Come in That Manhood to Judge the World. In short, They Deny Jesus of Nazareth, or that Person who suffered upon the Cross, to be Properly the Son of God.  
6. They are Perfect Deists in Every Respect.  
7. They are the most Monstrous sort of Deists that ever were in the World. For they hold with the Ranters (whence they sprung) That there is no Difference or Distinction betwixt God, and Creatures: But that Every thing is God, even the Devil.  
The first of these Seven Particulars, I will show in this Place. The 2.3.4. and 5. are shown in Sect. seven. viij. ix. and x. The 6th. in Sect. xuj. And the 7th. in the 2d. Part, Sect. seven. N. 2.  
For the First then. That God, and Christ, as God, was a Man from Eternity etc. see Tho. Ellwood's Answer to G. Keith's Narrative. p. 96. 97. where he Delivers Will, Penn's true sense and Meaning. The Plain Import of all his (W. P 's) Arguments (says T. E.) is, That Christ, as Christ, was from the Beginning, before He took that outward Body of Flesh, in which He suffered at Jerusalem; which is so far from a Denial of His being, Man, as well as God, that it is a fair Acknowledgement of it; inasmuch as He would not have been Christ, if He had not been Man, as well as God. As therefore He was Christ from the Beginning, so was He also both God and Man; and that not only In his People, but out of, or without them also. And if He was Truly Man Then, before He Appeared in that outward Body, which was Nailed to the Cross, to be sure, He is not less Truly Man now; since that outward Manhood became (as I may say) a Clothing to that Divine and Heavenly Manhood which He had before. Thus T. E. wrote lately, An. 1696. And shows what their Principles are Now. viz. That there are Two Manhoods of Christ, the one outward; which served only as a Clothing to the Heavenly Manhood. That Christ had not been Christ, if He had not been Man, as well as God; And therefore, That He was Man from the Beginning, as well as God. And Consequently, That God, was Man, from Eternity: For Christ or the Eternal word, was no other than God.  
Now let Us go a little Back, and see the same Doctrine taught by the Quakers formerly. Isaac Penington in his Question to the Professors, etc. Printed An. 1667. p. 30. does plainly Distinguish these Two Manhoods of Christ. Thus he says.  
He that knoweth the Substance, the Seed of the Kingdom, the Birth of the Spirit, knoweth the Flesh and Blood which is of the Seed. And this Flesh is Flesh indeed, this Blood is Blood indeed, even the Flesh and Blood of the Seeds Nature; But the other was but the Flesh and Blood of our Nature, which He honoured in taking upon Him, in which He did the will, in which He offered up the Acceptable Sacrifice; but yet did not give the Honour from His own Flesh and Blood to It. For the Flesh and Blood of our Nature, was not His own Naturally, but only as He pleased to take it upon Him, and make it His. But that whereof He formeth Us, and which He giveth us to Eat and Drink, is the Flesh and Blood of His own Nature: And this was It wherein was the Virtue, and wherein is the Virtue, Life, and Power for Ever. Happy, O happy is he who is of It, who is taken out of and Form of Him (as Eve was of Adam) and so becomes Flesh of His Flesh, and Bone of His Bone. etc. This was the Flesh and Bone of the Heavenly and Eternal Manhood, which he calls of the Seed's Nature, that is of Christ, not as He was of the Seed of Abraham, after the Flesh, but as He is the Seed or Light in our Hearts; for I. P. calls this the Seed's own Flesh and Blood, of His own Nature. And Distinguishes it from the Flesh and Blood which he took of our Nature. And says, that the Virtue and Life is not in that, but in the Flesh and Blood of His own Nature. Not the Flesh and Blood (says he p. 25.) of the outward Earthly Nature; but the Flesh and Blood of the Inward spiritual Nature. Not the Flesh and Blood which Christ took of the first Adam's Nature; but the Flesh and Blood of the Second Adam 's Nature. This is of God, or Christ, as God. And p. 10 says, We are taught both by the Spirit, and by the Scriptures, to Distinguish between Christ's own Flesh; and that of ours, which He took up, and made His. There is much more to the same Purpose in that Book of Penington's, with which I will not Detain the Reader.  
The last Authority I shall Produce is of the Great Fox Himself, in his Book called, Several Papers given forth for the Spreading of Truth etc. Printed, 1671. There p. 54. is a Chapter which bears this Title, Concerning Christ's Flesh which was Offered etc. And this Flesh he makes not to be That which He took of the B. Virgin, but That, which he had from the Beginning, and which he supposes was Crucify'd when Adam Fell: And in That Crucifixion to Consist the Atonement and Satisfaction made for Sin. And he takes that Text, The Lamb slain from the Foundation of the world, not as then Decreed and Purposed by God, but Literally, as then Actually Fulfilled. Thus he Gins that Chapter. Christ, the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the world; when it began its Foundation, than the Lamb was slain— And Christ, according to the Flesh, Crucified, the Lamb slain, that Flesh of His, which is a Mystery, when the first Adam's and Eve's Flesh was Defiled. This he calls a Mystery. And it is the true Mystery of Quakerism. It is upon this account, That the Quakers think all the Christian world to Lie in Darkness but Themselves. That other Christians know of no other Flesh and Blood of Christ, but that outward Flesh, which He took, in Time, of the B. Virgin. Hence it is common in their Discourse, and in their Books, to tell others, That the Flesh of Christ is a Mystery; That they understand nothing of it. As Solomon Eccles wrote, That the Pope, 
Sn. Sect. x. p. 138.  the Episcopal, the Presbyterian, Independants, and Baptists, understand the Blood of Jesus Christ, no more than a Brute Beast. Therefore the Quaker's Confessing to the Blood of Christ in General Terms, can be no Justification of them, while they mean another Manhood, Flesh, Blood, and Bones, of Christ than any Christian ever Dreamt of. But it Argues their Deep Deceit and hypocrisy, to seem to Justify themselves to the world, by their General Confessions; But Conceal their secret Meaning, whereby they know that they Differ most Widely from those, with whom they make this False Appearance of Agreeing Exactly.  
Therefore their Answer to the Queres is no Answer, while they Refuse to Renounce this Distinction that they have of Different Manhoods in Christ: or otherwise, to Explain themselves, and tell us, which of the Manhoods they mean. The words of their Answer to the Queres, upon this Head, are these, We sincerely believe in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Living God, both as he is true God and Perfect Man. But what they mean by Man here, they do not Declare. Whether that Eternal or Heavenly Manhood before spoke of, or the Outward and Terrestrial Manhood, which he took of our Earth? But Tho. Ellwood (we thank him) has told us and Discovered the secret, in his Answer to G. Keiths' first. Narrative. p. 205. where he Recites a Quotation G. K. had brought out of G. whitehead's Book The Malice of the Independent Agent. p. 17. That Christ's Body now in Heaven is the same in substance He had on Earth, which would seem a Fair Confession to the Humanity of Christ. But hold a little (cries T. E.) Did G. Whitehead ever call or own Christ's Body now in Heaven, or while it was on Earth, to be Terrestrial or of the Earth? Here we see how to Understand their words, and how to Interpret this their Answer to the Quaeres; not of the outward or Terrestrial Manhood, which Christ took of our Nature; but of their Secret and Heavenly Manhood, which they Madly Fancy, He had from Eternity.  
And thus G. Whitehead Explains himself, in his Part of The Christian Quaker. Printed. An. 1674. p. 140. where he says, That he was not at all against Jesus Christ being God and Man, take Man (says he) as Christ is the Heavenly, Spiritual, and Glorified Man. But he Confesses, that he was against this. viz. That Jesus Christ consisteth of Human Flesh and Bone. Here he Distinguishes betwixt the Heavenly and the Human Manhood. The first he Ascribes to Christ, but Denies the Latter, that Christ has any Human Manhood. And the Reason he gives for it, is, Seeing Christ (says he) was from Everlasting, which is the same we have heard before from Thom. Ellwood, where he takes upon him to Explain Will. Penn's sense in this Matter, viz. That Christ, as Christ, always had a Manhood; And seeing He had it from Everlasting, therefore it could not be the Human but the Heavenly Manhood, Flesh, Blood and Bone. What then was that Flesh and Blood which he took of the B. Virgin, wherein He suffered and Risen again? And of which he said, Behold my Hands and my Feet: 
Luk. xxiv. 39  Handle me and see, for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones, as ye see Me have. To this says G. W. (ibid. p. 139. 140.) yes, Christ Had such Flesh and Bones, but he did not Consist of them. I distinguish between Consisting and Having. Says he. i e. A man Hath anything that he Possesses or wears, I Have a Cloak, but I do not Consist of that Cloak, that is, It is no Part of my Nature; and I may Put it on, or Throw it off, without any Change of my Nature. And no otherwise do the Quakers reckon of the Body and Blood which Jesus our B. Lord took, in Time, in the Womb of the Virgin. Not that He took it into His Person, so as to Consist of it; as a Man does Consist of Both Natures, of his Body and Soul: But only, that He Had it, that is, Made Use of it, and wore it, for a Time, as a Veil or Garment; which He has now laid aside; and subsists in Heaven, only in that Heavenly and Eternal Manhood, Flesh, Blood, and Bones, which He had, as Christ, from Eternity. And they make it a Contradiction to say That Christ does Consist of any other Flesh and Bone, that is, of Human Flesh and Bone, they think this to be a Contradiction to Christ's being the Eternal Word; because they hold that He could not be the Word or Christ, without Consisting of Flesh, Blood, and Bone: And therefore, That if He had None but the Flesh etc. of the Human Nature, which was Created in Time, it must follow, That He was not the Word or Christ from Everlasting. Thus says G. W. (ibid. p. 139.) Is there not a Plain Contradiction between Jesus Christ Consisting of Flesh and Bone, Human Nature; And that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Eternal word from Everlasting, etc.  
Therefore you see it is Necessary for us, in order to Oblige these Quakers to Discover their Meaning, that we Insist upon the word Human, And that they will Answer, whether they Allow Christ to have Now in Heaven any Human Body? Or whether He does Consist Now of that Body; or did Consist of it, while He was upon Earth?  
But will the Word Human hold them? Have they not Dodge nor Shift whereby to use even that word Plainly, in a sense, in which they know that no body Understands it in this Case? What if we spell it Humane for Human, and take Humanity in the Moral and not Natural sense of the word; as when we say, that such an One is a Man of Great Humanity, i. e. of Good Nature, Gentleness, Goodness, & c.? And Christ or The Word having Great Goodness in His Nature, consequently we will allow Him a Humane, though not a Human Nature! I am Confident the Reader does now think that I am Fooling with these Quakers; and Mean this only as a Banter: For that he must Conclude it Impossible for any Men to show themselves such Knaves as well as Fools, to Dodge at such a silly and Impudent rate with Mankind; while they Pretend to the Greatest Plainess and Sincerity of any Men upon the Earth. Therefore let him Read a Quaker Book Entitled A Testimony for the true Christ and His Light in the Conscience, in Confutation of Robert Cobbit 's Testimony against the Truth etc. Printed An. 1668. And said on the Title Page to be From some of them called Quakers. But supposed to be Penned by G. Whitehead. There p. 4. and 5. they say, As he (Rob. Cobbit) speaks of Humane, with Relation to Nature or Body, it hath Relation to the Earth, or Humus the Ground, of which Man was made; which the First Man is of, not the second (though He was Really Man too) but Humane or Humanity in the other sense, with Relation to Gentleness, Mercifulness, and the like, this we know was, and is in the Image of God (in which Man was Made) and His Gentleness, Kindness, Mercifulness, etc. is Manifested in Christ— And the true and Real Humanity, as Opposed to that Cruelty, Envy, and In-Humanity, which is got up in Man since the Fall: so that Humanity, und the Unreasonableness of Beasts are two things. Thus the Quakers. Here they Deny Christ the Second Man to have been Made of Humus the Earth, as the First Man was; And yet say they He (the second Man) was Really Man too. How was this? It could not be in the same sense as the First Man, who was Made of Humus the Earth, if Christ did not take our Nature, or Humus upon Him. No, The Quakers do not mean it in that sense, as if Christ had ever taken our Human Nature, so as to Consist of it, or let it be any Part of His Person. And yet they say That He is Really Man too. By which they Mean only, That Eternal and Heavenly Manhood before Mentioned. And so Banter the World, with their Plain Confessions, in Double Meanings!  
Yet have they the Confidence, to Cry Whore first. And Boldly Challenge others with what Themselves are the most Notoriously Guilty, of any that Live upon the face of the Earth.  
Sam. Fisher, one of the Chief Rabbis of the Quakers, 
Sam. Fisher's Works. p. 177.  Charges the Priests against whom he Disputes, with Shameful shift from sense to sense, miserable marchings from Meaning to Meaning; so that we can hardly know where or How to find them, nor what they mean. But we (says he) mostly or ever keep to the True, Honest, Ordinary, and Plain purport of the words, as they lie open and Clear to every Ordinary and Common Capacity.  
And G. Whitehead Intitul's one of his Books, The Quaker's Plainess, detecting Fallacy.  
Whereas their Books are such Un-intelligible Jargon, that one must serve a Prenticeship before he can understand one word almost of what they would be at. Nay they Glory, and often Boast that their Words, as well as Names, are Hidden from the World.  
And this not only in their Books, but I Appeal to all that Converse with them, whether the same Mysteriousness be not in all their Conversation, concerning Religion. When you ask them the meaning of their Light within, their Christ within, their Life Read, etc. They Answer Commonly with a Grunt— of Disdain, or Pity, as they would have you take it. And when they Vouchsafe to Speak, it is to this Purpose, These things are Hid from thee, and from the World. Read within, there thou wilt find them. But we know them, and have Sweetness and Life in them, etc. Their Language is as much a Cant, as the Gipsies. And this has Preserved them so long Vn-discovered in the World. Yet they make up a Mouth, and Pretend to Plainess, beyond all others! But you shall never get them to Answer Directly, or to the Purpose; To give a Plain Yea or Nay to any Question concerning their Heresies. If they say I wrong them, let this be the Test, That they will either Own or Disown this their Notion of an Heavenly and Eternal Manhood of Christ: And tell us, in Plain Terms, which of the Manhoods, that which is Created, or that which they say is Uncreated, they mean, when they Confess to the Manhood of Christ now in Heaven. And till they do this (which I Guess, will not be in Hast) let my Charge stand good against them: Which I may Reasonably presume from all Judicious Readers. But, there is no stop in the Art of Heresy. This their Mad Notion of an Heavenly Body in God, or Christ, has brought them to Fancy, that they themselves have the same Heavenly Body. And thus they Understand our being Members of Christ, not as being Members of His Church, of which He is the Mystical Head: But as Members of this His Heavenly Flesh, Blood, and Bones: And therefore say, that Their own Bodies shall never Die. G. Fox, when one minded him, that he would Die, 
Will. Rogers his Christian Quaker. IV. Part. p. 49.  and turn to Dust, and therefore that he ought to be Humble; Answers, in his Letter, which is Printed, Thou sayest, when I am turned to Dust and Dead: Is this thy Doctrine? Are the Members of the Heavenly Body turned to Dust and Dead? This Doctrine proceeds from Darkness, and not from the Light of Christ. This is very Intelligible! And Easie to the Meanest Capacity! This is the Quakers Plainess! It was not said, that his Soul should turn to Dust, this was spoke of his Body. And here he denies it of the Body. Why? Because it was a Member of the Heavenly Body of God. And yet they do not doubt but their Bodies must Die, in the True, Honest, Ordinary, and Plain purport of the Words, to which they Mostly or Ever keep! But this Mystery is Vn-riddled in the Second Part. Sect. seven. n. 2. where it is shown, That they hold their Bodies as well as Souls to be God.  
It is told in the Preface, how the Quaker Heresies were Borrowed from the Ancienter Sectaries amongst us: And this their Answer to the Seven Queres, shows that they have Inherited their Plainess and Sincerity in Representing their own Principles to the World.  
The Family of Love, who Prevaricated in every Article of the Creed, Printed a Confession of their Faith, in the very words of the Creed, An. 1656. But how they meant it, Mr. Knewstub has shown us, which is Inserted in Heresiography. p. 97. where, by Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord, they mean only Righteousness, which they call Christ; and Sin they call Antichrist; and the Seed of the Woman they make to be only a Principle or Quality in our Hearts, and not any Person; which are the very Words and Sense of Will. Penn, in his Part of The Christian Quaker. p. 97, 98. And in his Address to Protestants. p. 118, 119. What is Christ (says he) but Meekness, Justice, Mercy, etc. And thence Infers, that every Meek Man, must be a Christian.  
But the Familists go on, in the words of the Creed, Who was Conceived of the H. Ghost: Born of the Virgin Mary; that is, in their Cant, as every one of them is Conceived of the H. Ghost, by the Renewing of the Spirit, in their Hearts, Born of the Virgin Mary; i. e. In their Virgin Hearts. Thus the Quakers understand it. See Will. Bayly's Works. p. 291, 292, 293. where this is, at Large, Insisted on. And the standard of the Lord. p. 17. says, in this same sense, That where Christ is Born, He is Born of a Virgin, that is, In them, as there Explained.  
Again, Suffered under Pontius Pilate. was Crucify'd, Dead, and Buried; and Descended into Hell. i. e. That Jesus Christ, or The Light, is Crucify'd, etc. In Men; under Pontius Pilate, i. e. The Wicked one, or our Corruptions and Lusts. Et sic de Caeteris. And the same Author tells, p. 100 That, because of these Double Meanings of the Famalists, there was no way to Discover them, by any Words or Tests that could be framed; But only by making them Renounce and Disown their Ringleader, one Henry Nicholas, and to Condemn his Doctrine; which they would not do. And thus must we deal with their Spawn the Quakers; while they Refuse to Disown the Pernicious Doctrines of Fox, Whitehead, Penn, etc. we must Conclude, That they still do own them, notwithstanding of all their Jesuitical and Janus-Confessions; which they have Copied after the Like Plaindealing Familists! Of whom, you may see more in the Authors I have Quoted. Who wrote before there was a Quaker in the World, or the Name known. But this shows, who were the Fathers that Begot them. For they were the Sons of Many Fathers, All the Pestiferous Sects of Forty One. Whose Vomit they have Licked up, and Rendered it ten times more Nauseous and Deformed.  
And the Legions which Possessed these Sons of Belial, are Entered, with Double Force and Malice, into this Herd of Swine: whom They have Captivated, both Souls and Bodies, in an Higher Degree than any of the Former; or than Any, perhaps, that have been known in any Age: Which I come next to show; with G. Whitehead's Defence of them.  

His Sober Caution considered, as to these Quakers who were Possessed with the Devil. wherein, the wonderful story of John Gilpin,  VI His Sober Caution (as he calls it) contains the first 12 pages of his Book. And it is all spent in warding off the several Instances, which cannot be Denied, of Quakers Possessed with the Devil in most wonderful and Astonishing Manner. The Bulk of his Reasons is that such Instances can be no Reflection upon the People called Quakers, or upon their Principles, more than if they had happened among any others of other Communions.  

1. But this is Answered in the Sn. Sect. xxi. p. 309. etc. where it is shown that such Enthusiastical Madness and Possession does proceed from the Principles of the Quakers, and is caused chief by them. And besides it is a most Notorious Mortification to their Pretence of Perfection and the Spirit of Discerning, beyond all other Men.  
2. But G. W. adds some other Arguments here, as p. 3. he Asks, How Satan is transformed into an Angel of Light, when he appears like a Madman, a Witch, a Devil, a Blasphemer? Ans. Who says that he appears then like an Angel of Light? You must allow him sometimes to take his own shape. But Secondly, The Pretence of Godliness and High Illuminations, which these Possessed Quakers make such Great Boast of, that is the Sheep's Clothing, and the Disguise of Light which Satan then puts on; and with which many are Deceived.  
3. G. W. adds next, that Men thus Mad or Possessed are fit Objects of Compassion than of that Wit and Raillery which the Author of the Sn. bestows upon the Quakers. Ans. That is true. And that Author bestows none of what G. W. calls Wit or Raillery upon them, unless G. W. reckons himself as one of them. The Author of the Sn. does not esteem All the Quakers in that High Degree of Enthusiastical Madness as Gilpin, Toldervy etc. And therefore G. W. aught to take that little Familiarity used sometimes with him, as a Compliment, as supposing him not in that Excess as others, as not yet Quite without the Boundaries of Reason: out of which when he shoots sometimes, with Extravagance so Excessive as to Pass the Reach of Argument, then is he, in kindness, to be Reduced by showing him his Folly, in its Plain Dress, which he calls Wit and Raillery.   
Nor is this without its Pity and Compassion, though Laughing, may be the Cure; as to Hypocondriacks, who cannot be Reasoned, yet sometimes are Jested out of their Delirious Imaginations.  
Which when any man comes to be Persuaded are the Immediate Dictates of the Holy-Ghost, then is his Madness in Perfection.  
And the Quakers have never yet been able to give us any Mark or Rule or show of Reason, that they do not thus mistake All their own Wild Imaginations for the Inspiration of God.  
We see (and G. W. cannot but own it) to what Excessive Heights this Enthusiastical Principle has driven some of the Quakers: therefore let the Rest beware, for they are upon the same Rode.  
They have lost their Compass, while they set their Light above the Scriptures: And have no other Assurance that they are in the Right, but their own Assurance that they are so. Which sort of Assurance not only Sometimes, but Always does accompany every Error: For no Man can be in any Error, who does not think himself to be in the Right: Else he were not in an Error; but in a Wilful Obstinacy if he Persisted in it, after he knew it it to be an Error.  
Now to Christians who believe the Divine Revelation of the H. Scriptures, these are a Rule, by which we measure our own Imaginations; and if any thing comes into our Heads contrary to these, we are bound to Reject it: But to believe it a Divine Inspiration, and so not Controulable by Scripture, this is to be Mad, to be given up to all Delusion, to surrender our Hearts, as a Blank Table for the Devil to write what he pleases upon, and to pass it as the Ingraving of the Finger of God And if there be no Light, that is, no Understanding in us, but what is Divine, we must think every thing Divine that is written there. And then we are Sealed up in Error; from which there can be no Returning while we keep in that Principle; the Scriptures can be no Reproof or Cheek to us, while we think that what we call our Light with in is Superior to the Scriptures, and by which the Scriptures themselves were given forth. And Reason, which is Human, and, as these Men term it, Carnal, can never be admitted by them to Rectify what they think to be Divine. So that all Avenues are stopped to their Recovery. This is the most Dreadful condition that any Man can be supposed to be in. It is Desperate to any thing but a Miracle. Therefore you see what Reason we have to Remove Men from this Principle. And this is the Heart of Quakerism. They Reckon themselves Secure without Reason. They are sure, because they are sure. And this sort of Assurance proceeds from the Imagination; and therefore is strongest in Madmen: And the Maddest of the Quarkers, the most highly Enthusiastic, have the strongest Assurance of this kind. How different are these Men from those sort of Christians to whom St. Peter writes, and admonishes them, To be Ready always to give an Answer to every Man that asked them a Reason of the Hope that was in them? 1 Pet. 3.15. But our Quakers give no Reason; they cry out upon Reason, as Carnal; and are against It, because It is against them. For no Reason can be given for any Hope or Inward Persuasion which is not Grounded upon Reason. Fancy and Reason are two things. And no Reason can be given for Fancy. This is the Difference betwixt that Persuasion or Assurance which comes from the Sobriety of Religion, and that which comes from Enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is Imagination; and no Reason can be given for what Assurance comes from thence. But the Assurance of Religion is a Sober and a Rational Persuasion, Grounded upon Reason, and therefore there is always a Reason to be given for it.  
This does not take away or lesson the Necessity of the Ordinary Assistances and Inspirations of the H. Spirit; which are, in a sound sense, called likewise Enthusiasm. This is Explained, and the difference of Enthusiasms clearly laid down in the Sn. Sect. xxii. But I have said so much of it, in this place, that Line upon Line, Precept upon Precept, here a Little and there a Little, I might, by any means, Instill this Difference of the Quaker from the Divine Enthusiasm into their Minds; and Guard them from this Fundamental Error, which carries in its Belly, all the others into which they are led: And of which they must first be Cured, before they can be Retrieved from any other. And, to Repeat it again, that they may keep their Eye still upon this One Point; all I desire of them is, to let their Enthusiasm or Inspiration be Subject to the Scriptures, and not set up Above them. This was the Rule in all Holy Enthusiasms; they submitted to be Tried and Examined by the Rule of the Scriptures. Then we have some Rule, some Compass to Steer by. But if we set our Enthusiasm Above the Scriptures, this is the Wild, the Mad, the Diabolical Enthusiasm of which I have been speaking. And of which if the Quakers were once Cured, they would, with the Blessing of God, soon Return to a Sober Mind.  
4. G. W. is very Angry it should be said that the Quaker Principles do make men more susceptible of the wild Impressions of Enthusiasm than other Men. And says against this, that as few of them have run Mad as of other Men. And p. 8. he Provokes his Adversary to produce his Catalogues of the Quaker— Madmen.  
Why truly, if Catalogues had been kept of them, I believe they would be found to Exced any of such a Number of Men, by the Instances which we have seen of them.  
All of which G. W. would throw off; by Instancing in a Few, whom, he says, they have Disowned. Thus says he p. 3. 4. His Instances of John Gilpin in 1653. James Milner, and John Toldervy, cannot affect the Quakers, since they have Long since testified against the Madness of those Persons he Mentions.  
Ans. 1. Other Persons were Mentioned besides these; And there are Many More of the Like.  
Ans. 2. These Persons above Named have not been Testified against as Madmen by the Quakers. But, on the Contrary, James Milner is Justified for a True Prophet by G. Fox, after all the Madnesses he was Guilty of. Which is shown in the 2d. Part. Sect. two. N. 7. G. F. calls him a True Prophet of The Lord. And G. W. Now calls him a Madman: which I know not how to Reconcile, but by owning of the Truth, That the Quaker-Prophets are Madmen. If G. W. can find any other way, let him show his Parts!  
In the next Place, as to Toldervy, he went Back and Forward, And the Quakers did Own or Dis-own him, as he went To or From them. But I know not that they have made a Madman of him, before this time, now, in this Antidote. If they thought him Mad they spent their time well, in writing so Many Books against him, And Answering of his Books!  
But as for Gilpin, he left them Quite, after he had (by the great mercy of God,) Recovered from his so Monstrous Possessions by the Devil while he was a Quaker. He had enough of them! Therefore they Laid Load upon Him. But what was it they Charged him with? It is Horrible to Repeat it! They Mistook the Devil for God They Attributed the Possessions he was under to the H. Spirit; And said, That they were the Workings of The Light within, or Christ in his Heart; subduing the Devil, or his Corruptions; which Trembled in him: And that this was the Cause of his Dreadful Convulsions. That his Charging them upon the Devil, was Blaspheming of God whose Work they were. That his seeking for Relief from them (which they called the Cross of Christ) And not being willing to lie Under them, was his Deserting of God; And Returning under the Power of the Devil; being Weary of Bearing the Cross, etc.  
All this Appears by the Answers which the Quakers put out to this Relation which Gilpin gave of himself, called The Quakers Shaken. An 1653. One is in G. Fox's Gr. Mist. p. 297. There is an other called The Standard of the Lord, etc. by Atkinson, Burrough, Howgil, and 15 or 16 more whose Names are Subscribed, the same year. An. 1653. This Book I Forced myself to Read over, with Horror, and Reluctancy, because of the Diabolical Fury, Rage, and Blasphemy which fill every Page in it. There p. 23. They Answer Gilpin's saying, that that Trembling which seized him, was of the Devil, thus, I manifestly witness against thee, that it was the Lord of Heaven and Earth that made thee Tremble. And p. 11. Concerning the Power that struck thee down from thy Chair, that I own to be of God. And that which spoke to thee Bidding thee be Humble, and brought the Low down upon thy Knees; That I own to be of God, etc.  
Now what this was which Spoke to Gilpin, that Struck him from his Chair, and made him Tremble, etc. will be best known from his own Narrative, which, because it is but very briefly Touched in the Sn. Has been long out of Print; and so hard to be had: And that it is very Material, give me leave to Repeat but some Passages in it. viz. That this Gilpin was Perverted to Quakerism in May. 1653. By the Famous Christopher Atkinson, whose Name is upon the Title-page of the Answer to it above named (though others Subscribe to it) of whose Gifts see Sn. § vi. n. v. That the Burden of the Quaker Preaching was To Deny all Ministerial Teaching and Ordinances; 
p. .2  together with all notional knowledge formerly gained by use of such means— That whatever any learn out of the Scriptures, by Hearing, Reading, Catechising, &c was but Notional, Carnal, and Hanging upon the Tree of Knowledge: And so under the Curse▪ 〈◊〉 they Apply to this, Gal. iii. 13. Cursed is every one that Hangeth on the Tree. i e. on the Tree of Knowledge. so they understand that Text. That all our Duty was to hearken to a Voice within Us; which was the only Rule.  
That he earnestly desired to have the Quaking and Trembling-Fits (which was then very Frequent among them) thinking as they Taught him, 
p. 3.  that this was the Manifestation of the Light within, and its Struggle to overcome our Corruptions. That at last they came upon him so Violently, that he could not stand upon his Feet, but fell down, Trembling, Quaking, Howling and Crying in such a Terrible and Hideous Manner, as Astonished all his Family. That he was Pleased with this, Thinking it, to be the Pangs of the New-Birth. The night following, he was troubled with Terrible Dreams and Visions. And afterwards Lying Awake, 
p. 4.  and thinking of them, I sensibly Perceived (says he) something, as I Imagined, Lighting upon my Neck, giving me a Great Stroke, which caused much Pain to me; and after that Another, and so a Third and Fourth, each stroke being less than the former, and each stroke descending lower down, till it came to the middle of my Back: And then I thought that something entered into my Body; which I Persuaded myself, from Satan's Instigation, to be the Spirit of God descending upon me like a Dove and Entering into me.  
After this, he tells of strange Fits he had in his Garden, his Limbs being carried and shaken, without his Consent: And he Thrown down, Raised up, Turned upon his Back, then upon his Belly etc.  
Again, at a Meeting, 
p. 5●  where C. Atkinson and John Audland (whose Blasphemous Letter to G. Fox is Annexed to the 3d. Edit. of the Sn.) Preached, In the time of his (J. audland's) Speaking I was (says Gilpin) by the Power within me, Drawn from the Chair on which I sat, and Thrown upon the Ground, in the Midst of the Company: Where I Lay all Night; All which time, My Body and all the Members of it were still in Motion; I being turned from my Back to my Belly, and so back again several times; and Making Crosses Continually with my Legs one over the other; My Hands also were carried to and fro upon the Ground, by a Convulsive Power, as if I had been Writing upon the Ground. In all which Actions and Motions, I Acted not, in the Least Measure, by a Natural Power of Mine own; Neither did I Resist, or could I Resist that Power which Acted Me; but was altogether Passive. I was persuaded, That it was the Immediate Power of Christ; And heard, to my thinking, a Voice speaking to Me, and saying, That that writing with my hand upon the Ground, did signify the writing of the Law within my Heart. Having lain all night upon the Ground, in the Manner aforesaid, The Power (as before in other Actions) moved my Hands to my Head, and laid them upon the Top thereof fast Closed together; whereupon I heard a Voice saying, Christ in God, and God in Christ, and Christ in Thee; which words I was Compelled to Sing forth before the Company, in a strange Manner, and with such a Voice, as was not Naturally Mine own: I sung also divers Phrases of Scripture, which were given into Me. After which I was Raised from the Ground, and set upon my Feet, by the power within me; which bade me be Humble, and brought me down again upon my Knees, and with a whispering Voice said to me, Stoop Low, Low. And having stooped near the Ground with my Face, it said to me, Take up thy Cross and Fellow Me. Whereupon Arising— I was suddenly Drawn down the street etc. viz. To the Fiddler's House. whither William Dodding, and John Audland did Accompany him. And odd Freaks were Acted. I have Recited this Passage so Particularly, because, as before Quoted, the Quakers do Maintain, That the Power which struck Gilpin down from his Chair; and brought him Low down upon his Knees, bidding him be Humble etc. was of God; But that which Led him to the Fiddlers, and Moved him to Play upon the Base Viol, and Dance, was of the Devil. (as in the Standard etc. p. 11.12.) whereas, it was the same Pow-that Acted him all along. And going to the Fiddlers, was but a Part of the same Passage. But this shows how the Quakers hate Music. As that Power said to Gilpin. p. 7. That it Hated Music, which shows it to be the same Power that Acts the Quakers; A Sullen, Doged Spirit, Untuned, and In-Harmonious! The Antipodes to Heaven! I suppose the Quakers thought, That it could not be an Evil Spirit which bad Gilpin be Humble; that is, That the Devil cannot. Transform himself into an Angel of Light, or a Wolf wear Sheep's Clothing. They forgot that the Devil Quoted Scripture to our Saviour. And that they themselves have Quoted it upon occasions, tho' they have Declared War against it. But was it a Good Spirit which Tempted Gilpin to Despair, and to Cut his Throat? 
p. 8.  as he tells that this Power did, which Possessed him; And Promised that he should have Eternal Life, if he would do it. At which when he started; and began to suspect that it must be an Evil Spirit which Tempted him to Self-Murder; Then the next Fit he had, the Spirit told him, That it was indeed an Evil Spirit which had Acted him all that time, under the Notion of the H. Spirit of God: But that Now the Holy Spirit had come upon him, and Chased away that Evil Spirit; wherefore now that he might be sure he was in the Right. And then again, upon other such like Occasion, the Voice would tell him, That even that Spirit which pretended to be the Good Spirit, was still the Evil Spirit; and had told him a lie, on Purpose to Deceive him: But that now the Holy Spirit was come in Good Earnest, and that he might Depend upon it. And thus for several times successively, as oft as he Entertained Suspicions of the Spirit that Acted him; And he was as oft Deceived by it. Could this then be a Good Spirit, which so oft called itself the Evil Spirit? For it is plain, by his Story, That it was the same Spirit which all along Possessed him, till he was finally Devivered from it, by Returning to the outward Ordinances of the Church, which he had Forsaken. Was it a Good Spirit which Moved him, as he came from the Fiddlers, to Proclaim through the streets as he went, I am the way the Truth and the Life? And William Dodding the Quaker in his Company: who did not Reprove this Blasphemy: for it was Common with the Quakers (See §. seven.) But said that he had no Power to Leave him. as he tells p. 7. This was the Power Tormented Gilpin; which was surely no other than the Devil, who Tempted him thus to Blasphemy and Self-Murder. But this G. Fox will not allow; but says (Gr. Mist. p. 299.) That it was The Devil who was made to Tremble in Gilpin. Not that it was the Devil who made Gilpin to Tremble. No, They say that was God. And that it was the Devil, not who Tormented, but who was Tormented in Gilpin.  
I will not Detain the Reader with the Rest of Gilpin's story, which is indeed Prodigious: only make this Observation upon it, that, if it be True, there can be no Doubt, of what many (Now a days) will not Believe, That there are Diabolical Possessions. And that it is True, we have not only Gilpin's own Account, but it is Attested by the then Mayor of Kendal (where Gilpin then Lived, And was so Possessed) by the Minister, and several other Persons of Credit, there Present.  
But now suppose it was not True, Is it not as Great a Degree of Possession, to make a Man Believe, That he had been so Possessed, and Herd such Voices etc. if it had not been so? And the Transports he was in, were many of them such as Exceeded the Power of Nature; which any one will Acknowledge that Reads his Narrative.  
Nor can this be put upon the Common Effects of Madness; for no such Effects were ever seen in Gilpin Before, or after he Returned from the Quakers.  
Or if it was Madness (of what ever sort) it was Visiby Caused by the Quaker Preach, and their Doctrine. And Cured by Returning from them. And no doubt, but Possessions of the Devil, when to a great Degree, will Transport Men, even unto Madness. Their is an Enthusiastical, as well as a Natural Madness.  
It is observed hereafter, that neither the Apostles, or any other Recorded in the H. Scriptures, were Converted to Christianity by such Violent and Monstrous sort of Convulsions of their Bodies. These are the Transports of Euries. But the Spirit of the Gospel is all Meekness, Sobriety, and Gravity.  
But how will G. W. Reconcile his charging this of Gilpin's upon Madness; and G. F's saying (Gr. Mist. p. 298.) That he came to be almost a Distracted Man: How will they Reconcile this with what others of the Quakers, nay, and themselves, at other times, say, that these Extraordinary Quakings and Convulsions of Gilpin were the Workings of the H. Ghost in him? Do the B. Influences of God's H. Spirit bring Men to Distraction and Madness! G. Fox says (ibid.) That the Lord smote Gilpin, that he came to be Almost a Distracted Man. That is true, it was the Lord who smote him; but how? by Delivering of him to Satan, for the Destruction, that is, the Punishment of his Flesh, that his Spirit might be Saved, in the Day of the Lord Jesus. 1 Cor. 5.5. which Punishment God did usually Inflict, in the beginning of the Gospel, upon Excommunicated Persons, who Despised the Authority of His Church; for the Terror of others, as well as the Reclaiming of Themselves, And, in these later days, God has Exerted His Power, in the same signal manner, upon many of those who have wilfully Excommunicated Themselves, and Trampled under their Feet that High Authority, with which Christ has Invested His Church! even the same that the Father gave unto Him. Of these Scorners, the Quakers are the most Outrageous, and Blasphemous: And therefore this Judgement from God, has fallen most upon Them. And this is the greatest Part of their Judgement, that they know it not to be such: But mistake the Strokes of God's Executioner, the Devil, for the Workings of the H. Spirit of God: And so Construe that as an Approbation of their Cursed state, which was sent to Reclaim them from it. At least, to be a Warning to others, how they fall into their Snares; who are, by the Just Judgement of God, delivered up to the Devil, both Soul and Body, even in this Life! This is a most Material Point; Therefore I Insist so long upon it.  
And I desire the Quakers, and all others, to Consider, that, as this Gilpin was thus Delivered over to Satan, upon his Forsaking of the Church, and Public Ordinances of the Prayers, and Sacraments: So, upon his Return to these Holy Institutions, he was, by the Great Mercy of God, Rescued from the Power of the Devil, and Restored to his Former State. Which he Amply Acknowledges, and Desires the Christian Reader to join with him in Returning Praises unto the Lord, for his Goodness towards him. p. 14. This Provoked the Rage of that Cursed Spirit which Possesses the Quakers, to the utmost, which Returned this Answer, p. 23. of The Standard, etc. The Reader, if he be a Christian, will Return Plagues upon thee; thy Praise is Abomination. And as to the outward Ordinances, being Means of Grace, in the Conscientious use whereof God hath Promised to Reveal Himself to His People, and to give them Comfort, as Gilpin says, p. 13. That same Spirit which Tormented him, Returned Answer, p. 22. of The Standard, I Deny that God ever did, or will ever Reveal Himself by any of those things. And says (ibid.) of Gilpin's charging these Possessions of his upon the Devil, that all this was, Only to Reproach the Living God, which the Saints Witnessed in them. This was their Light within, which they say is God: Whose Workings they supposed those Possessions of Gilpin's to be: And therefore, that it was Blaspheming of God, to say, that these came from the Devil.  
To the same Purpose Answered G. Fox, in his Gr. Myst. p. 298. where he Repeats the words of Gilpin thus, He saith, he began to Consider, how he had offended God, by his neglect of the use of External means, Reading, Hearing, and Prayer, and Rejecting the Revealed will of God, in his Word; and Harkening to the Voice of God, only within. And in Answer, falls, like the Rest, upon Running down all External Means of Reading, Praying, etc. for a whole Page together: And Directs Only to the Light within, as that which is Wholey, and Soley, and of itself sufficient. So when that Voice was neglected (says he) then was John Gilpin Confused, etc. whereas, as himself tells, and the thing shows itself, it was the Harkening only to that Voice, which brought him into all his Confufusion: And, in his Returning to the External means, God did wonderfully Deliver him from that Confusion, which the Quakers call his Condemnation, his being Weary of the Cross, etc.  
However now G. W. calls him a Madman; But does not say, that these Possessions was his Madness. No, the Quakers think he was Mad, in seeking to be Delivered from them. And that when he grew Sober, then was he Mad!  
But G. W. says, that they have long since Testified against the Madness of these Persons. viz. Gilpin, etc.  
We have seen how they Testified against it! By Justifying it, as a Divine Inspiration! If G. W. can show any other Testifying of theirs, let him.  
But when did they Testify against Gilpin? never till he Testified against Them. In all the time of his monstrous Possession, they stuck to him, and Accompanied him, even John Andland himself, and William Dodding, who Declared he had no Power to leave him, for, he was Acted by the same Spirit. These and other Quakers went along with Gilpin to the Fiddlers, and through the Streets, when he Blasphemed, Proclaiming himself, to be The way, the Truth, and the Life: And none of them Rebuked him, or then found any Fault at all with him: But on the Contrary, thought him a Chosen Vessel; and then Actuated by the H. Spirit of God. But when he Returned to the Ordinances; and Declared that to be a Cursed Spirit by which he was Acted: Then! Then! and not till Then, they left him. Then they Accused him of Blaspheming Their God, that is, the Devil. Let them show that ever they Testified against him, before that time. Yet now, they bring their Testifying against him, as an Argument (by Innuendo) not That, but As if they had not owned him in his Madness: And so were not Chargeable with it! Whereas they owned him only in his Madness; But when he Returned to a Sober mind, than they Disowned him. He was no longer Fit Company for Them! So that he must (after all their Dodgings) stand still in the Catalogue, not of our, but of Their Mad Men. He was ours, only when he was Sober: And Theirs only while he was Mad; and no Longer. But now we will go to other Instances of Madness.  
1. First then, 
Proofs of the Quakers being Mad. In those who went Naked.  suppose you saw a Man go Naked through the streets, and Besmeared all over with Excrements, and to come into a Public Church, in that Condition (as Solomon Eccles, one of the Chief Quaker Preachers, did in the Church at Alderman-bury in London) when the People were there Assembled to Divine worship; would not every body conclude such a Man to be Mad? for we know Madness only by the signs which men do show of it. And if this be allowed as a sign of Madness or a Disordered Mind, than we shall have a Large Catalogue among the Quakers; and that Chiefly of their Ministers and Apostles: for this was Common with them, at their first Setting up. And to this Day, we have seen several of them Naked in our streets, denouncing Woes, Judgements etc. If it be said that these were Prophets, and that this was an Effect of their Prophetical Fury. This will make them Madder still, if it be not True. And whether it be True or not, I refer to the Sn. Sect. vi. N. viij. where their Prophetic Talon is Examined. And will the Madness of Solomon Eccles appear Less, because when he came into the Church at Alderman-bury all Naked, covered only with vile Excrement, he did this as an Emblem of the Nakedness and Filth of the Minister, in Preaching out of the Bible (which G. Fox calls Conjuration, see Sn. p. 22.) and that he might as well come thither with that T— d in his hand, as the Minister with his Bible? A comparison full of Reverence to the Holy Scriptures! And George Whitehead, in his Light and Life of Christ within etc. Printed 1668. p. 38. Vindicates this same Sol. Eccles for this his going Naked, as a Sign (Says G. W.) of the Nakedness of such Dark Professors and Priests as he S. E. witnessed against. And instead of being Ashamed of such a Beast, he there Blasphemously compares this Brutality of his to Isaiah's being Commanded to go Naked for a Sign to Egypt. Not knowing that the sackcloth or Garment of Hair which Isaiah was Commanded to Lose from his Loins, it being worn Girt close about the Loins, was a Rough sort of a Mantle or Upper Garment Made of Hair, which the Prophets did usually wear, and by which they were known (See Zech. xiii. 4.2. K. 1.8. Matth. iii. 4. Rev. xi. 3.)  
Which being Ungirt, it was being Undressed; and appearing so, is, in the Common way of speaking, called being Naked, as if a man came out all Undressed into the streets, they would say, why do you appear thus Naked? And to clothe the Naked, is meant of their Poverty, not of their Shame. Or if a man should Strip off his clothes, to Fight, Run, Work, or to do any thing upon which he was very Intent, as David when he Danced before the Ark, in a Linen Ephod, this was called being Naked, and that Shamelessly too 2. Sam. vi. 20. that is, for a King to be so Naked, or Undressed. Thus it is to be Understood, when it is said 1 Sam. xix. 24. that Saul Stripped off his clothes, and Prophesied Naked before Samuel, that is, he laid by his Robes; It was a Mark besides of Respect to Samuel, as to the Doctor and Master there of that College of the Prophets. As with us, Scholars will not come in their Cloaks, to take their Lesson from their Master; nor do Men appear so muffled up where they intent to show Respect. Yet not altogether naked, no nor Undressed, Lose, or Slattering; that is a Greater Contempt, and Vndecency, and may be called being Naked. Thus it is said, that Peter was Naked. Joh. xxi. 7. and that he Girt his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his upper Garment, which was Lose before, when he knew that it was The Lord Jesus who appeared unto them.  
But if the Upper Garment were not only Ungirt, but quite laid aside, this would be called a Going Naked, yet not such a Nakedness, void of Modesty, to Discover our Shame, as the Quakers did. And Ignorantly and Impudently would vouch the H. Prophets as a Precedent. To whom if any such Command, for Extraordinary Reasons, had at any time, been given, it would not have Excused the Immodesty, or the Blasphemy of any who should Pretend the like Command from God. But this Mad-Freak was Common to their She-Prophets as well as the Men. The Wife of Edmund Adlington of Kendal, went Naked through the Streets, the 21. Nou. 1653. As did Mary Collinson another Quaker in the same Town, who Rebuked those that covered her Nakedness, telling them, That they had hindered the work of the Lord. If you ask my Authority for this, I have it out of a Book, Entitled A further Discovery of that Generation of Men called Quakers. Printed 1654. subscribed by five of the then Ministers. p. 83.84.85. where you will find more Instances, as of Edmund Nuby's wife who went Naked through Kendal, and after in Dec. 1653. came in the same manner into the Church at Kendal. Another, in the Same Posture, about the beginning of January, into Hutton Chappel, at the time of Exercise (as they word it) Elizab. Levens and Miles Newby (Here they go by Couples, Male and Female like the Beasts into the Ark) went Naked up the streets at Kendal. This was attested by Mr. Walker Minister at Kendal, under his hand, by his Letters bearing Date 31. January. 1653. Thom. castle went as Naked, as he was Born through the streets at Kendal, the 10. January. 1653.  
On Monday. 28. Octob. 1653 one Thom. Holme of Kendal went as Naked through the Marketplace at Kirby Steven, upon the Market Day; and at his turning he said, It is not I but God that goeth Naked. And the week following, another Great Ringleader of the Quakers one Taylour came to that Town. And Denounced Woes against it, for Rejecting that Prophet of The Lord, whom He had sent to do signs and wonders in it.  
All these Instances were in one Year, within the Compass of 4 Months, in and about Kendal, when Quakerism was but 3 years old. You may Imagine then how many more Examples might be Produced in other Places, throu-out this and other Kingdoms and Nations where they have spread themselves, in 48 years' time now since they came into the World.  
But if you say, that these Testimonies are taken from Adversaries the 5 Ministers before Mentioned.  
I Answer, that in things of such Public and Notorious Nature, it cannot be supposed that they would Print a Lie, so soon, that is Presently after (as by the date of their Book) such things were done; when it would have been in the Power of Every body in those Towns to Contradict and Expose them.  
And if these Instances had been False, it is not to be Imagined but that the Quakers in those times would have Denied them.  
But further, we have both George Fox and James Naylor their Answer to this book of these 5 Ministers: And they Both do allow these Instances to be True; Boast of More of them; And Defend and Justify the thing, as being Divine and From God.  
G. Fox's Answer is in his Great Mystery. p. 233. where as to these Persons going Naked, he says, This hath been a Figure of your Nakedness, who are Egypt Spiritual and the Ethiopian Black— And speaking of the Holy Prophets having been Signs to those in their Generations, he adds, such the Lord hath moved his Servants to give a True Sign amongst you, and not a Lying; who have their Clothing, of the Spirit, which ye want; which ye shall witness the Truth of the Lord God in the Sign, if ever ye come into the True Clothing of the Spirit of God. By this, no man can be saved who will not Allow and Receive these Beastly Im-modesties' of the Quakers, as Divine and Heavenly Signs.  
James Nayler, in his Answer to this Book of the Five Ministers, which he Intituls A Discovery of the Man of Sin. Printed 1655. coming to that Point of their Going Naked, he says p. 48. God hath made as many Signs among you, as to go Naked in your Steeple-Houses, in your Markets, in your Streets, as Many in the Northern Parts, which is a Figure to you, of all your Nakedness. Here he owns many Instances of the like Nature in other Places, I could Produce more by name, as of Daniel Smith Distiller of Malborrough in Wiltshire, who about Twenty years ago, went from Malborrough to Hull, on purpose to show himself stark Naked in the Church there, which he did. And I suppose the Friends have not forgot (at least the Quaker that Married her has not) that Precious Servant Maid at Putney, who came Quite naked into the Room where her Master had Company at Dinner: and when some would have covered her shame, she thanked them for their Love, but would not admit of that sort of Kindness: But said that she was moved of the Lord to march quite round the Table, in that same Posture, which she did. But why should I heap up Instances of this their Beastliness, seeing it is not Disputed, but Justified; And the Receiving such Obscene Bruts, as Signs sent from Heaven, made necessary to Salvation, as you have heard from Fox!  
But all sober Christians will rather look upon them as Signs of the Prodigious Delusions of the Devil; to make Men believe, even Women, that Divesting themselves of all Natural Modesty And Exposing themselves Naked, in Public, Naked Men and Women together (as before is told) and outdoing the very Impudence of the Stews, is Consistent with that Shamefastness and Sobriety which is so strongly Inculcated in the Gospel of Christ! But to think such Highly Englightned, beyond the ordinary Measure, and thereby to Commence Prophets, and Prophetesses sent from God, what is this but to have their Brains turned with this Enthusiastical-Madness; and, without straining the Matter, to be Literally out of their Wits, and Distracted! What Greater Signs are shown of it, even in Bedlam! And are not they as Mad, who Defend and Justify these in their Madness! Of which more hereafter.  
2. But as those who thus Exposed themselves Starknaked, 
In their Strange Singularities.  are to be Computed no otherwise than as Stark-Mad; so these who in lesser Degrees, act contrary to the Common Reason and Sense of Mankind, are to be supposed Maddish; for there are Degrees of Madness.  
Now if we see a man Abstract himself from all Human Conversation, to be always alone; to Grow surly and Morose; silent and sullen when Accosted; Exotic and Fantastical in his Dress, shunning what any body else does wear; loving to Appear Singular in all his words and Gestures, who will neither Speak, Look, nor Go like other men; the Common observation of Mankind reckons of these as Growing towards Madness.  
But, if they say such a stress upon these; as to think it a Sin to use the Common Language, Habit, or Salutations, this is a Heightening of their Madness. To make it as G. Fox does, a Sin for Women to have slit-Peaks on the Skirts of their Waistcoats, Short Black Aprons, or Vizard-Masks; or for Men to wear Skimming-Dish Hats (as he calls the little Hats) or Unnecessary Buttons on their Coats or Cloaks. And to Pronounce all this stuff as from the Immediate Spirit of God (see Sn. p. 299.) If this be not Madness, I think oliver's Porter had hard measure, to have his Preaching Confined to Bedlam when G. Fox. was suffered to go Lose, who said in his Journal. p. 24. When the Lord sent me forth into the World; He forbade me to put off my Hat to any— and I was Required to Thee and Thou all Men and Women, they would Down with all worldly Honour, as long as they had no share in it.  
Now in all the forementioned Instances the Quakers have made themselves as Mad as any ever were in the World. And have been so esteemed at Rome, and other Places where they had never been before; as they were at first when they Risen up amongst us: only the Common use of it now, has abated of the Strangeness, but nothing of the Irrationality and Madness, not to speak of the Breach of Justice or Religion; for Honour is as much Due to our Superiors, as either Fear, or Tribute, and Equally Commanded. Rom. xiii. 7. and to Deny it, is Immorality, and a Sin; besides the Singularity, and Proud-Humility, which Entitles it to a High Degree of Madness. And in this, the whole Body of the Quakers is Involved.  

In making Themselves free from Sin; and Equal with God.  3. But thirdly, would not that man be Counted Mad who should Fancy himself Exempted from the Common Condition of other Mortals, to be as Bright and Glorious and Impassable as an Angel? And is it not as much to think ourselves as Pure and Impeccable as they; even while we feel our own Frailty and Imperfections in Daily and Frequent Instances! Yet still to Cry, that we are Pure, and without Sin! Nay, Perfect, even as God And Equal to Him, and One with Him, in very Nature and Substance, and a Part of Him! Can any Madness be Imagined beyond or Equal to this! And G. W. p. 88 gives his Consent to secure such Persons in Bedlam, if we can find any such among them, that we can plainly Prove to hold the Same. Now whether this be not Plainly Proved in the Sn. Sect. two. iii. and iv. I leave to the Reader. And G. W. does neither Deny, nor Answer one of the Quotations there Produced: But stoutly Denies the whole Charge, without so much as Attempting to Invalidat any one Particle of the Evidence. Which I think I may Modestly say is very like the Answer of a Madman.  

In Assuming to be Prophets.  4. But I will put the Case lower than that of Aspiring to be Equal with God: Suppose then that a Poor Country Lad should come to London, and happening upon a Rich Widow, should presently fancy himself to be some Duke or Great Prince; and, as such, should Issue forth his Proclamations, Commissions etc. would not G. W. give me leave to think this fellow a little Crazed? But suppose he should set up for a Prophet sent Immediately from God, as Elijah was; And, as such, should take upon him to Dictate to Kings and Emperors, and Command them, In the Name of the Lord to Give forth Prophecies, and affix to them, Thus saith the Lord etc. And suppose he Could show no Credentials at all for this High Commission, only bid Men take his own word for it; would not this make him much more Extravagantly and Blasphemously Mad? Now how many Madmen of this sort have we had among the Quakers? Even Fox their Original, and all the way down as many as have Wrote, or almost that have Preached or Spoke amongst them. This is a Talon without which whosoever speaks, is a Conjurer, as Fox has Determined in his Westmoreland Petition. p. 5. in his Saul's Errand. p. 7. and elsewhere, as shown in the Sn.  
There is one particular Instance put in the Front of the Preface. p. xi. of the First Edit. of the Sn. (it is p. 281. of the Third Edit.) where a Prophetical Curse is set down of Confusion against George Keith. And it is not a Hasty, Rash Curse, in Passion or so, as is usual among the Profane Cursers and Swearers of the World: But it is a Deliberate, Grave Curse, in Cold Blood, set down in Writing, and sent to George Keith; it bears Date the 17th. of the 4th. Month. 1695. And is subscribed George Whitehead. And gins in these words. Thus Saith the Lord. And it is written not in the Name of G. Whitehead, as any Thought or Prognostic of his own, but every word in the Person of God, as speaking to G. Keith, Because thou hast poured Contempt upon My Servants, I will assuredly bring Confusion upon thee etc.  
Now for this George Whitehead thus to assume the Style of the most Extraordinary Prophets of God, and to Fancy himself one of them, I think will be Judged a Greater Degree of Madness, than if he had Fancied himself to be a Duke, or a Prince: for a Prophet Immediately sent from God, is certainly Clothed with a far Greater Honour than any that can be Bestowed by the most Splendid of Worldly Titles. Therefore this is no ordinary mistake, or such as could befall any Man in his Wits.  
Nay farther (to show the Excess of G. Whitehead's Madness) Suppose he should think that this Prophetical Curse of his against G. Keith, to be not only Equal to any Prophecy Recorded in Scripture, but of Greater Authority than any Chapter in the Bible: would any body, in this case, Excuse him from the very Height of Madness! And for this, see his Truth defending the Quakers An. 1659. p. 7. where this Question was Demanded of him, Do you Esteem your Speakings to be of as Great Authority as any Chapters in the Bible? And he sets down his own Answer in these words. That which is Spoken from the Spirit of Truth in any, is of as Great Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are, and GREATER. This he Repeats again in the same words, in his Serious Appology. An. 1671. p. 49. And Quotes his former Book, to show that this was not spoke by Chance, but was a standing Principle among them. Now then, if G. W. will say, That the Curse which he sent to G. Keith was Spoken by the Spirit of Truth, he owns, by his own words, that it is not only of As Great Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are, but of GREATER! And then I think we need no further Proof of his being Stark-Mad. But, on the other hand, if he will, to save himself from this Imputation, Acknowledge that that Curse was not Spoken by the Spirit of Truth, then must he own himself Guilty of a most Notorious Blasphemy, to Dictate thus in the Person of God, and make God to speak his Lies, and the Delusions of his Besotted Brain. And if this be not put upon the score of Madness, then ought G. Whitehead to suffer the Punishment of a Blasphemer. Therefore he should Return his Thanks to those who are so Merciful as to Prove him only Non Compos (as of Felo de se) to save his Chattels and his Carcase too. But this is not only as to this Curse against G. K. (that is but one Instance among many) nor only as to G. W. but it Reaches to All that the Quakers have Delivered, In the Name of the Lord, not only against Particular Persons, but the whole Church of England, the King, the Bishops and Priests, and the Lawyers too: they are Particularly marked out for Destruction, if ever the Quakers do Prevail, they are the Midianites whom we must Vex, that is Destroy (see Sn. p. 230.) And if the many Thousands of their followers in England do believe (as they Profess) that what these their Leaders and Prophets have said is all from the Mouth of The Lord, the Consequence (besides the Blasphemy of it) must be very Dangerous: especially since they have already Published their Declaration wherein they Assert their Right and Title to Possess the Uttermost parts of the Earth: and their Principle to Fight, even with the Carnal Sword, to Regain it, whenever they see their time. vid. Sn. p. 212.  
Now if they will not let this be taken from them, upon the Account of Madness, believe it, it is time to Look after them. However it is Good to keep a Sword out of a Mad-Man's hand. See hereafter Sect. iv. p. 38. and we go on to yet Plainer and even Ocular Proofs.  

In their Preternatural Quaking. etc.  5. A fifth Instance of Madness, or rather of Diabolical Possession, is the Monstrous Quaking and Shaking, which for Ten years together after their first setting up, was strangely noted among them, and from which they had the Name of Quakers: It has much Abated since the Restauration. 1660. Yet Remainders of it are still left amongst them.  
To this G. W. says p. 6. N. 6. How proves he that this proceeds from Delusion and Diabolical Possession p. 44. and not from the word and Power of God? But, George, How canst thee have the Confidence to ask such a Question, when thee knowest right well that this is Proved fully in the Sn. But thee Slidest over all the Proofs, and then Gravely Askest How Proves he? The Reader will see Proofs sufficient in the Sn. Sect. xxi. even the very Confessions of those who were so Possessed. But G. W. Quotes a particular Page of the Sn. how proves he p. 44? this is of the First Edition. (it is p. 298. of the Third Edit.) He had hopes that no one would look so much as into any one page which he Quoted, but take all upon his word. For in that very Page, there is a Proof, which G. W. Conceals instead of Answering. G. Fox in his Westmoreland Petition. p. 5. And in his Saul's Errand. p. 7. said that whoever spoke, and not from the Mouth of the Lord, were False-Prophets, Conjurers etc. These passages had been (with several others to the same purpose) Quoted before in the Sn. And in p. 44. which G. W. Names as having no Proof, these are again Referred to, and the Inferrence is made, that if all the vile stuff which the Quakers have Printed be not from the Mouth of the Lord then, by G. Fox's sentence, they are Conjurers: and another Instance of G. Fox's Senslesness is added In that same Place, which was not Quoted before, viz. his making it Heathenism and Idolatry to have any Creature in Heaven or Earth, as Sun, Moon, or Star, a Man, Beast, Fish, Fowl or Tree Painted upon a Signpost; but only something of Man's making, as a Fork, a Saw, a Bedstaff, or the like: Then his Pronouncing, as from the Mouth of God, against the slit-Peaks behind on the Skirts of Woman's waistcoats, men's Skimming-Dish-Hats, and such like Childish and Ridiculous stuff: And it is there Urged, that if All this was not from the Mouth of the Lord, then, G. Fox had Pronounced himself to be a Conjurer, and so of the other Quakers. And if they were Conjurers, than those Monstrous Quakings and Shakes which Possessed them were from the Devil, and no Divine Inspiration, as they Pretended. And G. W. answers not a word to any thing of this, but asks still what Proof is there in p. 44. when this very Proof is in p. 44. And I Desire him now to Answer it. Was all that stuff which is there Quoted of G. Fox's from The Mouth of the Lord? if G. W. will say Yea, I suppose I shall need no further Proof of his Madness, as well as of G. Fox's. If he says Nay, than I must ask him whether G. Fox said True, when he wrote, That whoever spoke and not from the Mouth of the Lord, was a Conjurer? If not True, George was a Liar; and if True, he was a Conjurer: And if a Conjurer, his Quaking and Shaking was the Possession of the Devil, and did not Proceed from the word and Power of God, as G. W. would turn it, And asks How Proves he? Do George, Ask that Question over again, and it will be as Good an Answer to this, as it was to the Sn. And you may Quote this Page too if you will, as well as p. 44. of the Sn, And tell the Reader that there is not a word of the Matter neither Here nor There.  
But George is a Cunning Whipster, he had a farther Design in this than he was willing should be seen. He put in his Plea for their Quaking, as Proceeding from the word and Power of God, by saying How Proves he? i. e. the Contrary. But George Knew well enough that this Plea would never Hold, therefore he would not assert it Positively, only by an Innuendo. And then in the same p. 6. N. 7. he puts in another Excuse (which he will as little stand by) as if this Quaking was only Fits of Convulsion, for thus says he, Unless some have been taken therewith (i. e. with this Quaking) in some Convulsion Fits, which are Common to some Persons among Divers sorts of People:  
As to this, I desire George to Consider, That this Plea Destroys the Former. For if their Quaking be only Fits of Convulsion, then is it no mark of the Extraordinary Workings of the Spirit in the Quakers, as they have Boasted; and wrote in Defence of it; nay and called it an Holy Duty (Sn. p. 298.) and compared it to the Quaking of Moses and the Prophets. It will be very Profane to put all this upon Fits of Convulsion. But it will not do, in the Case of the Quakers. For it is very obvious, that these Quake of the Quakers did not proceed from any Natural Cause.  

1. These Quakings Possessed them only, or most Generally, at their Meetings: And then would Seize Many of them together.  
2. They came Suddenly, and left them Entirely when they went away; And had not such Symptoms, or left such Marks behind them as Natural Diseases.  
3. They were not Removed by Physic or any Natural Means.  
4. They who had them Pretended to Visions, even of Spirits Dancing about them, Speaking to them, and Directing them to do many Extravagant things, to follow Flies, Burn their Legs in the Fire, and some to Kill themselves, as in the Relations which Gilpin, Tordervy, and others have given of themselves. And were told by these Spirits, that these Quakings were the workings of God's Spirit in them: And therefore bidden to Rejoice in them: And when they came on't of these Fits, they Expressed the Great Joys they had in them, tho' mixed with Intolerable Pains. And therefore many Longed for them.  
5. They Exceeded any Convulsion or Natural Disease. See the account in the Sn. p. 301. Add to this another Instance given in the Further Discovery before Quoted, wrote by Five Ministers. p. 91. of a Quaker woman who came to Disturb one of their Congregations at Kellet in Lancashire, she fell into a Trance, her Belly puffed up, her sides Extended, her Backbone thrust out, her whole Body as a Bladder when it is in Blowing etc. This is attested under the hand or Mr. Moor Minister at Kell●t. But Instances are Endless. See the General Account of it in a Book Printed at that time. 1653. called A brief Relation of the Irreligion of the Northern Quakers. Wrote by Francis Higgison p. 15. Those in their Assemblies that are taken with these Fits, fall suddenly down as it were in a Swoon, as tho' they were surprised with an Epilepsis or Apoplexy, and lie Grovelling on the Earth, and struggling as it were for Life; and sometimes more Quietly, as tho' they were Departing. While the Agony of their Fits is upon them their Lips Quiver, their Flesh and Joints Tremble, their Bellies swell as tho' Blown with Wind, they Foam at the Mouth, and sometimes Purge as if they had taken Physic. In this Fit they continue sometimes an Hour or two, sometimes Longer before they come to themselves again; And when it leaves them, they Roar out Horribly with a Voice Greater than the Voice of a Man; The Noise, those say that have heard it, is a very Horrid Fearful Noise, and Greater sometimes than any Bull can make.   
The Speaker, when any of them falls in this Fit, will say to the rest (that are sometimes Astonished at this sight, especially if they be Incipients) let them alone, trouble them not, the Spirit is now struggling with the Flesh, if the Spirit overcome, they will Quickly come out of it again, though it be sorrow now, it will be Joy in the Morning etc. And when they have said a few words to this Effect, they go on with their Speaking.  
Sometimes they carry those wretched Patients to Beds, when they are near them, and let them lie on them, till their Fit be over.  
These Quakings they Maintain Saul's Errand. p. 5. and in their Books and Papers call them the Marvellous works of the Lord, Battles of Shaking and Trembling before the Presence of the Lord: and call them that speak against them Ishmaelites, that scoff at the works of the Lord— They say also, those that speak against this Quaking show themselves to be Blasphemers; and that it is Presumption and Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to speak against it. Thus that Account.  
Take another two Years after this. Wrote by Mr. Edmund Skipp then Minister of Bodenham in Hereford-shire, but who (as himself tells us) had been before seduced by the fair Pretences of the Quakers, and was one of them; But, by the Great Mercy of God, having Discovered their Gross Deceits, he Returned from them; and then Gave notice of them to the World in a Book, printed 1655. which he Entitled The World's wonder, or The Quakers Blazing-Star etc. there p. 22. he tells of these Mysterious Deceits of Antichrist.  
Which I gather (says he) from those strange and unheard of Passions and Agonies, those Great Burdens and Exercitations of Body, in so much that they are sometimes in Trances and Soundings; and if they are not brought into such a state of Deadness as it were, yet they suffer most Extreme Tortures of Body, that hath been Visible to me and several others many times, nay, so much Extremity that it maketh them Roar out for very Bitterness; And I do clearly Judge that if the Lord did not Limit the Devil in their behalf, as he did for Job, saying, Thou shalt not touch his Life, it would be Impossible for their Concaves to hold their Inwards, in those Violent Motions; for they are made under those Agonies to Tremble and Quake, as though their Flesh must part from their Bones and Ligatures, like unto Men in the strongest Fits of an Ague that ever you saw, as tho' they had seen Belshazzar's Vision. Dan. 10. that made his knees smite one against another. In those strange Passions they are Exercised with so much Heat (I know not of what sort) that it maketh them cry out for Drink, and maketh them Sweat like men in most violent Fevers. Now they call these Agonies the Fiery-Trial. and say it is the Power of the Holy Ghost burning up and Destroying their Corruptions, and Purifying them like Gold that is tried seven times in the Fire. And that which is very strange, when they are thus in the midst of these Extreme Shakes, Quake, Trials, Roar and Perplexities, that one would think there could be no more Torment upon the Damned Spirits than is upon them at the Present, yet many times, when they begin to come to their Speech (for it falleth out often that they are not able to speak for a long time) they will speak how much Joy and Pleasure they have mixed with that Torment, in such an Inseparable Manner, as they themselves Express, as Heat and Fire mixed together, that they could wish to be in it for Ever and Ever. This they call Drinking of the Cup, or the Undergoing the Curse and wrath of God as Christ did, for here they speak (to my Understanding most Blasphemously) and say, they must be brought to suffer as Christ did, and to Undergo as Great a sense of Wrath as He did, when he Cried out, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? In a word, as far as ever I could Understand their Apprehensions by their Expressions in this last particular, I did Judge this to be their Delusion, that they must suffer Eternal Burn, bearing the full weight of Divine Justice and wrath, as fully as though there never had been any Christ Crucifi'd, or acceptation of His Sacrifice, until, as they say, there should be no more left in them, but the Pure seed of God, in its own Perfect Likeness—  
And they say that Condition or state which is called in Scripture Hell or Everlasting Torment— is but a Dispensation which shall End at such a time, as that Burning and Torment of the Soul and Conscience shall have Refined it, and brought it into its former Purity and Likeness of God.  
Thus far I have transcribed out of this Author, not only as to this of their Quaking, but because he does withal open to us, the very Heart and Bottom of the Quaker Heresy. viz. That the Meritorious Cause of our Justification is not the Sufferings of Christ in His Body upon the Cross; but that the same sufferings must be wrought over again in us, that we must Bear our own Sins, in our own Bodies, and must be Healed by our own Stripes; which likewise they call the Sufferings of Christ or the Light within them. And that what he suffers thus within every man, is the only Meritorious Cause of. his Justification, and Reconciliation to God. That what He suffered Outwardly upon the Cross is nothing to us, but an Example, a History, or Facilt Representation of the Greater Mystery of what He Suffers and Acts within us: Wherein only the Atonement and Satisfaction for Sin is Performed. And this they supposed to be done in these Monstrous Possessions of Quaking, etc. And therefore were greatly Desirous of them, as thinking their state not secure till they had gone through one of these Fits at least. As Mr. Skipp tells of himself, while he was a Quaker. p. 25. I thought it was my unhappiness (says he) that I was not, and it was great Cause of trouble and unspeakable sorrow to me, and that which caused me to complain bitterly time after time, but they would tell me that I must wait for it, and they said that they could Believe for me, and they were Confident I should be a very Glorious Piece, etc. Here their Spirit of Discerning failed them! But that which makes the long Quotation I have taken out of Mr. Skipp the more Valuable, is, because G. Fox has wrote an Answer to it in his Great Mystery, where p. 314. he, after his usual fashion, Epitomizes and Falsifies Mr. Skipp's words above Quoted, thus, It is Blasphemy to say we must fill up the sufferings of Christ. There are no such words in Mr. Skipp, not so put together; but he refers to that Part above Quoted, where Mr. Skipp calls it Blasphemy to say that they must suffer as Christ did, and are saved by Their own sufferings, and not by Christ's. In which G. F. opposes Mr. Skipp, and says, in Answer, Thou hast not Drunk the Cup of the Wrath and Judgement of the Almighty, and that you must Drink before you come to know the seed of God come from under all the Power of Wickedness in thee— And Christ who bore the Sin of the whole world, felt it, and was under it, and was offered, and over it all, and makes his Enemies his Footstool. This is all his Answer. And shows what he means, by considering what it is which he opposes; for without seeing the Books which he Pretends to Answer (of which few are now Extant) there is no Understanding, by him, either what they said, for he seldom Quotes them True, or what himself says, who could write neither Sense nor English. But here you see he Denies nothing of Mr. Skipp's Charge against the Quakers, but rather Justify's and Defends it, in other words, that we must suffer as Christ did, till the Seed of God come from under the Power of Wickedness, which are almost Mr. Skipp's own words. And Fox does not Deny, that they Place the Meritorious Cause of their Justification in those Sufferings within themselves, and not in the outward Sufferings of Christ: And that when these Inward Sufferings in their Consciences are over, and the Seed Purged, then that there is an End of Hell, that these Sufferings of the Seed in them, is the only Hell, this Fox does not Deny, though positively Charged upon them: Which is a Plain Confessing; The Lest one can do is to Deny (as G. W. here, in. this Answer of his) But when we Pretend to Answer, and dare not so much as Plead Not Guilty, it is a full and total yielding to the Charge. The truth is, the Light within is All things to the Quakers its Shining (as they think they are sure) within them, they call Heaven, its being obscured, that is Hell; And they Believe no other Heaven or Hell, or God, or Christ but their Light within. And when they are Possessed with their Quaking Fits, they call it the Fight of their Light within against their Darkness within; which G. W. would turn off here upon Convulsion Fits. For which I leave him to be Chastised by those Quakers who have wrote Apologies for their Quaking, as being the Effects of a Divine Inspiration: And those who were much troubled, because that Extraordinary Quaking had now, in a Great measure, left them, as if thereby they had Lost that Measure of the Spirit which their Fathers Possessed, or which Possessed their Fathers. To Comfort whom Pat. Levingston wrote a Book called Plain and down right Dealing, wherein he told them that their first years were Purging years; but that when Physic had Purged sufficiently, than the Patient was more Still and Quiet (See the Sn. p. 295.) yes, George, and after Convulsion-fits too when they are over! But, George, few Desire fits of Convulsion or any Natural Disease, and Long for them, as the Quakers for their Possessions: None Express Ecstasies of Joy in Natural Diseases, as we have heard of this Quaker Sickness.  
And all this could not be Counterfited: for None can Counterfeit such violent Convulsions and Distortions as Exceed the Power of Nature. In the Next Place Young Children among the Quakers were often seized with these Quaking Fits, and these could not Counterfeit. And many Earnestly Desired them, but could not have them when they would.  
And since they are neither Natural nor Counterfeit, they must be a Praeter Natural either Divine or Diabolical Possession: And which of the two it is, there are some Rules whereby to Guess, which are Mentioned in the Sn. Sect. xxi. which G. W. would do well to Consider, and not Shuffle them off as he does in this Answer.  
But he gives up the Cause, by Assigning such Contradictory Reasons: for, in the same breath, within the Compass of one Page he makes three supposes for these Quake. First, The word and Power of God. Second, Convulsion-Fits. Third, Exorcism, or the Casting out of some Evil Spirit. If he had said the Entrance of the Evil Spirit, and its taking of Possession, he had come nearer the Mark. But however, Why does he make so many Guesses at the Causes of this Quaking? Did he not know whether it was Convulsion, or Inspiration, or Exorcism? or was he Ashamed to tell?  
Well, but as to our Present purpose, from whatever Cause these Quakings do Proceed, it is allowed on all hands that the Possession is very Strong; and carries with it the most visible Effects of Madness. And as the Old Proverb says, Once Mad, and Ever the worse, so they who have been once Possessed with these Quaking Fits, seldom Ever after recover the state they were in before, but have Razed Looks, and something Frightful about them.  
But it is not all the Quakers whom God has Delivered so far into the Power of the Devil: And others have been Possessed as well as the Quakers: But this was more Peculiar to the Quakers than to any others of any sort of People; otherwise they had not got the Name of Quakers from thence. And at the time when the Devil was most Busy, and these Quakings were most Violent, and most Frequent, about the year 1653, Quakerism was then but very young, only three years old; and the Quakers did not then bear Proportion of One to a Thousand (speaking within Compass) to the Rest of England: so that we have had a Thousand of these sort of Madmen among the Quakers for One any where else. And if we Reckon those Mad, who Defend the Madness of others, then very Few of the Quakers will be left out of this Classis of Madmen. But I would Desire them, in their Lucid Intervals, to Consider that God was in the small still voice, not in the Furious Wind, Earthquake, or Fire. It was the Evil-Spirits who Tore those that they Possessed, 
I Kings xix.  and put them into Convulsions, Foaming, wallowing, Roaring— It is said of those who heard the Apostles, that some Smote their Breasts and Repent, others searched the Scriptures daily, to find whether these things, which they Preached, were so. But can the Quakers give one Single Instance of any that was ever Converted to Christianity, at this Frightful Hideous Rate! Do not such Violent Transports look like the Spirit of Fury and Madness, more than of Meekness, Love, Humility, or any of the Christian Graces! And then if we look into the wicked Errors and Heresies which were Taught by this Quaker Spirit, it makes it a full Demonstration what sort of Spirit it was; and whence that Convulsive Birth of Quakerism did proceed: And that their Madness was not Caused by any Ordinary or Natural Distemper of Brain; but (which is much more Lamentable and Dismal) by the Possession of Evil Spirits.  
G. W's. putting this off with Convulsion-Fits, may be Compared to that of Mahomet's Falling-Sickness; who pretended that at those times the Angel Gabriel came with Revelations to him. But if Mahomet's Convulsions came from his Inspiration, his case and the Quakers are as near of Kin as their Doctrine: For Mahomet Pretended to Reverence the Scriptures both of the Old and New-Testament; only his Light within Guided him to Mis-understand them as to the Trinity and Incarnation: And his Alcoran is nearer the Quaker and Socinian Comment upon the Text, than any other can be found in Christendom.  
It has been observed that the Beginnings of several Heresies and Sects have been Attended with these sort of Violent and Preternatural Transports, as in John of Leyden, Knipperdolling, and some later Enthusiasts among ourselves, besides the Quakers. Such Punishments did in the Primitive Church often follow the sentence of Excommunication upon Notorious offenders. And God has, in our Later times, which have learned to Despise those Spiritual Censures, Inflicted the like upon those who have Delivered themselves unto Satan, by Excommunicating themselves, in Forsaking the Church, and and making Schisms against Her. Of these some notice may, perhaps, be taken hereafter. But this Instance of the Quakers is as Notorious as any, of the Power given to the Devil over Heresy-Archs. And I will not now take any others under consideration, my present business being only with the Quakers.  

In their Silent-Meetings.  6. There is a Sixth Instance of Madness, which seems a Branch of Infection from the former; or rather a Lesser Degree of Possession, or of a more Sullen tho' less Furious Spirit than the other. Some are Possessed with a Dumb Devil, who hang down their Heads, and will not Speak or Answer one word, say to them what you will. I have seen some of these in Bedlam. And these Generally love to be Alone, and Indulge their Melancholy. But if you should see a company of these appoint Meetings together, not to Converse, but on purpose to be All Silent: Would you not think their Madness had. Exceeded the Common Bounds! Yet this might pass only for a Mad Freak. But suppose, that they made a Case of Conscience of this, and urged the Obligation of it from Ezechiel's sitting Silent some time by the Captives at Babylon; and the like of Job's Friends, from Consideration of the Greatness of his Grief: And farther should find out Spiritual Improvement in this Silent Converse, by the Spirits flying from one to another, especially if they came to the Quaker-Gryp (like that of the Masons) when they Shake hands, this moves their Spirits much, and they Communicate by the Eyes, and by the Ears (for though they do not Speak, they Grunt and Sigh hard, and sometimes Whisper or so) by the Pulse, by the Pores, by Sympathy in every Part! Now all this is the Case of the Quaker Silent-Meetings, which some of them love better (for they are more Loving) than their Speaking one's. And the Arguments above mentioned have been made use of in Defence of them. These Meetings should be in a Dark Room, which together with their Silence, might Contribute to their Cure. For what business they have there, needs no Outward Light, more than any Words to be made on't; especially if their Quaking-Fits happened at the same time; for such are Monstrous Sights, and best passed over in Silence.  

In the New Quakers of America.  7. There is Another Range of Quakers, whom I suppose G. W. will give me one and All into my Catalogue of Madmen, that is, those called Case's Crew or the New-Quakers in America (of whom a short Account is Given in the Sn. p. 75. to 79.) who throw Dust in the Eyes and Mouths of the Old Quakers, giving them Serpents food. etc. These have Restored the Primitive Quakerism, with some Improvements, they bring Fiddles into their Meetings, and Dance, Firsk, Vault there with wondrous Activity. They turn off their Wives, because the Children of the Resurrection neither Marry nor are given in Marriage: And declare Marriage to be of the Devil, because the Children of this world, Marry: therefore they live in Common, and through off Ordinances, of which Marriage is but one. And some of them keep up the Primitive order of going Naked; as Mary Ross who after her Appearing in that No-Dress in Public, became Public herself, and the Rulers of the World took offence at her Gifts, Imprisoned and Punished her outward Man, or Woman. It was the same Spirit or Flesh that moved our England-Quakers, to the same Excess: And if they had been Scourged for such Beastly Immodesty's, as she was, it might have Cured their Itch. If that was not the Disease, it could be nothing Short of Madness: which these American Quakers took from the Example of the European Quakers, who led the Naked-Dance as before is shown.  

Vindicating of Madmen.  8. I will now Close up this List of Madmen, with those who do Vindicat All or Any of the Madnesses before mentioned: since there cannot be a Greater sign of a Madman than to think Madmen to be Sober. But to mistake Rank Madness for Inspiration, and Prophesy, and the Miraculous Gifts of the Holy Ghost, is as High a Pitch of Madness as can be Named. And this will Include all those Quakers who do not think the Rest to be Mad, who have Run into or Defended any of the Mad Freaks before Mentioned. Particularly All who will not think George Whitehead to be Mad, and some others I will not Name.  
If it be said, That many of these men, whom I have Charged with Madness (in their several Degrees) do, in Common Conversation, and in their Worldly business, talk like other Men, and show no signs of Madness. I will Grant it. But so you will find it with many Madmen, till you come to hit upon the Point which Disturbs them. Every Madman is not Mad in Every thing. A Man may be Mad, Secundum Quid.  
There is a Remarkable story of a Great Don in Spain, who took a Fancy that he was The Holy Ghost: And therefore was shut up as a Madman. But taking occasion one day to Discourse upon the Politics with one of the King's Council, who came to see him, he Argued a Knotty Point which had Puzzled the King and Council, with so Great Accurateness, that this Councillor Venting it next day at the Council received General Approbation: Upon which he took occasion to Intercede with the King for the Liberty of his Friend, owning that what he had said, was all borrowed from him: and therefore did Conclude that it must be the Malice of some of his Enemies, which had misrepresented him, as a Madman. The King bade his Friend Return to him again, and if he did not own that he was the Holy Ghost, he should have his Liberty. But he stuck to his Point, and Remained a Madman, notwithstanding of all his Politic Qualifications.  
And now, upon the whole Matter, I Refer it to all the World whether there can be Produced such a Catalogue of Madmen, in so many several Instances, as I have here shown of the Quakers, among such a Number of any sort or Discrimination of Men upon the face of the Earth? G. W. has Extorted this from me. And one would think that this were sufficient to Excuse me from Answering any more of his Book. But however I will Proceed to Examine those Mistakes and Abuses which he alleges in the Sn. for wrong may be done, even to a Madman; and there is an old saying which G. W. has used upon occasion, Give the Devil his Due.  

The Abuses and Mistakes which G. W. Alleges in the Snake.  VII. The Catalogue of these Abuses gins at p. 13. of his Book; And he gins at p. 93. of the Sn. it seems he found None in all that went before this. And his Curse of Confusion upon G. Keith, before mentioned is in p. xi. But there was no Abuse or Mistake in this, therefore he lets that Pass, without any Notice.  

As to the Necessity of Preaching.  I. The first he Instances is in p. 93, 94. (it is Sect. xxiii. N. iv. p. 328, 329. 3d. Edit.) where, from the Quaker-Principle of Reducing all to the Light within, and making that sufficient, without any thing else, it is urged as In-consequential to this, that the Quakers should Preach outwardly etc. To which G. W. Answers, That this is a Condemning of the Apostles, and of the Church of England, who Preach outwardly, and yet do own the Inward Anointing, or the Light within, as well as the Quakers.  
Ans. But not as do the Quakers. That is, to set it above the Scriptures (as has been spoke to) and to make it Sufficient to Salvation without any thing else, as G. W. here owns again p. 28. i. e. without any Necessity of an outward Christ, or Scriptures, or any thing else. And according to this sense of the Anointing or Light within, it is altogether Impertinent to have any outward either Preaching or Ordinances; for that must be Unnecessary that is Added to what is Sufficient without it.  
But neither the Apostles nor the Church of England having ever had any such notion of the Light within, but that it needed Helps; therefore their Preaching was most Rational. And that of the Quakers is Irrational, and Contradictory to their own Principles.  

The Comparison of Fox and Muggleton. With G. W's. Malicious Innuendo, as to the Act of Toleration.  II. To what is said of the Comparison betwixt Fox and Muggleton in the Sn. he says. p. 14, 15. That it is a Gross Calumny against G. F. whose Divine Inspiration and sound Testimony, given him of God, was Evident against Muggleton 's Dark Spirit, Presumptuous and Blasphemious (thus the Quakers pronounce Blasphemous) Doctrine. And this is every word he says to the Matter. This is a Pretty Easy way of Answering! If you will not take his own word, there is not a word like an Answer in his Book. He should have Denied the whole Sn. at once: And saved himself and me this trouble.  
But p. 15. he would charge the Reflection that is made upon the Toleration 1650, wherein Fox and Muggleton appeared, as if intended against the Present Toleration, and so to bring the Author under the Lash of the Government. It is not worth any Answer, I only mention it to show the Good Nature of the Man; who in the same Page cries out upon Persecution for Conscience Sake.  

As to the O●der of the Quakers a 'gainst carrying Guns in their Ships.  III. His next Skip is to p. 104. where he finds a Great Mistake; The Author was there showing that since 1660 the Quakers have Decried the use of the Carnal weapon, and as a Proof of it (which they do not Deny) he said that by Order of their Yearly Meeting 1693 they were Commanded that none of them should carry Guns in their Ships. This is Untrue (says G. W. p. 15.) we know no such Commands— only a tender Caution to such that have acted contrary. Here are two Grievous Mistakes! First: not a Command, but a Tender Caution. i e. their Command was worded in that Form. See Sn. p. 271.272. Secondly, not a Command for the Future, only a Caution or Reproof to those who had transgressed before. And does not this Imply a Command (Oh! I beg your Pardon) a Caution for the Future? And does not this show the Quakers pretended Principle, as much as in the words cited in the Snake? And were they Cited to any other End than to show that Principle? I have not seen that Yearly Epistle, only took an Account of it from those that had Seen and Read it; And I find they have given me a True Account, tho' it were not Sillabical, as G. W. Objects: and none but he would have made such an Objection, to no Purpose in the world but for Objection sake. This shows what little Room was left him in the Sn. for Objections, when he makes such work with this; and sets down Part of that Yearly Epistle, but not the whole, nor that Part which Relates to the Guns, that we may see how it is worded. But he has Confessed enough.  

As to their Principles being Dangerous to Government.  iv He finds no more fault to p. 115. of the Sn. (it is p. 214. of the Third Edit.) which he Excepts against p. 16. 17. In that part of the Sn. it was shown of what pernicious Consequence it was to Government for the Quakers to assume (as they do) a Prophetical Commission, Immediately from God, as the Prophets of old had: That this would Infer a Power for Deposing of Kings, and Alteration of Government, as some of the old Prophets did, by Command from God. That besides the Quakers had, by a Solemn Declaration, asserted their Right to Possess the whole Earth, and to Fight for it, with the Carnal Sword. And the words of their said Declaration are there set down, which was Penned by that Renowned Quaker, Edward Burrough, and Subscribed by Fifteen of the Principal Leaders among the Quakers in the Name of All the Rest.  
Now G, W. does not deny one word of all this. What then? How does he Answer it? what is the Mistake, Abuse, or Calumny which he charges upon this Passage? He says, These are very Bitter, Invidious and Calumnious Suggestions, and Cruel Jealousies of a High Nature, as if this poor Libeler eagerly thirsted after our Blood. That Libeler (as you call him) I dare say had no Design upon your Blood, or the Blood of any body. But if you Preach up Bloody and Treasonable Doctrine, must no Man Detect this, without a Design upon your Blood! You Proclaim Blood to the Ends of the Earth, especially against the Priests of all Professions, Oh! Give the Priest's Blood to Drink, for they are worthy— Slay Balaam, vex the Midianites, Blot out the Remembrance of Amaleck from under Heaven, that is, the Clergy and the Lawyers etc. as the Quakers themselves Explain it (See Sn. p. 230. etc.) yet this must not be told you, but you Cry out, Here is a Design upon our Blood! But you Answer not a word of the Charge. Are any of your Authors falsely Quoted? Have they not said all these things? Will you then Disown these Authors, at least, as to these Bloody and Desperate Tenets? No. This cannot be done. For than their Infallibility will Crack: And your whole Foundation Sink. Then will it appear that the Spirit by which they have been Led, was not the Spirit of Truth, but of Murder, Treason, and the Vilest Errors.  
The Best Excuse that can be made for them, in this Case, is that which I have before Instanced viz. Madness. For if they are in Good Earnest, in all these Bloody Designs which they have Expressed, Considering their Power and Number now amongst Us, they are Dangerous indeed! And Every Government will be obliged to take a Care of them.  
And that in some other Manner than as John Parrot, Charles Baly, and Jane Stoaks were Served, who were so kindly dealt with at Rome to be sent to a Mad-House, and Physic prescribed for them.  
The Matters thus Suggested (Says G. W. p. 17.) are so Gross, that we need say little to them. How! Say but Little to them! If they are so Gross, you need say the More to them. But what if they are True, as well as Gross? And you offer not to Disprove one Tittle of the Truth of them. And the more Gross, one would think you should be the more Concerned to Disprove them. And if the least of the Proofs which are brought against you, had been False, or any way Exceptionable, no doubt, we should have heard of it (as from Rich. Scoryer, about a small Mistake alleged as to his School) George, you should either have said nothing of this Matter, or have said more to it. But the Nation is obliged to you for this Discovery.  
You Repeat this Charge again. p. 18. where you Quote the Sn. p. 133. saying, Their Principles Destructive to all Government, etc. And you answer. This is a General, very Gross etc. How a General? was there only a General Charge given against you; and no Proof, no Particulars at all Mentioned? Yes, George, there are abundance of Quotations, and Particulars which are Insisted upon, and Proved at large. And Thou dost not Answer to any one of them, Thou Darest not Deny one of them: yet here Thou wouldst Impose it upon the Reader, as if nothing but a General Charge had been Exhibited against you. This is Thy Sincerity and Quakers Plainness.  

Their Opposition of Tithes.  V From this place to p. 24. he spends against what is said in behalf of Tithes. And p. 19 Quotes the Sn. saying that the Pope was the first Author of the Sacrilegious Impropriations; which is more largely Insisted upon in the Sn. yet he Charges the Author as a Popish Agent; and in his Contents calls this a Popish Plea for Tithes▪ But all the Reason he gives is, that some Papists were for the Divine Right of Tithes. Then he names some of the Protestants which were not of this opinion. And this is all (Poor Man) that he knows of the Matter. He Answers none of the Arguments which are there brought for Tithes; nor does he bring any Arguments against them. That is none of his Method!  
But as to Fr. Bugg's Impeachment against them for opposing and Annulling the Laws of the Land which enjoin Tithes, he fairly Pleads Guilty, in Express Terms, while he thought he was Acquitting the Quakers of that Charge: And he Re-Asserts their Seditious Principle. p. 18. against The Secular Powers Imposing them, Tithes being Abolished (says he) by Christ's Law. Which was all that Bugg Charged against them, as making our Laws to be Antichristian.  
Upon this Head, I would Recommend to their serious Consideration, a Principle they set down, in a Famous martyrology of theirs, called, The West Answering to the North. An. 1657. wrote by G. Fox, and several others of their Chiefs; suffering then some Chastisements, for their Blasphemy, etc. Contrary (as they thought) to the then Laws; by the Arbitrary Orders of some Inferior Magistrates. There p. 80. they say, That for Any Party of Men, under a Government, to Make Laws, being not Lawfully Authorized so to do, for the Binding of others; and thereunto to require obedience, is the setting up of Themselves above the Law, and Treading it under their Feet; And rendering of them whom they do so Bind, their Slaves and Vassals; And so is Treason.  
Now in the Sn. Sect. xix. There is mentioned a Declaration Signed by above Seven Thousand of the Quakers, Abolishing all the Laws, and Damning the Lawmakers', who Enact Tithes, the Payers of them, the Receivers, or any who but Countenance or Own them. This was in the year 1659. At which time the Quakers were very Busy with their Proposals to oppose the Restoration of the Church and the King. Rob. Rich, 
Hiden things &c. p. 29.  a Quaker tells Us of two other Printed Papers of the Quakers, that same year, one subscribed by more than Ten Thousand, and the other by More than Fifteen Thousand. All presented to the then Parliament. To whom I am Credibly Informed, They offered to Raise Twenty Thousand Men, against the Common Enemy, so they Termed the King, and Loyal Party. And they had then so much Favour, That, as the above Author Informs us (And cannot Deceive Us in that) by the Act of Parliament bearing Date the 28 June 1659. for Settling the Militia, the Quakers were made Commissioners, to Form Troops and Regiments, to Nominate the Officers, and to Assess Money for Buying Horse, Arms, etc. He Name's Five by Name, whom he knew, who were of the Committee for the Militia of Westminster, and how many more, he says, he knew not. But that is not the Business now. We have sufficient Testimony of their Firmness to the King and Royal Interest, at that Time! That which I would Reason with them now upon, is, Their Annulling of our Laws (as of Tithes) Not being Lawfully Authorised so to do. Their setting up, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Yearly Synods, or Parliaments; wherein they Issue Orders and Laws, to All the Quakers. And Excommunicate those who Refuse to be Obedient. They Levy Money, by Benevolence; which none of them Dare Refuse, under Pain of being Disowned (as they Phrase it) which to most of them, (who Trade Chief with one another) is to be Broke and Undone. By these Voluntary Taxes, per Force, they have Filled and Maintain a Treasury, or Public Stock; to Carry on their Common Cause: Among other things, to enable any Poor Friend, to support a Lawsuit against the Priests for Tithes. Of which several Instances can be given. That these Baals-Priests, may have no other Choice, but either to Lose the Tithes of the Quakers or Pay more for them, than they are worth. Especially the Poorer sort of the Clergy, who are Easily Tired out at Law: Unless they had such a Fund as the Quakers have to support them.  
Let me Entertain the Reader with one Instance, upon this Head, which happened Lately: And has Conduced to open the Eyes of some Deluded Quakers, particularly of William Mather, who writes the Account himself, by his Letters, Dated from Bedford 12. July. 1698: And tells, That one Joseph Clark, a Quaker Preacher, being sued for his Tithe by the Priest, John Feild, an Eminent London Quaker Preacher, and one of the Principal Directors of the Court of Second-Days-Meeting; which is the Helm of the whole Quaker Government; it is the Conclave, which Preseribes even to their General Council, the Yearly Meeting at London; and which is more, Commands their Bank or Public Treasury; This John Field Encouraged Joseph Clark to stand out the Suit with the Priest; and Promised to secure his Goods from the Priest, if it came to the worst. But Jos. told W. Mather (to keep him Firm to the Cause) That it was The Lord, who Moved him, not to Pay his Tithes to the Priest. However so it fell out (whether through Multiplicity of Business in John, or want of Due Solicitation in Joseph, or from whatever Cause) That John did not Perform, as Joseph Expected; who having waited till the Day before the Assizes at Bedford; and no Relief coming, was Forced to surrender: And sent to Agree with the Priest. And then told Will. Mather, That The Lord gave him Freedom to Pay Tithes, as well as other Taxes. Which, with other things, has much stumbled Mather, as to their Infallibility, and even Sincerity, especially, Their Inscribing every thing they Do, or Think, to The Name of The Lord God And that, both Backwards and Forwards!  
But it is the Treason, and not the Blasphemy of their Practice herein that I am now upon. Which they have made Treason (as before Quoted) in others. And therefore must come under their own Law, or Confess themselves to be Liars and Deceivers.  
If they say, That their Testimonies against Tithes etc. are not Laws or Commands, only Advices and Recommendations, That is sufficiently Answered in the Sn. Sect. xix. where it is shown, That they made it no less than Rebellion for any Quaker to Pay Tithe, upon any Account. And in their Rabshakeh, against Mr. Crisp. An. 1695. p. 90. They call his Marrying by a Priest, and Paying of Tithes, Transgressions; and such as Cut him off from the Unity of the Faithful. Now, where there is no Law, there is no Transgression. And it is no Mean Transgression that will Cut a Man off from the Unity of the Faithful. That must be some Dreadful Damning Sin! And such they make our Laws. And Require Obedience (in opposition to them) to their own Laws; and thus Set Themselves above the Laws, and Tread them under their Feet; And render those whom they do so Bind, their Slaves and Vassals: And so (by their own Sentence) are Guilty of Treason.  
N. B. The above Mentioned John Field is he who wrote the Letter Printed in the Collection N. 5. to the Lord Mayor of London, wherein he Endeavours to Prove, That the Setting up of Tithes is, in Effect, to say, That Christ is not become Man, or suffered Death for Man. etc. calls them Slanderous Covetousness; And threatens the Government, both Lords and Commons, with God's Vengeance, who suffer Priests Charitably. i e. Who have any Charity or Favour for them.  
The Quakers had much more Charity for the Impropriators: And some Quakers allowed themselves to Pay Tithes to them, which shows That their Rage against Tithes, Proceeded Chief from their Malice to the Clergy. Nay some of the Quakers themselves (as I am Informed) have been Impropriators, and Received their Tithes. They will tell us whether the Quaker Squire Fettiplace in Gloucester-shire, was not of this Number? They would not Refuse to Buy an Estate, because there were Impropriations Annexed to it. Much less would they Give up the Impropriat-Tythes, after they had Bought them.  
VI 
Their Treasons in Abetteng Oliver and the Rump.  He comes next p. 24. to the Charge against them of their Treasons and Rebellion: And their Abetting of the Usurpations under Oliver and the Rump. Which, according to Custom, he Denies; but offers not to Disprove one single Quotation of those many which you will find Sect. xviii. of the Sn. This is Replied to in the Sup. N. 11.  
And I could give many other Instances besides those in the Sn. Theridamas was a Book Printed by the Quakers. A. D. 1656. Entitled The Cry of Blood. Subscribed by these Eminent Quakers. Geo. Bishop. Thomas Goldney. Henry Roe. Edw. Pyott. Dennis Hollister. in name of all the Rest then about Bristol, where Complaining of their sufferings from the then Government, they say, in the Title Page, that it was contrary to The Righteous Ends of the War. i. e. of their Rebellion against the King. and p. 25. they say, For which (i. e. subverting the Fundamental Law) the Late King, Strafford, and Canterbury were Impeached Attainted and Executed as Traitors. And p. 31. they accuse some that Affronted them, whom they called Royeters, to be Cavaliers, and that Charles Stuart was Publicly mentioned by the Name of King. p. 69. They Plead as Merit in behalf of John Camm, and John Audland (See his Blasphemous Letter to G. Fox, Annexed at the end of the Sn.) two of their Famous Preachers, That they had been Six or Seven years in Arms for the Parliament, and had Fought and performed Eminent Service in the Field. And. p. 90. That Thomas Robertson (another Preacher) was Five or Six years in Arms for the Parliament, a Officer in Colonel Brigg 's Regiment, was at Preston Fight, at the Engagement at the Bridge, in Scotland, and Carlise, living on his own Estate, and bearing his own Charges in the Wars, except a small Sum which he received after the Fight at Preston. That Josiah Coal was also a Soldier in service of the Commonwealth, and at Worcester Fight. This was one of the Prime worthies of the Quakers, a Preacher of Renown. See his Blasphemous Letter to G. Fox. in the Sn. p. 114. 115.  
Here the Treasons and Rebellion and Fight of these Quaker-Leaders were Gloried in (instead of being Condemned) by the rest of them, in the year 1656. But since 1660, they have got a New Light, they are now against all outward Fight, Treason and Rebellion! Yet will not Censure any of their Ancient Traitors, Fighters, and Rebels: for such were their Chief Apostles; and led by the Infallible Light within! But they would have that Forgotten, till a Day may come, when, as in 1656, they may again Plead these Glorious Merits of their Saints. And in the mean time, make a Mouth at us, while they would Pame them upon us, as the only Lambs of Christ!  
But there is one of these Lambs that I have not yet Named under this Head of Treason, whom I must bring forth before G. W. to see what Character he will give us of him. This Quaker in the year 1659. had a Dispute with one Thomas Smith in the Mayor's House at Cambridge, soon after Sir George Booth had taken Arms for the King, and was Suppressed by the Rebels. It is told in the Sn. Sect. xviii. p. 228. How busy the Quakers were upon that occasion, against the King's Interest, and Boasted in it as their merit, that they had given the first Intelligence to the Usurpers against the Loyal Party; and gave their Advice or Command (and that In the Name of the Lord God) to cut off all the Cavaliers whom they had taken Prisoners. They were Full of this their good service, and very Vain of it. And this Quaker whom I am speaking of, taking his opponent Smith to be well Inclined towards the Royal Cause, and having him in the Mayor's House, he broke off from the Subject of Religion they were met about; and Demanded of him, whether he owned his Brethren the Priests, who had so much stirred up the Rebellion against the present Government? To which Ensnaring Question, the Quaker says, Smith answered, That he did not own them. But that was (said the Quaker) because he saw they did not Prosper in their Designs. But when they did Prosper, as they did the year following, than the Quakers were the only Royal and Loyal Party! and said they had been so all along! And accused these same Professors (as they called the Presbyterians, Independents &c.) that they had been the King's Enemies, and therefore not fit to be Trusted by Him, or to be suffered to Teach the People. as shown in the Sn. Sect. xviii.  
Now G. W. tell us Plainly, what dost Thee think of this Quaker before mentioned? we would have thy opinion of him. Was he than a Loyal Man, when he called it Rebellion to assert the King's Cause against the Usurpation that then obtained, and upbraided others with being Concerned in it?  
If thou wouldst know his Name, not to keep thee longer in suspense, it is, George Whitehead. And this thee wilt find p. 25. of a little pretty Treasonable, and very Blasphemous Book of his called Truth defending the Quakers etc. Printed that same year 1659. said, on the Title Page to be written from the Spirit of Truth in George Whitehead, and George Fox the younger. I would have thee Read it George. It is as full of Heresies as a Dog is of Fleas, Larded thick with Nonsense, and Pride Prodigious. And prithee, George, let's have thy Censure of it, the next time thou sets Pen to Paper, if thou beest not Tired with that sport, as well thou May'st, considering thy Luck at it. It is now 49 years since that precious Piece escaped thy Fist. And if thee art not Grown Wiser, as thou'st Grown Older, thou'lt verify the Proverb, no F— l to an Old F— l.  
It is told in the Sn. Sect. xviii. How G. Fox and the Quakers stood out against the Restauration of King Charles II. to the very Last, even in the Beginning of the year 1660. And yet Immediately upon the Kings Coming Home, Run to him, with Addresses of their Love etc. I have one here to Add, which came Lately in my way. G. Bishop his Bitterness and Implacable Hatred to the King, and his Cause, is Particularly Insisted upon in the Sn. How he Preached and Commanded, In the Name of the Lord, That the Cavaliers, who were then Prisoners, should be All put to Death. This is in his Book of Warnings Printed in the Beginning of the year 1660 before the Restauration. And now I find another Book of (his) warnings. An. 1661. Directed to The King and Parliament to the Arch-Bishops, and Bishops etc. where p. 2. he Recommends the Innocent People (the Quakers) to their Protection, as Those who suffered with you (says he) and by and under your Enemies; who have Good will towards you etc. And not Content with this Gross Dissimulation in Themselves; he falls upon the poor Presbyterians, for their Inconstancy, and Turning about; he upbraids them, p. 18. with their being Upwards and Downwards; and Backwards and Forwards; Now here and now there; Reeling and Rolling; Pinching here sometimes, and Drawing as Contrary at another. This needs no Application to the Quakers.  

G. Fox his Aspiring to be Equal with God.  VII. In the Sn. there is set down a Trial at the Assizes, and Depositions upon Oath that G. Fox and others of the Quakers did call themselves Equal with God etc. To this says G. W. p. 25. That we ought not to take the Depositions of Adversaries against them. This is Pleasant! why, if any of the Quakers had Deposed this, than they had been Apostats, Judass, etc. (as the Quakers have called their Late Separatists) and so Adversaries with a witness. And all others are Adversaries of Course. And if none of their words must be taken, the Quakers may Blaspheme, Rebel, Murder, Steal, or what they Please. For is not any one that would Accuse them of any of these things, an Adversary? And an Adversaries word must not be taken!  
But let alone Adversaries. Has not G. Fox and others of the Quakers asserted the same in their Printed Books? And are they not Quoted in the Sn. Sect. iii? And has G. W. Answered to one of these Quotations? No. Not to one of them. yet he Pretends this Book of his, to be an Answer to the Sn. And in the Contents he styles the above Answer thus. A False Charge against G. Fox etc. Examined and Answered. Yet this is all the Answer he has given to it.  
In the same manner he passes off the Charge of their Assuming the Name of God and Christ to themselves; and their Pretence to Perfection Equal Even to God etc. He says to this. p. 26. That it is False; and Asserts the Contrary. But Answers none of the Proofs. See Sn. Sect. x. p. 132. and Sect. xiv. p. 175, 176. Let me add here one Proof more. I have before Quoted a Book wrote by Five Ministers called A further Discovery etc. There p. 23, 24. is a Letter of Will. Baldwinson, Dated 14. January 1653. and attested by Three others, where Will. Baldwinson Declares that he, before a Company, where James Nayler and Richard Farnsworth were setting out this Doctrine of Perfection, Demanded of them in these words, Friends, do you hold that a man may attain to that Height of Perfection in this Life to be as Perfect, as Pure, as Holy, and as Just as God Himself? And he asserts, that They Jointly Replied, Yea, and they were so. After p. 62. of that Book, these Five Ministers say of the Quakers, But what dare not these men do, who Dare lift up themselves in their Blasphemous Pride, to be as Pure as God? G. Fox Answers this Book in his Great Mystery and p. 232. Repeating these last words thus, But how Dare these men lift up themselves, in their Blasphemous Pride, to say they are pure as God? He does not at all Deny the Charge, but Justifies and Defends it from being Blasphemy; and says, Doth not Christ say, Be ye Perfect as your Heavenly Father is Perfect? and As he is, so are we in this present World etc. These are the Texts they Commonly Abuse to this Blasphemous Purpose. John Harwood a Quaker, but who had fallen out with G. Fox, wrote a Letter to The Friends against him. An. 1663. which is Entitled To all People that Profess the Eternal Truth etc. where p. 3. he says, G. Fox hath called Himself The Son of God, and also said I am the Seed, which he might as well have said I am Christ, for we know that the Seed is Christ etc. To this G. Fox Printed an Answer the same year 1663., with this Title, The Spirit of Envy, Lying, and Persecution, made Manifest. Where, p. 2. He Answers the above Charge thus. And first thou saidst, G. F. calls himself, The Son of God etc. And this thou calls a Crime. This is all he says to it. Confessing the Charge: but Retorting upon Joh. Harwood, for his Ignorance (being a Quaker) to think it a Crime in G. Fox to call Himself, The Son of God, and Christ, and The Seed. Here now G. W. has a Plain Answer, and out of the Mouth of one, whom he will not call an Adversary. And we need no more witnesses against G. Fox, when we have it from his own Mouth.  

Their Asserting the Sufficiency of their Light within to Salvation, without Christ. And Assuming the Name of Christ to Themselves.  VIII. He comes p. 27. to a material Point indeed. where it is objected against the Quakers, That they hold the Light within Every Man that comes into the world, sufficient to Salvation, of itself, without Something else, that is, without the outward Christ, to suffer and die outwardly for Us. Which makes Christ's coming into the World of no Necessity at all to our Salvation; And Faith in Him to be but a sort of an Accomplishment, or Civility towards Him, but no way Necessary: And puts the Heathen upon as good a Foundation as the Christian. Nay, I must say upon a Better; for if Faith in Christ be, by the Gospel, made Necessary to Salvation; and the Light within the Heathen be sufficient without this; Then is this not only Unnecessary, but it puts us farther off from Heaven, by making more things Necessary to our getting thither than what is Required from the Heathen: Then might Cornelius have answered the Angel that commanded him to send for Peter, who should tell him words, by which he and his House should be saved, 
Act. xi. 14.  that he had a Light within which was Sufficient, without any thing else. And that he had Duly followed this Light; for he had the Testimony of a Devout man, 
Act. x. 2.  and one that feared God, with all his House. But this shows that there was Something else Necessary, without which he and his House were not to be Saved.  
This was the Ground of the Quarrel which the Quakers took against G. Keith, because he Preached among them the Necessity of Faith in the outward Jesus; which they called Preaching of Two Christ's. i e. one more besides their Light within, which they call The Christ.  
G. W. says, in answer to this, p. 28. That they were not offended at G. K's Preaching Christ, or his suffering and Dying without Us, truly considered. Truly Considered! what does he mean by this? It is Impossible to catch these Quakers speaking one word Plain, without a Mental Reservation! By Truly Consider'd he means, That the Quakers do allow the History of Christ, of His Death and Sufferings. i e. That there was such a man, and that he Did and Suffered such things; and that the Light or Christ was in the man Jesus, whence he was called Christ, as others who have the same Light may, for the same Reason, be called by the same Name of Christ, which, as they say, belongs to Every Member as well as to the Head. Is not the Substance, the Life, the Anointing called Christ, wherever it is found? Doth not the Name belong to the whole Body (and Every Member in the Body) as well as to the Head? says Isaac Penington, in a Book which he calls A Question to the Professors of Christianity. Printed 1667. p. 27. And in the same place says, That the Apostle gives them (the Members) the Name Christ together with Him, that is, together with Jesus who was called Christ, and he Quotes for this 1 Cor. xii. 12. in which Text there is nothing like what he would be at. But it shows the Quakers Notion; which he goes on to fortify thus. The Body (says he) is the same with the Head; one and the same in Nature; and doth not the Nature belong to the Nature in the whole? i. e. Because Christ has taken Our Nature, therefore J. P. would give us His Nature, which would be to make Us God. As he words it. p. 7. We are as well of His Flesh and Blood, as He was of ours. By Christ's Flesh of which we Partake, he means the Heavenly Flesh which the Quakers say Christ had from Eternity, and that it is in them, that is, Christ's Divine Nature, of which J. P. makes us to Partake, as well as He of our Human Nature: which yet they say He took not Really, for J. P. does not allow Jesus to be the Lamb of God, but that the Lamb (i. e. the Light) Dwelled in Him, as in a Vessel, in like manner as in us. By Feeling (says he ibid.) and knowing the Lamb in our Vessels, we know also what was the Lamb in His Vessel. So that by this, Jesus was not the Lamb or Christ, but only the Vessel in which the Lamb or Christ did, for a time, Reside. Which he further Explains, p. 33. in these words, Now the Scriptures Do Expressly Distinguish between Christ, and the Garment which He wore; between Him that Came, and the Body in which He came; between the Substance which was veil, and the Veil which Veiled it. Lo I come, a Body hast thou Prepared Me. There is Plainly He, and the Body in which He came. There was the outward Vessel, and the Inward Life. This we certainly know, and can never call the Bodily Garment, Christ, but that which Appeared and Dwelled in the Body. So that by this, Jesus was not the Christ, only the Prepared Body, Garment, or Veil in which Christ Dwelled. The same Argument is Prosecuted by Will. Penn, in his Part of the Serious Apology. p. 146. and in the like words with Is. Penington, to show the Unanimous Consent of the Quakers in this the Heart of their Christianity, These are his words. He that laid down his Life, and suffered his Body to be Crucify'd by the Jews, without the Gates of Jerusalem, is Christ, the only Son of the most High God: But that the outward Person which suffered was Properly the Son of God, we utterly Deny— A Body hast thou Prepared me, said the Son, than the Son was not the Body, tho' the Body was the Son's. i e. The Body was the Son's, as a man's Garment or Veil is his who owns and wears it; as the Body; of Will. Penn is the Son's who (he supposes) Dwells in it: But the Son was not the Body, that is, Jesus, in whose Body Christ Dwelled, was not the Son, not Properly the Son of God, but in a Large sense, as other men are called the Sons of God. And Christ Suffered His Garment or Veil, the Body of Jesus, to be Crucifi'd: But that the outward Person which suffered, was Properly the Son of God, the Quakers do Utterly Deny. And as that Person which Suffered was not Properly the Son of God, it follows as certainly that the Son of God was not Properly that Person, or was not Properly a Man.  
This was the Meaning of Will. Penn, in his Sandy Foundation. p. 20. calling Christ a Finit, Impotent Creature. He did not mean the Eternal word. Or that this Word was Properly a Man in our Nature; for then, tho' the Manhood was a Creature, and Finit, yet the Man, or Person was not so. As a Man's Body is Corruptible, yet the Person Consisting of Body and Soul, is not so. Tho' the Properties of Each Nature, whereof a Person does Consist, may be Attributed to the Person; as a Man is said to Dye, to Eat, Drink, Sleep etc. tho' these are Proper only to the Body: And likewise he is said to Think, to Reason, to be Immortal, tho' these are Proper only to his Soul. Thus God is said to Dye, to shed His Blood etc. tho' this be Proper only to the Manhood, which the Word assumed into His own Person: And Man is said to be God, Infinite, Almighty etc. tho' this be Proper only to the Divine Nature of Christ, who is likewise Truly and Properly a Man. And none who had a True Notion of this, could ever have brought himself, to call Christ, a Finit, Impotent Creature. Such a Blasphemous Contempt of our B. Lord and God, could never have Dropped from the Pen of a Christian. But upon Will. Penn's Scheme, that the Word was not Properly a Man, it must follow, that the Person who Suffered was not Properly the Son of God: And Consequently that the Person who Suffered, which is the Christians Christ, was but a Finit Impotent Creature, and not Truly and Properly the Christ. J. Pennington asserts that the Name of Christ did not belong to the Person of Jesus, which he calls only the Vessel, or Veil (as in his Quest. to Professors. p. 25.) but only to the Light or Christ which Dwelled in Jesus, as in the Quakers: So that the Name (Christ, says he) is not given to the Vessel, but to the Nature, to the Heavenly Treasure, to that which is of him In the Vessel. And he Contends That it was not the Flesh and Blood of the Veil which was the Sacrifice that Cleanses. i e. not the Flesh and Blood of Jesus, but The Flesh and Blood within the Veil. i e. the Spiritual Flesh and Blood of their Light within. Not the Flesh and Blood (says he) of the outward Earthly Nature; but the Flesh and Blood of the Inward Spiritual Nature: Not the Flesh and Blood which Christ took of the first Adam's Nature; but the Flesh and Blood of the Second Adam's Nature. And What is the Laver of Regeneration (says he p. 24.) wherewith the Soul is washed? Is it the water which ran out of the side of the Natural Body, when it was Pierced with a Spear? or the Water which floweth from the Spirit? And Can outward Blood Cleanse the Conscience? etc.  
Now G. W. is not against telling the History of the Life and Death of Jesus, that is, as he puts the Caveat, Truly Considered, i. e. so as not to lay the stress of our Salvation upon Faith in those outward Sufferings, or to make that Necessary to us: That Prerogative they Reserve only for the Sufferings, Bloodshedding etc. of Their Christ, the Light within. That only is sufficient without any thing else. And when you come to this (say they, in a Book Entitled The Doctrine of Perfection vindicated. Printed 1663. p. 19) you will cease Remembering His Death at Jerusalem, and will come to see how He hath been Crucify'd In you etc. His outward Death is to be Forgotten; for the stress does not lie upon that! And, as Mr. Penn says in his Quakerism a new nickname etc. p. 12. Since they believe that appearance (of Christ in the Flesh at Jerusalem) they need not Preach what is not to be again. (See Satan Disrobed. p. 11.) There is an End of any more Preaching or Faith in that! Nay, it does Hurt, as taking men off from Trusting wholey and soley in the Light within as sufficient without it! Which is the very Heart and Soul of the Quaker-Faith. And therefore they think the Heathen in a Better Condition than those Christians who lay so much stress upon the outward Christ, His Death and Sufferings; for that the Heathen have not that encumbrance to Divert them from Trusting wholly to their Light within, and to nothing else. And they think the Faith in the outward Christ so very Destructive, that G. Fox, Denounces them to be Reprobates, and Possessed with the Devil, who Expect to be saved by Faith in the outward Jesus; and as wholly Ignorant of the Inward Presence of Christ in the Heart: For thus he Replies upon Christopher Wade, who had, in a Book he wrote called Quakery Slain, asserted the Necessity of Faith in the outward Christ; but withal he is Full and Large upon as Great Necessity of the Inward Presence and Operation of the Spirit of Christ in our Hearts, In his Inspections, Influences, and Operations— and by His Spirit Dwelling even in the Hearts and Societies of His People. as he words it. p. 4. And that by his Spiritual Influences, He is in all His Saints, p. 7. That He is Dwelling in the Believers Heart, by Faith of and in Him, p. 19— And from thence the Saints are said to be the Habitation of God through the Spirit, p. 36. And much more to the same Purpose. But all this Faith is built upon the outward Christ, His Death and Sufferings without Us: And therefore G. Fox wrote an Answer to this Book, in his Great Mystery. p. 246. And Replies thus upon Wade. p. 250. And the Devil was in thee, and thou saith thou art saved by Christ without thee, and so hath Recorded thyself to be a Reprobate, and Ignorant of the Mystery of Christ within thee. So that, by this Doctrine, to believe in a Christ without, is to be Possessed with the Devil, to be a Reprobate, and Ignorant of Christ within. For they make to be these Two Christ's, as they objected against G. Keith, when he Preached to them of a Christ without. Which G. W. here allows, Truly Considered! that is, to Believe the History of Christ; but not to Trust in Him as an Object of our Faith; for that would take away the Sufficiency of the Light within, without the outward Christ. And this G. W. does plainly Confess, where he tells what it was for which they were Angry at G. Keith, not the Preaching Christ's outward Sufferings; But (says he) at his undervaluing the Light within, as not Sufficient to Salvation, or not Sufficient without something else. These are his words, p. 28. And this is as Plain a Confession as can be in words. And G. W. goes on to Prove it, by saying that the Light within is God and Christ etc. Which he Denies to our Jesus the Son of Mary, would it be good Doctrine (says he) to say, 
Light and Life p. 54.  that Mary and Simeon carried their Saviour on their Arms?— or that they carried God in their Arms— if that Child was God-Man, as he (Will. Burnet) terms him. And he Upbraids W. B. thus, your Boasting of your God and Christ at a Distance above the Clouds Stars and Firmament— And p. 55. whereas we are Accused (says he) with Denying that Blood let out, to be any way Meritorious to Salvation. I ask, whether any thing is of Eternal Merit and worth that is not Everlasting? This is to Exclude the Blood which Christ took, in Time, of our Nature, from being Any way Meritorious to Salvation: But placing all upon the shedding of His Spiritual Blood, which He had, as God, from Eternity. Agreeably G. Fox attributes all the Merit towards Salvation, in that Flesh of Christ, which was Crucify'd, when Adam Fell, as before Quoted out of his Several Papers, for the Spreading of Truth. Where p. 57 he goes on thus, so Adam and Eves Flesh was Defiled, but the Flesh of Christ, the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the world, yet His Flesh never Corrupted, which Flesh is the Offering— and in this Flesh is the Belief that takes away the sin, that never Corrupted, that is the offering for Sin, and the Blood of this Flesh Cleanseth from Sin— so the seed Reigns, His Flesh the offering is Believed in, and Fed upon— And so this Pure Flesh this offering is set over all— so all Christendom hath talked long enough of Christ's Flesh and Blood. 
p. 58. p. 59  By this the Quakers think that Flesh of Christ of which we speak is of no longer use. At the Close of this Chapter G. F. goes about to Answer a very material Objection put against him viz. To what Purpose was Christ's coming in the outward Flesh, if all the Reconciliation was by His Heavenly Flesh? G. F. puts the Objection in these words. But if any should hold the Seed only within them, and that Christ is not come in the Flesh, and hath not Appeared in the shape of a man— And truly G. Fox finds no harm in all this, Provided they stand out stiff against outward Offerings and Services. That is the Eyesore of the Quakers. Take away the Merit of the outward Sufferings of Christ, and the outward Ordinances which He has Established in His Church. And All is well! G. F. gives no Advice to those who believe no Christ come in the Flesh, to learn any thing of that Doctrine; nor finds any Fault with those who, Rejecting that, do hold the seed only within them; but bids them see if that they speak of (i. e. their seed or Light within) doth or hath brought them out of Adam in the Fall, and put down all Adam and Eves Sons and Daughters Inventions, which they have Invented in their Idol Minds, and other outward Offerings and Services; for (says he) they that own that Christ, that was offered, that was slain from the Foundation of the world, the Lamb, they own that, and their Belief stands in that which doth bring down the Inventions of the Sons of Adam, and Daughters in the Fall. So that here is a Belief in Christ, without a Believing that ever He came in our Flesh! viz. By Believing in His Inward and Heavenly Flesh, Blood, and Bones which were Crucify'd when Adam Fell; which the Quakers call the Seed or Light within; which they think Sufficient of itself, without any thing else. i e. without any Faith in the outward Flesh which he took of our Nature, which they call Corruptible and Earthly; and therefore of no Virtue or Efficacy towards our Salvation, more than as a Good Example, like the Lives of other Virtuous men: And therefore that men may be Good enough Christians, without knowing any thing of that which is but a History to Us, that is, the Life Death, and Sufferings of Jesus of Nazareth: But that the Mystery and the Efficacy is only in what is wrought within Us; and that Faith in that, is the only true Christianity. This is the Centre of Quakerism. And therefore I have Endeavoured to Render it very Plain and Obvious, as that upon which all the Rest of their vile Heresies are Founded.  
This that I have said, will obviate all the Quotations brought in the Appendix, Sect. 2. p. 12. etc. of the Quaker-Testimonies to Christ as come in the Flesh. For either They must Abandon this Distinction of the two sorts of Flesh, Blood, and Bones of Christ, or otherwise it is Impossible to Hold them, while they mean that of the one, which they seem to speak of the other. And, what Signifies their Acknowleging even Christ's outward Flesh and Humanity, as to the Historical part of it, while they Deny any Faith in it, as of Necessity to Salvation but place all the Efficacy, upon their Mad Supposition of His Inward and Eternal Flesh, Blood, and Bones; Broken, Slain, Buried, Rising again, Ascending, and coming, to Judgement, within them; And thus Elude All the Articles of our Faith!  
G. Whitchead, in his Truth defending the Quakers An. 1659. p. 67. plainly Denies, that we are Redeemed by the Human Blood of Christ. And says, That that Scripture 1 Pet. 1.19. is Perverted when taken in that sense, and averrs that the Apostle there, Doth not tell of Human Blood to Redeem them with; for (says he) Human is Earthly. What Blood is it then which Redeems Us? He goes on to tell in the next words, But Christ whose Blood is Spiritual is Lord from Heaven etc. And then he Asks, Was that Human Blood, which Christ saith, except a Man Drink, he hath no Life in him; and which Cleansed the Saints from all Sin, who were Flesh of Christ 's Flesh, and Bone of His Bone? G. W. means that this could not be the outward-Flesh: But that it was the Eternal and Spiritual Flesh before spoke of; Which the Quakers suppose that they have within them; and this is it which they call their Light within. But I will Answer this Quere of G. Whitehead's because I believe he asked it through Ignorance, and that many Quakers are Deluded by it. Therefore I say, That it was Human Blood of which Christ said Except a man drink of it etc. But the Figure lies in the word Drink, not that we were literally to Drink the very Material Blood of Christ; but to Feed upon it in our Hearts, by Faith. i. e. in the Satisfaction and Atonement thereby made to God for our Sins. But to put the Figure upon the Blood, as if that were only Figurative, and not True, Real, Material and Human Blood which Christ offered for us; but a Notional, Spiritual, which is not Real Blood, this is the Fandamental Error of the Quakers, and which overturns the whole Christian Faith.  
And now what does it signify to bring Quotations out of the Quaker Books, which speak of the Blood of Christ, and bear witness to it, while they mean not Real or Human Blood, of our Nature, but only the Inward Spiritual Life of Christ in our Hearts; And do not Distinguish this at all from His Blood? As G. W. says, in the same Book before Quoted Truth defending etc. p. 63. Whose (Christ's) Blood is not differing from His Life, which Redeemeth from sin, as thou Imaginest, says he to his opponent, Christopher Wade, who having said, as G. W. Quotes him, That our Blessed Saviour did Instruct men to lay fast hold of, and to abide in such a Faith which Confideth in Himself, being Without Men. G. W. Replies p. 65. That's Contrary to the Apostles Doctrine— And the Saints Faith stood in the Power of God, which was In them. Again (ibid.) G. W. opposes this of C. Wade's, which he Quotes, That the true Christ doth by infallible Arguments prove Himself not to be a Spirit. i e. not a mere Spirit, as in the next page G. W. Quotes him. And G. W. gives the like Answer to this, which is (says he) Quite against the Apostles Doctrine, who Preached Christ In them, the Hope of Glory, and a Quickening Spirit. That Christ is a Spirit, and Ever was, no Christian Doubts: But that He has not likewise a Body, not from Eternity, as Quakers and Muggletonians madly Dream; but an Human Body, of our Nature, which He took into His own Nature, in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin, and will for Ever Retain United in His Person, true God and Man; and therefore is not now a mere Spirit; as before His Incarnation, none can Deny, but the Grossest of Heretics. And G. W. here Denies it, and says, That to affirm Christ not to be a mere Spirit is contrary to the Apostles Doctrine, who Preached Christ In them. No Christian denies but that Christ, by His Blessed Spirit and Influence does Devil in the Hearts of Believers; But therefore to Deny the Demonstration which Christ gave Luk. xxiv. 39 That He was not a Spirit, but had true Flesh and Bones, is such a Degree of sottish Infatuation, as has Possessed none amongst us but these Miserable Quakers. Why else did G. W. oppose C. Wade for urging this Scripture, in Proof that Christ was not a Spirit, but had a True, Real, Human Body? G. Whitehead's meaning was (as before showed p. 18.) that the Person who then Appeared to the Apostles was not the Christ. No, but only a Veil or Garment of Borrowed Flesh and Blood which He Wore: And by which the Quakers expect no Justification, but only by their own Works, wrought In them by the Spirit.  
Thus ibid. p. 62. G. Whitehead brings in C. Wade saying thus, That God doth totally exclude works, whether wrought by Men, or by any Spirit in man whatsoever, for men's Justification. He does not Exclude Works, as being a Necessary Effect of Faith, and as Required by God, and without which, when Possible, true Faith cannot be; nor can men, otherwise, be made Partakers of the Benefit and Purchase made for Us by the Obedience and Death of Christ: But that our works, tho' wrought in us by the Operation of the Holy Spirit (as all our Good Works are) yet must not come in for any share of the Merit and Satisfaction for Sin, and our Justification thereby; 
Psal. xlix. 8.  For it Cost more to Redeem our Souls, so that we must let that alone for Ever. Our Works, tho' necessary to Qualify us, and make us Susceptible of that Justification which Christ hath Purchased for us by His Blood, yet are they Totally Excluded from being any Part of the Meritorious or Procuring Cause of our Justification. And to this G. Whitehead's Answer is, This is a Doctrine of the Devil. The same Answer, He and Will. Penn Repeated in their Serious Apology. Printed An. 1671. (to show they Altar not) p. 148. to those who objected to them, That they Denied Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in His own Person for us, wholly without us, and therefore Deny the Lord that bought us. To which their Answer is in these words. And indeed this we Deny, and Boldly affirm it, In the Name of the Lord, To be the Doctrine of Devils, and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption, which does now Deluge the whole World. It makes one's Hair stand on End, to Hear such outrageous Blasphemy against the very Heart and Foundation of the Christian Religion! Against which the Cursed Spirit does thus Gnash his Teeth, to see his Chief Principle Attacked of making men trust, for their Justification and Salvation, to what is wrought in their Hearts, by the Spirit of God, as they suppose, for which they oft mistake (as in the Present Case) the most Venomous Suggestions of the Devil.  
Now if the Quaker method of Contrary Testimonies would be allowed, 
See 2d Part. Sect. two. N. 3.  they might Easily get off from all this, by what Will. Penn has wrote (in Point blank Contradiction to what is above Quoted) in his Primitive Christianity, Printed, 1696. p. 79. where he owns Justification, only for the sake of the Death and Sufferings of Christ; And nothing we can do (says he) though by the Operation of the Holy Spirit, being able to Cancel old Debts, or wipe out old Scores. You see, he says, here, Though by the Operation of the Holy Spirit, so that, by this, All that is wrought in the Quakers, by their Light within, is Declared Insufficient to their Salvation, without something else, even the Death and Sufferings of the outward Christ. Unless Mr. Penn will say, That he Meant not this of the outward Christ but of the Death and Sufferings of their Light within; which I suppose he will not venture upon, because it would be so Gross a Sophistication as he would be ashamed of; and Disparage any thing he could say hereafter; for it would be to Declare, that none must know his meaning. Therefore I will not suppose any such thing, but that he Intends sincerely as he speaks. But then, that Great Point of the Quakers is given up, upon which G. Keith was Pronounced an Heretic by a Public Quaker Meeting at Philidelphia An. 1692. 
See Heresy and Hatred by G. K. giving an Account of this.  And that by Authority of a Sentence out of a Book of Will. Penn's, called the Christian Quaker, where he said, that The Talon is in its self sufficient. i e. as these Quakers Expounded it, That the Light within was sufficient (to Salvation) without any thing else. For that was the Dispute. And G. Keith was Accused for Heresy in Preaching Two Christ's, because he Preached the Necessity of Faith in a Christ without Us, now in Heaven, which they, who knew of no Christ but their Light within, thought a Preaching of Two Christ's, and a Denying the sufficiency of their Light within, without Faith in an outward Christ.  

Their turning the Death and Sufferings of Christ into an Allegory and a Type.  IX. G. W. p. 29. Answers the Charge of their Allegorising the Death and Sufferings of Christ, into an Inward shedding of Spiritual Blood etc. thus; he says, they do not turn the Death and Sufferings of Christ, into a mere Allegory, as if there had been no such thing in Reality, both outwardly and Literally. No. It was never Charged upon them. But this is the Charge against them, That they Place the Merit and Satisfaction not in the outward Sufferings of Christ, but in the Inward Sufferings etc. of their Light within. And to this they do not Answer. This is mere Dodging. And shows their Gild.  
But he says Secondly, p. 30. That they do hold an Allegorical Meaning in Christ's outward Blood, and Passion. And there is His Spiritual Blood (says he) now if there be an Allegory in His outward Blood, than His outward Blood is an Allegory: And the Inward Blood is the Substance or Principal; and the Merit and Satisfaction lies in That. That is the Mystery, of which Christ's outward Sufferings were but the History, or Facile Representations, as they Express it. See Sat. Dis. Sect. i. N. xii. p. 15, 16. And this, is, and has been our sincere Belief and Persuasion. says G. W. ibid.  
He Answers in the same page to the Objection of making their Light within the Architype, of which the outward Christ was but the Type or Figure; He Denies none of the Proofs brought for it. See Sn. Sect. x. p. 129. etc. But he would Play the Critic, he means by Architype the Chief of Principal Type; and their not making the Light within any Type at all, but the Substance, consequently, he thinks he has come off Cleverly, that they do not make it the Architype. But his Skill has Failed him, for by Architype is not meant any Type at all; but that thing to which all the Types do Refer, and which is Represented by them. Thus the Legal Sacrifices were Types, of Christ; and Christ the Architype; not as G. W. would have it, that He was the Chief-Type of Himself. And hence the Quakers making the outward-Christ a Type of their Light within, giveth That the Preference, and makes Christ Inferior to It. (See Sat. Dis. Sect. 2. N. v. p. 34). Will he say the Light-within is an Allegory? if not, then, in his sense of it, he plainly Prefers it to Christ: And makes Christ, His Sacrifice and outward Blood to Refer to It. He Confesses while he Denies! He would avoid the Charge of making Christ's outward Blood an Allegory, and yet he Expressly calls it an Allegory; i. e. that it has an Allegorical Meaning; for that is the only way that any thing can be called an Allegory. But what the Quakers call the Spiritual Blood of Christ, they will not let that be an Allegory, or have any thing else to Refer to, for than it would not be the Chief and Principal.  
Now the Quakers, in this (as in other things) have lighted upon the Direct Contrary to the Truth; for whatever it may be which they Dream by Spiritual Blood, that can be only Allegorical to the outward and Real Blood. For let me ask, whether the Blood of a Spirit, or the Blood of Light, i. e. of their Light within, be not an Allegorical Expression? But they will have the outward Blood of an Humane Body to pass for an Allegory. For all that is spoken of the Blood of Christ in Scripture (says G. W. ibid.) is not to be taken only in a Literal Sense. Here is an only again, to put us off from knowing of his Meaning. Not only in a Literal Sense! (The Jesuits are but Dunces to these Quakers, for Plainness and Sincerity!) If the Efficacy and Merits of the Blood of Christ do Extend to any Spiritual Effects, by Faith in Him, His Death and the Satisfaction thereby Made for our Sins, than G. W. thinks to come off by his word only, that the Blood of Christ is not to be taken only in a Literal Sense: And then it must be an Allegory! And so he has gained his Point. But (George!) all this does not make it an Allegory, nor hinder all that is spoken of the Blood of Christ in Scripture to be taken in a Literal Sense, and (notwithstanding of Thy only) I will say only in a Literal Sense: for outward Blood is only outward Blood, and not Spiritual Blood: And its having Spiritual Effects, does, in no ways, hinder its being only outward Blood: nor does it make such Blood to be any Allegory at all, unless, as the Blood of the Legal Sacrifices, it have Respect to another Blood more Worthy and Efficacious than itself: for Allegory, in this Dispute, means the same as Type or Figure. Thus Gal. iv. 24, Isaac and Ishmael, Sarah and Hagar are called an Allegory, because they were a Type or Figure of the Two Covenants. And thus it is that the Quakers would have the outward Christ to be an Allegory, Sc. of what they call the Inward Christ or Light within; which they make the Architype, and so of more Worth and Dignity than the outward Christ, and consequently the Merit and Satisfaction by which we are saved to be Referred to That, and not to the outward Christ, who was but the Allegory, Type, or Figure of It. And this totally throws off the outward Christ from having any Share or Parcel in our Redemption, more than the Blood of those Bulls and Goats which were Sacrificed under the Law; for the Quakers make the outward Blood of Christ to be but a Type, as these; though a nearer Type than these: But All is to be Referred into the Architype, which they make to be the Light within. When the Architype comes, All Types of it do vanish, and become of no more Effect at all: Nay, it is a Sin to use them any more, for that is an Implicit Denying of the Archetypes being come: And hence it is, that the Quakers are so Enraged against laying any stress upon the outward Christ, His Death or Sufferings without us; which they say (as before Quoted) need not now be Preached, because they are not to be again. i e. They are Past; but the Architype, the Light within Remains, which is Sufficient of itself, and without any thing else. i e. without the outward Death of a Christ without Us. For this Inward Christ, the Light within was always, before the Incarnation of the outward Christ; And before that (say the Quakers) did shed its Spiritual Blood etc. which was Sufficient to Save us: And that therefore there was no need of the outward Christ's coming at all: as now the stress is not to be laid upon it, but upon the Light within, which is Sufficient without It. This is the true Quaker Doctrine. But how the outward Christ could be a Type of the Inward Christ or Light within, which was Before Him, the Quakers are left to Explain; for a Type must be Before that of which it is the Type, else it were not a Type, which is a Forerunner of it. But Contradictions are no Novelties with them.  
G. W. falls again upon this Topick, p. 39 And takes a new way, thus says he, We know not what Author he has for this Charge, as if none of their Authors had been Quoted in the Sn. where Sect. x. the Reader will find Quotations sufficient, all of which G. W. passes over in this Confident manner, of which I have taken notice already. But, in this same place where he makes this Excuse, he does himself Confess what is Charged upon them: for he says Expressly, That Christ's outward Blood and Water which flowed out of His Side, had an Allegorical Signification, even (says he) of the Spiritual Blood and Water of Life etc. Now (as before is said) having an Allegorical signification, is all that makes any thing to be an Allegory. And making the outward Body and Blood of Christ to be an Allegory, that makes it but a Type or Figure; and Plainly gives the Preference to whatever they Fancy by Inward Body and Blood. The Question being put to George Fox, in these words, Whether Christ in the Flesh be a Figure or not? He Answers in his Saul's Errand. p. 14. His Flesh is a Figure. And p. 8. It being objected against Richard Hubberthorn, that he had wrote, in these words, That Christ's coming in the Flesh, was But a Figure. G. Fox Defends that saying, thus, Christ, in his People, is the Substance of all Figures-but as He is held forth in the Scripture-Letter, without them, and in the Flesh without them, He is their Example or Figure, which is both one, that the same things might be fulfilled in Them, that was in Christ Jesus. Here he says that Example and Figure are both one. For he Understood not Words or the Sense of them; therefore you must take his Meaning, as he Expresses it, and by Example mean Figure. And here you see he makes a Distinction betwixt Christ in His People, and as in the Flesh without them. The first is that Spiritual Flesh before spoke of, or their Light within: the Second is the outward Christ Jesus. The first he makes the Substance and no Figure: but the Second he Expressly calls a Figure. And of what is it the Figure? He tells, of the same things to be fulfilled in Them, that was in Christ Jesus. That is the Atonement and Satisfaction which Christ made for Sin was not the outward shedding of His Blood, but the shedding of the Spiritual Blood Inwardly: And that this is Performed in Them, as it was in Christ; And that the Atonement and Satisfaction is made in Them, and The same in Them that was in Christ. This Inward Atonement they make the Great Mystery, of which Christ's outward Sufferings were but the History, as Mr. Penn expresses it, in his Rejoinder to John Faldo. p. 336. That these Transactions i e. of Christ's outward Sufferings were as so many Facile Representations of what is to be Accomplished In Man. (See Sat. Dis. Sect. i. N. xii. p. 15, 16.) Now, Reader, these Quotations out of G. Fox's saul's Errand are Produced (among many others) in the Sn. yet G. Whitehead cries, We know not what Author he has for this Charge.  
There is another Little Author which G. W. has Forgot (it were well for him if he could) who Answers to the same Objection that was put to G. Fox, six years after the Answer before Quoted given to it by G. F. in his Saul's Errand, which was Printed An. 1653. But G. Whitehead's Truth defending the Quakers was Printed An. 1659. where p. 20. he Answers to the same objection, which he sets down in these words, Did Richard Hubberthorn well in writing That Christ's Coming in the Flesh was but a Figure? And his Answer is Delicious! which therefore I will set down every word of it, and is as follows. Ans. Could Christ have been said to have been Transfigured if his Coming in the Flesh had not been a Figure or Example till his Glory was Revealed? And hast thou not read that he was the Express Figure of his Father's Substance? instead of which its translated Image etc. This etc. is not but here as if there were any More in his Answer, of which this is every word, and ends with an &c. as I have set it down, lest G. W. might have a Secret-Reserve in that (who never writes without one) and Accuse me of False-Quotation, in leaving any thing out; after the Manner of his Appendix, as you will see hereafter in the Second Part. Sect. two. N. 6. But now as to this Answer. Here G. W. does not Deny that his Friend Hubberthorn had wrote thus. Or, that this was the Current Doctrine of the Quakers, and Justified by them. No, he owns all that, and goes on to Justify it, as Fox had done before him, and he had Six Years time after Fox had Answered, to have Considered of it. But the Quakers Doctrine is the same it was from the Beginning! for Truth is one and Changes not! But the Wit sometimes may. Of which G. W. here gives a noble Turn. He proves, That Christ was but a Figure, because He was Transfigured! This Punn looks as if it had been stolen out of Cambridge Jests. And I could forgive George to Exert this Size of his Wit, were it not in Serious Matters. But to Pretend, That this was Written from the Spirit of Truth in George Whitehead and Geo. Fox the younger, as it is said on the Title-Page of this Book; And p. 7. That it is of as Great Authority as the Scriptures, and Greater, this puts it past a Jest, and aught to be Animadverted upon as a most Outrageous Blasphemy. And shows moreover the Mad Delusion of these Quakers, that they are out of their Wits, and their Brains turned by an Enthusiastical Distraction. For, as before has been shown, the meaning of the word Figure in this Dispute, is a Type or Shadow, whether Christ was a Type or Figure of something else? i. e. of the Light within Us. And to Prove this, by the Figure, that is, the Shape or outward Appearance of His Body and Raiment being Changed in His Transfiguration upon the Mount, if these Men believe themselves, is such a Portion of Ignorance as sets them not out of the Rank of Children: But their thinking it to be Divine Inspiration, makes them Madmen, and Blasphemously so. Then again, to make Figure, even in this sense that they would take it, to be the same as an Example, which is Expressed in both the Answers of G. F. and G. W. this is not to know at all what they say, but to set down words at Random. For let Christ's Transfiguration be a Figure, in whatever sense, yet how is it an Example to Us? Are we to be Transfigured, while upon Earth, as He was upon the Mount? And must the clothes we wear become White and Shining as His was then?  
Who would have found fault with Hubberthorn for saying that Christ was to be an Example to Us? Tho' the word But could not have passed even there. To say that Christ's coming in the Flesh was But an Example, as if it had been Intended for nothing else! And neither G. F. nor G. W. find any fault with this But of Hubberthorns, tho' it was objected; but Justify Hubberthorn in the whole. For it is the very Quaker Doctrine. viz. That the Birth, Sufferings, and Death of Christ, are but Types or Examples of all those things to be Performed more Eminently within Us; what Christ Did or Suffered Outwardly, they make but the History and even Facile Representations (as before has been said) of what was to be Accomplished in Man. Where the Atonement and Satisfaction for Sin is made, by the Birth, Sufferings, etc. of the Light within, and not by any thing which Christ suffered Outwardly for Us. For that we must Suffer the same ourselves, even Eternal Burn, and are Justified only by what We suffer, or the Light suffers In us; And not by the Sufferings of any Christ without Us, as before shown. p. 61. And this Regeneration wrought by the Light in our Hearts, they make to be a greater Mystery than the Incarnation of Christ, and His taking our Flesh upon Him in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin; who (according to them) was But a Type or Example of their Virgin Hearts, where the True Christ is Born, etc.  
But G. W. has another Text for his Figure, it is Heb. i. 3. where Christ is said to be The Express Image of His (Fathers) Person. Which G. W. will have rendered thus, The Express Figure of his Father's substance. He gives no Reason for the Fault he finds with our Translation. Yet, I suppose, he gave all he had. But however, what use can he make of it? That Christ was the Figure or Example of His Father's Substance? what is the Example of a Substance? And was Christ an Example to His Father? Alas poor Quakers! Every thing goes wrong with them! But Pursue this Antidoie. G. W. says p. 39 That the Quakers do own that Christ's outward Blood is a Part of His Sacrifice. But (George) what Part is it? this was put in but to Amuse. And by what is said above, if it be a Type, tho' the Chief Type, it can be no Part of the Sacrifice or Atonement: for, let me ask thee (George) Is not the Light within sufficient without something else? was there no Atonement before Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate? or was it the Virtue of that Death and Sacrifice of Jesus which did operate backward to those before Him, by Faith in Him who was to Come? or was there then another Atonement before He came? if so, was not that Atonement Perfect? then the outward Blood was no Part of it. Or were there Two Atonements? was that First, which the Quakers suppose made by the Heavenly Body, which, as G. Fox says, was Crucified when Adam fell, was that Perfect and Sufficient? If so, what needed Another? was the other which followed 4000 years after, any Part of it? And if not a Part then, how is it a Part now? But, George, thy Light and Life p. 55. has been before Quoted, p. 97. where thou opposes, the outward Blood of Christ, being Any way Meritorious to Salvation. Yet here thou allows it us as a Part of the Sacrifice, Great wits have short Memories.  
G. W. in the same p. 39 offers two mighty Arguments, why the Quakers do not make Christ without but the History, and the Light within the Mystery or Substance. First Argument. The Quakers make him (Christ) no otherwise than the Father has Appointed and made Him to be. This was strong! And, in favour to George, I pass it without any Reply. Second Argument. He (Christ) as in Himself, is the Substance of all Shadows, and the fullness of Light and Life. Who Doubts it George? But what Christ dost thee mean? thou sayest, As in Himself, didst thee not mean by this, The Light within? yea verily! then thy meaning is, that the Light within is the Substance of all Shadows. And this is the very thing that is Charged upon thee and thy fellow Quakers. Why didst thee not say that the outward Jesus of Nazareth who was Nailed to the Cross was the Substance of all Shadows? That would have been speaking Plain. But that was none of thy meaning. But by this Dodging way which thy Sincerity uses, we see thy meaning plain enough.  

1. Their Spiritual Body of Christ which they Suppose He ●●d from Eternity. And their Denial of his now Human Body in Heaven.  X. Yet they have a Salvo even for this (tho' full of more Contradictions) for (as before shown p. 13. etc.) they have a Notion of a Body which Christ had all along, before His Incarnation: And which sort of Body they now allow him to have in Heaven, but not that Body which He took of the B. Virgin, in which He Suffered, Died, and Rose again. And by the help of this Private Notion of a Body, they Deceive many People, who know it not, in their Confession to the Body of Christ now in Heaven, as if they meant the same Body that we do; which they do not; but they mean it only of that Spiritual Body, of the Second Adam's Nature, as they Phrase it, which they say Christ or the Light had before the First Adam was Created. And they say, that this Body of Christ is within them, as well as His Spirit. Indeed they are here in a monstrous Confusion, for by this Body, they mean the Spirit, and by a Spiritual Body they mean nothing but Spirit. However this serves them to Dodge and Deceive others. It was to meet with them in this, that the First and the Sixth Quaeres, of those given to their Yearly Meeting. 1695. were framed. viz. Do you believe in a Christ without you, Now in Heaven? And Quaer. 6. Is Christ now at this Day, and for Ever to come, Truly and Really a Man, in true and Proper Human Nature, without all other Men? But in their Pretended Answer to these Quaeres, they wave Answering Directly, and leave out the words without us, and without all other Men, and the word Human, upon which the Chief stress was laid, because they do believe that this Notional Body of Christ is within them, as well as His Spirit: Therefore they would not Answer to this. And, tho' this was again Pressed upon them, in the Conclusion of the Sn. and they were told of all this Dodging, and this was put upon them, as a Criterion to Clear themselves; and therefore they were Desired to begin their Answer to the Sn. with a Plain and Direct Ans. Yea, or Nay to these Two short Queres. Yet no Provocation can bring them to it. They will not yet Answer to it; for it Discovers the Heart of their Cause. It would totally overthrow their Ancient Testimonies, wherein they Deny, That Christ hath now a Body of Flesh and Bones Circumscript or Limited in that Heaven which is Above, and out of Every Man on Earth. These are the words of John Whitehead, in his Quakers Refuge Printed 1673. p. 40. And p. 41. he says that they are in the Error who would Limit it to a Particular Place, and out of every Man on Earth. for (says he) The Spirit and Body of Christ is not Divided; but wheresoever the Spirit and Life of Christ is, it is in the Body of Christ. This shows plainly what they mean. That the Body of Christ is not Now a Body Circumscript or Limited to any Place (and consequently it is no Body at all, for that is Inseparable from a Body) but that it is wheresoever His Spirit is, and that it is within them, and not without all other Men. Thus Edward Burough being Demanded, in these Positive Terms, Is that very man, with that very Body, within you, Yea, or Nay? And this he does not at all Deny, but Answers in the Affirmative. p. 149. of his works. The very Christ of God is within us. You must take the meaning of these men by Considering that to which they Answer; and which they oppose: for in a Limited sense, Christ, by His Holy Spirit and Influences, is within us; and Christ is The very Christ; so that there is a sense in which that Expression (tho' offensive in the wording of it) may be admitted: But then when we consider that which they Oppose, or to which they Answer, the meaning appears Plain. for why would they Oppose what they thought Orthodox?  
And this is the method by which we must understand G. Fox's Great Mystery, which is a Pretended Answer to 108 Books and Disputes against the Quakers. For G. Fox's own words are seldom either Sense or English; and he Miserably Misquotes and Mistakes their words whom he writes against; sometimes it appears to be on Purpose, and sometimes out of Pure want of Understanding: Half Knave, and Half Fool! But by Reading those Books which he opposes, you may Discover what he would be at. Instances of this, out of Number, can be given. Which, if any think it worth the while, are Ready to be Produced.  
But to the Subject we are upon. The first Book he Answers in his Great Mystery, is of one of the then Ministers Mr. Sam. Eton, called The Quakers Confuted. Printed. A. D. 1654. where p. 12. Mr. Eton makes as full a Confession as can be to the Inward Presence and Operation of Christ, by His Spirit in the Hearts of Believers. And therein (says he) they have Him: But they have not Christ in Flesh, or the Flesh of Christ dwelling in them; for that was taken up into Heaven, and will there be Contained, till the Restitution of All things. This G. Fox opposes in his Great Mystery p. 3. And Quotes thus much of his words, with the Page. But the Saints have not Christ in the Flesh. p. 12. And opposes this, as Contrary to Christ and the Apostles Doctrine; who said they were of His Flesh and of his Bone— and they that have His Flesh, have it in them. This shows in what sense he Understood these Scriptures; and what his Notion was of the Flesh of Christ. viz. That it was now at this time, in all Believers: and so not any Literal Flesh, but some Imagination or other that they have of Spiritual Flesh; which they think that God Himself has, and Christ or the Light had from all Eternity; so nothing of outward Human Flesh or Nature. Tho' if you take the word Human as it may be Derived from Homo a Man, thus they will allow that Christ has a True Human Body, and Ever had from Eternity, that is, a True and Real Manhood. In this sense it is said before p. 11. l. 8. that they allow the Body which they say Christ had from Eternity to be an Human Body. For there is no other word in Latin whereby to Express the Nature of Man, but Humanitas, whence we use the word Humanity to mean the same as Manhood.  
But if you Derive the word Human from Humus the Ground or Earth, of which Man was Made, in this sense the Quakers Deny that Christ had an Human Body from Eternity; or indeed while He was upon the Earth. For which I Refer you back to p. 19, 20. where you will find this Artfully Distinguished by the Quakers. But we will now go on to see the further Salvos that the Present Antidote affords in this Case.  

Their Denial that Christ had any Human or Created richer Soul or Body, while upon Earth.  2. G. W. Skips to p. 38. And takes up this Argument again, where he Pretends to Answer the objection of the Quakers making the Body of Jesus only a Veil or Garment, wherein Christ or the word Dwelled; but that He took not that Body into His own Person, so as to be Hypostatycally United to it.  
And to this, he says. p. 38. We are to seek herein, as not knowing where the Quakers say these things. Yet Answers not, or Names one of the many Proofs which are brought for this. (See Sn. Sect. x.) This would be very Provoking, but that I am used to it; for it is his Constant Method. Yet in the Excuse he makes for it, he Confesses enough, to show that the Quakers are Guilty herein. For, says he, Tho' His Flesh is called the Veil, yet it was that he owned as His own Body, being also called the Body of Jesus, which was not a Fantastical but a Real Body. Here is putting in things they are not Accused of, that they may seem to vindicate themselves in something. They are not Accused for saying that the Body of Jesus was a Fantastical, or not a Real Body; but that it was not Truly, that is, Hypostatically the Body of Christ, only a Veil or Garment wherein He Dwelled: And, in that sense, it was His Body, as a Man's Cloak or Garment is his Garment; and so it was that (as G. W. says) which Christ owned as his own Body; being also (adds he) called the Body of Jesus. i e. in some other sense than it was the Body of Christ. That is, It was the True, Proper, and Natural Body of the Man Jesus: But it was the Body of Christ, only as He Dwelled in it, in the Body of that man Jesus, as G. W. thinks He does in the Body of George Whitehead. Otherwise it could not be called the Body of Christ, and also (as G. W. here) the Body of Jesus. This must make Jesus and Christ to be Two Persons. For Example, if I should say the Body of George, which is also the Body of Whitehead, this would either be Nonsense; or else it must Divide George from Whitehead, and make the Body to belong to George in one sense, and to Whitehead in another.  
It is told before p. 17, 18. How nicely G. W. does Distinguish between Consisting and Having; and tho' he Allowed that Christ once Had a Body, that is in His Possession, as a man Hath an House or a Cloak: yet G. W. positively Denies That Christ did Consist of Human Flesh and Blood. And if so, Then He was never Truly and Really a Man: only such in Appearance and False-shew. Which overthrows the whole Foundation of the Christian Faith. And is an Abominable Heresy long since Condemned by the Catholic Church, as I have elsewhere shown: And that the Quakers have Licked it up, as they would Pretend, by Inspiration; which if so, was most Certainly from the Devil the Father of Lie. But let us see more of them. Richard Hubberthorn in his works, Printed. 1663. among several Queres which he puts against Christ's being a Creature, or having any Created Nature in Him, does Demand. p. 49. and 50. When was that Christ Created, which you say must as a Creature Judge the World? And if in Mary 's time, who was Judge of the World till then? Was not the Person of Christ Jesus before the World was? And when had the Man Christ Jesus his Beginning, if you can Declare it? How is Christ the only begotten Son of God, if He be a Creature, or how can God beget a Creature? And if the whole Person of Christ was not before the Earthly Adam, how was the Creation made by Him? Or how can He be of the Nature of fallen Adam, and not Earthly and Defiled? And is the Flesh of Christ Heavenly or Earthly? Or is He Christ without His Flesh? i. e. He had always an Heavenly Flesh, and that He has still: But never took Flesh of Adam's Nature; for than they think He must have been Defiled. As if He could not take the Nature without the Defilement, which was but Accidental to it. George Fox in his Great Mystery. p. 99 sets down this Principle, of the Professors (as he calls them) That Christ hath a Humane Reasonable Soul. And he Disputes against it, and Battles it as a Gross Error. For (says he) Is not a Human Soul, Earthly? for you say that Christ had a Human Soul, and is not Human, Earthly? And hath a Human Body, and is not a Human Body, an Earthly Body? was not the first man of the Earth, Earthly, and had an Human Body; the Second man, the Lord from Heaven? This is the Heavenly Body and Flesh which they suppose Christ had from Eternity. But here, and in many other Places, they Deny Christ to have either Human Body or Soul, or to be a Man, otherwise than, as they say, He was Man before the Creation. This being Urged against them by John Bunyan Minister of Bedford, who, in his Gospel-truths' Opened Sect. 18. takes pains to prove that the Christ who was Born of the Virgin was the true Saviour, and then Infers. p. 652 of his works in these words. How are they then Deceived who own Christ no otherwise than as He was before the world began— For in their owning of Him thus, and no otherwise, they do directly Deny Him to be come in the Flesh, and are of that Antichristian Party which John Speaks of. 1. Joh. iv. 3. Edw. Burrough Answers this Book of Bunyan's, and coming to this Passage, p. 142. of his works, he Repeats Bunyan's, words thus. How are they Deceived who own Christ no otherwise, than as He was before the world began etc. And instead of Clearing the Quakers from this Objection, or Disowning it to be a Principle of the Quakers, he stands by it, and pretends to give Reasons for it, as, Christ the same Yesterday, to Day, and for Ever. And that Christ was before Abraham etc. And falls upon Bunyan for his Grievous Ignorance, in not Apprehending this Quaker-Mystery, as he words it thus, To own Him (Christ) as He was before the world was, for Salvation. But that was not the Question. Bunyan's words, even as Repeated by Burrough, are not against owning Christ as He was before the World was (for that Bunyan and all Christians own) but against owning Him so, And No otherwise. i e. Not as having taken Flesh, in time, of the B. Virgin, having Suffered, and Died for us: for in that Respect, and not only as He was before the World was, Bunyan Contends that He was our Saviour. And Burrough opposing him in this, shows plainly what they mean viz. That Christ has now no other Flesh or Manhood than what He had before the World was; and that He is not our Saviour upon account of that Flesh of Jesus, which He Borrowed as a Veil to shroud Himself in for a time, or for what that Body suffered; but that He is our Saviour only as He was before the World was; and as they say that He is Inwardly now in their Hearts, in His Heavenly Flesh and Blood, which he had from Eternity. And the whole Merit and Atonement for Sin they place in the Inward Shedding of this Spiritual Blood in their Hearts; which they call the Sufferings of Christ, yes and of His Manhood too, of His Body and His Flesh! thus Bantering Mankind, while they Mean nothing of this of that Visible Body, in which He Appeared, in the Days of Pontius Pilate, and which was Nailed to the Cross; but of the Invisible Body, Flesh, Blood, and Bones of the Godhead. The Arch-Enemy having Taught them this Damnable Heresy, and thereby put the Grossest of Darkness for Light, and Defrauded them of whole Christianity, the Faith in the outward Jesus; and what He did and suffered outwardly for Us; tho' it be Inwardly Apprehended and Applied by Faith, which is the Gift of God. He of His Infinite Mercy Grant it at length to these Miserably Deluded Souls. For they yet stick fast in this Root of Bitterness, and Bond of Iniquity. As you may see in a Book lately Published by one of themselves, but who has, with others, happily Discovered the most Gross of their Heresies, this is one Daniel Leeds in America, his Book is Entitled News of a Trumpet Sounding in the Wilderness, Printed at New-York. An. 1697. And some Numbers of them are sent over hither. There, at the Conclusion of the Preface, he tells of the Doctrine which is, at Present, Preached among the Quakers in America. One Preached thus (says he) It is the work of the Devil to cause People that have Professed the Appearance of Christ in the Heart, to Respect the Person without them, Another Preached thus. I am Grieved that any, that have Professed the Light, should now direct the Minds of People to Respect him, as he is now in Heaven above the Clouds. Truly Friends, it is Delusion▪ Another Preached thus. There is that would have Flesh added in the Creed, but let them take it that will. I believe the Lord will give them his Plagues and Torments with it. Of this, a Quaker there, one Abraham Hulings complained; and gave in a Paper, with the above cited Quotations, under his hand, to the Quakers Church at Burlington, desiring them to censure this Doctrine. But they would not. On the contrary they Exccommunicated, or Disowned (as they Phrase it) this Hulings, for opposing this Doctrine. Moreover, says Dan. Leeds there is one John Humphrey, a Preacher near Philidelphia, that writes a Letter against G. Keith and his Friends, wherein he has this Expression, I am Grieved to hear some say, they expect to be Justified by that Blood that was shed at Jerusalem. In Justification of which Passage, he writes in another Letter thus. His (Christ's) own words will clear me from your Aspersion. Joh. 6.63. It is the Spirit that Quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing. So He himself ascribes the work of Man's Salvation and Sanctification, not to the Flesh that Suffered; but to the Spirit that Quickened: Not to the Blood that was shed at Jerusalem, but unto that Flesh and Blood which was Spiritual, etc. of this False Doctrine G. K. complained to the Quarterly Meeting at Philadelphia, but no Answer could he have, nor no Blame nor Condemnation must pass against their Brother John Humphrey for this False Doctrine; tho' it's near Six years since these Letters were Writ. Thus far Dan. Leeds. As to the Quakers misunderstanding of this, and other Texts in the 6th. of St. John, it is Rectified before p. 101. this Text. ver. 63. is an Explanation of ver. 53. viz. That it was Christ's Literal Flesh of which He spoke: but He corrected the Gross Conception of Eating it Literally; in which sense it would not have Profited any who had Eat it: But the Spiritual-Eating of it, by Faith, is that which Quickeneth. but the Quakers put the Figure and the Allegory upon the Flesh, as if it were not the Outward Flesh of Christ of which He spoke, but an Inward and Allegorical Flesh, by which they mean what they call their Light within: And so Enervat and Evacuat the Whole Foundation of the Christian Faith. Dan. Leeds Informs Us, That in America the Quakers had heard, that their Brethren in England, particularly at London, where most Notice has been taken of the Late Controversies with them, had begun, of Late, to Preach of an outward Christ, and of His Death and Sufferings. But this is only to Amuse. For, as has been said, they are not Charged with Denying the Matter of Fact, that Jesus of Nazareth did Suffer, as is Recorded of Him, in the H. Gospel: And which they now Preach, to make themselves Appear to be Christians: But who ever heard them Preach of Faith in Him, His outward Sufferings and Death, as of any Necessity to Salvation? This only is the Christian Faith. The other, of an Historical Belief that He did Suffer, is no more than what Jews and Mahometans do Confess; And which the very Devils do Believe, and Tremble. And no more have the Quakers yet Preached. But they think that a Great Deal; and are brought to it, with mere Force. For, till of late, the outward Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth was seldom or never so much as mentioned in any of their. Meetings, unless to Revile and cast Dirt upon Him. To give it as a Mark of False Ministers, 
Will. Smith's primer. p. 8. Gr. Mystery. p. 250.  to Preach Christ without, and bid People believe in Him, as He is in Heaven above. Nay as a Proof of their being Possessed with the Devil, as G. Fox Blasphemes, The Devil was in thee (says he to a Christian) Thou sayest thou art Saved by Christ without thee, and so hast Recorded thyself to be a Reprobate.  
But tho' the Quaker Preachers in London, to stop the Cry against them, have of late, submitted to Mention the outward Christ, with some seeming Respect: Yet, in the Country, where they have less Politics, and more Honesty, they cannot be brought even to that, as you may see in Sat. Dis. Glean. Sect. vi. N. 4. p. 94. And there are later Instances, which G. Keith met with in a Progress he made last Summer, by Invitation from some Quakers, who begin to open their Eyes, in Huntington-shire, and other Places thereabouts, where, tho' kindly Received, and the Doctrine he Preached of Faith in the Lord Jesus of Nazareth, and what He Did and Suffered for us, well Entertained and Listened to by several of the Sincere tho' Deluded among the Quakers: Yet it was a New Doctrine to them: And there were others who violently opposed this Doctrine, particularly of the Quaker both He and She-Preachers; one of which at St. Ives in Hunington-shire, asked him what Christ he Preached? He said, The Man Jesus of Nazareth, who was Born of the Virgin, Nailed to the Cross, etc. She asked, what was become of him? G. K. said, That He was gone into Heaven. What (said she) that Heaven above our Heads? Pointing upwards. Which she Ridiculed: And said she knew no Christ or Heaven but within herself. Thanked God, That she had Bread in her own House, and Water in her own cistern: And did not believe that there was any thing without her could do her any Good. And upbraided G. K. that he could not be content with the Ancient Doctrine of Friends, of Faith in the Light within, as alone sufficient to Salvation; and asked him, if now he would have any thing else? Or would he make himself Wiser than all the Friends who had gone before? And to the like purpose.  
A He-Preacher at Charteres in the Isle of Ely, being asked by G. K. What he supposed was become of that Body which Christ took of our Nature? Answered, That He left it behind Him when He Risen from the Dead. And he Professed to Believe in no other Christ, but only his Light within. G. K. met with several the like Instances in that Journey: Which I will not here Repeat, because we may have them, perhaps, in Reasonable time from himself. And these which I have mentioned are sufficient to show, that however some at London would Gloss it, the Quaker Faith is not Grounded upon our Lord Jesus of Nazareth, but upon their Light within, which they will sometimes so call, to Elude the world: And as they Believe not that Christ took our Nature Truly and Really into His own Person, while He was upon the Earth; but only as a Cloak or Veil to put about Him, for a time; so they think that He has now, ever since His Ascension, quite laid aside and thrown off that Veil of our Nature; and that He has nothing at all of it now in Heaven: But that He subsists there only in that Heavenly Humanity, Flesh, Blood, and Bones which they suppose He had from Eternity.  
And this being their Faith, they must needs think the Common Christ of all Christians, as a True and Real Man, subsisting in our Nature, now and for ever to come in Heaven, to be False and a Lie; and consequently to be an Idol, and our Worship of Him to be Idolatry: And as a necessary Consequence of this, they must Hate and Detest our Christ; they must Curse Him, and Renounce Him; as they have done, which I come next to show. And yet, at the same time they Pretend to Worship the same Christ with us: And produce their Testimonies to Christ, thereby Intending to make us Believe as if they were true Christians, because they use the word Christ and Jesus, as we do, but not in the same Sense; which they know right well in their own Consciences: Yet, in their Quaker Plainess and Sincerity, they would thus Put upon us! They Differ from us in the Object of our Faith, and not only in the Manner of our Worship, which Difference there may be, and there is among Christians; they Worship not the same Christ with us: For otherwise, if they only thought us Faulty in the Manner of our Worship, why wou●d they, for that, Curse and Damn our Christ Himself, call Him an Imagined God, and Utterly Deny Him? But to the Proof.  

Their Blasphemous Contempt of Christ.  3. The Quakers having thus Transferred the whole Merit towards our Salvation, from the outward Christ, to their Light within. They have set up these Two, as Inconsistancies, as Utter Enemies to one another. Which they must be, upon the Quaker Notion. For Both cannot be the Object of Faith: And since Both are made so, the one, by All Christians; the other, by the Quakers; one of them must be a False God, by the same Necessity, that the other is the True God. Therefore the Quakers, tho' in Gross Dissimulation with the World, they would seem to speak Honourably of our Blessed Lord, yet they mean it not of Him, but of what they call their Light-within, as has been Sufficiently shown.  
But, on the other hand, when they speak Plainly of Him, They Deny Him, they Renounce Him: Nay they Curse and Damn Him, as a False Christ, a False God. They send the whole Three Persons of the Holy and Ever B. Trinity into the Lake, and the Pit, as shown in the Second Part, p. 38. etc. And Boldly and Blasphemously say, That the Lord Jesus whom we Profess is Accursed. ibid. p. Edward Burrough p. 101. of his works, calls that Christ to whom we Pray, an Idol God, and a Dead God.  
Josiah Coale, of High Renown among the Quakers, in his Works, Collected and Reprinted An. 1671. opposing one John Newman, for saying If there be no Personal being of Christ, then there is no Christ to Exercise Faith in. Answers p. 336. By this kind of Arguments of J. N. if Faith be Exercised in a Personal Being of Christ, it's Exercised upon Fancy and Imagination, Which is very True; for a Personal Being of Christ is not Scripture. Here he makes a Personal Being of Christ to be nothing else but Fancy and Imagination, and consequently no Object of Faith. These works of Jos. Coale have Prefixed High Testimonies and Eulogiums from George Fox, G. Whithead, and from Will. Penn. Wherein there are Multitudes of the like Blasphemies.  
Having thus made a Personal Being of Christ now in Heaven to be nothing else but an Imagination of Christians, it follows, That the Quakers do think Him to be an Imagined God, as they say Expressly, in The Sword of the Lord drawn. p. 5. And here (say they) Sottish Minds, your Imagined God beyond the Stars, and your Carnal Christ— is utterly Denied, and Testified against by the Light which comes from Christ. So that, by this, the Personal Christ of Christians in Heaven, is an Imagined God, and a Carnal Christ, who is Utterly Denied and Testified against, by the Quakers Christ, I have before Quoted G. W. in his Light and Life. p. 54. Ridiculing of the Christians, for your Boasting (says he) of your God and Christ at a Distance above the Clouds, Stars, and Firmament. I Repeat it here, to show the Harmony of the Quakers, in the same Style and Sense. In the same page of The Sword before Quoted, the Quakers add, That this Christ the man of God, is God and Man in one Person, it is a Lie— And as for this Position, That Christ being the only God and Man in one Person, Remains for Ever a Distinct Person from all Saints and Angels, notwithstanding their Union and Communion with Him, the Quaker Answer is, your words are Utterly Denied and Detested, and your Distinctions are Abominable. The Spiritual Union and Communion with Christ, was Allowed to the Quakers: But that will not serve. They will have no such Person as Christ, but only the Light within, which is not a Person. And G. Fox, as before Quoted says, The Devil is in them, who Expect to be Saved by a Christ without them: tho' they Acknowledge, That it cannot be without the Operation of His H. Spirit within them; as the Person fully owned whom he opposed. But no Matter for that. They will have no outward Christ at all. And they make it a Mark of False Ministers to Preach of Faith in an outward Christ. Will. Penn Says (of which I have often Minded him) That the Person who suffered upon the Cross was Properly the Son of God, we Utterly Deny. And in his Sandy Foundation. p. 20. he calls Him a Finit and Impotent Creature.  
Will. Bayly, in his works. p. 307. says, what was his (Christ 's) Person, being mean and Contemptible, to them (His Diciples) more than another Person? And p. 600. etc. He vehemently opposes the Outward and Visible Christ to be the Saviour. He says, The Apostles, did not Preach a Visible Christ with Flesh and Bones: And he asks, who was Enoch's Saviour and the Prophets, who were before that Visible Flesh and Bones was? Then he Ridicules those, in the Quaker-Language before Mentioned, who Preach a Visible Man with Flesh and Bones, at a Great Distance from all People, Above, where the Sun, Moon, and Stars are. And p. 24, 25. Whosoever Preacheth, or causeth People to Believe their Saviour is without them, and that the Carnal Eye may behold His Glory, who is to be Revealed— I say, whosoever Preacheth to People of a Saviour without them— and of a Kingdom without them— I charge all such, in the Name of the most High God, To be Horrible Blasphemers, and Ministers and Messengers of the Devil. He adds, by way of Amusement, while the Light of Christ condemns them within, and while the Kingdom of God Suffereth violence within them. For even then, and then Chief, is the Faith in the outward Christ to be Preached to them, to Reclaim and Convert them. O no, say the Quakers, the outward Person of Christ is not the Mediator, or the Lamb of God, who takes away Sin: but only the Light in the Heart, for Christ is not any Person, 
See Sn. p. 140. and Sat. Dis. p. ●3. etc.  but only a Principle or Quality in the Heart. As Will. Penn says, What is Christ but Meekness, Justice, Mercy etc. who then can deny a Meek man to be a Christian? And W. Bayly here p. 38. Humility and Meekness in the Heart of God's Child, is a Mediator— it is the Lamb of God, that taketh away the Sin. And this the Quakers do worship, as Christ in them. G. Fox falls upon those. that are not worshipping Him (Christ) In them. 
Gr. Mist. p. 55.  But for the outward Christ, and His Sufferings the Quakers Despise them to that Degree, That they Prefer their own Sufferings to them. They say, that Their Sufferings are Greater, and more unjust than the Sufferings of Christ. 
See Sn. p. 134.135. etc.  That the Blood of Christ was no More than the Blood of another Saint. Nay they make it not so much as the Blood of a Quaker. For of Christ's Blood they say, Can outward Blood Cleanse the Conscience? etc. as we have heard. But of the Quakers Blood they say, 
The Guilty Covered Clergy. Man Unveiled. p. 17. An. 1657.  That those who shed it could not be Purged from that Gild, but by The Same Blood (of the Quakers) which they so Cruelly shed. I desire any Quaker to show such a Term of Respect to the Blood of Christ, which was shed upon the Cross, in all the writings of the Quakers. No. That cannot be done. But, on the Contrary, The outward Christ, and His Blood was that at which they Levelled all their Venomous Darts. They set up the Doctrine of Perfection in themselves, say They are Free from Sin, and therefore, from Repentance. But they will not allow that Prerogative to our B. Lord. It is told Sect. xiii. how R. Hubberthorn calls his opponent a Liar and a Slanderer, for saying, That Christ Himself was not Capable of Repentance; and says, He was Capable of Repentance. Which could not be, without being Capable of Sinning. For we are not to Repent of Good. But see how Differently some of them Treat James Naylor: They say of Him, That he Made himself of no Reputation, 
Hidden things brought to Light. p. 37. An. 1678.  yea Sin, that Knew none. Yet I cannot think they will say, That Christ had Sin. But their Malice to Christ is, because the Christians do Worship Him; Which Transports the Evil Spirit that Possesses them, beyond all Rules of Sense or Reason. In a Paper of Queres of some Quakers about Cambridge An. 1655. Subscribed by Thomas Biddal, they say thus to the Christians there. The Great Delusion, Sorcery, and Bewitched Doctrine that you are under, of these Bewitching Simon Magus Sorcerers, which have put you upon a Christ Crucify'd without you, notwithstanding you and the Rest, are in your Filthiness, and First Nature. This is there said to be Written from the Spirit of the Lord, and that The Lord Revealed this by His Spirit in them. These Queres are Printed by one Thom. Moor in his Antidote against the Spreading Infections of the Spirit of Antichrist. An. 1655. p. 68 etc. And pretended to be Answered by G. Fox in his Gr. Myst. p. 132. etc. but no notice is taken of this Passage. Which G. F. does not Deny. As for that Softening stroke at the end of this Quotation, Notwithstanding you and the Rest, are in your Filthiness, it has been Answered already, to be no Reason against Preaching of the Crucifi'd Jesus; but rather on the Contrary, as the Best Remedy against Sin.  
But the Quakers sometimes Pretend, That by their Preaching against the outward Christ, they only mean to oppose those, who Totally Exclude, the Sanctifying Graces of His H. Spirit within Us. But this is a most Horrible False Pretence, against their own Consciences; for they know that there were none such who Opposed them. And all those Books that I have seen, to which G. Fox Answers in his Gr. Mist. are Particularly Large and Full upon that Point. This Moor, p. 32. Says That Jesus, who is Personally Absent from the Believer, is Dwelling in the Believers Heart, by Faith of and in Him, and so the Father, in and through Christ. Which G. Fox Opposes. p. 135. And will have the very Person of Christ in Believers. Another, one Ra. Farmer wrote against the Quakers, in the same year 1655. a Book which he Entitled Mystery. Babylon the Great etc. where in his Preface, he Explains himself thus. Though God, and Christ, and Scriptures, and Ordinancies be; and be never so Glorious and Excellent, yet if they be not In thee, in their Life and Power and Efficaciously Reforming and Conforming Virtue, they are to thee as if they were not at all, or Worse: But whenever they shall be in thee; let the Measures and Degrees be never so High, they will and must also be Without thee, and shall never be Indistinctly the Same with thee. This he Prosecutes further in his Book p. 26. and speaks against such a Notion of God and Christ within, as to make Void the Efficacy of His outward Sufferings at Jerusalem. And this too G. Fox Opposes in his Gr. Mist. p. 173. I could give a Multitude of such Instances. I am the Larger upon this, because it is the only Fig-Leaf the Quakers have left to Cover their Hellish Heresy, in their Contempt and Blasphemy which they Spew out against our B. Saviour, His Precious Death and Passion for our Redemption.  
Let me take this Place, to answer the Last Effort of the Quakers, upon this Head; and which being sufficiently Cleared, leaves their Cursed Heresy Naked and Exposed to the Abhorrence of All Christians.  
The Quakers are told of this their Artifice, in Sat. Dis. Sect. 1. N. ix. p. 12. To. which G. W. Replies in this Antidote p. 210. 211. And Repeats the Charge against them thus. To my Adversaries confidently Asserting (says he) That J. Faldo, nor any other did ever oppose this, That they should Preach Only the Incarnation and Sufferings of Christ at Jerusalem i. e. without Freaching likewise the Inward operations of His Spirit in our Hearts. And that if Will. Penn, or Thom. Elwood cannot Name one single Man, much less any of those Communions which he Disputes against, that ever thought Christ's outward Appearance would save them, without His Inward Appearance, in their Consciences, then against whom have they Disputed? The Objection being thus stated (wherein I take no Notice of his misplacing some words, to hurt both the Sense and the English) he Answers thus. Yes I can Name one Single Man, whom he has Vindicated against Us. (in G. K's behalf) who has both thought and said as much as, That Christ's outward Appearance and Sufferings has saved them, without his Appearance or Work in them; And that is the said Rob. Gordon; And it's Charged against him, among his many other Corrupt Doctrines, by G. Keith. in My and his Book, Entitled, The Nature of Christianity. p. 70. 71. Artic. 1. That Christ without Us upon the Cross, hath already subdued all things, finished Transgression, Made an end of Sin, abolished Condemnation and Death.  
Art. 8. That Redemption, Justification, were finished and Completed in the Crucify'd Body of Christ for Us, not in our Persons.  
Art. 12. That Redemption and all things are wrought, Purchased for Us, without the help of any thing to be wrought in Us.  
So that here was one Man (i. e. R. G. and too many more) that laid the whole stress and work of Man's Salvation, Only upon Christ's outward Appearance and Suffering, without His Inward Appearance and Operations by His Spirit in Us.  
I have given G. W's words at large, because upon this Depends the whole Cause of Quakerism. Therefore I will Examine them Fully and Fairly.  
But first, let me take notice of the Modesty of the Quaker-stile. In My and His Book says G. W. It found'st Harsh in English, because, so Unusual. But G. W. would not Give Place to G. K. He Reserves His Dignity! And Common Civility is an Heresy among the Quakers.  
But now to our Work. And first, I observe, That G. W. has left out, in the Articles he Quotes out of His and G. K's Book, the pages in R. Gordon's Book, called A Testimony to the true Saviour, to which their Nature of Christianity is in Answer. For there the Pages of R. G's book are Quoted after Each Article. Which was wisely done of G. W. That none might know where to find the Quotations, unless they would have Recourse to G. W's Nature of Christianity, which not one of a Thousand knows where to find. It was Printed An. 1671. and now hardly to be Got. And G. W. not only leaves out the Pages, but does not so much as Name that Book of R. G's out of which they are taken, that his Reader might be left Sufficiently in the Dark. And that he had Good Reason so to do, will soon Appear. To These Articles here Quoted, these pages of R. G's Testimony are added in The Nature of Christianity. viz. p. 3. 4. 5. 20. And whoever will Read these, will see R. G. fully Clear himself from this Imputation cast upon him; and that he had given no Ground at all for these Objections made against him.  
P. 4. and 5. he makes Two great Gospel Truths. The first, God manifest in the Flesh of Christ, whereby Christ became our H. Priest in the Flesh, therein to offer up himself, the one Perfect Sacrifice, Sufficient Atonement, the Complete Peace-Offering, Once for Ever, not often, and in Every Generation, and in Many Bodies (as the Quakers say he Daily offers Himself in their Bodies) but in One Body, by one Offering, not in our Persons, or Within Us (which is the Exact Quaker Notion) but in His Crucifi'd Body without Us, and before any Good wrought in Us; whereby He hath already subdued all things, finished Transgression, made an end of Sin, Abolished Condemnation and Death; and so hath for Ever, as our Head, in Himself completed the work of our Redemption and Reconciliation with God for Us; God thereby commending His Love towards Us, that, while we were yet Sinners, Christ Died for Us, when we were Enemies, we were Reconciled to God, by the Death of his Son,  
The other Truth is the Mystery of Christ, by His Spirit, Dwelling in His Saints, called in the H. Scripture, Christ within you; whereby God works In Us, through Faith in Christ, the Fruit and Effect of the work already wrought by Christ, in His Crucifi'd Body, for Us, without Us.  
And then he tells that for which he Reprehends the Quakers, viz. That they Pretend so much zeal for this Mystery of Christ within, the Operations and Actings of the Spirit of God in themselves, That they Deny the Mystery of God in the Flesh of Christ, as a Matter of no Necessity to them, as to Redemption, Reconciliation and Justification; Reckoning to Accomplish this, in their own Bodies, Each for himself, through Obedience to the Law or Light in his Conscience: which Light they call Christ, Redeemer, and only Saviour; without Respect to the true Christ, and our only Saviour, Jesus Christ of Nazareth and Redemption already wrought and Accomplished for Us, in His Crucifi'd Body. Thus Plainly does R. G. Express himself, Giving full Testimony to Christ within, Dwelling in our Hearts by Faith: But Disputes only against that Quaker Heresy, of Placing the Sacrifice and Atonement for Sin, in the offering up of this Light within, Performed in their Hearts; and throwing off the Sacrifice and Atonement made by the offering which Christ made of Himself for Us, upon the Cross, as of no Efficacy to our Salvation. This is it, for which the Quakers so violently oppose him, and which G. W. here calls Corrupt Dectrin.  
And observe, That in the 12 Art. above Quoted, R. G's words are Recited Imperfect; for after the last words here put down. viz. without the help of any thing to be wrought in us, there follows in R. G's words p. 20. so as to Atone with God for Us. which Explains his Meaning, and is most Orthodox viz. That nothing Performed In us, is the Atonement or Satisfaction for our Sins. But this, in no ways, Hinders, or Denies the Necessity of the Inward Presence, and Operations of his H. Spirit, to Sanctify our Hearts; whereby only that Atonement Performed by Christ, in His own Body, without Us, is Applied, and Made Effectual to Us. Which R. G. over and over again, not only Asserts, but Zealously Contends for it.  
Now let the Reader Judge, whether G. W. has found an Instance in R. G. of one who Asserted, That Christ's outward Appearance and Sufferings, would save any, without His Appearance and Work in them? The doing Right to R. G. is not the Matter. I should not have Detained the Reader so long, merely for that. But, by this it is very Evident, That the Quakers have all along opposed the Christian Doctrine, and Rejected all Faith, in our Lord Jesus of Nazareth, as to our Redemption or Salvation, by His Death and Sacrifice of our Sins upon the Cross. Why else did they Oppose (and that so Vehemently) those who Preached this Doctrine: and who also owned the Inward Presence and operations of Christ, by His B. Spirit in our Hearts; not only as Beneficial, but Absolutely Necessary towards our Salvation; and without which, That the outward Sufferings of Christ, and all His Ordinances, would be to us, as if they were not at all, or Worse, as before Quoted? Why did G. Fox, G. Whitehead, and all the Quakers oppose this? They have Nothing left to say, But that those whom they Opposed did Deny the Inward operations of Christ in the Heart and that in this only they did oppose them, Which being most False; and they not being able to Produce one Single Person, who did Oppose them In this; shows what that was wherein they did Oppose them. Or if they could find such a Single Person, why did they oppose Others, who had sufficiently Explained themselves In this, such as these before Named? Why did they call These Devils, Anti-Christians, Sorcerers, for Preaching of Faith in Jesus of Nazareth? Why did they Belch out, in Fury, such Spiteful and Blasphemous Contempt, as before Quoted, against the Person of our B. Lord Jesus? Why did they call Him Accursed! Let them hear the Apostle, That no Man Speaking by the Spirit of God, calleth Jesus Accursed: 
1 Cor. xii. 3.  And that no Man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Therefore till they come, not only to say, but to Believe this, they may be sure, That it is not the Spirit of Christ, but of Antichrist by which they are Acted. And they cannot Truly Believe this, without not only being willing, but in an High Degree Zealous, to Confess, Retract, and Condemn, the Above Quoted, and all other their vile Contempts, and Outrages against our B. Lord and only Saviour Jesus Christ.  
I could bring Multitudes of Quotations to the same Purpose of these before Produced, be sides what are offered in the Sn, to which G. W. has not answered: which we may easily suppose he would have done, if he could have found any thing tolerable to have said to them: And till he, or some other of the Quakers, shall think fit to Answer to these, it is needless to Cloy the Reader with more; These being sufficient to let him see into the Depth of the Quaker Heresies, and Clear his way from their Little Subtleties with which they use to Hid and Cover them.  
G. W's. Immethodical way has carried me from p. 30. of his Antid. to p. 38. because both speak of the same thing, and I would save Repetitions: for which Reason I must pass all he says from p. 30. to 35. which is a going over and over the same again and again; Denying the Charge, but not Answering of the Proofs.  

Their Contempt of the Holy Scriptures.  XI. He comes p. 35. to the Charge against them of Contemning the Holy Scriptures, calling them Beastly-ware, Death, Dust, and Serpents-meat, etc. He could not, nor does he Deny the Quotations where these names are given to the Holy Scriptures, for the Quaker Books and Pages are Particularly set down. Yet he most Impudently Denies that they have called the Scriptures by such Names. Tho' perhaps (says he p. 36.) making a Trade upon Scripture, or Preaching for Hire or Moncy, hath been so called by some or other. Here is a Perhaps, and a some or other to throw us off again! And to make us believe, that such Names were never given to the Scriptures, but only to the making a Trade of them. For which I must Desire the Reader to look again into the Quotations in the Sn. and he will there see what a Guilty and utterly False Excuse and Put off this is. For these Names are given to the Holy Scriptures, to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So that his Perhaps is most Certainly; and most Certainly G. W. knew it to be so, tho' he, with a Quaker Sincerity and Plainess, would have it only pass for a Perhaps. And for his some or other, as if he knew not who it was that said any such thing, there is mention made before of a Passage, and it is Quoted in the Sn. p. 342 of the First Edit. (it is p. 110. of the Third Edit.) of one George Whitehead, in his serious Apology. p 49. where he says, that what is spoken by the Spirit of Truth in any. (i. e. of the Quakers,) is of as Great Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are, and Greater. Mark that (George!) of Greater Authority than the Scriptures! so that, by this, all Thy Preachments, and of others Thy Quakers, which you say are spoken by the Spirit of Truth, are not only of as Great, but (George!) of Greater Authority than the Holy Scriptures. And what more Vile Contempt could be put upon those Sacred Oracles than to compare them to the most Senseless and Blasphemous Ramblements that ever came out of the Mouths of Men! Nay, to Prefer these and all their Cursed and Furious Venom, and Beastly Nastiness (see Sn. Sect. xvii.) to the Holy Scriptures of God Now (George) are The Scriptures, only the Preaching for Hire! when you Question whether the First Penman of the Scripture was Moses or Hermes, whether there are not many words contained in the Scriptures, which were not spoken by Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, whether some words were not spoken by the Grand Impostor; some by False Prophets, and yet True; and some by. True Prophets, and yet False, etc. And thy own Excuse for all this, that this was meant only against some Parts of the Scriptures, as in Sn. p. 86. Was all this only against Preaching for Hire? When G. Fox said in his Gr. Mystery. p. 302. That the Scripture is not the ground of Faith. That the Scriptures being outward Writings, Paper and Ink is not Infallible, nor is not Divine. And p. 246. when he says of the H. Scriptures, that They are not the word of God. And in his News coming out of the North. p. 39 where he argues against those who Plead for the Scriptures, he says Hebrew, Greek, and Latin is your Original— you say that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is the Gospel, which is Carnal etc. was this only Preaching for Hire? Now (George) be Ashamed and Blush (if Thou Canst) and Confess and Retract (if Thou beest a Christian) all your Horrid Contempt and Blasphemy against the H. Scriptures of God; and Preferring all your own Gross Delusions before Them, which are your Life. Deut. xxxii. 47.  
This is all that G. W. says to this Point. And yet in his Contents he Intituls this, The Quakers cleared from Calumnies, in that Point. This is the Clearing! But some Read the Contents of Books, who Read not the Books: And such must think, that something Material is Performed, where so much is Promised. And such only can be Satisfied with this and other Quaker Answers and Defences. See more, upon this Head of the H. Scriptures, in Sect. xiv. xv. xuj.  

Their Conforming and Transforming to Every Turn.  XII. He comes, in the next place, p. 37. to answer their Conforming and Transforming to every Change and Turn of Government that happened in their times: and brings a witty Distinction, he says they did not Change, In point of Worship, Principle, Faith or Discipline. This they borrowed from the Church of Rome, which only, with the Quakers, pretend to Infallibility: And when Pressed with their many Rebellions and Treasons, which they have Raised and Fomented; their Hypocrisies and Dissimulations, Breach of Faith, and other Immoralities of their Popes etc. then they come in with the Distinction, which G. W. here uses, That their Infallibility stands nevertheless Firm and Sure, that is, as to Matters of Faith. Of the Difference betwixt the Pretensions of the Church of Rome and the Quakers to this Distinction it is spoke to in the Sn. Sect. vi. n. 1. And I shall have occasion hereafter to speak further of their Infallibility: only, for the Present, let us take Notice, That here G. W. owns all the Quaker-Treasons and Rebellions, their Trimming, Conforming, Transforming &c. still as the Cards turned. Moreover their Cursing and Damning the King and all the Loyal Party: their Encouraging the Rebels and Usurpers of England to shed more Blood, and carry Slaughter and Destruction into other Countries, throughout all Europe, and even to the Ends of the Earth. And all this, not only as their own Advice or Direction; But as the Immediate Command of God, and Given forth in His Name, and by His Authority. As is shown at Large in the Sn. Sect. xviii. However what cares G. W. for all this! they are Safe as to Worship, Principle & c! But in the same Sect. it is shown, That after the Restauration. 1660. the Quakers did quite Altar and Change their Principle, as to Fight; or else they Lied. So that here is Changing of Principles too (George) And many other Principles besides this, even quite through all or most of your points of Doctrine; which, of Late, you would Chop and Change and Face about from your Ancient Testimonies, they being Discovered past Defence. But never the less Infallible for all this! What signifies a Lying, Cursing, Damning, Blasphemous, Traitorous, and Nasty Infallibility, so it be Infallible Still! so Worship, so Principles be sound! tho' this Infallibility is their Main Principle!  
But Infallibility is not the Article we are now upon. It is the Quakers Changeability, and unconstancy; and from hence, as G. W. quotes the Improvement made of it in the Sn. p. 285. (it is p. 227. of the Third Edit.) Judge whether these be sound Principled men, that can Turn, Conform, and Transform to every Change according to the Times, whether these be fit men to Teach People? Now does not the Reader think that these are the words of the Sn. spoken of the Quakers? which I thought (because they are truly applicable to them) till I turned to the Place, and there I found, That they are the very words of a Declaration of the Quakers, after the King came home 1660 (only Recited in the Sn.) and they Pointed them against the Presbytcrians and other Dissenters who had been Trimmers under the several Usurpations; and therefore urged against them that they were not sit to be Admitted as Teachers of others, who had been so Unconstant and Wavering themselves.  
But to show how Cursorily G. W. Read over the Sn. if ever he Read it All (he was soon weary of it) he thought that these words, which he Repeats out of the Sn, had been spoken against the Quakers: and therefore he cries out upon them (ut Supra. p. 37.) These are still Deceitful and Envious Suggestions. Thus handsomely giving himself a Box on th' Ear; for the Deceit and Envy are the Quakers, being their own words. Well! Really this George is Excellent Company! He cannot hear an Ill word said, but he must apply it to the Quakers. Guilty Conscience! Like the man, who hearing some cry out a Whore in the street, asked how they came to abuse his Wife. But these are still Deceitful and Envious Suggestions! Therefore (George) come along with me to the Next.  

Their making no Confession of Sin, or Praying for Pardon.  XIII. In the Sn. p. 313. and 314. of the First Edit. (Sect. xxiii. N. seven. of the Third Edit.) it is told that the Quakers, out of their Conceit of Absolute and Senseless Perfection in themselves, do never Pray for Remission of Sin, as Supposing they have none to be Forgiven. And there is Public Notice given in these words, If any can give Evidence, that ever he heard, at any Quaker Meeting, Remission of Sins Prayed for, he is Desired, for the Vindication of the Truth, to Declare it. All this G. W. passes over. Nor does he himself say that ever he heard the Quakers Pray for the Remission of their Sins. But he takes hold of a Charitable Prayer of the Author's for them, bemoaning the Desperateness of their Condition, who will not so much as Ask, and therefore have no Promise to Receive Pardon for their Sin: Their way being Blocked up by a Proud and Blind Conceit of their own Perfection, from Seeking, or so much as Wishing to Return from their Sins! Therefore Prays that Author for them, The Lord help them, and hear our Prayers for them, since they will not Pray for themselves. Of these only words G. W. takes hold: And first he (after his Christian Manner) Returns him Reproaches for his Prayers, just Trans-versing our Saviour's Command, to Return Prayers for Reproaches. Thus have they learned Christ! But he says that the Author of the Sn. has herein Notoriously Belied the Quakers, in saying that they do not Pray for themselves. Remember (George) that the Prayers which are spoke of in that Place of the Sn. are Prayers for the Remission of Sins, of these only was what above is Quoted Spoken: and if Thee meanest any other, Thee Dodgest George, and Actest not Sincerely, tho' very like a Quaker! Therefore we will suppose (to save thy Reputation) that Thee dost mean by the Quakers Praying for themselves, their Confessing of their Sins, and Praying for the Forgiveness of them. And now George, tell us, Didst Thee ever hear such Prayers in any Quaker-Meeting? Didst Thee ever Pray after this fashion among the Friends? No. Thee canst not say it. How then are the Quakers Notoriously Belied, in saying they do not Pray for themselves, when in the same Place, it is over and over again plainly Expressed, that the Praying there spoke of is for the Remission of Sins, and of no other sort of Prayers; and the Reason given shows it, viz. That the Quakers think themselves to be Perfect, and without Sin; and therefore do not make any Confession of their Sins, or Beg Pardon for them. Now what has this to do with any other sort of Prayers? of which G. W. wittingly and willingly Means what he says here of the Quakers Praying for themselves, when he knew that it was meant quite otherwise in the Sn. which he pretends to Answer. This he must own, Unless he can Produce Vouchers for their making Public Confession of their Sins, and Ask Pardon for them. But since he himself (the Eldest Preacher now among them) cannot Vouch it, I think we may Despair of any other. If there needed further Vouchers, I could Produce Many, even as Many of their Hearers as will speak the Truth. But I will give one Remarkable one which will show that it is not Forgetfulness in them, but against their Principle. Mr. Thomas Crispe was of their Communion about 30 years, a Constant Hearer, and a Zealous Sufferer too among them. But he took offence at their never having any Confession of Sin, or Prayer for the Remission of it, in their Public Meetings; and complained of it above 20 years ago. But no Rectification— No not at this Day, when they are putting a new Face upon all their Matters; But they will not be brought to this, to Confess themselves Sinners; for than they might be brought to Repentance; of which they Declare themselves Incapable. For this, among other vile Heresies, Mr. Crispe has separated from them; of which he has given us a very Good Account, in Several Treaties he has wrote against the Quakers. They who were of them, must know them best. Let me give another Authority, of Daniel Leeds before mentioned, in his News of a Trumpet, Sounding in the wilderness. etc. p. 138, 139. he Charges them, in these words. You do never in your Meetings Pray for Pardon or Forgiveness of Sin (not that I have heard in Twenty years Due Attendance) for seeing it is Christ in you that Prays, there is no need of it, He being without Sin. Secondly, You do not Pray to Christ, because it being Christ in you that Prays, it is Absurd for Christ to Pray to Himself. Thus you see their Practice is Uniform, all the world over: yet not Consistent with itself. For Rich. Hubberthorn p. 20. of his works, Collected and Reprinted An. 1663. Repeating this Assertion of R. Sherlock his Opponent, viz. Christ Himself was not Capable of Faith and Repentance. Answers, Here I Charge thee to be a Liar and a Slanderer; for He was Capable of Faith and Repentance. Now, How Christ Himself was Capable of Repentance, who never did Sin: And yet the Quakers to be above Repentance, is left for them to Explain. Fran. Bugg, in his Picture of Quakerism. Printed. 1697. says p. 64. That he had been more than 25 years among the Quakers, and a Principal-Member, Yet never had heard any such thing among them. Moreover that he had Read the Chief of their Books (of which he there sets down a Catalogue) and tho' there are some Prayers in them, yet nothing like Confession of Sin, or Begging for Pardon of Sin, is to be found in any of their Writings; and he Provokes them to show any Quotation of this sort, out of all their Books. He names p. 68 a Book of George Whitehead's. called Judgement Fixed, Printed. 1682 where there is a Long Prayer of near 5 pages, beginning at p. 354. filled with nothing but Pharisaical Boasts of his own Perfections, and Appeals to God, with Imprecations and Reproaches upon his Adversaries: But not one syllable either of Confession of Sin, or Ask Mercy for it. I would not take Bugg's word (tho' I had no cause to doubt it) lest G. W. should Reproach me with trusting to his Authority: But I procured this Book of G. W's. and have it now before me, with his Long Appeal and Supplication, as he himself calls it; which contains Prayers  
— not so like Petitions,  
As Overtures and Propositions.  
And now, upon the whole Matter, after all the Wriggling, and Dodging that G. W. or any of the Quakers can use, it must be Known to all the World, and without Contradiction, what sort of Christians these Quakers are, viz. such as cannot make use of The Lord's Prayer; unless, as one of their Preachers C. H. who taking occasion to Repeat it in one of his own Prayers (perhaps on Purpose) left out the Petition for Forgiveness of our Trespasses, as Useless (forsooth!) to the Quakers. It was not made for them! Nor they for it! Unless they can have Liberty to Mend it, as they have done to the Creed, and the Decalogue; All of which Articles, and Commands they have Reduced to One, viz. Harken to your Light within. For this, with them, is the only Rule for all Matters both of Faith and Practice.  
But to see the Artifice and snare of the Devil, in which these men are Caught; They who are too Good for The Lord's Prayer, have Coppy'd exactly after the Prayer of the Pharisee Luk. xviii. 11. George Whitehead's seems to be taken word for word out of it; only Enlarges it, and far Exceeds that Pharisee in High Pride and valuing of His own Worthiness! The Pharisee only Thanked God, That he was not as other men are, Extortioners, unjust, Adulterers, that he Fasted, and Gave Tithes of All That he did Possess. These all were Duties Incumbent upon all; and the Neglect of which had been a Sin in any. But that is nothing to George Whitehead's Rant! Being Free from Sin, that is the Prerogative of every Quaker! That was a Poor Matter for the Top-Apostle! He tells God, in this Prayer, of his Extraordinary Gifts, for which he is so Civil as to thank Him, for his Christian Spirit, his Faith, and not only Patience but Rejoicing under all his Sufferings, for his Righteous Judgement, and for his Understanding too (he would not thank God for Nothing) and for his Zeal, which was Most of All! And that Thou hast Raised me up (Says he to God) in Defence of thy Gospel, to vindicate thy Truth etc. Thou knowest (Says he) the Integrity of my Soul before Thee— and that I have not sought to Exalt myself, nor any Popularity, Party, or Interest to myself, but only thy Glory, and the Good of Souls. Thou knowest that in the first Place my Soul hath sought for Peace— Thou knowest that thou hast Endued me with a Christian Spirit, and with Faith, Patience etc. Thou hast also Endued me with the Spirit of Righteous Judgement, Understanding etc. O my God as I have Eyed Thee— so I Recommend to Thee, to Plead and Justify My Cause etc. we say one Good turn Deserves another— Was there ever such High Arrogance, and Setting forth his own Excellencies in the Presence of God, And to His very Face! Before whom the Holy Job said, 
Job. xlii. 6.  I Abhor myself, and Repent in Dust and Ashes. But he was an Underling to George Whitehead, or the Meanest Quaker! They do not Abhor, but Vaunt themselves! they scorn to Repent, for they have nothing to Repent of! They are Clean and Pure as God who Chargeth his Angels with folly: 
Job iv. 18. xv. 15. See before Sect. seven. p. 87.  and the Heavens are not Clean in His Sight. But the Quakers Dare Reckon with Him, when He Pleases, and think they can stand the utmost Demand of His Extremest Justice; for that they own Him Nothing! as Edw. Burrough says p. 32. of his works, That God doth not accept of any, where there is any Failing, or who doth not Fulfil the Law, and doth not Answer every Demand of Justice. See how Literally these Quakers are Described, and their Fearful Condition, 1 Joh. 1.8, 9, 10. If we say that we have no Sin, we Deceive ourselves, and the Truth is not in us— If we say that we have not Sinned, we make Him a Lyar. But Solomon Eccles the F●dler, and Quaker-Prophet, in his Musick-Lecture. p. 22. Returns the Lie upon St. John, if he Included himself amongst the Sinners, as he Evidently does, speaking in his own Person, as well as of others, If We say— But Crowdero Answers with a Home Stroke, I do Affirm (Says he) that if John had said he had been a Sinner, he had Lied. Therefore, since all the Rest of Mankind do confess themselves to be Sinners, except the Quakers, it is not strange to sinned this vile Scraper Determine thus Positively, in his Quakers Challenge. p. 3. That the Quakers are in the Truth, and None but They. Here they Exclude all the World. And All the World have Reason to Exclude them. He that Confesseth and Forsaketh his Sin shall have mercy. Prov. xxviii. 13. What Mercy then can these men have, who are so far from Forsaking this their Blasphemous Pride, that they will not so much as Confess it! Pride was the First Sin, and of all others, sets us farthest off from God: And of all Pride, the Proud— Humility is the Greatest. This Hypocrytical Humility is the widest Distance from the True v Christian Humility, Hates and Abhors it, and Falls upon it, wherever it meets it. See how the Quakers Insult and Triumph over Mr. Crisp for Confessing himself a Sinner, in their Rabshakeh Rebuked. Printed 1695. Which was wrote in Answer to two Papers that Mr. Crisp (before mentioned) had Published against the Quakers, in the first of which, called An Essay towards the Allaying of George Fox his Spirit. p. 1. he Expresses himself thus, in a Christian Humility, in Answer to their Abuses of him, They cannot Represent me a Greater Sinner than (I thank God) I think myself to be. Upon this they fall upon him. p. 5. of the Introduction. And first, to show their Sense or Sincerity, they would make Mr. Crisp to thank God for his being a Sinner; whereas any but a Malicious Quaker, must have seen, at first view, that he thanks God for the Sense which He had given him of his Sins. And it would be a Matter of Great thanksgiving to the Quakers, if the like Grace of Humility were Granted unto them. Pray God, of His Mercy, Give it them; else their Salvation is without All the Promises of the Gospel. But the Quakers from this Confession of Mr. crisps, Charge him Home, and say, that, by this, he owns all that they said against him, as to the Abusing of them and their Writings, nor is it Possible (says the Penman) for me to Wrong him; for let me Represent him how I will, I cannot Represent him a Greater Sinner than he thinks himself to be, and Thanks God for it too. And says that if they should Represent him to be a Whoremonger, Profane Swearer, Drunkard, or Idolater etc. this Confession of his Includes, not only all those, but all other Sins, of all sorts and kinds, how Gross soever. such Bitter Enemies are they to Confession! What sort of a Sinner would they have Made St. Paul, at this Rate, from his Confession 1 Tim. 1.15. that he was the Chief of Sinners! And to Dispute against these Brutes, is a Martyrdom like that of his, who was Condemned to Fight with less Guilty Beasts at Ephesus. But I have Undergone it, for their Good; tho' I Receive the Thanks for it of him who would Rouse a Sluggard out of his Sweet Slumber. But some of them have been Roused, therefore I Cease not my Pains to Recover more of them; at least to Prevent others from falling into their Pit of Destruction.  
I have Insisted longer upon this Point than was needful to overthrow the Poor Answer which G. W. gives to it; But I did it, because this is a Material Point, it is the very Bolt of the Door which shuts the Quakers up in their Darkness, by Persuading them never to Consider any more, and be sure never to Repent. i e. That they Repent once for all, when they first turned Quakers; But after that, they are Sinless and Perfect, and so need no more Repentance. G. Whitehead Denies, That there is Continual need of Repentance; and Thomas Elwood Justifies him in this (See Sat. Dis. Sect. v. N. 2. p. 51.) As he does likewise in G. W's Assertion, that the Righteousness in the Quakers is not Finit, but Infinite (ibid. Sect. 2. N. 7. p. 36.) And then indeed what need of Repentance to the Quakers! They are Past Repentance.  
But G. W. Changes his Tune, in his Christian Epistle, to Friends. An. 1689. For there he Complains Grievously of their Great Corruptions; not only of a Few, but that Few of them, Nay very Few were what they ought to be. very Few (says he p. 9) have their Minds Exercised in frequent Prayer, or in Heavenly Meditation etc. But too many have their Hearts taken up with these Fading Objects, and things Below, Minding Earthly things etc. And p. 10. he Charges them with Degenerating into Pride, and Height of Spirit and Apparel, as Too too Many do (Says he of the Friends) Contrary to Gravity, Modesty, Sobriety, Plainess, Simplicity, Innocency and Humility. And he goes on p. 11. Though some Formality, and something of the Form of Truth they may have by outward Education (yet says he) 'Tis not by the work of Regeneration; for it is but Few, in Comparison, that Really Come in at That Door. etc.  
Here is a sad Account of the Quakers Infallibility! which was Granted, not only to some Eminent Quakers, but as Burrough says in his Preface to Fox's Gr. Mystery, p. 7. To Us, Every one of Us, in Particular. Yet now, it seems, Most of them are Gone off; And but very Few Left in the Truth! And have those that are Behind, any Greater Security than the others had! Is there not now Continual need of Repentance! Is the Righteousness that is in Them, not Finit, but Infinite! Can Infinite Righteousness Fail, or Fall away! Are not these Many and Grievous Sins, of which the Greatest Part of the Quakers are Guilty, Sufficient Matter for Public Confession of Sin, and Repentance among the Quakers? No. No. That must not be Admitted! They are Perfect and Sinless, for all this, As their Heavenly Father is Perfect; And, As He is, so are they in this World!  
Pursuant to this Principle, there is no Petition for Repentance or Forgiveness in all G. W's Long Prayer before Mentioned. i e. not for the Quakers, only for the world's People, that they may turn to be Quakers. And therefore his saying, that the Quakers are Belied, in saying, That they will not Pray for Themselves, will not hold, notwithstanding of all their Prayers: For their Prayers are Panegyrics upon Themselves; and Commonly Invectives against others, and Curses instead of Prayers.  
The Pharisee was Modest to George Whitehead! he only Preferred himself to the Publican, and thanked God that he was not like him. But G. W. not only Prefers himself before others, but upbraids them, in his Prayer, of Rancour, Fury, Hatred, Reviling, Slander etc. He Judges them as having Crucifi'd Christ to themselves; and Prays God to Judge them for these things. This is his way of Praying for them! He supposes some of them to have Sinned out their Day, and to be Judicially Hardened, and these he Excepts from his Good wishes of Opening their Eyes; and all that are Guilty of wilful Opposition and Hatred against the Quakers; from which Few of their Opposers will Escape (Let them name one, for an Instance) and All these are Excluded the Benefit of the Quakers Prayers: so that when we come to compute the whole Account, we shall find that the Quakers neither Pray for Themselves, or any Body else. And what they call Prayers, are nothing Less; only Great brags of Themselves; and the Utmost Contempt, if not Cursing of others. And this is the Consequence of their Super-Pharisaical Perfection! for which they may Read their Doom, And find their Remedy. Luk. xiv. two.  

Three Matters of Fact Relating to the Quakers Contempt of the H. Scriptures, which G. W. Denys, after his Fashion.  XIV. From p. 40. to 44. G. W. comes again upon the Subject of the Scriptures (which has been spoke to before Sect. xi.) saying they want Proof for their Contempt of them; That none value them more than they do; And that They are wholly Ignorant of any such thing, as their Despising of them, or setting up their own writings as Equal to them, etc. And yet, Reader, he does not so much as Name one of those Many Quotations, which you will find (for all these points which he Denies) in the Sn. Sect. seven. yet he Cries, Let's have plain Proof, for we are wholly Ignorant of any such thing. George, if thee had but the Honesty to have Named the Proofs which were brought, thee wouldst have found them Plain enough: and that is the Reason thee wouldst not name one of them. But by thy calling so Impudently for Proof, thee thought'st the Reader would Suppose there was none. And well he might (if he had never Read the Sn.) for who could Imagine that there were so much Brass in any Humane face! I do not think there is such another Instance to be Produced in the World! He certainly thought to have Provoked me to have set down all the Quotations in the Sn. over again: and that this should have Nauseated the Reader (as no doubt it would) to see such tedious Repetitions; and so to look no more into such an Un-pleasant Controversy. And to avoid these Repetitions which this Im-methodical Answer forces me to, I would have said nothing to these pages of G. W. concerning the H. Scriptures (having spoke to it before) but for the Sake of 2 or 3 matters of Fact which G. W. Names and stoutly Denies. The first is p. 323. of the First Edit. of the Sn. (it is p. 105. of the Third Edit.) where it is told of a man being Rudely thrust down several steps of the Gallery in the Quaker Meeting house in Grace-Church-street, for Reading a verse out of the Bible there. To this says G. W. p. 41. We know no such Indignation or Action shown, by any of us, against the Bible, nor any Person because thereof; neither do we Believe it; Let the Author Prove it, if he can. Dost not Believe it George? why then dost thee Confess it, in the very Next words, after thy Moody Simpering fashion? Possibly (sayest thee) some Public Disturber might, by some or other present, be Gently turned out of Doors; not because of the Bible, but because of some Offensive Turbulent Behaviour. Here is Possibles, and Might's, and Some or Others, as if G. W. knew nothing of the Matter, or ever had Enquired into it; tho' the Year and Day, were particularly Set down, and Richard Smith vouched as then Present, and who did Attest it. But George, no doubt thee knewest well enough, that the Person who came into your Meeting was Mr. John Pennyman, an Ancient, Grave Gentleman, and as In-offensive as any man upon the face of the Earth; I do not think he could Return an Injury, much less Offer one. And he offered none, at that time, or any thing like it, other than Reading a verse out of the 14th. of St. Luke. And the man who Rudely thrust him down stairs was William Mead: and let him, or let thee Name any other Disturbance or Offensive Behaviour that Mr. Pennyman was Guilty of, at that time; or else, George, this Excuse of thine, and putting the Author to Prove it, and saying Neither do we Believe it, will make thee look like just such a Sincere and Plain man as thou Art!  
The next story is told p. 330. etc. of the First Edit. of the Sn. (Sect. xxiii. n. viij. of the Third) of a Grave Council of the Quakers met upon these (to them) Abstruse Points. 1. whether the Body of Christ Arose out of the Grave? 2, whether Christ was to be Prayed to. 3. whether we must come to the Father, through Christ? For George Keith having asserted these 3 points, they were thought so strange of among the Quakers, that he was Accused for them, and a Council of their Chief-Priests and Elders met to Determine of these. Which they could not do (so far as I can learn) but left them as they found them. But G. W. takes no Notice of all this, nor does he Deny it at all, but takes hold of one Expression, which is Mentioned in the Debates, of a Quaker, who being Pressed with the Authority of St. Paul, said That PAUL was Dark and Ignorant, and that they saw beyond him. This G. W. Denies, and calls again upon the Author to Produce his Proofs, who those were that so said, That Paul was Dark etc. or otherwise (says he) for ever be Ashamed of such odious Defamations. But the Annexed Account under the hand of a much more Credible Witness than G. W. will show this to be no Defamation: and Consequently the Odious which is Pinned to it, must Return from whence it came; as belonging to G. W. his Natural or Quaker Assurance, who was Himself Present, and bore a Principal Part in that Learned Quaker Council. The Account of which I have Annexed, not only to Clear this Matter of Fact, but because there are several other things in it, which are well worth our Notice.  
There is another Instance of the Quakers Respect to the Bible, which G. W. mentions p. 43. of a Quaker Servant-Maid who Burned the Bible Publicly against the Church (for greater Contempt!) in Bread-street. This is told in the Sn. p. 343 of the First Edit. and p. 110. of the Third. And G. W. cannot get it Denied, but yields it very un-willingly, Upon a late Enquiry (says he) we understand there was such a Servant-Maid, who under some Discomposure and Temptation, Attempted such an Evil and Mad Action. How! George, was it only Attempted? Inquire again, and thou wilt find she did it. Thou knowst she did it, but wouldst Simper it off thus. And then sayest upon a Late Enquiry, as if thou hadst never heard of it before! O thy Mealy Modesty! such Glorious Actions of the Saints do not Pass so un-regarded; or are so soon forgotten! tho' now for Temporising a little they must be Dissembled: For which Reason thou sayest she was under some Discomposure, and call'st it a Mad Action. Well! we have Mary Tucker too (that was her Name) aded to the Catalogue of Mad-Quakers. But, George, must we not have the Great Quaker-Prophet, Solomon Eccles in too, for the same reason? who coming Naked all over Besmeared with T— d into the Church of Alderman-bury in London, and carrying his hands full of the same Filth, compared it to the Bible which the Minister carried in his hands up to the Pulpit, as is told before. And the Famous Josiah Coal must in too, who Justified our Bible being called a Brazen-Fac'd-Book, unjust, Corrupt, and Perverse-Bible, as shown. p. 9 of the Glean to Sat. Dis. And I think they are no whit behind any of these who call it Death, Dust, and Serpents-meat, Beastly-ware, etc. And then come in George Fox the Captain, and the whole Rabble of Quaker-Prophets, Teachers, Writers, and who not of them. And all these must to Bedlam, if Poor Mary Tucker goes. Even thee George Whitehead must bear her Company: for Burning of the Bible is not so Great a Contempt to it, as making all the Riff Raff of thine and thy Fellow Quakers Blasphemous and Senseless Rattle to be of as Great Authority as It, and Greater! as I have shown before from the words of G. Whitehead.  
But George says that Mary Tucker was Severely Rebuked and Testified against by our Friends, who came to Understand that Attempt or Action (He knows not yet which it was) which we utterly Abhor. But, George, how does this Appear? was she ever made to Sign an Instrument of Condemnation against herself (according to the Quaker Discipline) and this Entered in your Register Book kept on purpose? was she obliged to Beg Pardon for this Fact Publicly, as the Fact was Public, and of General Scandal? and as John Bringhurst the Quaker Printer was forced to do, only for Printing a Book of Will. Rogers (a then Separate Quaker) without the Licence of the Second Day; Meeting? was she Excommunicated as John Ba●n●t (a Quaker-Merchant) was for selling some of these Books of Will. Rogers? (see Glean of Sat. Dis. p. 8. was any Mark of Public Displeasure put upon her? No. No. None of these things! All this is a shame, a mere shame, George, verily! Have you treated her as you have done G. Keith, or T. Crisp, or F. Bugg, only for telling you of your Errors? or as you have done that most In-offensive old Gentleman's Mr. Pennyman, who will not so much as Dispute with you? whom you call Devils Drudge, Devil's Porter, Devil-Driven, Devil Incarnate, Judass, Apostats, Dogs, Serpents, and 1000 such like ventings of your Meekness and Forbearance!  
But why dost, George, name this of Mary Tucker among the Lies and Calumnies which thou sayest are in the Sn. when thou Confesses every word that is said in the Sn. of it? But it serves for Clamour!  
We come next to Examine G. W.'s defence of Ed. Burrough and Himself for two Quotations, which are brought against them in the Snake, showing their Contempt of Scripture.  
XV. First, 
G W ' s. Defence of Ed. Burrough for his Contempt of Scripture.  as to Burrough. You will find the Quotation out of him in the Sn. p. 109. (it is of the First Edit. which G. W. Quotes, p. 339.) and G. W. comes to it p. 42. and Excuses Burrow for this Assertion (speaking of the Commands which are given to us in the H. Scriptures) That is no Command from God to me, which He Commands to Another. Meaning that the Scriptures were Commands given long ago to other Men, and therefore did not oblige us now. To this says G. W. He intends this of Special Commands that were to some, to BAPTISE and PREACH the GOSPEL, as he Immediately Explains it, and not of General Commands of Duty Incombent upon All.  
Ans. 1. It is well, George, that thou dost admit the Commands to Preach and Baptise to be Special Commands given only to Some: How then came Thee and thy Quakers by that Authority? Think of this, George, for it Concerns thee.  
2. How does Ed. Burrough immediately Explain himself (as thee sayest) that he means this of Special Commands? It is true he does name some Special Commands, as to Baptise and Preach: and some he says were sent to do both, To Baptism (as he Absurdly words it) and to Preach the Gospel: and Another was sent (says he) not to Baptise but to Preach the Gospel. He Refers to 1 Cor. 1.17. (to which it is sufficiently Answered in the Discourse of Water-Baptism Sect. seven.) and thinks that St. Paul had not the same Commission with the Rest of the Apostles. And if so, He was not an Apostle. This shows the Brutal Ignorance of these Enlightened and Infallible men, as they Desire to be Esteemed!  
But were these Special Commands all the Contest betwixt Ed. Burrough and J. Turner, in answer to whom he said these words? No. not only not All the Contest: But they were no Part nor Particle of the Contest; and were very Impertinently brought in by E. B. according to Custom. The objection put by J. Turner, as Recited by E. B. himself, was Charging this as a Quaker Principle, viz. That Saints were not to do Duties by or from a Command without, but from a Command within; and that the word Command in Scripture, was not a Command to them, till they had a word within them. And this E. B. Justifies, instead of Denying it, and says, That is no Command from God to me, what He Commands to Another, and then J. Turner, or any other, who goes to Duty, as you call it, by Imitation from the Letter without— This was wrote in the Year 1654. And we all know what they meant by that Phrase of Going to Duty, to Perform Family-Duty, etc. It was the Duty of Prayer, which was chief meant by these Expressions. And here E. B. means the same, for he speaks of Going to Duty, as you call it, says he; that is, in their sense, and what they meant by it. And in the same p. 47. upon the next Question, As to the time of going to Duties, he says, Expressly, All Duties, as she calls them, whatsoever. She Jane or Joan Turner against whom he Disputes, did not Pretend to the Power of Preaching, to Baptise, or any Special Command; but puts the Case, and the whole Dispute was concerning the Obligation that lay upon us to Perform all our Duties to God or Man; And whether the Commands in Scripture did lay any Obligation upon us to observe them? And this the Quakers Positively Deny; or that there Arises any Obligation to Duty, or that any Command is a Duty, except what is Enjoined by their own Light Within: as W. Penn Expressly. See Sn. p. 92, 93. so that Burrow here spoke the genuine sense of the Quakers: which G. W. knew well enough. But would Turn and Shift it as you have seen. For this Principle does indeed Out-Date the Scriptures, like an Old Almanac: And Resolves All and Every thing into their Light within, that is, what every man Pleases to make of it: and sets men at Perfect Liberty from all Rules or Laws, whether Divine or Human.  

G. W's. Defence of Himself for the Same. Wherein is Shown That the Quakers are Direct Deists: And the worst Sort of them.  XVI. But now in the next Place, let us hear G. W's. Defence of Himself, for a much more Gross Expression than that of Burrough's. Which stands Quoted in the Sn. next to that of Burrough's. Sect. seven. p. 110. (it is p. 342. of the First Edit.) The Quotation is p. 49. of G. W's. Serious Apology where it was Demanded of him, Do you esteem your Speakings, to be of as Great Authority as any Chapter in the Bible? To which G. W. Answers in these words. That which is spoken by the Spirit of Truth in any, is of as Great Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are, and GREATER This has been Quoted and spoke to before. And he has Excused it in a wonderful manner! He says p. 43. that what he meant was only this, To Prefer the Preaching with Divine Authority, according as Christ did, to the bare Reading of the Letter, as the Pharisees did; which was not (says he) at all to Lessen the Authority of Holy Scripture. But, George, it is to make the Quakers, and Thine own self Particularly, to Preach with Divine Authority, according as Christ did! And then All your Writings and Preachments are as Good Scripture, as any He Spoke! Nay Greater when spoke by you, than His, when only Read: which was Plainly and Truly thy Meaning. Thou didst Grant (out of Modesty!) that His words and Thine, were of Equal Authority! But that the Difference only lay in the Advantage that words have when spoken viva voce, more than the same words when written and only Read: And in this Sense, Thy Preaching is of Greater Authority and Power than the Scriptures; and of as Great as when they came out of the Mouth of Christ Himself! so that, George, thou art come off finely! The more Excuses thou make for a Bad Cause, they make it still worse and worse! The Longer you stand in a Mire, you sink the Deeper! There is nothing will do, George, but sincere Repentance, which cannot be without a Plain and Honest Confession of so Foul Blasphemy and Luciferian Pride, to the High Scandal of Christianity! Therefore Give Glory to God, and take Shame to yourselves; and than God will Forgive you; and God and Man will Love you; and, with the Angels of Heaven, will Rejoice at your Conversion. Why should you think it so Grievous to own that you have been Mistaken and Deceived? Who has not? It is Glorious and Praiseworthy to Confess and Return from an Error. And that Day that you shall Own and Acknowledge your Mistakes, they shall be no more Mentioned unto you. But till then, we must Expose them, because many others, Simple and Well-Meaning Souls are Caught in your Snares. O! at last, Lay your hand upon your Heart, and think what Mischief you do! what Good it is in your Power to do! The Lord give you a Heart to think of it; and open your Eyes to see your Errors, and the Truth. And be not so much Provoked by the Opposition that is Given to you; as thereby Prompted to Consider and Reflect Seriously, whether these things are so? whether they are falsely Charged upon you? And what occasion you have given, in your Writings and Preach, for all that Clamour that is Raised up against you; And by such as cannot Possibly have any other End or Design in it, but to Detect those Errors, so Pernicious to the True Christian Faith? Such Principles, as Prefer what you call the Immediate Teaching of the Spirit, IN MAN, to the H. Scriptures of God, as you Re-assert in the forecited. p. 43. Such Principles! as must make you think that Curse you sent to G. Keith (before spoke of) to be of Greater Authority than any Chapter in the Bible! as likewise the False-Prophesie of Solom. Eccles against John Story, and many others to be Named. Such Principles! as make men Inscribe whatever comes into their Heads, to the H. Spirit of God; and to Give forth Curses, Blasphemies, and Treasons; Blood and Destruction, and the most Beastly Nastiness, In the Name of the Lord God and to think them of Greater Authority than any Precept in the Scripture! The Letter of the Scripture says Thou shalt not Kill. But Fox, Burrough, Bishop, and other Quakers, Quoted in the Sn. Sect. xviii. Command Oliver and the other Usurpers, In the Name of the Lord God Almighty, not only to Destroy all the Cavaliers, and Priests in England, but to carry their Arms into France, Italy, Spain etc. and there to Kill and Slay Abundantly! The Letter of the Scripture says, Thou shall not Steal; but G. Fox, in his Great Mystery. p. 77. Justifies the Stealing of an Hourglass from the Priests. And as for any being moved of the Lord (says he) to take away your Glass from you, by the Eternal Power it is Owned. Now G. W. in this Place p. 43. Prefers the Teachings of the Spirit IN MAN to the Letter of Scripture. Now here is the Teachings of the Spirit in G. Fox etc. Opposite, in Terms, to the Letter of the Scripture. Or will he say, That these were not the Teachings of the Holy Spirit in Fox & c? And then we may easily know whose Teachings they were! Will nothing Convince these men? To see G. Fox say of Stealing, By the Eternal Power it is Owned! And G. W. to Prefer this to the Letter of the Scripture! To the Plainest Commands, wrote by the Finger of God Himself! Here is the Mystery of Quakerism, to throw off the Scriptures from being a Rule to them: And Giving themselves wholly up to be Guided by what they call their Light within; that is, whatever they are strongly Persuaded of: for they can give no other account of it: Nor any Rule to know that they do not mistake the strongest Delusions of Satan, for the Light of Christ. As certainly they have done, in the Instances before us, and hundreds more (mentioned in the Sn.) their Inward Light Leading them Directly Counter to the very Letter of the Scripture.  
Now throwing off the Authority of Scripture, that is, of Outward Revelation, is Direct Deism. And the Quakers are Downright Deists, as shown in Prim. Heres. p. 28. They Differ in Nothing, but in Expressing the same thing in Different Words. The Deists own a Light within, and that it is Divine. i e. Planted in our Minds by God: and that it is a Ray, or Communication of the Divine Light. Wherein then do they Differ from the Quakers? only in this, That they call this Light within by the Name of Reason. Which word the Quakers do not like, because they Resolved to go out of the Road of all Common speaking. But they Mean the Same thing. For they Deny any other Light in the Soul, but that which is Divine. And this Light within, the Quakers and Deists make the Supreme Rule, not Controulable by Scripture, or any thing else; but Sufficient of itself, Without any thing else. i e. without Faith in the outward Jesus. For that God Requires no more of any man, but to Fellow this Light within.  
And This is all the Christianity which the Quakers do own. This they say is To have Faith in Christ. Hence, they conclude All Moral Deists, whether Jews, or Heathens, to be Christians. G. Fox, in his Gr. Mist. p. 56. Sets down an Objection against the Quakers, viz. That they say, that any can have The Sight of the Godhead, without Faith in Christ. And he does not Deny this to be their Principle, but Justifies it. He Answers, Can any see the Godhead? have a sight of the Godhead? and not see Christ, and have Faith in Christ? By this, the Jews have Faith in Christ, for they Acknowledge the Godhead. And the Gentiles too. Because that which may be known of God is Manifest in them, for God hath showed it unto them: 
Rom. 1.19, 20.  For the Invisible things of Him, from the Creation of the world are Clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His Eternal Power and Godhead.  
In the same manner the succeeding Quakers do Chime in after G. Fox. T. Elwood, in his late Answer to G. Keith 's Narrative. An. 1696. p. 75, 76, 77. does Quote and Justify Will. Penn his Address to Protestants. p. 118, 119. where he makes Christ not to be any Person, but only a Principle in men's Hearts, which is Common to All Men. For thus he Describes Christ. What is Christ, but Meekness, Justice, Mercy etc. Can we then Deny a Meek man to be a Christian? And putting the objection against a Moral Heathen thus. Why! tho' this Person be a Sober Liver, yet he is but a General Believer; his Faith is at Large: 'Tis true, He believes in God; but I hear little of his Faith in Christ. Then, as T. E. says, W. P. Replies very well, Does he not therefore believe in Christ? For, As he that believes in Christ, believes in God, so he that believes in God, believes in Christ.  
For an Answer to this Mighty Argument of the Quakers see Sat. Dis. Sect. 1. n. x. I am now only showing, That the Quakers are Deists, and no more; Nay, I will say, not so much Christians, as any the Vilest and most Absurd of any other Deists. Of whom, none that we know of, but the Quakers, will own that most senseless Blasphemy, of making Themselves to be God, by making their Souls to be Uncreated, and without Beginning, and Infinite, which is, to be God. As shown. 2. Par. S. seven. n. 2.  
Quakery is a Scandal even to Deism. And as the Quakers out-shoot the other Deists vastly in Nonsense, and Blasphemy: so they come not nearer to Christianity, in any thing that might Balance. No, not as to the Acknowledgement which they make to the H. Scriptures. For the Deists too, as the Quakers, will speak (sometimes) Honourably of the Scriptures, say they are Good Books, and many Good things in them. And Delight to Read them. But then, not to Trust to Every thing that is in them. Only so far as is Agreeable to their own Light within. And in this, they Endeavour to support themselves, by the Various Readins, Copies, and Translations, of the H. Scriptures, to Render them Uncertain and Suspected.  
And from them the Quakers have taken up the same Argument against the Authority of the H. Scriptures. Tho' they have the least skill in that Critical part of Learning, of any sort of Men upon the face of the Earth. Yet they Borrow Arrows out of Every Quiver, against the H. Scriptures. as of the Papists against our Translation (as shown in Sat. Dis. Glean. Sect. iii. n. 3. p. 79.) so, of the Deists against All.  
But All Translations do agree in what is Material, either as to Faith or Manners: And therefore these, and the various Readins of Copies Different both as to the Countries and Ages in which they were Transcribed, and Translated, instead of Militating against the Truth and Certainty of the H. Scriptures, are a Mighty Confirmation of Both; because this is a Demonstration that such Copies could not have been wrote by Consert: And the Differences between them is no more than what was Natural and Easy, and almost Unavoidable to fall out, in the Common Mistakes of so many Several amanuensis, and Translations. But all agreeing in the Full of the Faith therein Delivered, and Differing in nothing that can make any Alteration in that, Gives us the Greater, and an Undoubted Assurance of Trusting to the Scriptures, so Agreeing in all their various Translations and Editions, as a Sure and Certain Rule both as to Faith and Manners. But the Ignorant Quakers having got this Objection by the end, see what use they make of it, even to Render the Scriptures so Precarious and Uncertain, as not at all to be any longer Trusted as a Rule to Us? And the Consequence is, That the Scriptures be now laid aside as now useless and Unprofitable; nay more, as Dangerous and Hurtful to Us; because, if Corrupted, they may give us Poison for Meat, and so Help forward our Destruction. Thus that Renowned Quaker Samuel Fisher, in what he Blasphemously calls The Burden of the Message of the Lord itself. p. 3. and 5. (it is p. 19 and 21. of a Collection of such sort of his Messages. Printed. 1656.) comparing of the Light within and the Scriptures, says, That Prophet, whose voice soever hears not, and obeys not, even in all things whatsoever he saith to them, shall be cut off from his People, who, by a Measure of Light from himself, hath Enlightened Every one of you, Whose voice is within, and not without to you, nor heard now without by any of you; for the Scripture is not his voice— for the Scriptures (not as written by the men that were Inspired, but as since then Mis-transcribed, even in the very Greek and Hebrew Copies, how much more as we have them Mis-translated in many things, and in so many several Translations) these are in some things Fallible, and so not fit to be the Rule; as in the Dark, for want of the true Light yet shining, which now shineth forth, they have been supposed to be— but Christ himself, his Light and Spirit, which show Good and Evil in the Heart, which are the only Guide, Law, and Rule— And this is Infallible— and there is the only sure and safe walking, even in the Light, in Christ, in the Spirit, and not in the Letter, which is Fallible, by false Interpretation and Translation. Here are all our Translations, and the Originals too both Hebrew and Greek that are Extant of the Holy Scriptures Damned at one Blow. That is to say, All the Bibles now in the world! They are no longer a Rule or Law to us! But all is Resolved into our own Light within, without Limit or Control of Scripture, or any other Law or Rule whatsoever! And this is the New-Light which the Quakers have brought into the world. viz. Before the Quakers came, that is In the Dark (as Fisher words it) for want of the true Light yet shining, the Scriptures were Supposed to be the Rule. That was Dark indeed! But now that the True Light (which the Quakers have brought) Shineth forth, the Scriptures are Discarded from being the Rule; and the Light within (i. e. what any man Fancies so to be) is the only Rule, Guide, Law etc.  
From this Ancient Quaker, his Son Will. Penn has Licked the Spittle, and thus Copies after him, and Improves upon him, I cannot but Observe (says W. Penn) after what a suspected Rate the SCRIPTURES have been first Collected— Are we sure that the Judgement of those who Collected them was sufficient to Determine what was Right, 
Rejoinder to John Faldo An, 1673. p. 38.  and what not?— What Assurance have our Anti-Revelation Adversaries of their Doctor's Choice?— How shall we be Assured that in above three hundred years, so many Copies as were doubtless taken, should be Pure and Uncorrupted?— From hence we may Observe the Uncertainty of J. Faldo 's Word of God. See with what Contempt he calls the Holy Scriptures, John Faldo's Word of God And makes them an Uncertainty! And calls those who Adhere to them, Anti-Revelation Adversaries. Not that these Adversaries Opposed all Revelation: for the Holy Scriptures are a Revelation; But they are an Extraordinary Revelation, far Exceeding the Discoveries, which are made by that Light or Reason, which is Common to all Mankind; and which the Deists and Quakers do Improperly call Revelation. And who will not own this as the only Certain and Infallible Rule of Faith and Practice, are those whom Will. Penn calls Anti-Revelation Adversaries. He says ibid. That we can never, by Authorities, prove the Scriptures to be given forth by Inspiration, nor that they are truly Collected. That is, That there is no outward Evidence for them; but only what our Light within tells Us of them. And then they would be Uncertain indeed! How many Men's Light within tells them nothing of the Holy Scriptures, of Moses, or of Christ, of the Law, or the Gospel? As for what Outward and Human Evidence there is for these, I Refer the Quakers, to the Short Method with the Deists, wherein they are Equally Concerned. But here see the Reason why they not only Equal, but Prefer their own Writings and Speaking to the Holy Scriptures; viz. Because, we have the Original of their Writings; and (as they say) but Corrupted Copies of the Scriptures. And that They have, The same Degree of the Spirit, the Prophets and Apostles had (Gr. Mist. p. 213.) therefore, that what they say Now; is of Greater Authority than the Scriptures, wrote so Long ago. Of which before.  

G W's. Sincerity and Ingenuity, in some Objections, with which he Concludes the First Part of his Book. Wherein the Sum of the Quaker Doctrine is laid Open. viz. That they Deny the Humanity of Christ; Ard the Divinity of Jesus.  XVII. We are now come to the End of the first Part of G. W's. Answer, which concludes. p. 48. with a Notable smart Repartee upon the Author of the Sn. for calling the Title of a Book Holy. What was the Title of the Book? Gross Error and Hypocrisy Detected. And what does G. W. make of this? He calls it Blasphemy. But how Blasphemy, George? Is not the Detection of Gross Error and Hypocrisy, a very Good work? And is it Blasphemy to call a Good work, an Holy work? Good and Holy (George) are very near of Kin. And thou didst strain very hard against the Author, when thou found'st out this for Blasphemy. But it falls out further Unluckily in this Matter, for the Author never thought of any such Epithet as Holy to give to the Title of that Book, or any Epithet at all, but just to Name the Book. It was a mere Error of the Press. And it was put into the Errata to Deal that word Holy. And the page and line are named in the Errata. p. 351. l. 9 but the Direction of Deal Holy, was left out. And there is no other Error in that line which has but Six words in it; so that a little Skill, and as much Sincerity would easily have found it out. At least would have stopped such Ingenious Remarks upon it! It was corrected with a Pen in several of the Printed Books. And in the Second Edit. p. 350. the word Holy is left out. But however, this being the only Error which G. W. has found in the Sn. and showing himself so Fond of it, it is a Pity to Deprive him of the Pleasure of it.  
And now being Flushed with this First Victory, he Hews down G. Keith (for company) because in that Book of his, Gross Error and Hypocrisy Detected (about the Title of which we have Quarrelled) he brings Answers to the Seven Queres (Presented to the Yearly Meeting of the Quakers. 1695. and Sophistically Answered, by the Committee of Seven thereto appointed, of which G. W. was one) out of the Quaker-Books, since they would not Answer Directly themselves. But G. W. is very smart upon him, and observes (with Great Acuteness!) that those Books being wrote before the Queres, were not Intended as Direct Answers to those Queres; for, says he, They could be no Proper nor Direct Answers to those Queries, nor so Intended, nor by us Adapted to any such Queries; therefore the Greater Abuse in him to Collect and Place them for Answers thereto. This was a Great Abuse indeed! To make you Answer more Directly than you had a Mind to! Your former Books spoke Plainly your Gross Heresies against the True Humanity of Christ etc. and you had no mind this should be known; therefore you Contrived your Answers to bear a Double-Face, that you might have Room to Escape: And G. Keith (most Unkindly, considering old Acquaintance!) would stop your Passage, and show out of your Printed Books, the Plain Truth of the Matter, and Detect your Gross both Errors and Hypocrisy. And all he has left you to say for yourselves, is, That those Books were not Intended as an Answer to these Queries. But was there never such a thing done before, to Introduce men as Answering to Queres, thereby to make their meaning appear the more? The Name of George Whitehead is put to a Book Entitled The Light and Life of Christ within. Printed. 1668. where p. 51. he Introduces a Baptist, put Quaeres to him, and makes Answers for him. And they are worthy to be Remembered, for the true Quakerism that is Expressed in them. viz. Denying Salvation by the Outward Jesus. For thus he Queries the Baptist, and makes him Answer. I ask (says G. W.) who is He that Satisfies and Appeaseth God, Dischargeth the Guilty, and Pays the Debt? Baptist. It is the Man Christ Jesus. Quest. Whence came he? Ans. God gave Him. Quest. And what is this Man Christ Jesus, who can Satisfy, Pacify an Infinite God? Bapt. He is God-Man, Born of a Virgin, Then G. Whitehead Replies upon him thus. How would this Divide God, and set Him at a Distance from Himself? Is it Good Doctrine to say, that God Pacified God when He saw Himself Angry? For says the Baptist, It was God-Man that did it. Which is all one as to say, God Corrected Himself— and then He was Mediator to Himself, etc. And so G. W. Runs on Blaspheming, and (with the Socinians) Ridiculing the Doctrine of Satisfaction by the Death of Christ, or any Salvation by Jesus Christ, whom he Denies to be God-Man or the Saviour of the World. Would it be Good Doctrine (says he p. 54.) to say that Mary and Simeon carried their Saviour in their Arms? that or they carried God in their Arms? if that Child was God-Man, as he (the Baptist) terms him— You Baptists were fain to Hid for all your Boasting of your God and Christ a a Distance above the Clouds, Stars, and Firmament. And Will. Penn was fain to Hid too, once upon a time, as others of you have done, for all your Boasting of your God and Christ at Hand, even Within you! In the same Dialect with G. W. says Christopher Atkinson, in his Sword of the Lord drawn. p. 5. your Imagined God beyond the Stars, your Carnal Christ is utterly Denied— That Christ is God and Man in one Person, is a Lye. Which being objected in the Sn. G. W. answers here p. 145. We do not affect the Terms. And yet you will not Deny, but that they were Given forth, by the Spirit of the Eternal God This is all that is Desired of you. And this we cannot bring you to. Blasphemous, and Contradictory WRETCHES! But why, George, do you not Affect the Terms? What do they Differ from Thine own Terms? only what you Deny, he says is Utterly Denied; and what you Ridicule and Laugh at, he says plainly, it is a Lye. Is it not the same Christ you both Oppose? Is it not the same whom you Reproachfully say to us is YOUR Christ? And what Christ is this? the Christians Christ. And what Christ have we? a Carnal Christ— your Carnal Christ is Vtterly-denyed. Now how do we own Christ to be Carnal? is it in the sense of Vice and Wickedness, as we say a Carnal-Man, meaning thereby, a Vicious, Sensual Man, given to the Lusts of the Flesh? No. I suppose the Quakers will not put that upon us, to say that we think Christ to be now Carnal, that is, Vicious in Heaven. But 2dly, do we think Christ to be Carnal, as if His Flesh were as Gross, and Infirm, i. e. Carnal as ours is now, or as His own Flesh was while He Suffered in it upon the Earth? No. For we say, all Christians say, that He is now Glorified. There is then no other sense 'of the word Carnal, but that which has Flesh, in Distinction from a Spirit. And in this sense, we do say, and all Christians say, that Christ is Carnal. i e. has Real Flesh, even the same Flesh which He took of the Blessed Virgin, in which He Suffered, Rose, etc. And this is the sense in which the Quakers do Oppose us, and Deny, nay Ridicule our Carnal Christ beyond the Stars. i e. Any Christ who has True and Real Flesh, or an Human Body now in Heaven. This they say to Us, is Our Imagined God beyond the Stars, as C. A. Our God and Christ, above the Clouds, as G. W. Implying that no such Christ is Theirs the Quakers God. And their Denying Christ to be Carnal, is plainly Denying of Him to be a Man. For Christ can be Carnal but Three ways. 1st. As Liable to Sin. 2dly. To Infirmity. Or 3dly. As He has true Human Nature, or Flesh. Now it being only the Third way that we hold Christ to be Carnal; and the Quakers Denying Our Carnal Christ, consequently they Deny Christ to be now a Man. Your Carnal Christ (says C. A. in the place above Quoted) is utterly Denied and Testified against, by the Light which comes from Christ. So that here is the Quakers Light or Christ Testifying against the Outward Christ. And here they may see, that the Light in them is Darkness, for it Testifies against the Humanity of Christ, and the Divinity of Jesus. The Quakers own Christ to be God, but they Deny Him to be Truly and Properly a Man: They own Jesus to have been a Man, but not God, otherwise than as by God's Dwelling in Him, but not Personally United to Him: and so as it may be said of other Men, in their several Degrees, that God does Inspire or Dwell in them.  
But they call that Jesus whom All Christians do Worship, a Dead-God; because they think that the Man Jesus of Nazareth is still Dead: Tho' Christ, or the Light, cannot Die, according to Them, because they say It is God. Therefore they think, That We Worship a Dead Man, for God. And Consequently, That our Jesus is an Idol. For thus says Edw. Burrough, p. 101. of his works, to the Christian Professors, Some of you were Teachers for the King and Bishops, and were Ordained by their Law; And your Prayers have been to your IDOL GOD— And you Pray to your DEAD GOD'S &c. By this, they can Mean None other but Christ. For whom Else did the King, or the Bishops, or any of their Teacher's Worship as God Therefore, we must make this Conclusion; And that Necessarily, from the Quakers Principles; That all Christians are Idolaters; And Christ a Dead Idol: Or otherwise, as the Truth is, That the Quakers are no Christians; but Blasphemers of our Christ and God.  
And here I leave them. And the Remaining Part of this Antidote, for the Present, in Expectation of their Melius Inquirendum; And for the other Reasons given in the Preface. And I Turn to a more Considerable Pen than that of George Whitehead; Tho' Shrouded under the Humility of an Appendix to him.   

THE APPENDIX TO G. Whitehead 's Antidote, CONSIDERED; Which is Subscribed by Joseph Wyeth. And bears the Title of Primitive Christianity Continued etc.  
Part. II.  

SECT. I. Concerning the Author.  
AS Giants were attended by Dwarves, and Knights had their Squires ready at hand, to save them sometimes at a Dead lift, so have our Quaker Heroes made a Cats-foot of poor Joseph Wyeth, to Blount their Enemy's Swords; That if he should Prevail, their Glory might appear the Greater, in Giving the Foil by a hand so Inconsiderable as the Journeyman of Ben. Antrobus a Quaker Linen-draper. But if he was overthrown (which they knew full easy, unless from the weakness of his opponent) than their shift was, that all the Disgrace should fall upon him, who had no Honour to Lose, and They and their Cause be Guiltless, tho' All their strength was Exerted in what they put out under his Name.  
For the Reader must know that it is a stated Discipline of the Quakers (notwithstanding of their Infallibility) to let none of their Friends Books (as they call them) be put to the Press, until they have Undergone the Censure, and obtained the Approbation of their Second-Days-Meeting, which consists only of their Ministers or Preachers. Nor Dare any of their Printers Print any of their Books, without the Allowance of this Sanhedrin: so that they stand All Chargeable for All of their Printed Books; at least for All of them, which they have not called in, and witnessed against, as they did against William Rogers his Christian Quaker (because it had more of Christianity in it than they could Digest) and Punished both Printer and Publishers, with the utmost severity that was in their Power. as you may see in Sat. Dis. Sect. iii. of the Glean. N. 1. and 2.  
But instead of showing any such Displeasure against this Book that bears Wyeth's Name, the Chief of the Quakers do Recommend it, and Hand it about among Persons of all Qualities; which is owning of it, as much as if their Names had been set to it: Besides some Flourishes in the Style, which show that some had a Finger in the Pie, tho' they would not have their Cr●st Perking above the Lid, as an Index to whether Goose or Turkey hid Underneath. And if Joseph Improved himself or his Pupil no more in his Travels, than to Undertake the Defence of his Patron, without his Directions, who was so much more Able to have Vindicated himself, he has had as ill Luck in his second Trade of a Praeceptor, as in his First Journeyman Preferment.  
In all of which, no Employment so servile was put upon him, as to set his Name to a Book, that gives him the Lie so Egregiously in that Character which he himself, Unbribed and Vn-solicited, has bestowed upon the Author of The Snake in the Grass, of being A man of Temper etc. Whereas this Book does Represent him so far otherwise (as you will see hereafter Sect. two.) that it is not possible to Reconcile such Contradictions, if they came Both from the same Person.  
Besides, in the Title-Page of this Book, it is said to Serve as an Appendix to George Whitehead 's Antidote against the Snake in the Grass. And sure George Whitehead would not suffer an Appendix to be fixed to his so Famous a Book, without his own Approbation; nor can it be Imagined that Joseph would have offered at it. Therefore we must suppose that George Whitehead is more Particularly Concerned in this Appendix; And we must (for all the Reasons aforesaid) conclude, That this is the Joint and Concerted Apology of the Quakers; otherwise it would not be worth my while, nor the Pains of the Reader, to Labour a Point, which could End in no more than a Confutation of Joseph Wyeth.  
And this, in Probability, was one Main Drift of the Quakers, to Stop a Reply; that they might have the Last Word; which, with many, Passes for a Token of Victory.  
But the Charity that I have for their Souls, of those Many miserably Deluded by these their Leaders (tho' they put all the Misconstruction upon it that Malice and Envy can Invent) has Obliged me to Enter once more with them into the Lists: And I hope to make the Detection of their Gross Delusions so Plain by this, as to Stop any further need of my Labour herein; And to Satisfy all who are Desirous or Capable of Conviction.  
The Method I will take, in Replying to this Appendix, is, to Take a View of the Quakers Manner of Answering Books that are wrote against them. And Applying it to this Present Answer, will show, That however in other things the Quakers are Changed, yet they still keep true to their Original and Ever Constant Fury, Falsehood, and Dodging, either in Defending of Themselves, or Representing of their Adversaries.   

SECT. II. The Method which the Quakers use in Answering of Books that are wrote against them.  
1. WHEN Pride is Disappointed and overcome, it Naturally Vents itself in Rage and Madness against those who have Detected it. These who have the Advantage in a Dispute, like those who Win, are seldom Angry: It is the Losers who have leave to Talk, to Complain, and be Uneasy.  
And as there is not so much Pride among any sort of People as the Quakers, they thinking themselves to be Above all the Rest of Mankind, and far beyond all Christians; to be Perfect and Sinless, Equal to Prophets, Apostles, to Angels, yea to God Himself, as Proved in the Six first Sect. of the Sn. so have None that ever were Born Vented their Rage and Madness against their Opponents with so much Venom, Nastiness, and Diabolical Fury as the Quakers have done (see Sn. Sect. xvii.) Such words as they have found out of Spite and Inveterat Rancour, never came into the Heads of any either at Bedlam or Billingsgate, or were never so put together, by any that I ever heard, and I have had the Curiosity to see Mother Damnable, whose Rhetoric was Honey to the Passion with which the Quaker Books are stuffed.  
And which is more strange, it is not in their Power to Help it, or they will not. For they have been told of it, one would think sufficiently, in the first Edition of the Sn. And in the Supplement to the Second Edition N. vi. G. Whitehead's Relapsing into it in his Answer to the Sn. is again laid before them; And they are Desired and Provoked to try if they can Help it, if it be possible for them to write Temperately, and with Decency like other People: But that seems a Task too hard for them: for here again in this Appendix, they cannot leave that Common-Place of Reviling and Abusing, of showing their Teeth and Malice in the most Venomous fashion, tho' nothing at all Relating to the Cause in Dispute. Which is not any ways concerned in the Character of the Author who writes against them; Unless he had Vouched something, in Prejudice to them, upon his own Credit, without other Authority, And, in that Case, Recriminating is allowable, yet so far only as to the Truth of the Accuser, to take off the weight of his Evidence: For other Collateral Crimes (tho' true) are not, by the Rules of Charity, to be Objected, for that only serves our Spite, but not our Cause. Now the Author of the Sn. lets us Understand that he was almost a Perfect stranger to the Quakers, when he wrote that Book: And what he says of them from his own Knowledge, you will find in his Introduction. p. 2. where he lays his Charge not against the Generality of them, some of whom (he says) I know to be very Honest and well-meaning men, and Devout in their way: but against many of their Principal Leaders, as it is Expressed in the very Title-Page. And some of them he treats so Civil, that in this Appendix p. 7. he is Accused for Fawning upon them. viz. upon W. Penn. And in his Conclusion, I do freely own (says he) that I have a real Kindness and Good wishes for every one of the Quakers that I have hitherto been acquainted with; And I never received any sort of Dis-obligation from any of them, in my whole Life. This is what that Author speaks of them, as to his own Knowledge; And if they could bring any thing to Disprove his Veracity, in this Favourable Character which he gives to the Generality of the Quakers, they might have had free Leave; and, Perhaps, Greater Advantage against him than as to any other Part of his Book. But the several Charges which he lays against their Leaders, he Proves from their own Printed Books, and Quotes their Pages, so that let him be what sort of man he will, this makes nothing as to the Charge against the Quakers: All that is to be done in that Case, is, to Disprove his Quotations, either that he has Quoted False, or Impertinently, and not to the Purpose for which he has Produced them. But these are Arms which they have not Proved; And, in their stead, they have taken to their old Method of throwing Dirt, and Personal Reflections, as a Blindman does his Club, without either Fear or Wit; without Regard either to Truth or Probability. G. Whitehead in his Antidote had Accused the Author of the Sn. for being mercenary, as if he had been Hired or Bribed to write against the Quakers. To this he Replied in a Supplement to the Second Edition N. vi. and showed the Senseless Malice of this Reflection, in that those whom G. W. supposes should have Bribed him, were the Poor Church of the Quakers, who were not Capable, tho' willing of Giving such Hire; Besides that Author had Undertaken that Task, and wrote Good Part of the Sn. before ever he Saw George Keith, or, as he Remembers, any one of the Quakers of his Part: being moved thereto merely by Reading those Monstrous things which were Contained in some of the Quakers Books that came in his way, so far beyond what he Expected or Dreamed of them. But, on the other hand, he was acquainted, at that time, with some of the Rich Quaker Church, and his Bias, as to Personal Kindness, lay wholly on their side; and they only were capable, and very Capable they were and are, to Hire or Give Pensions. In short, I am very well Assured that the Author of the Sn. had not one single farthing of Contribution from any Person whatsoever towards Printing of that Book or the Writing of it. And the Controversy with the Quakers was such a Dead thing, that the Bookseller would hardly have ventured upon the first Edition, if he had known that it would have swelled, while in the Press, so much beyond the first intended Bounds. And whether, besides some Books which (as is Customary) the Author gave away to his Friends, he had any Guineas, or to the value of one, for that Impression, is easy to be known. Yet without taking any notice of what was said by the Author in the Supplement before mentioned in Answer to this Malicious and False Accusation, the Quakers Trump it up again in this Appendix, with fresh Venom and Assurance. The Preface gins with it. The Ensuing Leaves (say they) contain our Vindication against the Black Attempts of a Necessitous and Malicious Priest— because he may find his Bread or Base Ends Supplied by the Contest. And their Book Enters in the same Style. p. 1. To the Disturbance of our Quiet (they go on) there hath of late appeared an Expulsed Clergyman, Boasting himself to be some Great one, and indeed in all the Qualities of Venom Slander and Abuse he is so— his Scurrilous Pamphlets, which his Skulking Leisure and Malice furnishes him with opportunity to Multiply; for from being an Expulsed Priest, he makes a Trade for Bread, and in part to Repair those Losses, which he Charges the present Establishment to have brought upon him. Now as it is nothing to the Quakers or their Cause, whether the Author of the Sn. was a Clergyman, or whether Expulsed or not; so here they have shown the Excess of their Malice by Endeavouring to Provoke the Government against some or other whom they had in their Eye: tho' thereby they Expose those who are Dearest to them. For what if this Clergyman (whoever it be whom they mean) had been Deprived, or Expulsed (as they word it) because he had a Tenderness as to Swearing, the Objection comes Decently out of the mouth of a Quaker! Nay further, Suppose he had not only Skulked, but been in a Proclamation; And underhand kept fair with the Government, at the same time, to save his Bacon on both Sides? What if he had taken the Oaths (in his way) while he put another face upon it, to those of his own Party: And Procured his Peace, by such Compliances as he had Blamed in others? What if he had been the Greatest Traffacker in England for the Popish Interest, when it was in View: had wrote Apologys for it, and Invectives against the Church of England for Opposing of it; but behind the Curtain, and not under his own Name? what if he had Traded in Declarations with Mr. B—nt upon a time? etc. what had all this have signified to the Present Cause of the Quakers, or their Heresies.  
When any Dare speak the least thing against the Quakers, they Cry presently (as they did at the Meeting in Turners-Hall. 11. June. 1696. to G. Keith) Prove it, or else thou art a Lyar. See G. Keith's Narrative. p. 46. I dare thee (said Hen. Goldney) to name their Names, or else thou art a Liar, an Impostor, a Cheat— O thou Liar, thou Contentious Creature! And Joseph Wyeth was Present as assistant to Goldney. Now the Quakers cannot justly Refuse the same Measure which they have Meted to others; Therefore let them Produce their Witnesses, that ever heard the Author of the Sn. Boast himself to be some Great one; or is there the least Semblance of that Quaker Vanity to be found in any thing that he has wrote? or of Charging the Present Establishment with his Losses? Let them Prove it, name their Names who heard him; or Confess themselves to be Liars, Impostors, Cheats; Let them Prove their Repeated Calumny of his being Mercenary, and Bribed to write against them; And taking his Charges against them from their Professed Adversaries, from whom in Part he Receives his Bread, as they Belch out again p. 11. of this Appendix. These Adversaries are George Keith, Francis Bugg, and others once of their Communion, who now Detect their vile Errors; and Whitehead in his Antidote had Charged this upon the Author of the Sn. That he took his Authorities from Bugg, which is fully Answered and Confuted in the Supplement to the Second Edition of the Sn. N. 2. Yet now, as if no such Answer had been made, it is Repeated over and over again. But the Reader will find the Charges in the Sn. taken out of the most Approved Authors of the Quakers, and not from the Credit of any of their Adversaries as they call them.  
And as for the Author of the Sn. Receiving his Bread from them, that has been spoke to already: But it is Cautiously added here [In Part] that he Receives his Bread, in Part, from them; so that if he ever Eat or Drunk with any of them, this is Receiving his Bread, in Part, from them. But he has Eat and Drunk, and been kindly Entertained by as many of Grace-Church-street Quakers, as of Turners-Hall; and therefore he is Bribed by them too, to write against themselves! But Eating and Drinking are small things— In this Appendix p. 48. the Quakers give the Author of the Sn. a Gentle Touch for his Taking of Snuff, they leave no stone Unturned— these are Industrious men— And if they can find out that any one has Given him a Box of Snuff, that will be told in the next Book they Publish. Indeed if it were such a Snuff-Box as George Fox used to carry, like a Canister, which he kept perpetually at his nose, it might be of value, and must Pass for a Bribe to Persecute the Quakers! Whose Spite is so Implacable against the Author of the Sn. that they would wound him, tho' through the sides of their Great Fox, or Greater Penn. See how they Exert their Christian Meekness p. 4. of this Appendix, where they call The Snake in the Grass, That Venomous Piece of Villainy. And because the word Villain fitted their Good Breeding, and lest it should slip the Reader's Attention, two lines before they have it again, and say that they are villainously charged by him: whom p. 30. they call This Snake of Envy. And p. 34. they bestow upon him the mild Epithets of Malice, Impertinancy, and Baseness. And p. 47. of Forgery, and Villainy again. p. 49. they call him a Foul Vessel. p. 51. Violently Base. With abundance of such Compliments, with which I will not offend the Readers Ears: only thus much, to show that Incorigable Spirit of Pride and Malice, which Possesses the Souls of these Quakers (Impatient of Contradiction) under the Guise of Humility and Meekness; That after being so often Exposed for their Billingsgate and want of Christian Temper, that one would think their Whole Cause and Credit with the World did Depend upon their being Able, but once, to Counterfeit a Moderation and Decency in their Language, yet we find they are not Able; their Fury Boils over the Thin Scum of their Simpering Sanctity. It has been observed of a Frenchman, that if you Tied his Hands, he could not speak a word, being Deprived of that Action which always accompanied it: so if you would Restrain a Quaker from Railing and Reviling you quite stop his Mouth, at least from ever Answering any Adversary. For this is a Topick never Forgot among them; which they use instead of Argument. If any can show any Quaker Answer to any of their opponents without this Ribaldry in it, they will Oblige the World with a Rarity, which I believe never yet was seen; I am sure it never came in my way; and I have been pretty Conversant among them.  
If they Pretend that they are Provoked to this Manner of Repartying upon their Adversaries, by their ill usage of them, particularly the Author of the Sn. in Reviling and Abusing of them. First, If this were true, it ought not to Provoke them, who set up for Degrees of Holiness, Self-denial, and Mortification beyond All other sort of men upon the face of the Earth; to be Meeker than Moses, Wiser than Solomon, more Patiented than Job, etc. (See Sat. Dis. Sect. iv. N. v. p. 48.) And if they show not this more than other men, how shall we know that they have it more than other men? But Secondly, at their first Appearing in the world, before any Provocation was Given to them, they fell upon All others with the same Violence and outrage, that they have since continued. They were the Aggressors and Gave the Provocation, instead of Receiving any. Thirdly, as to their Complaint of Provocation in the Sn. there is none given them, but that of Detecting their Errors; And that in so soft a manner to the Chief of them, that (as before Mentioned) in this Appendix, it is termed Fawning. It is hard to Please these men. If you be Civil to them, they construe it Fawning; and if you be Plain with them, they call it Vilifying and Reproaching of them. Indeed in the Sn. their Errors are Laid open very Plainly; and Hard-words are given to them. But How? When their Errors are such as have no Soft Names, we must Give them the Names by which all the World know them. How else should we be Understood? If I Accuse a man of Heresy or Idolatry, must I not call it Heresy and Idolatry? Or must I Invent New Names for Old Crimes? Indeed if I Fail in my Proof, I have done Injury to the Accused; and aught to make Satisfaction, when I am Fairly Convinced: Yet if my Mistake was through Ignorance, it does not come within the Denomination of Railing, if the Dispute be Managed without Personal Reflections, which do not concern the Debate. A man may Reason with Great Sobriety and Good Manners, against Heathen, Turk, Jew, or Papist; and tho' the Charges be High of Heresy or Idolatry, yet this will not be Counted Railing, if it meet with men of Sobriety and Good Temper. Nay, there is no other way of being Convinced, on either side, but by Fairly and Calmly, yet Plainly and Thoroly Discussing of the Arguments on Both sides. Now if the Quakers can find any other Ill-Names Given to them in the Sn. than what was Necessary to the Charges laid against them, they have Read it more Carefully than I have done. Are they there called Raging Dogs, Green-Headed-Trumpeters, Devils Incarnate, Devil-Driven-Dungy-Gods, Sodomites, and such Vile Names as they have Invented, and Bestowed upon the Author of the Sn. and others who have Opposed Them? And can they not now Forbear it at last, after being so often told of it? This gives men a strange Idea of the Fierceness of the Quaker-Spirit, beyond what all their Adversaries could say against them. Therefore I hope they will, in their After Answers, Practise that Self-Denial (if it be in their Power) to Abridge themselves of this their so Beloved a Topick of Railing; at least, in that Blunt, Unmannerly way, which Renders their Discourses, tho' they were otherwise valuable, most Nauseous to all men of Sense or Breeding: For which Reason I have Insisted so long upon it in this, to Cure them, if Possible, of what is so just a Prejudice against them; that we may get them to be a little Sociable and Tame; to Converse, like other men, tho' we Differ from them, without Flying in our Faces. But if they still continue to By't, they must be Muzzled.  
If they say that they never Snarl, but where they are Provoked. It is Impossible to Begin with them, without Provoking of them; for if you oppose any of their Errors, than they Rave and Rage like Furies! There is no Provocation like it! And the Truth of it is, the Author of the Sn. did Begin with Them. And has got his Reward, for thrusting his Hand into this Nest of Hornets. But will they be more Moderate, where they Begin with others, Invite and Provoke them to the Dispute? No. It is all one. They are as Fierce upon the Attack, as in their Defence.  
There was one John Wigan an Annabaptist Preacher, who was Prisoner with George Fox and others of them in the Castle at Lancaster, in the Year 1664. And without his ever opening his Mouth to one of them, only Passing through a Common Room where they were, they Attacked him, and the first words were, Leave off thy Deceiving the People, Thou art a Deceiver. To which he returned no more Provoking an Answer, than to Ask, wherein he was a Deceiver? and how they could Prove him to be such? Then they Challenged him to a Dispute. To which he not being over Forward. They Drew up a Paper of 24 Queres against him, which they Fixed upon the Hall Door. This Forced him to Undertake a Public Dispute with them in the Hall of the Castle. of which has given a Particular Account in a Book Entitled Anti-Christ's strongest Hold overturned. Printed 1665. But this Debate not sufficing them, they fixed up many other Papers upon the Door, and Gave him a Paper, wherein (as he tells. p. 52.) They Challenge All the Sons of Adam to Discourse with them of this their Fundamental Principle. viz. The Light within. Which was the subject of their Debate with Wigan, who held, That Christ doth not Lighten Every man that cometh into the world, with a saving Light. p. 10. This was all the Provocation he Gave them; Besides Proving it so Effectually that they were not Able to Answer him. But, when their Arguments were spent, they fell to their old Artillery of the most Bitter and Beastly Railing, and Pronouncing Curses against Him, In the Name of the Lord. To All which he Returned Answers truly Christian; and which showed that he Deserved that Character which Jos. Wyeth gave to the Author of the Sn. That he was a man of Temper.  
Yet all this notwithstanding, see how they Treated him, not only in the Heat of Dispute, when their Passions (who have none, but in Absolute sway) might be put upon the Fret; But in Cold Blood, by Letters under their Hands. Some of which he has Added to his Book, by way of Appendix, from p. 56. Thomas Curwen (who was the Man first spoke to him, and called him a Deceiver, going through the Hall in the Castle at Lancaster, and Challenged him to the Dispute) writes thus to him. John Wigane— Oh the Plagues of God will be thy Portion, and be Poured out upon thy Head— Thou filthy Deamer, who Vomits up thy own shame— Thy Book will be thy overthrow: For it's no more to me than Chaff, and Dirt under my Feet. This was a Full Confutation! However it does not Deny the Matters of Fact and Truth of Wigan's Relation of this Conference; and therefore we may Depend upon this Book of Wigan's for so far True as it Concerns the Quakers, that they are not thereby misrepresented. But what they found fault with, Curwin tells him in another Paper which he sent him. Thy illbred Behaviour (says he to Wigan) thy illbred saucy Tongue, un-nurtured and un-bred: And besides thy saucy Language. Thy Hypocrisy, and saucy Tongue, and unmannerlines, and ill-breeding. To see Quakers set up for Breeding! And Reprove Sauciness! But Wigan Provoked them to Instance any the least Ill-Breading or Sauciness which he had should towards them, and they could not, for he carried it all along the Dispute with great Moderation: But it is all one for that, when the Quaker-Blood is up, it minds neither Right nor Wrong, Friend nor Foe, True nor False— G. Fox and Margaret Fell (whom he afterwards Married) were Both Present at this Dispute, Chief Managers, and most Obstreperous, as Wigan words it in his Narrative p. 12. where he Describes George Fox Entering the Hall, after the Dispute was Begun, and strutting like the Colosus at Rhodes, he clapped one foot upon a Seat, and the other upon the Table, about which the Rest were standing, And with his Unwieldy Bulk, looked as Big as Both the Giants in Yield-Hall. It was Present Death to any Man that he Fell upon! And it showed the Courage of Little Wigan who Durst Dispute betwixt his Legs. But, George, was this Breeding! Did this look like Good Manners! No Matter. If it was not Civil, it was very GREAT! In this Posture, Fox proposed some Scriptures in support of his Light; which when Wigan had Answered, without one word of Reflection or Abuse upon the Quakers, only giving a Fair and Calm Exposition of those Scriptures which the Quakers had Strained in Favour of their Notion of the Light within; Margaret Fell seeing her Huge sweaty Lover Reduced to his Principles, first Opened in his Rescue, and Cried out to Wigan (having now the Giant at his Mercy) Thou art a Miserable Creature. This was seconded by James Brown (says Wigan. p. 20.) with great Fierceness, saying, Thou art an Enemy of God. Thomas Davenport put in his Thrust, and said Thou hast Denied Christ to Day. Richard Cubban would not be behind, he said, Thou hast Denied the Lord that bought thee, and would undertake to Prove that Wigan was one of those False Prophets mentioned 2 Pet. 2.1. This was struck home like Brutus. But they had not Leisure in that Fray to his hear Proofs, and so the Knight escaped for that time. But afterwards the Fox Giant having Recovered Breath and Courage, yet but Faint, Attacked Wigan in these words, Thou art not a Rational Man. This was much below his ordinary Mettle. He was out of Breath. But he was Seconded to Purpose by a young Hardy Champion, John Berley, who Hewed him thus. The Eternal Judgements of God will fall upon thee, and Burn the up as Chaff: Thou art worse than a Drunkard. At which the Knight Fled— but did not Escape so. For James Park Pursued him to his Chamber, and there gave him the Parting Blow, with great Vehemency (says Wigan p. 21.) in these words. Thou art a Liar, and a Deceiver, and the Curse of God will be upon thee in thy Bedchamber, and Closet, and wherever thou goest, etc. Nor could this satisfy. He sent to Wigan afterwards a long Paper filled with Curses and Exclamations of Rage and Fury, which he sets down Verbatim. Where he calls him Monster, strange Birth of the Flesh, Dark, Hard, Blind, and such sort of the soft Breathe of the Quaker Spirit! No Waterman or Oyster-Woman have their Artillery more Ready than the Quakers, when any Hard Ugly Question is asked at them: And their Answers are as Artificial Cross Purposes. Not a word to the Point. For Ill Words are Ill Words however they come in. And they save Answering to the Purpose, when it cannot be done. Thus Wigan tells p. 59 That he asked this Question at Margaret Fell. viz. What Parish Priest in England had got more Money with his Tongue than George Fox since he was Journeyman Shoemaker in Manchester? It was an Unmannerly Question indeed, and Rubbed upon a Sore place. For the Original of the Quakers was a Company of Poor, Ignorant, Nasty Country Boys and Sluts, Journeymen and Maidservants to Shoemakers, Tailors, Weavers, etc. who Breaking lose from their Masters and Mistresses, Run a Religion-Hunting, as an Easier Trade, like that of the Gipsies, and of more Prospect of Gain, from the Encouragement given them by that Blessed Act of Toleration, when the Church was sufficiently Humbled, in 1649, and 1650; then Fox first Vnkenneled; and with his Cubs having Immediately Commenced Preachers, by Virtue of an Act of State; But having no other Reverences settled upon them, than the Inheritance of the Jesuits, Rapite Capite, Catch who Catch can, their first Effort, like that of the Regulars in the Church of Rome, was to shake the Tithes and Maintenance of the Secular Clergy, that, in the Scramble, some might come to Their share. And the Best Share they have got, tho' under the Name of freewill offerings, and Elemonsinary Settlements. This made the Quakers first open their Mouths against the small Pittance which was then Allowed to the Preachers Established; whom they termed Hirelings and Greedy-Dogs for Receiving any thing from the People; Yet themselves soon Grew Rich and Thriving upon the Viis & Modis, the Ways and Means of this their new Preaching Trade. And are now Grown so Insolent and High-Crested as to Upbraid others who had something to Lose, as the Author of the Sn. for his Losses, and being now, as they call him, Necessitous; which makes Good the Old Proverb, Set a Beggar on Horseback, etc. Now George Fox having Grown up from his Leathern Breeches, and Two-footed Pad, to Act the Gentleman, and Ride with his Man carring of his Cloak before him; and (having the full Command of the Thousands in the Quaker-Treasury) to Pretend to Mrs. Fell the Widow of a Judge, it could not but be a Grating Question to her, to know how her Gallant, from a Journeymen Shoemaker in Manchester, had Arrived to be Primate of the Quakers; and had both their Persons and Purses more at his Command, than either of the Metropolitans of Canterbury or York could pretend to over their Subjects? And whether any Parish Priest in England had got so much Money with his Tongue as G. Fox had done? Now hear her Answer, most Categorical, in these words. Thou art a Wicked, ungodly, Impudent Lyar. Thou Lyar. A Proud Disdainful Spirit. A Heathenish Spirit which Torments thee, and many more such Night-Owls as Thou art. Thou wicked Lyar. The Devil the God of this World is thy God, and thou hast done what thou caused, in opposing the Quakers, to get Him Glory. Thou hast a great measure of the Spirit of Envy, Malice, and Cruelty, and Blood. And so he stood Corrected? And this is every word of her Answer to him. This is the Famous Margaret Fell, Relict of Judge Fell, afterwards Married to George Fox, and became the Mother of the Quaker-Church, from whom they Expected another Isaac, in her Old Age, to whom they Prayed and Paid as Great Adoration as the Papists to the Virgin Mary. (See Sat. Dis. p. 90.) But she did not let Wigan get so out of her Clutches. She wrote three Letters to him. Part of which he has Printed in his foresaid Appendix. p. 58, 59 There she compares him to Korah, to Jannes and Jambres, for opposing their Light within, that is, their notion of it, in making it to be God and Christ. Therefore she tells him, Thou art without God in the World— a Minister of Darkness. Thy foul sinful Prayers are Abominable. Thy fleshly Performances are but Grass and Chaff. All thy Rotten Hypocritical Performances. Thou hast Committed Sacrilege, and hast Blasphemed against the Holy Spirit of God, which will never be forgiven thee in this World, nor in that which is to Come. Thou art under it, and it Remains upon thee for Ever— Thou art the Man— Thou art Accursed, and no other Portion can thou have, and this is Scripture and Truth to thee. Here she has Damned him, past all Hopes of Repentance; Determined that he has Sinned the Sin against the Holy Ghost. And Vouches her words to be Scripture. See what before is said p. 52. of the First Part, of G. Whitehead's making what the Quakers speak or write of Greater Authority than the Scriptures. And here Marg. Fell Chimes in with him, to show this not to be a singular Opinion, but the current Doctrine of the Quakers. And now there is no Medium left, but either we must believe these Quakers Guilty of the most Dreadful Blasphemy, in Fathering all their Vile and Horrid Delusions upon God Himself: Or otherwise that Every word of Margar. Fells, and all the Rest of their Writers are Scripture; and of Greater Authority than any Chapter or Verse in the Bible. Even all this that Margaret here, like a Bitter Scold, spits againg Wigan, calling him Thief— mere Sot and Ignoramus— night-Bird— Antichrist— Black Defiled Heart— who Gins with a Lie, and Ends with the Devil, and a great deal more of the like Billingsgate, for which a Ducking-stool had been the Properest Answer: Nay more, all the vile Nasty stuff in the other Letters sent to Wigan from others of these Quakers, of Vomiting, spewing, Licking it up, etc. (See Sat. Dis. Sect. v. of the Glean) all this must be of Divine Inspiration; and of Greater Authroity than the Holy Scriptures, or else these Quakers are the most Horrid sort of Mankind, who Vouch it to be so.  
These men Magisterially Bar others from Repentance; But if Repentance be hid from the Eyes of any, it may be said so of these Men. For after Wigan had wrote the aforesaid Appendix, and it had come to the sight or Knowledge of these Quakers who had wrote these Letters to him, instead of being Ashamed of it (which would have been Expected, had there been any Shame in them) one of them, William Hilden, wrote to him a Long and more Scurrilous Letter than any of the former, and Desired him to Insert it in his Appendix, which he has done. And there is such Beastly stuff as would turn any one's Stomach to Read it, of Scaled Heads, Galled Horse Backs, spewing, Purging, Stinking and Wiping; which they apply all to Wigan, besides, Grinning like a Dog, Teeth like a Lion, a Paw like a Bear, and Mouth like a Dragon's Beast, etc.  
And besides this Vnsavory Language (says Wigan p. 57) They do their utmost to Render me Odious and Obnoxious to the Greatest Danger, and that by Dark and Dubious Insinuations, as, That it is known what I have been, and something else they have, which must not yet be Manifested etc. It seems Wigan was in Prison, as they were, for Nonconformity; and tho' they were in the same Condemnation, yet (as Rats in a Trap will worry one another) this could not Restrain the Rage of the Vermin: But they Endeavoured to Render him further Obnoxious to the Government, tho' Themselves were more. As they have served the Author of the Sn. to show that they are no Changelings.  
But there is one Compliment, which the Quaker Appendix I am now Answering, passes upon the Author of the Sn. p. 49. where, speaking of G. Fox 's Inspirations, he says such Inspiration so Foul a Vessel (i. e. as that Author) must not Pretend to; which I would Recommend to the Consideration of the Clean among the Quakers (if any such there are to be found) For if we may Judge of the Foulness of a Vessel by what comes out of it, then certainly there never were such Sh—ten, Nasty, Scaled, Galled, Filthy, Stinking Vessels, besides Blasphemous, Venomous, Furios, senseless Vessels as G. Fox and his Fell Dame, with the other Quakers their Assistants beforementioned; whom, by their Language and Gust, one would Guests at the Best, to be Gold-Finders, who Daneed as Gossips at their Wedding about midnight. And what sort of Inspirations such Foul Vessels are Capable of, let all Judge who are not as much Defiled as Themselves. And if it be true what this Appendix tells us p. 6. That Truth Changes not, And therefore that the Quakers are still the same they ever were; then what Sh—ten Folks have we to Deal with? We must Encounter Them, as St. Dunstan did the Devil, with a Pair of Tongues. And what is said of the Jews, will be truer of the Quakers, that they may be known by the Smell. I confess, by their Phiz and Mien there are none who Look so much as if something were amiss with them. But if this were the worst of them, I would not Foul my Fingers with them, but leave them to the Scavenger. That which I am Concerned for, is the much Greater Filthiness of their Spirits, their Horrid Blasphemies, and Heresies, and that Implacable Fury that Reigns in them, which shows from whom their Inspirations came; For they are first not Pure, and then far from Peaceable, Gentle, or Easy to be Entreated; Theirs is not the Meekness of Wisdom; they Answer more to the Description of Solomon's Fool, 
Prov. xiv. 16.  who Rageth and is Confident. And the Advice of St. James is very Applicable to Them. But if ye have Bitter Envying and strife in your hearts, Glory not, and Lie not against the Truth. This wisdom Descendeth not from Above, but is Earthly, Sensual, Devilish. And, If any among you seem to be Religious, 
c. i. 26.  and Bridleth not his Tongue, this man's Religion is vain.  
I have shown their Bitter and Nasty Treatment of one who Gave them no Provocation, but was Provoked by them. Let me give one more. Because it is of a man without any Gall, whom I verily think (and I have known him sometime) all the Abuses in the World, even Beating could not Provoke to Return an Ill-word; for it is not in him. And besides he is a Grave Ancient Man, and of an Honourable Family, whose Gray-Hairs might Reconcile Respect from any not Destitute of Humanity. It is Mr. John Pennyman, whom the Gross Immoralities of the Quakers Drove from among them, after he had, in the meekest manner, Represented it to them; but met with no other Return than the most Bitter Reproaches, for his goodwill, and Christian Endeavours towards them. And they threw out their Venom against him not only in Discourse, in their Books and Letters, but they thrust out their Forked Tongues at him in their Sermons, at their Public Meetings, when they were Assembled for the Worship of their God, which shows who it was that Inspired them, and Presided over their Devotions. Mr. Pennyman has Printed some of them in a Postscript to a Sheet filled with their Contradictions placed in Two Columns; with the Time, Place, and Persons Names who in their Sermons, were Inspired by their Numen, to Breath forth these Meek and Christianlike Expressions of Mr. Pennyman, calling him, Grinning Dog. Whisting Cur. Barking Dog. The Devil's Agent. The Devil's Emissary. Thou Cursed Serpent, thou art Cursed for ever. I am moved of the Eternal God to Pronounce woes and Judgements against him. God's Power will Choke thee [This George Whitehead uttered at Grace-Church-street Meeting from the Preaching Place] unclean Nasty Spirit etc. All these were in their Sermons. And in their Books and Letters, when they had time to weigh and Consider what they wrote (but they writ too Extempore) they call him The Devil's Drudge. The Chief of the Devils. The Devil's Porter, setting open the Gates of Hell. Vassal of Hell, and Bondslave of the Devil. Wolf. Dog. Betraying Judas. Devil-Incarnat. Devil-driven, Dungy-God. Judas. Atheist. Runagad. Vagabond. Creeping Judas. Instigated by the Devil in the Spirit that would Murder Christ. Crazed, Crack-brained, Distracted. This last is as true as where they call him Vagabond and Runagad who is a wealthy and Substantial Citizen, whose Credit was never Blasted, and his Reputation stands firm to this Day. And as to his being Distracted, it has no better Ground; all that are Acquainted with him know the Madness as well as Malice of this Accusation. Can they charge upon Him any one of the Eight Particulars before mentioned, wherein They are Proved to be Mad, and Stark-Mad? Or that He was ever Guilty of any of them, even while he was a Quaker? For there are Good and Sober men who have been Deluded into Quakerism, from their Pharisaical Pretences to Holiness, without (for some time) Discovering The Snake in the Grass, and the Devil Hid under the Angel of their Light: But yet who never Run with them into that Excess of spiritual Riot, which Intoxicated their Possessed Leaders, and the Bewitched Herd that followed them: And therefore have Happily Rescued themselves, by the Good Grace of God, out of those Snares of the Devil. But the Quakers did not only Sharpen their Tongues against this most In-offensive and Harmless Old Gentleman, but they made use of their Hands; for as he there tells, at Ratcliff Meeting, after James Parks had Bitterly Inveged against him in his Sermon, calling him The Devil's Agent, the Devil's Emissary, etc. as above, Mr. Pennyman stood up with intent to have spoken one verse of Scripture, that was all the Reproof he meant to Return to all his Railing; but before he had spoken six words, Henry Sutton, one of the Friends, pulled him down with great Violence, and told the People, he was one of the Wickedest of Men, that he was a Limb of the Devil, and Deserved to be Whipped at the Cart's Ass, etc. To which Mr. Pennyman made no Reply. Another time in the year 1680, in one of their Meetings, at the Sign of the Bull and Mouth (A fit Emblem of their Endowments) Mr. Pennyman, giving no other Provocation than this, saying, He that Loveth not his Friend, cannot be said to Love his Enemy, one of their Preachers J. B. standing on their Preaching-Place, thrust his Stick with that Violence to Mr. Pennyman's side, that forced him off the step whereon he stood, and presently after struck him on the Face.  
Another of their Preachers, James Holliday, being altogether a stranger to Mr. Pennyman, told the People in his Sermon, that Mr. P. was a Companion of one W. B. who had been one of their Ministers; but, as he said, was turned a Common Cheat, and that he would have Ravished a Woman. All which was Notoriously False. And at their Great Tribunal the Yearly-Meeting at Grace-Church-street, James Holliday being told of this his Abuse and false Accusation, and that it was Expected he should Publicly Acknowledge the wrong done therein, he Replied, That Unless the Lord Required it of him, he would not do it.  
Another time, the 24. Aug. 1681. Two other of the Friends, Thomas Ruddiard, and William Briggins, from the said Preaching-place, Affirmed that Mr. Pennyman was Conversant and Intimate with one John Taylor a Ranter who, they said, had Hanged himself, being Guilry (as some of their Ministers Declared) of most Horrid wickedness, as Blasphemy, Whoredom Drunkenness, and the like; whereas Mr. Pennyman was never in Company with the said J. T. but was wholly a stranger to him, as he then Declared. But no Redress against the Precious ones, for Lying and Slandering of those who Durst see Faults in the Perfect!  
They will make no Acknowledgement or Reparation for the most Apparent Injury, Unless the Lord require them i e. their own Light within, which they make their only Rule, and not the H. Scriptures, much less any Human Laws; so that there is no Hold of these men. Because they have but one Principle, that is, To do what they Please. Nor is their Light within tied up by the Rules of Common Justice, Morality, or whatever is counted Sacred amongst Men. Here Holliday Refuses to make any Reperation for Apparent Lying and Slander. George Whitehead Refused to Restore what another Quaker (probably by his own Instigation) had Stolen from Mr. Pennyman, Unless, as he said, The Lord did Require him to Return it. And G. Fox justified Theft and Sacrilege, in Robbing of a Church, by the same Principle (See Sn. Sect. seven. p. 94.) Nay this is such a Foundation Principle with them, That even in this Appendix, where they are Smoothing over their old Errors, they Dare not Dally with this; but give several strokes, up and down, to show that they will not own the Scriptures as Their Rule, and upbraid those who make them a Rule, p. 11. The Holy Scriptures (say they) which in this Nation is Commonly called the Rule of Faith. And p. 51. They say of the Light within, that it is The only True Guide of Men in matters Eternal, and of Soul Concernment— And we have and do Continue to say, That whoever sets up any other Guide in opposition to this Truth and Light of Jesus Christ, or Prefers any other thing before it, they have not a Right Ground of Faith; but all that are Obedient to this Certain and Right Ground of Faith, according to the Degree Manifested unto them, we Really own. Here by the Truth and Light of Jesus Christ, they mean their own Light within, because they say, according to the Degree Manifested unto them. that is, What they Think to be so Manifested unto them: And whoever sets up the H. Scriptures, or any other thing before this, i. e. before that Degree or Measure of Light which is within Themselves, they Pronounce them not to have a Right Ground of Faith. Which is a full Confession to the whole Charge that has been laid against them, upon this Head. so that no Rules either of Natural or Revealed Religion must Supersede, Direct, Amend, or Altar any thing of what their Light within does Dictate to them; because they take it to be The Truth and Light of Jesus Christ.  
And whereas this Appendix does Limit it to Matters Eternal, and of Soul Concernment; yet Will. Penn does Extend it further, p. 36. of his Preface to G. Fox's Journal, where he says, For being Quickened by it in our Inward Man, we could Easily Discern the Difference of things; And Feel what was Right and what was Wrong, and what was Fit, and what not, both in Reference to Religion, and Civil Concerns.  
And now what is it that is left out of the the Plenitude of this Power of their Light within? The Holy Scriptures, as well as our Laws must Bow to It: And the State, as well as the Church Fall down before It! Is there no Danger to Church or State from this Principle? Is this a Principle to be Tolerated, to be Encouraged? And this Appendix does tell us, in Plain Language, That as they have, so they still continue to stand by it.  
Sect. xvii. of the Sn: shows Apparently that their Principle is for Fight, that they have Fought; and that Desperately, if you will believe their Chieftan G. Fox, who, as there Quoted p. 210. says that their Character in Oliver's Army was, That they had rather have had one of them (Quakers) than seven men, and could have turned one of them to seven men. For Enthusiasm is a Principle which will Hurry men sevenfold more than Covetousness, Ambition, or whatever other motives Prompts men to Fight. And the Quakers being now so very Considerable both for Riches, Numbers, and United Discipline, they are not to be Neglected, especially upon this Account, that (as shown in the forequoted Sect.) their Principle is against all Government, but in their own Hands. In their Invectives they Commonly Join the Beast and the False-Prophet together to be Destroyed. By the Beast they mean the Civil-Government, and by the False-Prophet, the Church. Upon whom they Bestow as Ill-Names as any they have Bestowed upon the Author of the Sn. And Devoted Them for Destruction as much as Him. Therefore He may take it the more Patiently. They have Freed Him from the Scandal, of having it said, What Evil has He done? That such Men should speak Well of Him. And if these Wasps have Stung Mr. Wigan, and Mr. Pennyman so severely, without any Provocation, why should he think to escape, who put his Hand into their Nest? I could give many more Instances of their like Treatment of others, but I am afraid of Cloying the Reader with such Nauseous stuff, and very willing to be Released from the Drudgery myself.  
I. Therefore I will turn to show, that the worst Payers are the Hard est Cravers. 
2. The Quakers Insolence and Threatening to any who Oppose them.  That these Quakers who take so free Liberty with others, are the most Impatient to have any thing said to Themselves. They are Touchy upon the least Punctilio, and Improve any Reflection upon them to the utmost Stretches. George Whitehead last year, Printed a Book which he Intituls, A sober Expostulation with some of the Clergy, etc. wherein he writes in a very Threatening stile to two of the Established Clergy, Mr. Smithies and Mr. Archer, for the suspicion that lay upon them, of showing some Countenance to Francis Bugg in his writing against the Quakers. If thou (says he p. 11.) doth not put a stop to his mischievous Attempts, it will Affect thee— and the Cry will ascend Higher than to thyself. Here is an Innuendo against the whole Clergy. And p. 20. says he, Bugg's Abuses are in their own Nature Intolerable— and we do not Intent to Lie under his Foul Calumnies. Pag. 106. If you will be mute in this matter (says he to these Clergymen) and suffer him to Persist without your Public Dislike, then may you be further Justly called in Question, and Exposed thereupon for your neglect of Justice. This is Magisterial indeed! Here Whitehead Acts the Metropolitan, and corrects these Clergymen with a Superepiscopal Authority. What! must they be Accountable for Bugg's writing against the Quakers! And if they do but stand Mute in the Case! that is, if they do not take Part with the Quakers against Bugg, or any who shall hereafter come over (as he has done) from the Quakers to the Church of England, and Endeavour to Detect the Errors of the Quakers. What then? Here Whitehead threatens that they shall be called in Question for it, and Exposed thereupon. He says that Bugg's Abuses are in their own Nature Intolerable. I am sure such Insolence as this is, in its own Nature, and according to the Nature of all Government, or but the Shadow of a Church very Insufferable. To see a Snivelling Quaker thus Brave it, in the Face of the whole Church; and, in Print, to Threaten Her Clergy for doing of their Duty! It is not Toleration will serve these men's turns. Ex Pede Herculem— We may know by a Little, what a Great Deal means. Their Principles are Calculated for Empire. Their Motto is, Do no Right, and take no Wrong. John Gilpin in his Narrative, called The Quakers Shaken. before Mentioned, happened to call them a Faction, saying of a Pamphlet, That it was set forth by some of that Faction in York. To which they Answer in The Standard etc. Quoted before, p. 8. Thou full of Subtlety, is this thy Revenge, to Nickname the Truth, calling the Children of the Lord by the Name of a Faction? Which is Invented by the Devil, whose servant thou art.  
The Provocation was Greater, to which Will. Penn Replies, in his Scirmisher Defeated, p. 10. In answer to this, viz. That the womb of Iniquity was in the Quakers writings, upon which W. P. Cries out; He has Invaded my Body and Soul, Religion and Life; for Lam, by my Doctrine, if the Priest may be believed, an Heretic, a Blasphemer, an Atheist etc. And what remains but that the Dogs or Lions devour me, the Rabble or the Government sacrifice me etc.  
And if Will. Pen may be Believed, what are our Priests as he calls them? That Cursed Bitter Stock of Hirelings— who have made Drunk the Nations— whilst they have Cut their Purses, 
Serious Apology. p. 156.  and Picked their Pockets; Tophet's Propared for them, to Act their Eternal Tragedy upon, whose Scenes will be Renewed, Direful, Anguishing woes of an Eternal Irreconcilable Justice.  
The Idle Gormandizing Priests of England, run away with above 150000 l. a year, 
Guide mistaken, p. 18. Printed. 1668.  under Protence of God's Ministers— No sort of People have been so universally through Ages, the very Bane of Soul and Body of the Universe, as That Abominable Tribe, for whom the Theatre of God's most Dreadful Vengeance is Reserved to Act their Eternal Tragedy upon. etc.  
And for the Dissenters, he calls them An illbred Pedantic Crew, 
Quakerism a new nickname etc. p. 165.  the Bane of Religion, and Pest of the world, the old Incendiaries to Mischief, And the best to be spared of Mankind, against whom the Boiling Vengeance of an Irritated God is ready to be Poured out.  
And now has not he (to use his own words) Invaded their Body and Soul, Religion and Life! for besides Damnation (which he never misses) he makes them Cutpurses, and Pick-Pockets; and The best to be spared of Mankind. Does not that look like throwing them to the Dogs or the Lions or setting on the Rabble or Government to Sacrifice them? All this is made the Tragical Inference of Disputing against the Heresies and Blasphemies of the Quakers! And yet the above Language and Fury of Hell which is Belched out, with the Utmost Virulence, against the Church of England, and the Clergy of all sorts, must be Rammed down their Throats: while the Quakers will Fly in any man's Face, and send him to the Devil, who Dares call Them but a Faction! And if any of our Clergy seem to Countenance the Conversion of any from Quakerism; or but stand Neuter; and not Hinder others from Writing against them; he shall be Magisterially Threatened, as here by Whitehead, that is, by the Body of the Quakers, who own his, and the other Books Licenced by their Second-Day's-Meeting, as has been told before.  
And I think they have here Given a very Good Handle, to Return their Compliment upon Themselves; That if they stand Mute, and not Censure Will. Penn and the Rest of them, who have spewed their Venom, in the like Furious and Standalous Manner, against the Church of England, And Disown their Books, at least the Forenamed, and other such like Passages that are in them, then that the Cry should Ascend Higher than to these Particular Authors, even to the Second-Day's-Meeting that owns them, if they will stand Mute, and not show their Public Dislike (as Whitehead here Requires from the Clergymen) then That they may be further Justly called in Question, and Exposed thereupon; for their Neglect of Justice. Who will not do Justice, let Justice be done to them. Does Bugg's Disputing against the Quakers, and Giving them less than their Due, seem Intolerable to Them? And do they tell us plainly That they do not Intent to lie under his Foul Calumnies? And must the whole Church of England, and the State too Lie under the Thousand times Greater and more outrageous Calumnies that the Quakers have over and over again Loaded upon their Backs! And they will not, to this Day, Retract one word or Letter: on the Contrary, they vouch it in several Places of this Appendix; And have Printed it in the Post-man (See Collection. N. 6.) That they are the same they were from the Beginning, and not Changed at all. Does it then seem Tolerable to our Clergy and Magistrates, to lie under the odious Names of Beast, False-Prophet, Dogs, Witches, Anti-christs', Devils Incarnate, & c! Did the Quakers, for their Vindication, Indict Bugg at the Sessions in London, and object to him their own Daily Practice of Printing without Licence? Did they Complain against him to the Secretary of State, and upon a False Information, That his Papers were Seditious, and against the Government, Procured them to be Seized, taken from the Booksellers, and Delivered into the Hands of the Quakers? Did they Imprison William Bradford a Printer in Pensilvania, seize his Letters or Types, and Forced him out of the Dominions of the Quakers, for Printing G. Keith's Defences against Them; and Prosecuted likewise the Publishers, and G. Keith himself for his Life, Improving his Disputes against Them into a Design against the Government? Are they so Watchful so Industrious so Impatient lest any Indignity should be Past upon Them: And must all orders of Men among us, Ecclesiastical, Civil, and Military Bear their most Bitter Reproaches, without any Sign of Repentance! And Court them and do them Favours for it! or suffer them to Usurp Favours that were never Intended them. It is Plain the Act of Toleration does Except those who Deny in their Preaching or writing the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, as it is Declared in the Articles of Religion. That is, in our 39 Articles. These are the words of the Act. And it is as Plain that the Quakers have all along done it. G. Fox says, in his Great Mystery. p. 246. The Scriptures do not tell the People of a Trinity nor Three Persons; but the Common-Prayer-Mass-Book speaks of Three Persons, brought in by the Father the Pope. Here it is Plain that the Quakers do not Acknowledge that Trinity which is owned in the Common-Prayer: And the Common-Prayer-Book, being every word an Act of Parliament, it is Plain what Trinity is Intended in the Act of Toleration: And the Opposers of That Trinity are the Persons Excepted out of the Act. To which the Quakers have no Pretence, Unless they will Disown G. Fox herein. They must likewise Disown Will. Penn, who wrote a Book in the year 1668. to which he Gave this Title. The Sandy Foundation shaken. Or, Those so Generally Believed and Applanded Doctrines, of one God Subsisting in three Distinct and Separate Persons, of the Impossibility of God's Pardoning Sinners without a Plenary Satisfaction. Of the Justification of Impure Persons by an Imputative Righteousness, are Refuted. And p. 12. The Title of that Section is, The Trinity of Distinct and separate Persons in the Unity of Essence Refuted from Scripture. I know, for a Pinch, they will own the word Trinity, as the Sabellians and Socinians, meaning three Manifestations, or Operations, but not Three Persons. But that is not the Trinity Intended in the Act. But the Trinity which is Professed in the Creed of St. Athanasius, and more Briefly in our Litany. viz. The Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity, Three Persons, and one God. This is that Trinity Intended in the Act of Toleration; And which whoever opposes are Excluded from Claiming any Benefit by that Act. And this is that Trinity which the Quakers have, and still do Oppose; And therefore they are altogether Excluded from any Benefit of that Act.  
But their Opposing is not so Intolerable, as the Manner of it. Their Cursing and Damning (Horresco Referens!) The Holy and ever Blessed Trinity into the very Pit of Hell! And making it nothing but Conjuration!  
There is a Book wrote by George Whitehead, and three other Quakers viz. Christopher Atkinson, James Lancaster, and Thomas Symons (of whose Character see Sn. Sect. vi. n. v. p. 43. etc.) Entitled Ishmael and his Mother cast out etc. Against Mr. Townsend, a Minister in Norwich. Where p. 10. they tell him, And here is the three Persons thou Dreams of, which thou wouldst Divide out of One, like a Conjurer. And ibid. He (Mr. Townsend) is shut up with the three Persons in perpetual Darkness for the Lake and the Pit. This is thus Quoted, by Christoph. Wade, in his Quakery slain. p. 9 To which G. Fox Replies in his Gr. Mist. p. 246. who Denies not the Quotation; but Re-Blasphemes against the H. Trinity, in the words above-quoted, and more which you will find in the same place. Christoph. Wade wrote an Answer to this Gr. Mist. which bears this Title, To all those called Quakers etc. To which G. Whitehead Replies, in his Truth defending the Quakers. An. 1659. And denies not the above Quotations out of his own Book Ishmael etc. But (as the Quakers use, when Pinched) he slips it over, and takes no notice of it. Not that he was Converted from his Heresy, for in several other Places of the same Book, he continues to Blaspheme, at his old Rate, against the H. Trinity. as in p. 40. 41. etc.  
But finding that the Matter was not thus Forgot, being Re-Objected against them about the year 1690, in An Epistle to the Friends etc. at their next General Meeting in London. Subscribed N. N. There was Published an Answer to this and two other Books wrote against the Quakers, by Some of Them. Entitled, The Christianity of the People commonly called Quakers Vindicated etc. Printed An. 1690. There p. 28. coming to this Objection, they go a New way to work, and lay the Fault Partly upon the Printer, And Looks on the words as wrong writ, or wrong Printed. Wrong Writ, and wrong Printed are two things. But they Jumble them here, that the Reader might mistake, and overlook the Author, and so think it only an Error of the Press. But what was this Error? Why they say, That instead of [And the three Persons] it should have rather been [About the three Persons] which makes it nonsense, but not less Blasphemy. But however, was this taken Notice of by the Quakers, in all that time from the writing of that Answer to Townsend (which the Quakers say in this last book ibid. was about the year 1654.) till this Book of theirs An. 1690, that is, for the space of 44 years? No. That is not Alleged. But they say (ibid.) that G. W. Corrected it long since, where he has met with that Answer. How does this Appear? O you must take his own word for it: for is not He Infallible! But was not so Fatal a Slip of Infallibility fit to be Corrected in Print, to Remove that most Hideous and Blasphemous Scandal? which could not be done otherwise. For to what end was G. W's. Correcting it with a Pen upon a Book that came in his way? (if he did it) How should this Un-deceive the World? Who had never heard of it, if he had not now told them. And it is at their Pleasure how far they will Believe him. This is like another Error of the Press, which they let slip 28 years together. (See Sat. Dis. Sect. two. N. iii. p. 28.) And their Appealing from their Printed Books to the Original Copies. See hereafter N. 7. of this same Section. And how came it that none but G. W. Corrected this Monstrous Blasphemy? Were not the Rest of the Quakers likewise Concerned?  
Well, if this will not do, they have another Excuse. They say (ibid.) That G. W. positively Disowns the words, and Affirms they are None of his, and that he writ not that Part of the Answer to Townsend— And G. W. was sorry his Name was to that Paper, without Distinction between what he writ, and what he did not write in it, wherein those words are which gave the Occasion. Let this Advertisement Clear G. W. and Others; and suffice every Charitable Reader, as we hope it will. And G. W. sets his Approbation upon the Margin, in these words, To this I subscribe, George Whitehead. And now George thinks he is Licked Clean! No Spark of Dirt can Stick upon him!  
But how is it that G. W. let his Name stand to this Book for 44 years, without Vindicating of himself? or could not his Infallibility of Discerning Discover this Blasphemy all that time? Especially considering that Christoph. Wade wrote against this Book, and objects this very Blasphemy: And that both George Fox, and George Whitehead wrote severally Answers to Wade; And yet Neither of them found any Fault with the Writing or Printing of these Words.  
But if this should Clear G. W. how will the Others get off, upon whom G. W. lays the Blame? The Quakers say, Let this Advertisement clear G. W. and Others. And upon the Title Page of their Book it is said to be Sincerely Tendered in behalf of the aforesaid People, and their Ancient Friends. Now these Ancient Friends whose Names are Affixed to that Precious Book Ishmael, along with G. W.'s are here fairly Left in the Lurch, Disowned and Abandoned with all this Dreadful Blasphemy upon their Heads! And yet they will not Disown them! No. They Pretend to vindicate their Ancient Friends still, and that they have not Changed from the Beginning. As they tell not only in their Books, but in the Printed News-Papers, that All the World may take Notice of it. They are still Infallible, Every one of them in Particular! 
See Sn. p. 34.284.  And they are Conjurers, who speak, and not from the Mouth of The Lord. Now how came G. W. to write a Book jointly with Conjurers? And to set his Name to it along with theirs: And that without Distinction between what he writ, and what he did not write in it? For which he says now that he is Sorry. But they who Jointly Sign a Book, or a Bond, are Answerable Jointly and Severally. Such a Poor Excuse as this could not be taken from any Man of Common Animadvertence. For who would set his Name with others as Joint Authors of a Book, if he had not weighed as well what the others had wrote, as what Himself wrote? Yet this is all the Defence that the Quaker Infallibility can make for itself! that is, That it did not Mind, but let things Slip at Peradventure!  
But then, to Inscribe their Heedless, Indigested Stuff as the Word of the Lord, which these Quakers do! This is Intolerable! And the Blasphemy not to be Endured!  
For this, they give such another Excuse, in the same place of The Christianity of the Quakers. p. 28. putting it again upon the Printer. They say that instead of [Which is the Word of the Lord] it should have been [From the Word] How senseless is this! for that which is [From the Word of the Lord] is not that [The Word of the Lord?] But say they, We shall not stand by the said Title as 'tis worded without such Amendment. Yet Charitably think it was worded Contrary to the Intent and Meaning of the Author. This is Pretty!  
But how then came the Quakers, even the Great Fox himself, to say of their vile Scribles, as they almost do every where, This is the Word of God? See Instances, particularly of G. Fox in the Sn. p. 89, 90. Can we suppose that this was Contrary to the Intent and Meaning of the Author? How then shall we know what was their Meaning? They may Alter all their Books, and every word in them. Truly this would be their Best way. They will never be Right, or their Books passable till this be done. And if we could take them at their Word, they are in a fair way towards it. For here they say, That they will not stand by the said Blurs in their Books, as 'tis worded, without such Amendment.  
Among other of their Infallible Errata, I have spied two Letters in this same Page, which I suppose must go into the Basket, next time the Dust-Man comes about. They are two Letters, which are grown very offensive to the Quakers of late, viz. G. K. But they say here, We know no reason to Disown our Friends G. K. or R. B. for we have a True, Tender, and Christian esteem of Both. These were George Keith and Robert Barclay. And p. 26. say they, We have cause to Assure ourselves, that both G. Keith, and R. B. would Abominate this False-Brother's Attempt to make Divisions between them and their Ancient Brethren. Yet now G. Keith is the Great Incendiary, and Accuser of the Brethren! An Apostate! and as such, Excommunicated by the Sanhedrin of the Quarkers!  
But what Cause they had to Assure themselves of this G. K. will fall foul upon their Infallible Spirit of Discerning; which they Insist upon Now, as strongly as ever (See hereafter Sect. v.) And say that none can be a Minister of Christ, who cannot Discern what Spirit is in any Man, whether a Good, or an Evil Spirit, at the first sight, without Speaking ever a word (See Sn. p. 33. etc.) of which a Pleasant Instance is hereafter given of G. Fox in Sect. v.  
But to Return; we have seen the Silly Excuses which the Quakers have made for that Most Horrible and Cursed Blasphemy before Quoted, which they have Belched out against the H. Trinity, of Damning the three Persons into Hell.  
But they have another Put off, which tho' they have not Adventured upon in Print, that I know of, yet some of them make use of in Private Conversation, which is, That it is only the word Persons, which they Doom to the Lake and to the Pit, with those who use that unscriptural word, with Relation to God, or Christ: But then they must send Will. Penn thither too, who, in his Sandy Foundation. p. 15. speaking of the Son of God, the True Light, which Lighteneth every man etc. says, Who in Person Testified etc. Tho' G. Whitehead, in his Quakers Plainess. p. 24. says, That is not our Phrase, that I know of, or Remember. And That the Title (Person) is too Low and Vnscriptural, to give to the Christ of God. Now then let him Remember, now let him Know, That his Friend Will. Penn has used it. And let them Reckon for thus Contradicting and Thwarting one another. But however, G. Whitehead, and the other Quakers, have sent to the Pit, all the Church of England, and all the Christian World, who do Profess Faith in the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity, And the Persons themselves, not only the Word, or Letters: for these cannot be sent thither.  
And shall those, who not only Deny, but Blaspheme: Not only Blaspheme, but send to the Pit of Hell (O Horror to Repeat it!) the Persons of the Holy Trinity— Shall these be Shrouded under an Indulgence, which Expressly Spews out all such from Under its Protection, who Oppose or Deny the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity? Shall these be Included in this Toleration, who will not Disown G. Whitehead, for the Quotations above Cited; but still think him a Teacher sent from God? Let this Test be put upon the Quakers: And see whether they will Part with G. Whitehead, or the Toleration? If they stick by George, in this, it is a Demonstration that they like this Doctrine he has Delivered.  
But they have given us a Full and Authoritative Decision, in this matter, That they do still own and Adhere to not only these Doctrines before Quoted: But All and Every Part of what has been Delivered by their Doctors ever since their Beginning. In their Decretal Epistle, from their yearly Meeting at London (which is their Supreme, and most General Council) for the year 1696. They do Re-Assert and Confirm All their Ancient Testimonies, And that, in All the Parts of it. For (say they) Truth is one, and Changes not: And what it Convinced us of to be Evil in the Beginning, it Reproves still. This is to keep up their Infallibility. And in this, both Antidote and Appendix and in all their Late writings, they strenuously Assert, That they have not Changed at all, at least, in any Point of Doctrine: And still stand by, and Maintain All that they have Printed, or Preached, since they were Quakers. And, as if this had not been Enough, they have Printed it in the Post-Man, that none might be Ignorant of it.  
I say not this, That I would have any Persecution (as they call it) Renewed against them. I like not that Method. for there are Honest, Well-Meaning Men among them; and the Sincere, tho' Deluded, are most apt to put themselves into the way of Suffering; which often Hardens, seldom Converts them. And they are worthy of a Gentler Method. But the End for which I have mentioned this Act, is, first, To do that Right to the Government, as to Free them from the Scandal of Recognising the Quakers as Protestants, who Deny the Holy Trinity, the Satisfaction of Christ, and all outward both Sacraments and Priesthood; therefore the Protestant Religion is not Answerable or Reproachable for Them. Secondly I have Minded the Quakers of this, That if neither Religion nor Good Manners can Restrain their Fury, yet that out of Policy they would learn a little more Decency towards the Clergy, especially the Bishops, who have it in their Hands to put the Penal Laws in Execution against them, They not being Included within the Act of Toleration. And since they Enjoy their Present Liberty, merely from the Grace, at least, the Good Nature of those, whom of all Mankind they have Endeavoured to Render most Abhorred; I think it is but a Reasonable and very Favourable Composition, That they should Retract the Above Mentioned and other such like Base and most Scandalous Reflections which they have Cast upon the Church of England, Her Priests and Bishops, as well as All the Rest of Her Community. For we say Leave is Light; And that Favour is ill Bestowed, that is not worth Thanks, at least, Fair Usage.  
Now the Reparatation ought to be as Public as the Injury. Therefore the Easiest way I can Propose for the Quakers, is, That their Second-Days-Meeting, which do sit every week in London, should Publish Under their Hands a Condemnation of the said Scandals and Abuses vented by Will. Penn, G. Fox, and others of their Writers against the Church of England, Particularly These before Quoted, and Suffer it to be Printed. But most Especially what is above Quoted of most Hideous Blasphemy against the Holy and Tremendous Trinity of God. But if they Remain Mute in this Matter (as G. Whitehead says to the Ministers) And Refuse to Right God, and His Church from these Abuses cast upon Them, which are in their own Nature Intolerable, then may she justly say in Whitehead's words, We do not intent to lie under their Foul Calumnies, Then Let The Cry Ascend Higher, Then May they be further justly called in Question, and Exposed thereupon, for their Neglect of Justice. Then may the Bishops (if they think fit) send to their Second-Days-Meeting, and Require such a Subscription and Submission from Them; or otherwise That they should Acknowledge the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, in the words of our Litany and Articles, to Qualify themselves for the Benefit of the Act of Toleration. At least to Disown what G. Fox, G. Whitehead, W. Penn, and others of their Writers have said Blasphemously against it. But if they will still Adhere to their Former Doctrine herein, then have they totally Excluded themselves from the Act of Toleration. And then if the Bishops do not let them know, that it is in their Power to be Civil to them, they will be Good-natured indeed!  
2. But there is nothing goes down so hardly with the Quakers as the Doctrine of Repentance, because it Ruins their Pretence to Infallibility and Perfection. And of all sort of Repentance they Hate that most, which Requires them to make Restitution or Satisfaction for the Injuries that they have done. Therefore they must stick to all the Calumnies and Outrage which they have vented against God and His Church, and all others; and to all their Beastly Nastiness and Loathsome stuff, which Run out of their Clean Vessels! They must, by their Principles, Return with the Dog to their own Vomit, and the Sow to her Wallowing in the Mire. This Notion of Perfection is such a sad Ingredient in the Principles of the Quakers, as Eternity is in the Torments of Hell; for it Confirms them in all their Sins, and Hinders them from ever Returning. G. Whitehead has Published a little Book in December 1697, of which this is the Title A seasonable Account of the Christian Testimony and Heavenly Expressions of Tudor Brain upon his Deathbed, being a young man Aged about 17 years. Published for Instruction and Caution to the Youth among Friends called Quakers. where p. 2. you have this Passage, At several times being Advised to Prepare for his latter End, for if he Lived, it would be well, and, if he Died, it would be his Gain, his Answer was, He was not Conscious of any Action he had done, that he should be ●fraid of Appearing before God Almighty. O Dreadful! To see a Miserable Creature go to Death, Hardened against Repentance, by this Pernicious Doctrine of the Quakers! And to see this Recommended for the Instruction of other Quakers! As a Christian Testimony, and Heavenly Expression! And to show what Solid Instruction he had Learned among the Quakers, it is told of him p. 5. and 6. That seeing some little Lions of China upon the Chimney-piece, he said, Take away those Images, for they are to be Trodden under foot. And seeing another Piece of China, which had several Hands, he said, Take away that Piece that is Covered, for it hath Eyes and seethe not, and Ears and Heareth not. Then he took offence at a Pair of Guilded Teapots; And said you may take away the other things that are Guilded, and wash it off. And after they were taken away (says the Relation) He was at ease. This is told to show the Aversion of the Quakers to Idols, and how Tender this Youngman was upon that Head! And this was Printed, for the Instruction of those that come after; To show how Exactly this Precious Youth kept up to the Doctrine of their Great Master Fox, who in his Iconoclastes, makes it Heathenism and Idolatry, to have the Likeness of any Creature Painted upon a Sign (see Sn. Sect. xxi. p. 299.) And I suppose it is the same upon a Chimney-Piece. See with what Froth and Chaff these Poor Quakers are Fed! And Glory in at their Death! And yet do not Believe themselves! For if they did, they would not have the Likeness of Creatures, Lions, Bulls, etc. Painted upon their Signs, as is Common with them now in London. Yea and China Birds, Beasts, and Men upon their Chimney-Pieces, Gild Teapots too! and moreover do Sell them, for Gain, and all the Rest, that offended this Tender Youth upon his Deathbed; But not his Sins, for (Alas!) he had none; he was one of the Perfect ones! And his Example is set out, to Encourage the Rest of the Quakers to follow it.  
Now if you should tell any Quaker, who had the Likeness of some Creature Painted upon his Sign, that he was an Idolater, He would take it very Ill, and tell thee, Thou art a Liar, a Satan etc. If you should Ask him again, whether G. Fox was Acted by the Infallible Spirit, when he called this Idolatry? He would Answer, That G. Fox was above thy Shallow and Dark Mind: That He was sent from God; And Endowed with Power from on High; And Taught the way of the Lord in Truth; That thou wert one of those who made a Man an offender for a word. He would bid thee Read within, And Harken to The small still voice; And such Banter nothing to the Purpose. And then think that he had sufficiently Answered thee.  
This is the Method they take to Reconcile Contradictions. And no other will you get from them.  
This brings me to another Topick they use in Answering Objections made against them, 
3. Bringing of Contrary Testimonies  which is, To bring Contrary Testimonies to those Objected, without offering to solve those that are Objected; not minding (or Hoping the Reader would not) that this only Proves them Guilty of Contradictions; which is one of the Great Objections made against them. And indeed of this their Writings are so Fertile, that hardly a Page can escape you wherein you will not find some of them; For they are all Confusion and Contradictions.  
This is the Method through all this Appendix, which we are considering. They bring Contrary Testimonies, or so seeming, to those which are Objected; and think (but they cannot so think) that this has done the work, and Cleared their Cause.  
1. Thus Sect. vi. In answer to their Contempt of Magistracy and Government, their Manifold Treasons and Rebellions, they bring Testimonies from p. 41. to p. 45. of their Acknowledgement to the Government. And I could have filled ten Pages more with the same. for they made Submissions and Acknowledgements to all the Usurpations and Governments that ever happened in their time; as Each had the Fortune to get uppermost; And then they Beslaved that which was Down, which they had Worshipped before. Of this Many Instances are given in the Sn. Sect. xviii. To which not one word of Answer, either in the Antidote, or this Appendix.  
But there is an Answer which they have under their Thumb to some of the Passages there Produced, which I must not Conceal (tho' it should forestall their Market) because it will afford some Diversion to the Reader. These Passages are in the Sect. above Quoted of the Sn. p. 222, 223. out of a Book wrote by G. Fox, which carries this Title, Several Papers given forth by George Fox etc. The Book I never saw, yet will answer for the Quotations; which notwithstanding I take not upon trust of any one's Memory or my own. And can give them further Quotations, out of that Particular Book which G. Fox Marked with his own Pen or Aule (which he could handle much better) for I have seen of his Hand (or Foot) writing, tho' not in that Book, and it looked rather like the Ingraving of a Sciver, or the Scratches of an Awl than the Draughts of a Pen. Besides his Delicate Spelling, of which I can Present the Reader with a Sampler, out of that same Book. Which shows how much he was obliged either to his Amanuensis, or the Corrector of the Press, that we had one Line right Spelt in all his Works; tho' his Dictating has hardly afforded Us one Paragraph either of Sense or English. The Book I Quote is in the Possession of the Friends, where neither I nor any I can Employ can have Access. I mention this as a Trial for their Spirit of Discerning; and will venture their Reproof for the Mis-Spelling but of a Word. The abovementioned Quotations out of that Book, are Bitter Invectives against the King (Char. 2.) to obstruct his Restoration, and against All Kings and Kingly-Government. It was Printed in the beginning of the year 1660, when things were coming on fast towards the Restauration. But soon after, when the King was Established, than it was time (pursuant to their old wont) to turn about, and Tack with the wind. Then G. Fox wrote Marginal-Notes upon one of these Books (the same that I have mentioned) to Reconcile those Treasons and Rebellions which were in it, according to his Skill, that is, after the Manner of this Antidote and Appendix, by giving a Contrary Testimony, without Retracting the other. In p. 5. there are these words, That the Christians were not to do any thing in the Name of an Earthly King. And again, The setting up of these Kings and Emperors and Protectors, and giving them the Names of Excellency and Majesty amongst the Christians hath been since the Days of the Apostles amongst the Apostats in the Apostasy from the true Wisdom and Life. Here he writes upon the Margin (I give it you in his own spelling) This was in the Days of Olefer Cromell who would be King. G. F. And the like upon the Margin of p. 8. (where more of his Treasons were expressed) This was the time when the was so busy of making Olefer Cromell King. G. F. And the like is upon the Margin of several other Pages. Now, if this was not Intended for the Press, it was to give the Friends Ground to say, that they had seen this Exposition of his, and to make use of it, as they saw occasion. But if it was meant (as is most likely) to be made Public, the Friends, upon second thoughts, found it could not be done, without Reprinting of the Book; which would do them more Mischief, than such a silly Excuse could Heal. Therefore they took the safer Course, which was, by all the means they could, to stifle the said Book. And I believe they thought they had Effected it. For having (by some Art) Recovered the Book aforesaid out of the hands of one of themselves, whom they suspected, into whose Possession it had fallen, they have Condemned it to Perpetual Imprisonment, unless Rescued by such Discoveries as these. And if they put it not into the New Edition Designed of G. Fox's Works, they see they will be Detected; nay more, if they Leave out or Alter any of his Marginal Annotations, they shall be told of it, let them secure that Book where they are, as well as they can. Of which a New Edition could be given (if it were worth the while) without their Help.  
But now that I have mentioned G. Fox's Apology, wrote upon the Margin of this Book of his, for the Treasons therein Contained, it is fit that I should show the Falsehood and Apparent Hypocrisy of this his Excuse viz. That what he wrote against Kings and Kingly Government was only meant against his Olefer, when he Designed to take upon him the Style of King. In Answer to which consider  
1. That his words are against All Kings and Emperors among Christians since the Days of the Apostles; and against All Kingly Government, whether in Olefer, or any body else.  
2. He speaks p. 15. against Fight for the Kings of the Earth. Now there was no Fight, or any Appearance of it, at that time when it was Under Consideration whether G. Fox's Olefer should Assume the Name of a King: And he was then None of the Kings of the Earth. But ●●wards the Restoration of King Charles ●●●●er was Expectation of Fight. And G. Bishop, and this G. Fox, and others of the Quakers, did violently Persuade to Fight against his Restoration, and that In the Name of the Lord (as abundantly shown in the Sn. Sect. xviii.) It is true they were against Fight For Kings; but they were as much for Fight Against them.  
3. This Book of G. Fox's was Printed in the beginning of the year 1660. And Olefer had been Dead two years before. And I suppose G. Fox was not afraid that they would take him out of his Grave to make a King of him.  
But if it be said that tho' this Book was not Printed till the year 1660, yet it might have been wrote before in the year 1658 when Olefer Died; than it would be asked, To what Purpose it was Printed two years after the occasion for which it was wrote; And which could never come again, if the Design had been only against Olefer?  
4. But, to put the Matter out of Dispute, in the Book itself. p. 6. G. F. speaks of Olefer, as then Dead. these are his words, So when the Kings that Denied the Pope took the Tenth of Tenths, the Pope's wages that was Head of the Church, and when the Kings Died, the Protector took Tenth of Tenths, and He was the Head etc. He Was— now He was Dead, G. F. falls upon Him, as upon all others when they were Gon. But let the world now Judge, let all the Quakers, who Pretend to one Drachm of sincerity, Confess at last, what an Egregious Liar and Hypocrite this G. Fox was, to give it under his hand, that this Book of his was wrote against Oliver! And we may hence see what stress is to be laid upon their Contrary Testimonies; and how they are to be taken as Vindications of all the vile Heresies, Madness, Treasons etc. which they have Acted, wrote, Preached, and Printed. And All of them, both Parts of the Contradictions, Dictated as spoken Immediately from the Mouth of the Lord Almighty!  
II. Thus (to give a few more Instances) if one should Object the Implacable Rage, and Nastiness, of the Quaker-Spirit, and Produce what has been herein before Mentioned, what is Quoted in the Sn. Sect. xvii. and much more of the same Sort that can be Produced, they could Answer All by Contrary Testimonies (of which they have many) where the Quakers do Abhor and Detest such manner of Proceeding, as Abominable and Antichristian: and set up Themselves for all the Meekness, and Christian Patience in the World. Thus in this Appen. p. 43. Sam. Fisher is Produced saying, That the Quakers are not for Reviling nor Threatening nor Cursing; but Committing our Cause (saith he) in Quietness, to Him that Judgeth Righteously. And G. Fox, in his Gr. Mystery p. 237. says That the work of the Ministers of the Gospel is not to Reflect upon Persons,— And so thou (says he to a Minister he Disputed against) that art Reflecting upon Persons, dost show a Mark of thyself to be a False-Prophet— and Reflecting upon Persons was never the way to Beget to God. And Will. Penn says in his Address to Protestants, p. 246. Second Edit.. They that are Angry for God, Passionate for Christ, that call names for Religion— may tell us they are Christians, if they will, but no body would know them to be such, by their Fruits: To be sure, they are no Christians of Christ's making. He gave this Title to another Book he wrote, viz. Reason against Railing, in Answer to Thom. Hicks. Whom he Accuses for Railing against the Quakers: And thence Proves him not to be a Christian. For, says he, p. 169. He that Rails, Reviles, calls Names etc. is no True Christian: But such is Thom. Hicks: Therefore, no True Christian.  
And now, what would you have more? Does it not Plainly follow from hence, That neither Will. Penn, nor any of the Quakers, did ever Rail, Revile, or call Names? For then, by Will. Penn's sentence, here Twice Repeated, they are no True Christians. To be sure, they are no Christians of Christ 's making! But a little before this, p. 163. W. Penn sets down an Objection of T. Hicks', That the Great Quaker Ed. Burrough had Bestowed upon Philip Bennet a Priest, who opposed him, by way of Answer, these Names following, Thou art a wicked Creature. Blackness of Darkness is Reserved for thee. Thou art a Serpent. And the Curse of God is Eternally upon thee. Thou Beast, to whom the Plagues of God are Due. Now these look very like Ill Names, and Railing, to be sure, they are Reviling. What says Will. Penn to this? He says, That this was the Fittest Return could be made to the Questions which P. Bennet put to Ed. Burrough. Why? were they Rude or Reflecting Questions? No. for, W. P. confesses p. 164. 165. that they were Civil, no Railing or Reviling in them, but that he Queries smoothly. And therefore calls him a White Devil, and the more Serpentine for that. However a Civil Question, Deserves a Civil Answer. But Civil Questions Provoke the Quakers most; because it is hardest to Rail at them, without which the Quakers cannot Answer. Therefore W. P. calls Bennets Civil Questions Ensnaring and Trapanning Questions. i e. Ugly Hard Questions! they are to be seen in Burrough's works. They are very Sober and Pertinent Questions, therefore were Troublesome to Answer. But Truth is not Easily Ensnared, nor is Afraid of Questions. These Rather make Truth appear the more. And it looks like Gild, to Return Railing and Reviling: And that is the Method, which Will. Penn Condemns here as Antichristian. Yet concerning the aforesaid Railing of Burrough against Bennet, W. Penn says, p. 164. I warrant it, from God, and by the sense of His Eternal Spirit do Declare, That it was the Portion, and only fit Answer to be given to those Trapanning Questions. What! Better than a Sober Solution to such Questions, let them be never so Trapanning? Had not this been the best way to have Discovered their Deceit; and Convinced, or else Confounded the Adversary, and left him without Excuse? No. Says Will. Penn (ibid.) Had Ed. Burrough gone into a familiar opening to his (Bennet 's) Vulturous, unclean, Serpentine Eye— what then? E. B. had brought the wrath of the Eternal God upon Himself, instead of the Priest. Thus W. Penn. So that, sometimes, for the Quakers to Answer Soberly, without Railing, is to bring the wrath of God upon Themselves! and that is, when such Ensnaring and Trapanning Questions are put to them, as will not Admit of a Plain and Direct Answer, without Discovering their Mystery of Iniquity. But that is not the Point now. It is not, what Excuse they may have for their Railing, which none afford so Liberally to their Opponents as the Quakers: But is not Railing, Railing, be it in whom it will? was not this Reviling in W. P. not only to Justify the Revile of E. B. in such an Extraordinary manner, as above; but, as if that had not been Enough, to Fall Himself upon Bennet, and call him Vulturous, unclean, Serpentine? Tho', after all their Malice, they could find nothing worse to say of Mr. Bennet than his Opposition to the Quakers, and Discovering of their Errors, by his unmerciful Ensnaring Questions, tho' Confessed to be Civil. And the worse for that! Against which, they have Answered with their Teeth, and Broke them. But was this no Raling, no Reviling in W. Penn? No. Have a care of that! would he have Exceeded the Rules of Meekness, and Charity; tho' Hicks or Bennet did it against their Friends, and some of them, who were Dead too? No. He Protests to the Contrary (ibid. p. 166.) God is my Record (says he) this Day, I would not, to Inherit more worlds than there are Stars in the Firmament, have so Violated the Laws of Charity, against the most violent of our Deceased Opposers. Therefore, who can believe that such a Good man as this would Rail, or Revile any Body! And he did justly Correct T. Hicks, for slandering of him, as if he had Abetted the Rail of James Naylor against the Clergy; and more over, that he had Fathered it upon the Holy Spirit: and that neither he nor I (says W. P. p. 174.) have words enough to signify our venom and Malignity. And what was the Reason of this Heavy Charge? only (as W. P. himself there gives it us) Because I said of james Naylor 's Book, That if he had Treated that Accursed stock of Hirelings (the Clergy) ten Thousand times more sharply, it had been but Enough. That was All! And to be Accused of Railing or Reviling for this! But he went further in his Serious Apology, p. 156. And I would say not Enough (continues he) but that the Reverence I bear to the Holy Spirit would oblige me to Acquiesce in whatever He should utter through any Prophet or Servant of the Lord. Here is Ascribing all their Railing to the Holy Spirit! But W. P. goes on (as before partly Quoted p. 34.) we have nothing for them (the Clergy) but Woes and Plagues, who have made Drunk the Nations, etc. see before p. 34. And how they Damn the Clergy, not only of the Present Age, but Through Ages past, and that universally, as you will see in the Quotation brought p. 34. out of his Guide Mistaken. Here are the Dead as well as the Living: And not only the Priests of the Church of England, but universally, of all the Churches in the World. Yet W. P. would not, God is his Record, this Day, for more Worlds than there are Stars in the Firmament so Violate the Law of Charity, as to Rail, or Revile the most violent of their Deceased opposers! Here are Contrary Testimonies with a witness! And is there no Contradiction in all this? No. Far from it!  
For this is one of the Main Heads, upon which he Proves Thom. Hicks not to be a Christian. In the same Reason against Railing. p. 124. thus. He that Contradicts himself, is not led by God's Spirit, and Consequently, No Child of God, nor Certain Rule of their own Faith: but so doth T. Hicks: therefore no Christian Man. I will not say, How Patly this might be Retorted. But I would Recommend to W. Penn's second Thoughts, the Inference he makes against T. Hicks for all this, p. 167. No man can be secure of him in Common Converse, who, to Compass his End, upon such as oppose him, will self-Contradict, Pervert, Lie, Forge: beyond which, in this World, is nothing but direct Murder. And that's a Question, since, in some cases, it were less Irksome to Die, than to be Defamed. Is this doing as Men would be done to? etc. Apply this to W. Penn's usage of the Church of England, and others, in what is above Quoted, and much more of the same strain, that might be Produced out of his Writings.  
What can we say, to Reconcile these things, but that the Quakers think None but Themselves have a Right to Rail? or that it is not Railing, if it comes from Them, but Pure Zeal and Godliness? thus,  
The Saints may do the same things, by  
The Spirit, in Sincerity,  
Which other men are Tempted to,  
And at the Devil's Instance do.  
All Piety consists therein  
In them, in other men all Sin.  
But I have an Apology for Mr. Penn, Which I think Real. He tells us, in his Reason against Railing. p. 171. That he was then about 29 years of Age. This was Printed An 1673. And his Guide Mistaken before Quoted p. 34. was Printed An. 1668. When he was but 24 years of Age. He was then in the Heat of Youth, and a New Convert to Quakerism; And it is usual with such, to Exceed in Zeal. But since, he has had time to Cool. And his Conversation, of Late years, so much at Court, has softened his Temper, and let him see the Deformity of Rudeness and Scurrility (which has befallen most of the Quakers, Principally from their want of Breeding) Insomuch that I am very Apt to Persuade myself, He is Inwardly Ashamed of these things; and wishes they had never been wrote. And this appears much in the Difference of his Style in his Address to Protestants, and more, in his Excellent Reflections and Maxims, from that vehemence, not to say Rashness that Runs through all his Former writings. If it be said, why if I think thus, I should Press so hard upon Mr. Penn now? why, truly, to Rescue him even by Force, from among That Illbred Pedantic Crew. He will not take these words ill, for a Reason he knows (Sauce for a Goose, is Sauce for a Gander) But they have Chained him with Popularity (fond to get a Man of Sense of their Party) and, Perhaps, with Hopes of Universal Heirship. But these, I suppose, are not so Considerable to him, as to stand by all his former writings, and come under the Censure (now Repeated) which he (for much less Reason) has Passed upon T. Hicks. But, which is Infinitely of more weight, I Conjure him to Consider, what Account he must Give, before the Great Judge, if, by his Example, or Silence, not Publicly to Retract his Errors, he Confirm so many poor Souls, that have given up their Judgements to him, in those Destructive Doctrines (which he cannot but Know to be such) who might otherwise, by God's Grace, Retrieve themselves; and Return, with him, into the Bosom of the Church, and Favour of God.  
For this Reason, I have Insisted so long upon Mr. Penn's Contradictions, and Contrary Testimonies: and Repeated some Quotations of those above, which are in the Sn. in Sat. Dis. and others of that Author's Books, yet in none of the Answers that are come out to them, is the least Notice taken, or any Defence made for the above Hard Say of Mr. Penn. Which could not be Forgetfulness, they being so often Pressed, and so much stress laid upon them, more than of 20 times as much from those of the Common Herd. Therefore, there is Conviction in the Case. And since there must be Confession, and Satisfaction, before there be Forgiveness, we must, in Charity, still Press on, till we bring that to Pass; or otherwise some Reasonable Defence of these Railing Accusations, which Mr. Penn has brought against all sorts of Christians, particularly the Church of England: or else, he must Submit, by the rule he has set down, to be no longer Reputed as a Christian. And it must be some other sort of Defence than he makes in his Reason against Railing, p. 175. Let us not be Esteemed Railers, because we Rebuk Railing: Nor our Religious Censure of their Perversions etc. be Accounted Reviling. 'Tis trouble enough to us, to be thus Concerned in Controversy— 'Tis not our Choice, but theirs. They Began. Who Began with the Quakers? Did any Begin with them, Before they were in the World? Did not they Begin, who came into Churches, and Markets, and Houses, Challenging all People to Dispute with them (tho', of Late, they like not that Method) Did the Church of England Begin with them? why then all that Rancorous Railing, and Reviling of the Church of England? And must this be taken only as Religious Censures? And have the Quakers, has Mr. Penn, Railed at nothing, but only against Railing? he Confesses P. Bennet did not Rail, yet Justifies the Bitter Railing that was Returned to him. But suppose he had Railed, yet such sort of Venomous Answers is not Reason against railing, but Railing against Railing: And this Excuse would serve at Billingsgate. Therefore Mr. Penn must find some other Defence; or else Confess the Delusion of that Spirit, which has thus Led him to Practices, that himself Confesses Inconsistent with Christianity. And which look so Abhorrent in his Eyes, when he Beholds them in other men. And let him see, by this, and Consider, That that Light within, which he and others have mistaken for the Good Spirit of God, has been the Spirit of Wrath and Fury, which has taken Possession of them: And that the Light in them is Darkness. This, Likely, may Grate. But I hope it will Prove a Happy Disobligation to Mr. Penn. And for which, he may own more Obligation to the Author, than to those Sorry Flatterers, who Lick up his Spittle, and call it Infallible. Which Pretence, as he does not Believe, so must he Disown, or else Justify all the above Rail and Revile. Or Thirdly, be Silent, which, in this Case, I believe, all the world will take as a Full Proof of Gild and Self Condemnation.  
However, what has been said, will give the Reader a view what stress is to be laid upon this Method of the Quakers, in Answering Objections made against them, by Producing of Contrary Testimonies. Of which (having done with Mr. Penn, at Present) I will give a few more Instances. One I Hinted before, which may Properly be Mentioned here, for they will not take notice of it. And that is,  
III. If you object G. Fox, in his Iconoclastes, making it Heathenism and Idolatry to Paint the Likeness of any Creature upon a Sign; they can Reconcile this by showing the Contrary Testimonies of the Quakers Practice at this Day, who have Signs of Lions, Bulls, Bears, etc. like the People of the World; nay more, They can Produce a Contrary Testimony, even at that Time when this Iconoclastes was Printed, of— a Quaker, who, at the meeting of Sufferings, where this matter was Debated being of a Contrary opinion from G. Fox, asked one of Fox's Party for a Piece of Money: And showing it, told them that they must, by this Rule, throw away all their Money, because there were Images upon them, of Men, Lions, Flowers, etc. But this (tho' an Unanswerable Argument to them) yet could not Prevail. And notwithstanding of all this, they will not own that they are all of them Idolaters, who have Money, or Signs of Bulls, Bears etc. no nor that G. Fox was Mistaken; Because he Dictated this as from the Mouth of the Lord God as he did All that he wrote; and set down this as a standing Rule, That whoever speak, and not from the Mouth of the Lord, are False Prophets, and Conjurers, in his Saul's Errand. p. 7. And his Answer to the Westmorland Petition. p. 5. And the Consequence is Undeniable, that the Present Quakers are Heathens and Idolaters, or otherwise that G. Fox their Great Apostle and Founder was a False Prophet and a Conjurer. This is the use all Men of Sense can make of their Contrary Testimonies, which they Produce as their Vindication.  
iv Thus, if we object their not taking off their Hats, and paying Civil Honour to Men: They can show the Contrary Testimony of their Daily Practice, in making their Apprentices and Servants stand Bare in their Presence. The Mystery is, They are against Paying of Honour, but not against Receiving it. Especially from the Wicked, it is most Due from Them to the Saints! Therefore tho' they Thee and Thou the World's People, yet they do not care to be Thou'd by them. They Love very well to be Mastered and Mistressed by them. And will say to them sometimes, when they call the Quakers (after their own fashion) by their Bear (I had almost said Christened) Names, why dost thee speak our Language, seeing thee dost allow of giving Titles? thou shouldst speak in the Language thee dost approve of.  
V Again, if you object the Common Place which All the Quakers Insisted upon so much, at the Beginning, when they were Poor, That it was Antichristian for any Man to Sue another at Law; And a Plain mark of the Reprobate, and People of the World: In the Describing of whom, G. Fox, in his News out of the North. p. 19 Among many other Wicked and Abominable Practices (as he Reckoned them) sets this down as a Main one, These wicked Folks Are such (says he) as Sue Men at the Law, which Christ forbade. Yet now that the Quakers are Grown Rich, and have something to Sue for, They Sue as fast as the World's People. Yet this is no Contradiction to their Principle! No. But only a Contrary Testimony, to Clear the other when Objected.  
VI 1. If you object their not observing of Times, Set apart by the Church, as Festivals etc. They can show the Contrary Principle of their General Councils, their Yearly Meetings in London, which they always Appoint to be Celebrated in Whitsunweek, that being the Great Festival ordained to be kept in Memory of the Miraculous Descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, at the Feast of Pentecost. If it be said, That this time is appointed only upon Account of the Season of the Year, because the Quakers come yearly to attend this their most Solemn Meeting from Foreign Countries, even from the West-Indies. That Excuse will not do, for this Feast is Movable, sometimes a Month's difference; And if they Respected only the Season of the Year, they would keep to some Constant Month that all might know: But that they should Always stumble just upon Whitsun-Week, will not pass merely upon Chance: But their Reason is plainly, because they Pretend to the Greatest Effusions of the Holy Ghost, which they have made Peculiar to Themselves: And therefore keep their General Meetings in Whitsun-Week, and at no other time; which is a most Solemn Observation of that Great Festival of the Church. And yet they Exclaim most Bitterly against the Observation of Times, as being Carnal, and forsaking of the Truth etc. Nay G. Fox, in his News out of the North. p. 23. Names Whitsuntide, with Christmas and Easter, among the holidays which he Runs down. So that here are Contrary and Re-Contrary Testimonies.  
2. They now Generally observe The Lord's Day for their Public Worship: But if any should object this, as an Observation of Times, they have Ancient Testimonies to Produce, where the Quakers have Preached and Printed against the observation of That Day, as Superstitious, Carnal etc. And Solomon Eccles, and others of their Prophets, have got themselves into Churches, before the People Met, and carried with them, a Pair of Briches, Gloves, or something of their Trades, and set themselves in the Pulpit, or upon the Communion-Table, and there were found busy at work, when the People came to Church; and some of them have Opened their Shops on that Day, purposely as a Contempt of the Day, and to bear their Testimony against it. Which G. Whitehead Vindicates in his Truth Defending the Quakers. Printed 1659. p. 20. 21. where he Repeats this Question that was put to him. Did that Quaker Sin therein or not, who brought lately on the Lord's Day an old Doublet into Dr. Gell 's Church in London; and sat upon the Communion Table, mending it, while the Doctor was Preaching, the Parishioners forbidding him? And his Answer is in these words. What, wilt thou Continue a Papist, that thou Countest it such a Great Crime to Work upon the Communion Table, as if it were a more Holy Place than another? And, like a Papist, thou callest the Steeplehouse the Church; which thou hast no Scripture for. And if any Quaker did as thou sayest, whether thinkest thou, was his working there, or a Priest 's Preaching for Money and setting forth his ware to Sale there (as in the Market-house) the Greater offence? And where dost thou Read in Scripture, that men must do no work on the First days of the week? Thus he. Yet now the Quakers Cease from Work on that Day: And set up for the Observation of it, as well as others. Tho' formerly, they used to make up their Accounts on that Day, to Pay and Receive Money etc. which I can Prove from those to whom they have come upon that Errand. But to save them on all sides, the Quaker Infallible Spirit can go both ways, For and Against the Observation of the Lord's-Day: And Both as Directed by the same Spirit. Thus G. Fox Determins in what he calls An Epistle to All the Christian Magistrates and Powers in the whole Christendom. London. Printed An. 1659. p. 12. So all Friends (says he) of the Lord God, that be Moved to set open your Shops, or to do any work on the First Day, which the false Christians call their Sabbath— Do not ye Judge all that do not as ye do, that be not moved to do the Service as ye are to do that Day; And all that doth not do that service on that Day as ye do, as are not moved by the Power of the Lord God, do not Judge them that doth such a Service on that Day. Here he makes them the False-Christians who call the First-Day their Day of Sabbath or Rest. And if the calling it so be such a Crime, sure the Observation of it, as such, must be much Greater. Yet he Graciously gives the Quakers leave to be such False-Christians, if their Light so Direct. The meaning is, That their Light is Equally Infallible when it Commands Contradictions!  
But he casts the Balance against the Observation of the Christian Sabbath: only would not have those Precious ones to be Judged who do Observe it.  
I cannot Refrain from giving you his Reason against the Observation of it, which is Worthy of his Infallibility! You will find it in his Great Mystery. p. 101. viz. That it was not the Seventh but the Eighth Day. That is, It was the Eighth of the Seven Days! Unless the Quakers make more than Seven Days in a Week. And if it was the Eighth Day, why do the Quakers call it the First Day? But it is well enough, if the Light so Direct! Was this too from The Mouth of The Lord! Yea Verily! or else G. Fox has Decreed Himself to be a Conjurer. But the best of it is, No body will believe him, who ever knew him, or have Read his Books.  
VII. 1. Let me give Another Instance of the Contrary Testimonies of the Quakers. At their first setting up, when they were Poor and Beggarly, it was their Constant Theme to Rail at Fine Houses, and Costly Furniture, particularly against Coaches, which they Despised, as the Fox did the Grapes that were out of his Reach. They made these the Infallible Marks of Pride, and of The world's People. No man Denies but that Pride is a Sin: And that Men may be Proud of these things. But the Quakers made the Having of these things, or Using of them to be Pride. They Published a Book with this Magnificent Title, The Trumpet of the Lord, Blown etc. An. 1655. which Gins thus, Woe unto you that are called Lords, Ladies, Knights, Gentlemen, and Gentlewomen, in respect to your Persons— who are called of men, Master, and Sir, and Mistress, and Madam— And you must have your Wine and Ale, and all your Dainty Dishes— And you have your Fine Attire, Silk, Velvet, and Purple, Gold and Silver; and you have your waiting-Men, and waiting-Maids under you to wait upon you; and your Coaches to Ride in, and your High and Lofty Horses— And here you are Lords over your fellow Creatures, and they must Bow and Crouch to you— And you will be called Masters— upholding that which Christ in his Doctrine forbids, who saith, Be not ye called Masters— The Lord abhors all your Profession— Your Works are the Works of the Devil— in your Dainty Dishes— in your Lofty Horses, in your Curious Buildings, in your Earthly Honour, which is all the fruits of the Devil— You are too High, and Fine, and too Lofty to Enter in at the strait Gate etc.  
Yet now, None are more High and Fine grown than the Quakers! None have more Dainty Dishes, and Curious Buildings! None wear Finer Silk and Velvet! They have their Wine and Ale too! Their Lofty Horses, yea v●rily, and their Coaches to boot! They have their Waiting-Men, and Waiting-Maids! And are Mastered and Mistressed by them, without fear of that Command, Be not ye called Masters! For the Case is Altered quoth Plouden. They had then, poor Souls, None of these Tentations. G. Fox was known by the Name of The man with the Leathern Briches: which he tells full oft in his Journal. And his first Followers had, few of them, a Tatter to their Tail. Tho' they came after to upbraid others by the Name of Threadbare tatterdemalions (See Sn. p. 200.) They were their own waiting-Men and waiting-Maids! And Road upon their own Hobby-Horses! None of them had been in the Inside of a Coach! That was an Exaltation far above their Thoughts! As were Fine Houses and Furniture, to those who Pigged in Barns or Stables, and under Hedges! Therefore they Railed at all these Fine things, because they had None of them; or ever Hoped to have. Silly, Dirty Draggle-Tayls! And Nasty Slovens! But now grown Fine and Rampant! Yet still Pretend to keep to their Ancient Testimonies! To be the same Poor in Spirit, and Self-denied Lambs, they were at the Beginning! Tho' they Now stive to outdo their Neighbours both in Fine Houses and Furniture. They have got Coaches too! Ay marry! But you must not call them Coaches, for that Name they had vilifyed, and given it for a Mark of the Beast. But, as one of them said, when his Coach was objected to him, as Contrary to their Ancient Testimonies, he Replied, That it was not a Coach, only a Leathern-Convenience. Like the Traveller who told that they had no Knives in France: And being asked How they cut their Meat? Said, with a certain thing they call a Couteau.  
I could Enlarge upon Quotations out of the Ancient Testimonies of the Quaker Authors against Fine Houses, Coaches etc. But I am afraid of tiring the Patience of the Reader. Therefore shall Content myself with one more, for it is a Pleasant one.  
2. There was nothing they Inveged against more severely than the use of Periwigs. G. Fox had a Mind to be a Nazarite, like Samson, and wore Long straight Hair like Rats-Tayls, just as Muggleton did. But Will. Penn coming in among the Nasty Herd, could not so easily forget his Genteel Education. He first Began with, Borders: at last came to plain wigs. And after his Example, it is now become a General Fashion among the Quakers to wear wigs. G. Whitehead himself is come into it. Therefore I must Mind them of their Ancient Testimonies against it. Of which I have Annexed one in the Collection. N. 7. Because it is short and very Extraordinary for the Learning, Wit, and Quaker vein of Poetry. It will be an Entertainment for the Reader. But I would not Force it upon him, therefore I have put it, where he may Read it, or Let it alone. There the Quakers make the wearing of a Wig to be downright Sin and Confusion. And bring several Texts of Scripture to Prove it. They Compare those that wear them to Hermophradites, and (for Rhyme) to Catamites. Nay they make them Calvinists, to show their Wit: and that you might not lose the Jest, they put Calvus, Bald upon the Margin. So all that Shave their Heads are Calvinists. This too was from the Mouth of The Lord! They Abuse the Clergy for wearing wigs, ay and of a Light Colour too! That was Abomination! Especially if the Hair was Crisped or Curled! That they make a severe Aggravation! They should have put in Clean too. For G. Fox his Heart-breakers were Long, Slank, and Greasy.  
It has been observed of Great Enthusiasts, that their Hair is Generally Slank, without any Curl: Which proceeds from a Moisture of Brain, Inclines to Folly. It was thus with Fox and Muggleton. But the Quakers wigs now hinder us from the Observation. And Will. Penn, G. Whitehead etc. wear not only Fair, but Curled wigs. For none other are Made. They should set up some Quaker Wigg-makers, to make them wigs of Downright Plain Hair, without the Profane Curl of the World's People. It would best fit the Quakers Plainess, and Down-rightness, or Right-downess. I Recommend to W. Penn, G. Whitehead, and the Rest of the Wigged Quaker Preachers, these sweet Lines of their Poet Laureate, out of his foresaid Declaration against wigs.  
What wonder Women wear Gay Gold and Pearls,  
When Men Religious wear Gold Locks of Girls?  
Should Christian Guides affect a Whorish Guise? etc.  
Then they put the Question, whether wigs ought to be Permitted in Case of Health, when it may be Necessary to cut off ones Hair? And it is Ruled in the Negative. That they must rather go Bald. This pretence for Pride (say they) is no better than what is for Drunkeness and Whoredom. And they Propose the Example of Elisha, who (as they have found it out) wore no Wigg, when the Children called him Bald-Head! And they do not believe that Peter or Paul wore wigs! For if they had, than (say they very Smartly) The Women Christians might have Retorted upon them thus, Was that the Cause, Peter and Paul, that you bade Us leave off our Locks, that you, and such like, might get them yourselves, to make Periwigs of? Now may not the Innocent Lasses and Daughters of Zion make the same Repartee upon Will. Penn and G. Whitehead? Was it for this Cause, Good William and George etc. They Examine another Excuse for wigs. viz. Some say, shaving is to Prevent the Pox. To which they Answer, Small honour to wigwearers, to Incur such a suspicion of it. This suspicion comes Near some of the most Able Holders-forth among the Quaking-Friends. See Sn. p. 4.7. I know not whether G. Archer, or if C. Atkinson wore a Wigg: But he might have had Occasion for it, from what you will find in the Sn. p. 43. etc. And a Quaker said lately at the Conference in Norfolk, That he was at Last Hanged for a High-way-Man. (A pretty Life and Death for a Quaker Apostle!) And therefore that they did Disown him. It was full time! They will Quit any of their Friends at the Gallows. But they will not yet Disown his Books, which G. Fox, G. Whitehead etc. have Defended and owned. For than they must disown Fox, Whitehead, Howgil, and Burrough, etc. who wrote a Preface to one of his Books, called The Standard of the Lord: And with 15 or 16 more of the Eminent Quakers, Subscribed to it. And they never Disowned any of Atkinson's Books, but Defended and Justified them, when the Professors brought Quotations out of them. But to Return.  
In that Precious Declaration against wigs, it is said, That the Apostles went with Sandabs', and a Single Coat, whose Examples the famousest Primitive Christians followed— yea, and Primitive Quakers too! who Generally went Barefoot, because they had no Shoes: And few of them were Worth Two Coats, or had one Good one. Which might have been one of the Causes, why they brought up the fashion of going Naked; And they Urged the Example too of the Prophets for that!  
They Boast (ibid.) how John milner, a Friend about Northampton, a Wigg-maker, left off his Trade, and was made to Burn one in his Prentice's sight, and Print against it. And that John Hall, a Gentleman of Northumberland, being Convinced, sitting at a Meeting, was shaken by the Lord's Power, Plucked off, and threw down his Wigg. etc.  
When shall we see such a Power in the Quaker-Meetings now? To see their wigs fly about, or left for Mops to clean the House, and they come out all Elisha's! They must do this, or else Renounce their Ancient Friends, and their Precious Testimonies. Else that is not True, which they say in their yearly Epistle for the year 1696, That what their Light Convinced them of to be Evil in the Beginning, it Reproves still.  
For it Convinced them of these things, Fine-Houses, Coaches, wigs, &c, That they were very Evil! In The Trumpet of the Lord Blown, before Quoted, p. 2. They made All those to be mere Heathens who used these things, especially the Priests who Suffered them. Thus say they, And you say, he is a Minister of Christ, and he saith you are Christians, Whereas you are All Heathens, both Priest and People.  
And so sure were the Quakers then of the Truth of this, And of the Force of these their Doughty Arguments, That they say (ibid. p. 5.) And if you will not believe this, you would not believe Dives and he should Rise from the Dead. Yet there are not now more Dives' among any sort of People than the Quakers! They are Rich, and far Sumptuously. And they Direct these their Dictates to Christ Himself; for thus say they (ibid.) To the Light in all your Consciences I speak. Now they make this Light to be Christ, and God Himself. And thus they take upon them to Instruct and Teach the Light! This Confounds All their Preaching and Teaching. For has the Light, has Christ need of being Taught by Them! But this belongs to another Head. And is spoke of in Prim. Heres. to which this Appendix is said to be an Answer. But says nothing to it. Therefore I Return, and go on with the Present Subject.  
VIII. Their Primitive Principle was, That none should Preach or Pray but as the Spirit moved them. And they brought it as an Argument against all other Professions, that they did not Preach etc. by the Spirit, because they had set and stated Times for it, as if the Spirit were obliged to come at their Appointment. Yet now the Spirit moves Them just at such Times as they Appoint: And they have their Stated Days and Hours of Worship like other People.  
IX. They now Swear in the same Terms, which before they Declared to be a Direct Oath; and yet Pretend to stand still to their former Principle against the Lawfulness of taking an Oath▪ See Sat. Dis. Sect v. N. seven. p. 54.  
It would be Endless to Pursue their Contradictions, see a Catalogue that Mr. Peniman has Printed of them.  
This I hope will be sufficient to show, that the Method taken in this Antidote and Appendix, of bringing Contrary Testimonies, is no Clearing of the Objections brought against the Quakers, while they Refuse to Disown those Heresies etc. which are plainly Proved upon them. It is as if a Man Accused of Treason should bring Testimonies where he spoke Honourably of the King; but did not offer to Disprove any Part of the Evidence brought against him.  

Double meanings and Cross-purposes.  4. There is another Method of Great service to the Quakers, in Answering their Adversaries, and Deceiving of them, which is The Double-Meanings they have in their words: whereby, tho' they speak the same Words that you do; and know your Meaning fully in them: yet they Mean them in a Quite Different Sense: And so, in Quakers Plainess, make their Escape! But there being so much said of this, in the First Part §. v. p. 9 etc. I need Add no more here; tho' I could Exemplify this their Artifice in Many other Instances, were I not Tender of the Reader's Labour, and Mine own. And that I think these are sufficient, at least, till Answered.  
There is Another Trick of the Quakers, may come in with this Head; And I cannot give it a Better Name, than Cross-Purposes, that is, They will not Answer Directly, but, as we say, About the Bush. But there is always a Reason for it, when they so do. Thus if you Ask them, whether they are Perfect, even as God? They will Answer, Be ye Perfect as your Heavenly Father is Perfect. And, As He is, so are we in this World. If you Ask whether the very Body of Christ, Flesh, Blood and Bones, be in them? They will Answer, We are Bone of His Bone, and Flesh of His Flesh. If you ask, How they Understand these Scriptures? whether Strictly and in a Literal Sense? They will Answer, Let him that Readeth Understand. And, He that hath Ears to Hear, let Him Hear. And no other satisfaction will you get from them. But the meaning is, They Dare not Assert their Blasphemies Broad-faced: And would thus Hid them. But this shows them Plain; And to what Sense they wrist the Scriptures, which they thus Quote. These are the sort of Answers you will Generally find in Fox's Gr. Mystery. But we know what they Hold, by what they Oppose.  
Of a Kin with this, is their never failing Allegories, by the Force of which they can Wrist any Text in Scripture, From or To what Meaning they Fancy. Much has been said as to this Point, in their turning the Humanity of Christ, His Birth, Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension; the Resurrection of our Bodies, and Future Judgement; with the Sacraments of Baptism and The Lord's Supper, and other outward Ordinances, into an Inward and Allegorical Sense, to the Total overthrow of the Whole Christian Faith.  
I find some Pleasant Instances of this Kind, in William Haworth his Quaker Converted to Christianity. An. 1674. p. 7. 8. of his Prefatory Epistle to John Crook. Where the Quakers turn this Text, He brought his Son out of Egypt, thus, out of the Egyptian Darkness of our Hearts. And this, The only Begotten Son, thus, Begotten in Us. And speaking of those who were Beheaded for the Testimony of Jesus, they Explain it thus, That to part with Carnal Wisdom and Reasonings, that is Beheading. And thus we must Allow what they so much Boast in, viz. That they have Beheaded their Carnal Wisdom and Reasoning. And it is a very full Proof of it which Mr. Haworth tells us ibid. p. 3. I told (says he) Christopher Taylor (a Quaker who Disputed with him) What Will. Penn said to a Friend of mine. viz. That G. Fox was as Good a Prophet as Isaiah. And Taylor did not Deny it, but did Affirm it likewise. Nay the Quakers must think so, Mr. Penn must think so, if He or They believe the Half of what He and They have written of George Fox, particularly in the Preface to his Journal. Their Reason, Mr. Penn his Wisdom and Reasoning was Beheaded, Murdered, Drawn and Quartered, when he could believe thus of so Consummated a Brute as this Fox. And, which is more strange, he must, by the same Rule, think thus of Himself.  
See in the First Part. p. 32, 33. the Quaker-Interpretation of Gal. iii. 13. Cursed is Every one that Hangeth on a Tree. i e. on the Tree of Knowledge, that is, what Knowledge is got by the outward Carnal means of Hearing, Reading, Catechising etc. Tho' they could bring Contrary Testimonies to this, of Their own Hearing, Reading, Catechising etc. But here is that Carnal thing of Knowledge, Wisdom, Reason (their Mortal Foe) Hanged and Crucify'd, as before they had Beheaded it. Here is Their Plain, Easie, Natural way of Interpreting the Scripture! But why should it be Natural? For the Natural Man knoweth not the things of God And the Letter Killeth! Therefore they will take Nothing according to the Letter.  
But they Mistake the Letter, or the Spelling sometimes. As one that I have seen, who lately being Pressed with Christ being so often called The Son of Man in the Gospel: And that their Light within, could in no Sense, according to their Notion of it, be called the Son of Man, seeing they believe it to be God and Christ from Everlasting: The Quaker Answered very Gravely, Ah Friend, there is much in those words. Mind, mind them! then Pointing upwards to the Sun, said, The Sun of Man, that is, The Light of Man, or the Light in Man. And so the Matter was solved!  
Another of their Preachers, Holding forth in a Public Meeting, (I can Produce witnesses) obviating that Text 1 Thess. iv. 17. We shall be Caught up in the Clouds, to meet the Lord in the Air, did thus Learnedly Expound, We must meet the Lord, in the Heir, that is, in the Light, which is Christ, who is the Heir of All things. Another speaking of the Resurrection of the Body; And having heard some say, That we shall then have Angelical Bodies. Thence Proved that the same Body which Dies, does not Rise again: Because our Bodies now are not made of Angelico; As it is said they will be then, being Angelical Bodies.  
This is like what is told in Sat. Dis. p. 42, 43. of Another of their Preachers mistaking that Text Joh. xiv. 2. In my Father's House are many Mansions, where instead of Mansions he cried Manchets; And thence Improved what a Good House God kept, There was Plenty of Bread, many Manchets! And Another Applying that Text Matth. xi. 30. My yoke is Easy, and my Burden is Light, to the Light within.  
I could Multiply upon such Fooleries of the Quaker-Infallibility.  
But you must Excuse such Blunders in their Learned Clerks: for many of them Learn by the Ear, and not by the Eye; They cannot Read, And so know not the Difference of words which sound alike, as Son and Sun, Air and Heir etc.  
This is one of the Reasons that they Play with Us at Cross-Purposes, and is one of their Glorious Methods in Answering what is Wrote against them. 
Not to take an Answer.  Upon which I will Insist here no Longer. But go to the Next.  
5. Another Method they have in Answering, is, never to take an Answer. But to Insist upon the same thing over and over again, without taking any Notice of the Answers that are Made to them, of which some Instances are given above.  
And then, on the other hand, if they Publish any thing which they call an Answer to such a Book; if any thing in that Book, tho' not touched at all in the Answer, should after be objected, they Cry, that is Answered already, Confuted, overthrown etc.  
Thus in this Appendix p. 10. the Quakers say no more to all those several Charges which are laid against them in the Sn. And, to save Repetition, Referred to in Primitive Heresy, but, That these Charges are, near All of them, already Answered by George Whitehead in the Antidote. This was spoke a little Guiltily. Near All of them. That confesses there were Some not Answered. If you mean a Fair and Full Answer, than the truth is, not one of them is Answered. But there are a Great Many, and not Near All that are not so much as once Mentioned, or the least Notice taken of them in that Antidote; and these of the Greatest Consequence, yet this must serve for an Answer to them All! And to afford this Appendix to say, in the same place, That His Abuses and Falsities are therein laid at his Door. Yet is there not one Abuse or one Falsity in the Sn. made appear in either the Antidote or this Appendix.  
Thus that Author's Discourse concerning Baptism is served. At the end of the Antidote ther are not two Leaves spent upon it, with this Title, Some Notice taken of the said Author's Discourse for Water Baptism. And it is Some Notice indeed, it is Named and Railed at, that is all. Not one of his Arguments Considered, or Objections Answered. Yet this passes among the Quakers as a Full Confutation. And when I have urged something out of this Book to some of them, they have said, O that is Answered, tho' not one word of it in this Some Notice of Whitehead's. And this Appendix p. 34. speaking of it, says, In which Chapter, the Malice and Impertinency of that Discourse is somewhat shown. Here is a Somewhat again, to save their Credit. But they tell not What! for that they could not. Yet that Discourse is Answered, and there is an End of it! It is very Easie Answering Books, at this Rate. And shows the Quaker-Cause to be past a Defence, only something they must say, to Amuse their Implicit Followers, and those who will not be at the pains to Read what they writ, and Compare it with what is wrote against them.  
Will. Penn, at the End of his Primitive Christianity, spends Eight Sections to Enumerate their Exceptions against the Church of England. And, these being the Causes of their Separation, are Particularly but Briefly Replied to, at the Close of Primitive Heresy. p. 30, 31. and 32. And one would think this a very Material Point, for the Quakers to Justify their Separation. The Appendix concludes with a Reply to this. Which I will set down Every word, to save the Reader the Pains of going thither for it. Thus than it follows.  
He now Numbers up in Page 30, 31, 32. divers things, wherein he would fain have the Church and Us agree, they not being sufficient (as he says) for Separation. This Man is of a very Changeable Humour, in his Title, and for near all the Book, we are sad Heretics, but now he would have us Associates, which if we will not be, he gives us a Threatening Advertisement, that he will Trump up more Heresies upon us. Well, in that let him do as God shall permit; But of two things he may be assured, that we shall have no Communion with his Lies, nor he true Peace in Persisting in them.  
Thus the Appendix ends. And there is not one Syllable more in Defence of all the Alleged Causes of their Separation. Yet this is called an Answer to Primitive Heresy; And it comes in but by the By as an Appendix to G. Whitehead's Antidote. So now that Book Prim. Heres. is Answered too! And if you should urge any of the Answers there given to the Causes which the Quakers Pretend to Justify their Separation and Schism from the whole Catholic Church, They would say, O that Book of Prim. Heres. is Answered. And so their Cause stands Good and Firm! Thus Easily do they Impose upon Themselves; and would Deceive the World, if they could. I might give many more Instances of this Kind, indeed through All their Answers. But I cannot stay.  

Their Pretending tha● the Quotations brought out of their Books are not Full; because more than what is Pertinent is not Quoted.  6. I must come to another Egregious Trick which they use; when Quotations are brought out of their Books so Express and Full that nothing can be Answered to them, than they look and see if there be nothing else spoke of in the Place Quoted, besides that which is brought against them: of which they can seldom miss in their own Writings, which are all Confused and Huddled, a hundred things together without Head or Tail. And then if the Objector brings only that which is Proper to the Subject he is upon, as he ought to do, to avoid Confusion, they Cry out that they are falsely Quoted. Why? because (forsooth) the whole is not Quoted, tho' All be Quoted that is Pertinent to the Subject; which is all that aught to be Quoted, and more would be a Fault.  
Thus in Prim. Heres. p. 10. where the Subject was the Quakers Contempt of Baptism, a Quotation is brought out of Edw. Burrough's works p. 190, 191. where he Reckons up several things as Damnable Heresies, such as calling the Steeplehouse a Church, saying that Singing David's Experiences in Metre, was singing to the Praise of God, and other like Perilous things! Among the Rest he Names Sprinkling of Infants (as they Contemptuously call Baptism) and not only Reckons this among the other Damnable Heresies, but says that to say Sprinkling Infants with Water— is Baptism into the Faith of Christ, this is the Doctrine of the Devil. And this is thus Quoted in Prim. Heres.  
Now what says the Appendix to this? Does it Deny the Quotation, or any word of it? No. What then? it says p. 33. That there are several things left out. That is true. For they did not belong to the present Subject, which was Baptism. But is not all that is said of Baptism, in that Quotation? And is it not Named there among the Damnable Heresies? And is it not said of Baptism particularly, i. e. the Sprinkling of Infants, and calling it a Baptism into the Faith of Christ, that This is the Doctrine of the Devil? Yea. None of all this is Denied. What objection then can be made, that other things, which were not the Subject in hand, should be left out; And which would have Confused the Subject more, if they had been in? You shall see. Appendix says That as the words lie in the Charge, they are not like E. B ' s. words. Why, are they not his very Words? Yea. But they are not Like them! It says further, The Snake has here declared himself an Enemy to well-placed slops, and given us to Understand, that he more Merits Advancement in Spain than in England. Why, what's the Matter now? Don't they Love Well-placed stops in Spain! As sure as can be, here was some Reflection meant about Popery! It is a delicate Simile, if Bays knew how to Apply it. He was very Big with it, he could not keep it till the time of its Birth, but threatens us with it two Pages before, he says, in the former Chapter p. 31. I shall anon Prove him (this Snake) to be a Splitter of Sentences, an Enemy to Colons and Semicolons— This Appen. brought in to show his Learning, and that he had lodged one night next Door to a Grammar School. Yet he looks a little Abashed; 'Tis a Hopeful Lad— He says his Lesson delicately— Come don't Cry, don't be Ashamed— Give me a Blow, and I will Beat 'em— What do they Laugh? Did they do it? Did they vex him? Come, 
The Direction of a Quakers Letter to one John Church, at the Sun, in Friday-street near the Church yard.  let us hear how your Master at Wansworth does Dictate to your Precious youth. Sat down. Writ Boys. For John Steeplehouse, (Comma) in Sixth-Day Street; (Semi-colon) at the Sign of the Great Light: (Colon) near the Grave-yard. There is the Punctum, the Full stop: Admirationis! Captus, Capta, Captum— O the Learning of Colons and Semicolons! O ye Splitters of Sentences! But Come, All Play will not do. We must to School again.  
How Towardly soever you have been at your Colons and Semicolons, you were put too soon to your Latin, or to soon Left it: And as Men are often Fondest of what they are worst at, you had not the wit to Conceal it! You had a Mind to have some Learning in your Book, that the Poor Quakers might hold up their Hands, and Bless themselves for that sight amongst them! But what shift did you make? Did you make any Latin of your own? No. Hold there! That belonged to the Form above you. What then? Did you Translate any thing into Latin? No, nor that neither. This is sad Teazing! But you took pains to Copy out a Latin Quotation out of Bishop Jewel's Apology. Was it any thing to the Purpose of your Dispute? It will not be Foreign to the Present Case (says Appen.) what was that Case? it was, that Idolatry does not Vnchurch, which he opposes. Is there any thing of it, in the Quotations he brings out of Bishop Jewel? No, not a scrap. It was only showing the Charges of the Church of Rome against the Protestants. What use do the Quakers make of this? why, they say, that as the Protestants were wrongfully Charged, so are they. Do they offer to Prove this; or show how their Cases were alike? No, not a word, only say (Appen. p. 4.) Hence we may have at least this Consolation, that we are not therefore villainously Criminal, because villainously Charged. They might have gathered the same Consolation from the Trial and Barbarous Regicide of King Charles I. wherein they Gloried. (Sn. p. 220, 221.) But no matter for their Consolations, they can take them off a Broom-stick. We are now upon their Learning, wherein they Begin to Boast. One of the Quotations they make is p. 2, 3. of Appen. (they would set it in the Front) And tho' they had nothing to do, but to Transscribe out of Bishop Jewel's Book, yet, to show how well they understood it, there are these Blunders in it.  
Bishop Jewel. Appen. Deo ipsi bellum facere— Deo ipse bellum facere— Laxare fraena— ad omne genus licentiae. Laxare fraenae ad omni genus— Nos ab Ecclesia Catholica defecisse— Nos ab Ecclesiae Catholicae defecisse. Bishop Jewel. Appen. Ceremonias— melioribus temporibus approbatas. Caeremonias— melioribus temporis approbatus.  
For Oecumenici, Ocumenici, and such like we will forgive them, these are Hard things! But p. 8. of Appen. there is another Quotation, in like manner Ignoramused.  
Bishop Jewel. Appen. Cum proximis istis Viginti annis— Cum proximis isti Viginti— Cumque res ipsa pro se loquatur— Cum; res ipso— Etiam postremo in Regum jam Aulas & Palatia pervenerint. In Regnum jam Aulas— Principes qui a sede Romana defecerunt. Principes quia a sede—  
Besides Impelente for Impellente; in Crementa for Incrementa, leaving out words, as for haec ipsa satis illis magna Indicia esse possunt, to say only satis magna esse possunt. And such like small matters!  
This is all the Latin in the Appen. except two words. p. 7. wherein they had as ill Luck, they had heard of Piae frauds, and going to the Dictionary, to be sure, they found Piè, and Guessing that there was some Mystery in that Dash over the è, and to show their Exactness and Nicety in Criticising, they put down in Italic Letters Piè frauds: And in the same line Impiè frauds.  
But Hang this Human Learning! All our Forefathers, the Poor, Silly, and, God help 'em, Ignorant Quakers, made it a Mark of the Beast; because they had none of it. Sour Plumbs! And we, to their Disgrace, must now run a Hanckering after it; set up our Schools, yea and hope for a College in time, to Learn that vain Philosophy! we Reform Backward! like a man in a Cockboat Towing back a Ship under Sail; This Wicked World even Draws us after it, and we Learn its Fashions, instead of bringing Them to Ours! They have not yet Learned the Pure Language of Theeing and Thouing, unless to Laugh at it: We are come to their Colons and Semicolons, and they Laugh at us too! We show our Parts in Latin, and they Ridicule us! We would be at their Fine Hard Modish words too, as Appen. p. 1. Opining, and Epoch. Nay even where we make Nonsense of them to bring them in, as p. 6. I will tell him he is Dogmatically False. That's my Man! 'Twas Bravely said! Now Fillip— and Scipp as many Lengths of thyself as a Flea. This Monster's Excellent Company! But I must Leave him. So much for Fooling. there's no avoiding of it, in their Conversation.  
Next their Learning upon Colons, Semicolons, and well placed stops to get Rid of a Troublesome Quotation, and Rescue a Hero at a Dead-lift (as Pallas came in shape of Rust) they I Deny your Quotation, if ever you Stop at all. And say, why did you not go on? Yes, that is, Transcribe a whole Book, if you Quote one word out of it. Thus in Prim. Heres. p. 10. G. W. is Quoted for his late moderation towards the Sacraments, in his Antidote. p. 114. where he says, That they do not Censure or Condemn those who are Conscientiously Tender in the observation thereof, for Practising that which they believe is their Duty, either in Breaking of Bread, or Water Baptism. To this says Appen. p. 34. That G. W.'s words are Imperfectly Quoted, and neither Fully nor Truly given. Not Fully? Why? Appen. Sets down there half a Page more of what follows these words, which is a Running out upon their Notions of the Inward and Spiritual Baptism. And what is this to the business? That Author had a mind to show only what Allowances the Quakers Now make, on their behalf who Conscientiously Partake of the Outward or Water-Baptism. And his Quotation was Full, as to that. But why was not this Quotation Truly given? Because not Fully, for the Reason above. Thus that Quotation is laid aside! And not without Great Vaunting of their having Discovered the Certain knowledge of thy Baseness (say they to the Author) from thy Maiming of this Place.  
But they had Reason to be Concerned at this Quotation, since they had not Sincerity enough to own the Truth. For their Great business at Present is to Persuade the world, That they have never Altered or Changed their Principles since they were first a People. Because they set up first upon the Infallible Guidance of the Holy Spirit; and that Every thing they spoke was the Immediate Dictate of the Holy Ghost; and they stand upon the same to this Day. Now Changing and Contradicting will not Fadge with this. Therefore this Appen. Labours mainly to Prove that they never have Changed, as p. 6. Our Principles are now no other than what they were, when we were first a People, for Truth Changes not. And p. 53. I have before shown, that our Principles are now no other than what they were when first a People. And Preface p. 3. What we now Profess, is no other than what we did. etc.  
This has been Disproven in a great Many Instances. But let us try one more in this Quotation, with which they are so Angry; and than you will see the Reason of their Displeasure. Is this Moderation which G. W. has now, at last, put on towards the Holy Sacraments, no other than what they Professed from the Beginning? How then came they to Excomunicate any for Receiving of Baptism? as for Instance, John Cox. And called it, a Drawing back to the Weak and Beggarly Elements. Come, Friends, speak out in Plainess, and tell Us, would you own any for a True Quaker who should Receive Baptism, and frequent the Holy Sacrament of The Lord's Supper? would you neither Censure not Condemn them, if they made a Conscience of it, as their Duty? Would you have Greater Tenderness towards these than for William Wilkins, whose Excommunication is put in the Collection, at the End of this, for Marrying one that was not a Quaker, and for Marrying by a Priest? Was this a greater offence than the Receiving of the outward Baptism?  
But, in good Earnest, did you never Censure or Condemn Baptism? Is this new Moderation of G. W.'s no other than what you always did Profess? In the Quotation before brought of Edw. Burrough's, it is Ranked amongst the Damnable Heresies, even to the Denying the Lord who bought Us. And it is called, The Doctrine of the Devil. And p. 644. of his Works he says, That it is not Lawful for the Saints of God, to Join themselves to your Ordinances. Yet now G. W. will let them go, and neither Censure nor Condemn them. He has forgot a Book of his own, to which he gave this Title. The Authority of the true Ministry, in Baptising with the Spirit; And the Idolatry of such men as are Doting about shadows and Carnal Ordinances, and their Ignorance of the Spirits Baptism (of which water-Baptism was but a Figure) Discovered. And herein is showed, that Water-Baptism is neither of Necessity to Salvation, nor yet is now Practised either by Authority from Heaven, or by any New-Testament Law that is in force upon Believers; seeing the Substance and the End of things Abolished is come and Enjoyed, wherein the Types Shadows and Figures are Ended. Yet George now will neither Censure nor Condemn them if they be Conscientiously Tender in the Observation of these Abolished Types and Shadows, tho' he calls it Idolatry, nay and Doting Idolatry! yet these men never Varied! they always said the same, since they were first a People, that they say now!  
Appen. p. 5. slighting all the Authorities brought for Baptism in Prim. Her. within the first 150 years after Christ (they care for no Antiquity or Fathers) says, Indeed if he can absolutely Determine the Question by the Scriptures, the work is done. And yet in the Discourse of Baptism, the Arguments are all Limited only to the Holy Scriptures; and (for any thing the Quakers have said to the contrary) the Question is there Absolutely Determined. They Refer to a Book of one Dell against Baptism. This is their Great Assylum. Yet he was not a Quaker, he was one of the Professors, whom they call Children of Darkness, and Damn them All to the Pit of Hell; And a Cambridge Scholar too! another Mark of Reprobation with them; and yet they fly to this Man, to Help their Light against the Divine Institutions of our Blessed Saviour. And they have Printed and reprinted this Book, as oft as they have been Attacked upon this Point of Baptism. And out it has come since the Discourse of Baptism was Published: This made me Curious to look into it. And there I found not one Objection but what is fully Answered in that Discourse. Tho' I am satisfied that Author had never seen it, before that Discourse was Printed. Yet still they Refer to that Book; which is only a Put-off, because they have nothing to say; and shows them to be Self-condemned.  

Their Appealing from their own Printed Books, to the Original Copies.  7. They have yet another Contrivance (which is the Prettiest of all) to avoid the Quotations brought out of their Books. When none of the former ways will do, than they say, They have not the Book, as if they could not come at their own Books! or otherwise they Appeal from the Print (tho' themselves have Published it) to the Original Copy; which if Extant, none can have but Themselves. Yet they do not Produce the Copy, or tell how it is worded there, or that it is otherwise than in the Print.  
Thus p. 9 of the Prim. Heres. there is a Bloody Quotation out of a Book of G. Fox's called News out of the North. p. 14. where he makes it as unlawful to Return to Baptism, as to Circumcision; and calls the Lord's Supper, The Table of Devils, and Cup of Devils, which is in the Generation of Serpents, etc. and p. 39 where he Denies the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to be the Gospel, and calls them Carnal, etc. To this says Appen. p. 32. I cannot Examine it, not having the Book by me; but I much Question the Truth of the Quotation. And this is all that is said to it. Now I can assure the Reader that this Quotation was taken out of the Book itself, and not from any second hand. And will he believe that this Book (which is Common enough, for I have seen more than one of them) could not be Procured among the whole Quaker Sanhedrin? or that, if this Quotation were much Questioned, the Quakers are so Good Natured, or so very Remiss as not to be at the Pains to look into that Book, if they thought to Catch that Author at one False Quotation, which they have not yet been able to do? or whether every sober Person will not rather Judge, that the Quakers do herein Plead Guilty? I leave it to their consideration. But hear another Pleasant Instance.  
G. W. being Pressed with a very untoward Quotation in Sat. Dis. Glean. Sect. iv. p. 82. out of the Works of Edw. Burrough. p. 273. where he Blasphemously makes the Sufferings of the Quakers, not only Greater, but more unjust than the Sufferings of our Blessed Lord Himself: He comes to give an account of this in his Antidote. p. 254. and he says, after the old Fashion, that E. B. is Cited Vnfairly and Partially in this Point. But he tells not wherein. These are only words of Course, in all their Answers. Nay himself finds no Fault with the Quotation, that there is a word Added, or Diminished, or Altered. But says he, Whether it was so Verbally stated by E. B. himself, or by some mistake since, I shall not undertake to Determine, unless I see his Original Copy. This Justifies the Quotation out of his Printed Book. And if there was any Mistake, it was not in him who Quoted it. So that G. W. if he Regarded Justice, aught to make Satisfaction for saying that this was Vnfairly or Partially Cited. But in the next place, this was Printed by E. B. in the year 1657. And reprinted in his Works. An. 1672. And these Works were Collected and Published by an Junto of the Chief of the Quakers, whereof George Whitehead was one, and his Epistle particularly (among others) Praesixed, in High Commendations of the Author and the Works. Yet now he would turn it upon the Author of the Sn. to Justify these Works, and to produce the Original Copy! But may not that Author more Reasonably Ask him, how this Passage of E. B's. came to be Twice Printed without any Correction? And why it was never taken notice of as any Mistake, these Forty years that it has been Printed, till just now? Suppose that Author had been taken Napping, at any False Quotation or Charge upon the Quakers, and should put it off from the Printed Sn. and bid the Friends Produce the Original Copy; and accuse them of Quoting him Vnfairly and Partially, because they Quoted out of his Printed Book: I desire to know from the Quakers, particularly from G. W. Come, George, (I'll take thy word for once, but not to make a Custom of it) tell it now, in good sober sadness, wouldst thou have so Excused him? wouldst not thou have made an Hideous Outcry, and Clapped thy Wings for Victory! But mark me, George, I do not mean only a bare Error of the Press, or what could possibly be so construed; but a whole Passage, such as this of E. B's. and not only saying such a thing, but going about to Prove it, as he there does, That the Sufferings of the Quakers were more Unjust than the Sufferings of Christ. Why? Because (says he) What was done to Christ, was Chief done by a Law, and in great part, by the Due Execution of a Law, etc. But that it was not so with the Quakers, which he there Endeavours to show, most Horridly Blaspheming! As to his Arguments, I Refer to Sat. Dis. p. 82. But, as to our present business, G. W. is brought, at last, to say, in the same page (p. 254.) We will not stand by the Comparison. Well. This is something. This is the first Confession that ever we got from the Quakers. They will not stand by the Comparison of their Sufferings and Christ's. But what then will they do as to E. B. who made the Comparison? Will they say, that he was in an Error? No. Barr that! For he gave forth all he Wrote as the Immediate Word of The Lord God. And all his Editors G. W. etc. have Attested this for him. And he stood the Highest among the Quakers, next to the Great Fox himself. Who has Determined (as before Quoted) That whoever speaks, and not from the Mouth of the Lord, is a False Prophet and a Conjurer. And if E. B. was a Conjurer, then G. W. may come in, and All of them. And then let the Quakers see how they have been Led! Let them Now see. Here G. W. says it, in the Name of the Rest, We will not stand by E. B's. Comparison (for indeed it is Blasphemous to the Highest Degree) And thereby you are given to understand, That you are not hereafter to Trust any Quaker Books that are Printed, even tho' Published and Recommended by the Greatest amongst you. For such are E. B's. Works; And if now, after they have been put so many years into your hands, as the Words of The Lord; Part of them is Disowned, how can you be secure of other Parts of them, or any Part of them at all? How are you secure of G. Fox's Writings, or of any others of your Prophets? Have you seen all their Original Copies? You must either Disown G. W. in this Affront he has put upon E. B. or Down comes All whole Quakerism, at one Blow!  
There is but one Book amongst you (that I can hear, Except G. Fox's Marginal Notes of Oleser, etc. before mentioned) which will Escape, by this Rule, if that will. It is Humphrey Norton's, for I have seen a very Ancient Manuscript of it, which, for aught I know, may be the Original. It was Printed at London, for so I sinned it Quoted in a Book of Roger Williams' called, The Great Fox duggy out of his Burrows. p. 45. And this Precious Passage cited out of him, where he is, after the Quaker-fashion, Ridiculing the Second Coming of Christ, in these words. Is not Christ God, and is not God a Spirit? You look for a Christ without you. From what Coast or Country shall He come? What Countryman is He? you stand Gazing up to the Clouds after a Man; but we stand by you in White, chiding of you. Thus as he is there Quoted. How it is in the Print I know not, for I have not seen it, but in the Ms. it is p. 71. thus. Whence must this Christ come you wait for? And in what Generation? And of what Family? And out of what Country? And of whom must He be Born? That they may no longer be Deceived by you; who have kept them Gazing after a False Christ. Well may it be called Gazing; but leave it, and mind those in White Apparel which Reproves you for it. Act. 1.10, 11. by which they mean, their own White Lights within! I suppose R. Williams might take it short. These are among several other Queres, of the like Nature, which Humphrey put to the Professors. There is Abundance of such Blasphemous Hideous stuff in that Book, which shows Demonstratively what the Genuine Doctrine of the Quakers is concerning the Resurrection, Ascension, and Second Coming of our Lord Jesus, turning it only to the Rising, Ascension, and Coming of the Light within them. The outward Christ H. Norton here calls a False-Christ. He was a Great Apostle of the Quakers, sent into Ireland, thence to the West-Indies; And most Highly Recommended by Edw. Burrough, and Francis Howgil (too Principal Pillars) to be Received by the Friends as a True Messenger of the Lord. But because this Book is but in Few hands, and those of the Friends, who will not (now) let it be seen, I have in the Collection added a Transscript out of the Ms. of some Passages in it, worth the Readers Notice; which Abundantly Confirm the Charges given against the Quakers; and I thought this more Proper than to Thrust them in here, out of their Place, where we are Considering of the Quakers Manner of Defending themselves against these, and other such like objections.  
8. The Last of their Cleanly and Clever Method▪ 
Their falsifying the Sense of what is Objected against them. For which, by W. Penn's Rule, they are Excluded from being Christians.  of Answering which I shall Mention at Present, is, Their Ignorant or most Commonly Wilful Mistaking of what is objected against them: and so Answering Quite out of Purpose, That by starting of new Game, they may Divert the Pursuer from the Cent of an Absurdity or Heresy in Distress.  
This they think a venial Politic in Themselves; But this Mote becomes a Beam in their Brother's Eye: And when they Charge it against others, than they can see Clearly into the Heinousness and Utmost Deformity of this Sin. Then they Improve it into a Total Loss of the Character or Name of being a Christian.  
This is one of the Heads upon which W. Penn would Prove Thom. Hicks, his opponent, not to be a Christian, in his Reason against Railing. p. 158. thus. He that gives that for a Man's Answer to any Question, that is not his Answer to that Question, is a Forger: But that T. Hicks hath, done: Therefore, a Forger, and Consequently no true Christian. He alleges, That T. Hicks did not Give Faithfully the Answers of a Quaker, in Dispute with an Ana-Baptist. But all the Proof that W. P. brings for his Negative (who was not Present) is, p. 160. We Charge it all with Forgery, in the Name of God, the Lord of Heaven and Earth. And this being Proof In-Contestable! he thence Concludes T. Hicks, without Help, to be a Forger; who could only support his Affirmative, by Human Testimony.  
But now, Reader, behold, the whole Herd of the Quakers (I know not if one can be Excepted) of all that have wrote Answers to their Opponents, turned all out of the Pale of Christianity, by this Infallible Rule of W. Penn's!  
See in Sat. Dis. almost in Every Quotation which is there canvased, how Grossy the Quakers have Mistaken (at least) the Answers of their Opponents: Charging them with what they never said, nay Quite Contrary to their own Words.  
But of this sort there never was such another as George Fox. In his Gr. Mystery he Replies upon above 100 Opponents, of whose Books I have seen a good many; And, I cannot say that he has Quoted one Aright. Not only for Splitting of Sentences (with which Appen. keeps such a Racket) where the Sense is not Hurt; but taking Scraps out of several Chapters, upon Different Subjects, that sometimes you must Read over almost the whole Book he Answers, to find the Words which he Quotes: And then so Mangled, so Distorted, not one Sentence Entire, that the Author's sense can not be Gathered from what he Quotes of him: Insomuch that without seeing those Books which he Answers, it is Impossible to know what they Truly said. Besides such Ridiculous Blunders, as could not befall a Child that knew how to Spell and Put together. I before mentioned his Reading External for Eternal, a small mistake, if that had been all. But to Ground a Charge upon this, and to Accuse Mr. Baxter of Ignorance and False Doctrine for setting up the Notion of an External Light in God, when Mr. Baxter's word is Plainly Eternal! This (and many more such like Instances, of which that Book is full) not only Ruins their Senseless Boasts of Infallible Guidance of the Spirit; But, by Will. Penn's Rule, Excludes them from being Christians.  
But if the Mistake of a Word may be Excused, upon the In-advertence of Infallibility; There are many more Instances, which show, either want of Sense, or Wilful Perversion. Thus one Jonathan Clapham, who wrote against the Quakers, says, Christ having Undertaken the work of Man's Redemption, the Father hath Delivered up the whole Creation to Him— And therefore must Magistracy belong to Him as Mediator. Now, could any Man, in his Right mind, Understand this, as if Clapham had meant, that the Magistrate, and not Christ, was the Mediator? Yet thus G. Fox mistakes him, Gr. Mystery, p. 95. And Repeats his words thus, He saith, the Magistrate, in this External Politic Kingdom, is a Mediator. And not only Fox, but one of the Chief of his Worthys. R. Hubberthorn, follows him in the same Perversion. the Second p. 28. of his Works. (for there are Double Pageing) Reprinted An. 1663. he says thus. The Honour which God will not Give to Another than Christ; hath he (J. Clapham) Given to Another from Christ; And so Denied the work of the Son of God, as Mediator. And p. 44. Instancing in Sixteen Particulars of Clapham's Unsound Doctrine (as he calls it) this is the First, That he says, That the Magistrate is an Officer of Jesus Christ as Mediator. And, upon the whole, they Establish this as a standing Article of their Faith, that, To say the Magistrate is an Officer of Jesus Christ, as Mediator, is Blasphemy. And, say they to Clapham, What Priest besides thee Dare own any to be Joined with Christ, as Mediator? Now, not only Dear George Fox, who Excelleth them all! but this Hubberthorn, and their Works are Highly Commended and Recommended by Will. Penn. By whose Rule of Mistaking or Misrepresenting the Answers of other Men, All of them must out of Christendom together. Especially George Fox, who Stumbles so often, that he hardly Goes one Right Step: I could fill a Volume, with his Mistakes of this kind; but, for the Present, will Press your Patience, with two or three. Christopher Wade, in his Quakery Slain. p. 13. says, As the Devil of old Spoke some Truths, to usher in his Manifold Deceits, even so he over-powers you Quakers— to Deny the Scriptures— God's Inspired writings, Manifested by his holy Apostles. And as he thereby Limits the Supreme Holy one, so he overrules you, to acknowledge but one Dispensation of God's mind unto the Sons of Men. (viz. The Light within) To this George Fox Answers, in his Gr. Mystery. p. 247. And Repeats C. Wade's words thus, He saith (says G. F.) God limits the Supreme Holy one, by the Inspired Writings of the Apostles. And then he Pays C. W. for saying that The Holy one is Limited, by the words of the Apostles. But it is obvious to any one of Common Sense, that C. W. Meant, that it was the Devil, in the Quakers, who Limited the Holy one, by Denying the Dispensation of the Holy Scriptures, and allowing but of that only Dispensation of the Light within. But, to take off all Excuse, C. W. wrote an Answer to G. F. which he Directs, To all those called Quakers. An. 1659. Where he Instances in Twelve Lies and Forgeries, which G. F. had thus put upon him. Among which this is the Sixth (p. 5.) where he clears what he had said, by showing the thread of the whole Discourse, and that it was the Devil, and not God, who he said did Limit the Holy one. To this G. Whitehead Replies, in his Truth defending the Quakers, Printed the same year, 1659. p. 61. And does he either Confess G. Fox's Perverting the words of C. Wade, or Justify it? No. Neither. For Justify it he could not, the Case was so Plain. And it is below a Quaker ever to Confess; for that supposes he could Err! How then does G. W. Answer? Why, he falls upon C. W. for saying that the Devil could Limit the Supreme Holy One. But, first, here is the Cause given against G. Fox, that he had Perverted the words of C. W. And next, as to G. Whitehead's Mettled observation, how the Devil could Limit the Holy one, let him Read Psal. Lxxviii. 41. Yea, they turned back, and Tempted God: And Limited the Holy one of Israel. Where Limiting is expressed as a Tempting. But says G. Whitehead, in the place above Quoted, This is as much as to say, the Devil is stronger than God— as this Deceiver hath Affirmed. Now here is another Manifest Perversion of the Meaning, as G. Fox's was of the Words of G. Wade. For did C. W. Affirm, That the Devil was Stronger than God; because the Devil is said to Limit Him? Then the Israelits were Stronger than God, for David says that they did Limit Him. But as C. W. said no such thing, does G. W. think, that C. W. Believed the Devil to be Stronger than God? No. he could not think so; for who ever thought so? And then he said this against his own Conscience. Without doubt, he did! And for this, calls C. W. a Deceiver! Now here are some small Mistakes! First of G. Fox's, in taking God for the Devil. That was All! Next of G. Whitehead's, in saying, that C. Wade did Affirm, That the Devil was Stronger than God. Now Recollect Will. Penn's Rule, before Mentioned, That he that gives that for a Man's Answer, that is not his Answer, is a Forger, and so no true Christian. The Application is Easy, and Unavoidable, That neither Fox, nor Whitehead are Christians, because they are Notorious Forgers, and Give that for a Man's Answer, which is not his Answer. Nay more, The very Objections which are put against them, they Retort, as being the Principles of the Objectors. Thus five Ministers wrote a Book against the Quakers, called The Perfect Pharisee. An. 1654. And another, in Defence of it, the same year, Entitled, A further Discovery of that Generation of Men called Quakers, in Reply to an Answer the Quakers had put out to the Former. In both these, they Charge the Quakers with Seventeen Gross Positions, of which this is the Third, That the Soul is a Part of the Divine Essence. Thus plainly put down. p. 5. of the Further Discovery, Num. 3. of the Quaker Positions, which are there first Ranged in order: And then particularly Disproven, under their several Heads. And coming to this Head, p. 31. they call this Position (as truly it is) Blasphemy. G. Fox, Answers, to this, in his Gr. Mist. p. 227. and sets down this as the first of the Ministers Principles, That the Soul is a Part of the Divine Essence. And thence Infers, p. 229. That in calling this Blasphemy, they had given Judgement against themselves. And so you five (says he) have Judged yourselves to be Blasphemers, who said the Soul was Part of the Divine Essence, and yet 'tis Blasphemy to say so. This is Giving that for a man's Answer, which is not, with a witness! And if Will. Penn can any Longer Defend G. Fox (even Dear George, who Excelleth All the Quakers) to be a Christian, by his own Rule, he will Exceed himself; and Outdo, all that he has Ever yet Done! At least, I hope he will Alter his Opinion, if he spoke it sincerely, That George Fox, was as Good a Proas Asaiah, which has been Mentioned before.  
But not only Putting words upon a Man, which he did not say, nay Quite Contrary to what he says; but Leaving out the Material part of a Man's Answer, and giving that for his Answer, is Belying of a Man, and comes under Will. Penn's Rule. Let me give one Instance of this (among many that I could Produce) Matthew Caffyn, in his Damnable Heresies of the Quakers Discovered. p. 29. gives his Charge thus. The Quaker saith, that Christ is already Come the second time: And George Fox Affirmed in Plain words, before many Witnesses, that he knew him come within him, and he looked for Him to come NO OTHERWISE: And James Parnal affirmeth— That by Preaching of a Christ in Heaven, the Devil gets his work done on Earth, as appears in his Book called Satan's Design discovered. p. 19 25.  
This Fox Answers in his Gr. Mist. p. 141. And first, he leaves his Brother Parnel to shift for himself. He Denies not the Quotation. But says nothing to it. Then as to what is Charged upon Himself, he Quotes the Page in Caffyn, but Repeats his words thus. And George Fox said, that he knew Christ come in him. p. 29. Then he Cries, that Christ is in you, except ye be Reprobates. As if Caffyn had Denied the Inward Presence of Christ, by the Influence of His H. Spirit, in the Hearts of Believers, which not Christian ever did Deny. But they Deny the Person of Christ, His Flesh, Blood, and Bones, in Men, as the Quakers Blaspheme. And Caffyn found no Fault with Fox's saying, that He knew Christ come within him. On the Contrary, he Justifies the Indwelling of Christ, by His Spirit. But he laid the stress upon G. Fox's saying, That he Looked upon Christ to come NO OTHERWISE, which was put in Capital Letters, to show that the stress lay upon that, as being a Denial of Christ's Second Coming, to the Final Judgement. Of all which G. Fox took no Notice at all, but gives his words short, as above Quoted. Whereby it appears (which I have often observed before) That without looking into the Books which this Fox Answers, there is no knowing of their Meaning, or what they object, by his False and often Absurd Chopping and Changing of their Words.  
Caffyn ibid. p. 35. Charges thus. The Quaker saith, that the offering of Christ's Body to be Broken, and His Blood shed, Avails not, so as, through Faith therein, to set free from Sin: But Blood in a Mystery, and a Body in a Mystery, which we know not what it is, saith Lawson, in his Book p. 18. which was Typified, by the Fleshly Body of Christ, and His Blood. And says Caffyn. p. 36. Wherefore he saith Boldly, but Blasphemously, That the Lord Jesus whom we Profess, is Accursed, professing a Spirit within him, to be the only Christ. To this G. Fox Answers, Gr. Mist. p. 142. And Repeats the Charge only thus. They say, they own Christ that suffered, meaning the Spirit within. Page. 36. Here he Quotes the Page in Caffyn's Book, whereby we cannot mistake, to what it is that he Answers. And instead of Denying, he Justifies, in his Squinting way, this Hideous Blasphemy, by laying the whole upon the Light within: But Denies nothing of the other part of the same sentence, of calling that Jesus whom we Profess, Accursed etc. Blessed God, Defend Us! The Pen is like to Drop out of my Hand, while I am forced to set down this Greatest Outrage that Ever the Devil durst Presume to Belch out against our Blessed Lord and Saviour, through these the most Wretched of all his Instruments, the Quaker Tongues, which are set on Fire of Hell! I cannot stay longer upon this Subject. There is Infection in the very Air. Let us Return, to their Moderate Sins of Lying, and Misrepresenting the Answers of their Adversaries, and Rid Christianity of them, at the Backdoor which Will. Penn has Pointed: But not open the Mouth of the Gulf at once, of Blasphemies, not fit to be Herd upon Earth; lest the Stench, should carry Plagues with it, through the World.  
Christoph. Wade, in his Quakery Slain. p. 7, 8. tells of a Quaker Wizard, one James Milner, who Pretended that he must Suffer as Christ did, to save the Souls of two Women, Dorothy Barwick, and the Wife of Brian Fell of Ulverston, and in a Juggling, Enchanting Manner, with a Knife and a Basin he pretended his Blood was shed, and said, that he Gave up the Ghost, as Christ did. Thus C. Wade. And hence he Charges Milner with Luciferian Pride, to Save Souls as Christ did. To this G. Fox Answers in his Gr. Mist. p. 246. And Repeats no more of the Charge, but these words, He Cries (says Fox) Oh Luciferian Pride to save Souls! And thence falls upon Wade, as if he were an Enemy to the Saving of Souls; and asks him, What good (then) doth all your Preaching do? And Quotes the Apostles, who watched to save Souls, by turning People from their Sins. Now would not any one have supposed, upon G. F.'s Quotation of C. W.'s words, That C. W. had been against all Methods or Means to Save men's Souls: and that he had called it no less than a Luciferian Pride for any one to Attempt it, either to Preach or Pray or do any other Office of Religion! Who could have Imagined, from this Quotation, as G. F. gives it, That C. W. only spoke of Attempting to Save Souls, as Christ did, that is, by Shedding of our Blood, and Giving up the Ghost, as an Atonement or Propitiation for the Sins of others? I will spare my Pains to Exemplify the Truth and Faithfulness of this Quotation! And when Will. Penn, can make a 〈◊〉 of G. F. for this, by his own Rule, I will Promise Twenty and Twenty more of the ●ike, if need be, out of that one Book, the Gr. Mystery. In which p. 298. And in his Saul's Errand p. 9 G. F. Justifies this Wretch, Milner; And notwithstanding that he could not, nor did Deny this Matter of Fact, and much more of the Like Blasphemy, as Giving forth Twelve several Prophecies, in the Name of the Lord, all of which proved False; Pretending to Fast Forty Days, as Christ did, and other Madnesses of High Enthusiasm, yet G. Fox Justifies Milner, says, There was a Pure seed in Him; And that The Lord did open True Prophecies and Mighty things to Him. And calls those Persecutors, and Wicked Men, who would go tell the Nation (as he words it) of the Above mentioned, and such like Infirmities of that Precious Quaker Prophet!  
And now that I have given the Reader a Taste of Rich. Hubberthorn's, G. Whitehead's, and G. Fox's sincerity, in Reciting the Answers of other Men, out of the Fountain that is behind of the like Instances, in their Works, and those of the other Quakers; Approved, and Recommended by W. Penn; And, by his standing Rule, before Mentioned, He himself, and all the Rest of that Herd, turned out of the Pale of Christianity together, to Graze in the Common, with Deists, Jews, and Pagans (Themselves the worst of the Company) Let me, for a Concluding stroke, upon this Head, Divert myself a little, with Witty Ap-Pen, from whom I have thus far Digressed, to his more Considerable Brethren.  
Now then, you shall see Ap-Pen show his Parts, in behalf of Himself and Partners, at the End of the Preface, he gives their Authority for their so Frequent calling the Author of the Sn. a Serpent, a Viper, a Snake. (Will. Penn has lately Improved it to a Rattle-Snake) and they say it is A Title of his own Choosing. As I said before, it is not very Material what they call him. He is neither the Better, nor the Worse for that. They have called others by the same and worse Names where they had not the Pretence for such a witty Pun as this. But that which I take notice of this for, is, to show them the Consequences which Themselves have laid down of Mistaking or Misrepresenting the words of other Men. Did the Author of the Sn. then mean that Title for Himself, or for the Quakers? How you can Turn it upon him, is not the Point (free Leave you have) But to say, That you would not Abridge him a Title of his own Choosing: and to give this as a Reason of your calling him so, is Expressly to Mistake (and that Wilfully) his words. And then, out of Christianity with you— according to Will. Penn. If you may call him a Snake, by this Argument, you may as well call Him the Devil, and say that too his A Title of his own Choosing, for another of is Books is Entitled Satan Disrobed. Therefore both Will. and Ap-Pen (cum Sociis) must either Renounce their Christianity (and then they will be— just where they were) or else Correct the above Mentioned Rule, which W. P. has (Infallibly) laid down, to Thrust others from thence. Thus Justly in the same Trap which they set for others, is their own Foot taken.   

SECT. III. The Quakers Cleared from Contradiction, in those Seeming Contrary Testimonies which are Produced in this Appendix, to Defend them from the Heresies Charged upon them.  
WHAT I have already said, may be thought sufficient in Answer to this Appen. wherein there is nothing like an Argument but the Contrary Testimonies which are Produced against the Charges Exhibited. And these are Replied to (without Considering of them in Particular) in Sect. two. N. 3.4. Whereby it appears First, That tho' these Testimonies produced, were Contrary to what is Charged from other Testimonies of the Quakers, yet that this is no Justification, but rather a further Argument of Contradictions against them. Secondly, That by the Contrary Meanings which they have, these Testimonies, tho' seemingly Contrary, yet are not so; and do not Contradict the Charges laid against the Quakers. To make the which more fully Appear, I will go over the Contrary Testimonies Produced: And show the Deep Deceit of these Quakers.  
1. These Testimonies begin Appen. Sect. 2. p. 12. with this Title. Some Testimonies to Christ Jesus, as the Son of God, and Come in the Flesh. The first is of Rich. Farnsworth. An. 1651. in his Confession and Profession of Faith. where he Confesses to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. but he calls them not 3 Persons: so that this is no Contrary Testimony to the Quaker-Heresie concerning the Blessed Trinity; which makes them to be only three Manifestations or Operations of the same Person, as the Sabellians, Socinians etc. But then how is this a Testimony to the Son of God as Come in the Flesh, if the Son be not Distinct from the Father? as G. Fox affirms, in so many words. Great Mystery. p. 142. and 293. etc. if so, than it was God the Father who took Flesh, as Muggleton said, Ay and Fox too. Gr. Mist. p. 246. where he falls upon Chr. Wade for offering to say, That not God the Father, but the Son (said Wade) took upon him Human Nature. This Fox opposes; and, brings, as an Argument against it, that Christ is called The Everlasting Father. Isa. ix. 6. The truth is, these Quakers make no Distinction at all betwixt God, and Christ, they mean the same thing, by Father, Son, Spirit, Christ, Light or Light within, which they make to be God. If otherwise, let them tell us how the Son took Flesh, and not the Father? if the Son be only a Manifestation of the Father. A Manifestation can not take Flesh, be Born, Suffer, or die: than it must be the Father Himself, and none other, who was Born, Died, etc. then it was the Father who sent Himself; and Returned back to Himself; and was Received of Himself; who, upon the Cross, Prayed to Himself, and Complained to Himself, that He had Forsaken Himself; And when He Died, Recommended His Spirit into the Hands of Himself etc.  
This the Quakers are Desired to Answer, and it will soon Discover their senseless Sabelliamsm. And Farnsworth's Testimony says nothing at all against this.  
2. They Leap now Ten years forward for the next Testimony p. 13. which is of Rich. Hodden An. 1661. in his Book called The one Good way of God. Where he tells of the Great Mystery of Jesus Christ come in the Flesh, which, he says, no Man can Understand by Hearing, Reading, Telling, or Talking of Him, or Concerning what He— Did, Said, or Suffered— How he is Form In his Servants— How they take up the Cross— or what that Cross is— How they are Members of his Body, of his Flesh, and of his Bones— What the Church is, or how his Body; or what it is to Eat his Flesh and Drink his Blood etc. This, as before told, is, the Body, Flesh and Bones of God, which they suppose He had from Eternity; and which now Dwells in the Quakers, not the Flesh of our Nature, which Jesus assumed in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin. That is not the Flesh which we Eat etc. And they that think so, he tells, know nothing of the Mystery of Christ, which, they say, cannot be learned by Hearing (contrary to what the Apostle thought Rom. x. 17.) of what Christ Did, Said, or Suffered. Which shows that they meant not the outward Christ, but Their Christ, the Light within: otherwise how is it, that, as he says, none but the Quakers understand, what the Church is, how it is the Body of Christ, or what it is to Eat his Flesh, or what his Cross is & c? This shows plainly, That they have another Meaning for All these things than we have: And Consequently this is so far from being a Contrary Testimony to the Charges produced upon this Head, that it speaks the same; and might well have been put among the Charges, instead of the Contrary Testimonies.  
3. The third Testimony is p. 14 from Geo. Bishop, that Loyal good Subject! (See Sn. p. 227. to 232.) in his Vindication of the Principles and Practices of the People called Quakers. An. 1665. where he speaks too of Christ made Flesh etc. But than tells us what Christ he means, Christ In you, says he, that is, their Light within, which they call Christ. He says p. 15. as here Quoted, That where this Christ is, there is not the Body that Suffered at Jerusalem, that was Flesh, that Proceeded from the Virgin Mary etc. that is, not within Men. No. who ever said it was, tho' Christ may be there by the Blessed Influences of His Holy Spirit. But than what Body of Christ is it, which the Quakers say is within them? For G. Fox will not allow Christ to be Absent from His Saints, as touching His Flesh. Gr. Mystery. p. 210. And Edw. Burrough p. 146. of his Works says in Answer to this Question, which he there puts, Is that very Man, with that very Body, within you, yea or Nay? And this he does not Deny, but Answers in the Affirmative, The very Christ of God is within Us, we Dare not Deny it. He does not mean, as Bishop says well, the Body of our Nature, which Suffered at Jerusalem; for that is not so much as in any one, says Will Penn, in his Christian Quaker, p. 97. But they mean, as before has been shown, The Heavenly Body of the Human Nature of God, which He had from Eternity. And this Vile and most Absurd Heresy is that Deep Knowledge which the Quakers Boast they have in the things of God, beyond all other Men. This is the Great Mystery of Quakerism. And this Testimony of G. Bishop's does rather Confirm than Contradict it.  
4. The fourth Testimony is p. 15. from Isaac Penington, Concerning the Sum or Substance etc. This is he who in his Question to the Professors before Quoted, in every Page almost, tramples under foot the outward Humanity of Christ, or that which He took of our Nature; And sets in opposition to it, as the Foundation of the Quaker-Faith, that which he calls Christ's own Humanity, or their Senseless Notion of the Humanity of the Heavenly Nature. Now let Us hear what this Man will say to the Contrary. How much he Attributes to the outward Humanity and Sufferings of Christ. First he puts the Objection, That the Quakers look not to be saved by the outward Christ, but by a Christ in us, says he. And to this he Answers, We do indeed Expect to be Saved (yea and not only so, but do already, in our several Measures, Witness Salvation) by the Revelation and Operation of the Life of Christ within Us. So that their Salvation is from the Atonement etc. which is wrought Within them. And what Salvation do they mean? That of Heaven? No, not of any outward Heaven, but the Heaven within Themselves (See Sn. at the end of Sect. xii.) and consequently it is that Salvation which they have Attained Already, in their several Measures; for there are Degrees of Glory even in Heaven. But now that All is given to the Inward Christ, what does he ascribe to the Outward? Truly as little as may be, only to take Notice of Him; he says, That the Salvation wrought by Christ within, is yet not without Relation to what he did without us— and had its Place and Service in the will, and according to the Counsel of the Father. What Place and Service was this? For that, he leaves you to Guess, he will come no Near. Every Good Action, nay every Good word, of any Good Man has its Place and Service! This is the Noble Testimony of Isaac Penington, which is brought as a Vindication of the Quakers, from throwing the Lest 'Slight upon the outward Humanity, Death and Passion of our Blessed Lord Jesus; and the Satisfaction and Full Propitiation thereby Made for the Sins of the whole World: And to Clear them from Transferring of this to the Propitiation which they suppose made within them, by the Heavenly Flesh and Blood of their Light within!  
5. The fifth Testimony is p. 16. from G. Keith's Immediate Revelation, where he does sufficiently Express what Manhood of Christ he meant, for he speaks of The Man Jesus, whom Simeon Embraced with his Arms according to the Flesh. And the Quakers will not say, That it was the Light within which Simeon had in his Arms, or the Manhood of the Heavenly Nature, which could not be Seen or Felt. And then as to the Inward Presence of Christ in the Soul, G. K. does not speak of the Body of Christ there, as the other Quakers; but says that He is there According to the Spirit— by whom we Receive Light, Grace, and Truth, and through whom we have Access unto God. This is Orthodox, and plainly Expressed. Which shows that G. K. had too much Sense and Learning ever to be a Quaker, tho' he thought himself one. And therefore he could not stay with them. He was Deceived by them, and Catched by their Sheeps-clothing of outward Sanctity and Preciseness: But he still had Battling with them, about their Doctrines, as you may see in his Narrative hereunto Annexed. And by their Double and seeming Fair Answers then, and at other times, he was Induced to Err on the Charitable side; And not think them so Monstrously Heretical as, upon a more serious Examination of their Books, he has since found them. I say not this, as if I did not think that he has been even Seduced in his Judgement into several Errors by their Conversation (it is hard to touch Pitch, and not to be Defiled) for he has owned it to the world; And as a Testimony of the Sincerity of his Repentance, has, after the Example of St. Augustine, and other Holy Men, Published a Book of his Retractations, the more to his Honour; And by that, shown the other Quakers the only way to Reconcile themselves with God and Man. But while they Persist to Cover, Palliate, and Excuse their Notorious Heresies, which yet cannot be Hid: And that their Leaders, to save their own little Credit, would Ruin so many Thousand poor Souls of their Ignorant Followers, by Keeping them in that Ditch, into which they have Led them; while they go on in this Wicked Course, they must be Exposed more and more, till they come to be an Abhorring to all Flesh! And if they will Choose this, rather than to become the Joy of God, Angels, and Men, in their Conversion, let them Remember that Life and Death has been set before them.  
6. The sixth Testimony is p. 17. out of G. Fox's Journal p. 358. which indeed seems Fair, and is put in the words of Scripture, and of our Creed, that Christ was Conceived by the Holy Ghost, and Born of the Virgin Mary etc. And if nothing had been said otherwise by G. Fox, or other of the Quakers, no Exceptions had been taken, whatever Secret Meaning they had had in their Minds. But when they have Expressed their Meaning in other places, and not Retracted it in these seeming Fair Confessions, we must, to make them Consistent with themselves, understand their words as themselves have Explained them. Now we do not Charge the Quakers, that they Deny that Christ took Flesh, and that in our Nature, in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin; it is owned that they do hold all this, in Prim. Heres. Sect. 1. and Sn. Sect. x. But the Charge is this, That the Quakers do hold, that Christ took or Borrowed Flesh of our Nature, only as a Veil or Garment, wherein to shroud His own Flesh of the Heavenly Nature, for a time; as Angels when they Assume Bodies to Appear in upon an Occasion; But that He did not take our Flesh into His own Nature, so as to become Part of His Person: without which, what is before quoted out of Will. Penn's part of the Serious Apology p. 146. must be true. viz. That tho' Christ Suffered that Body which He so took, to be Crucify'd, yet that the Person which Suffered was not Properly the Son of God. As if you Crucify'd the Body which an Angel assumed, yet it were not Properly the Angel which would be Crucify'd, more than a Man would be Crucify'd if you Crucify'd his Cloak. And if Christ was not otherwise Crucify'd, then was He not Crucify'd at all, only in Appearance and False show. If that Person which Suffered was not Properly the Son of God, than Whose Son was He? Do ye Quakers believe, as some Socinians, That He was Begot by Joseph? Therefore will they Please to tell us, who they think was His Immediate Father? They have Denied it to be God. Else He would be Properly the Son of God. Luk. i. 35. And G. Fox, in this Testimony, sets down only General Terms, that Christ took Flesh etc. But he has not Descended to say any thing in Opposition to their Sense of it; and therefore this is no Contrary Testimony to the Charge against the Quakers. And Will. Penn, in a Book very lately Published, the end of the year 1698. called A Defence of a Paper, Entitled, Gospel-Truth's, against the Exceptions of The Bishop of Cork 's Testimony. p. 31. Likes better of this Quaker Turn of the Text, Joh. 1.14. (which they Learned from the Socinians) that it should rather be said, The Word Took Flesh, than as we Translate it, The Word was Made Flesh. Tho' the Greek cannot Bear their Sense, and is Literally Rendered by Us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. Became or was Made, not Took Flesh. But we see the Reason why they would have it Turned; because it might the more Favour their vile Heresy, That Christ did not Assume our Nature into His own Person, so as to become Really a Man: only, That He Took an Human Body, that is, of the Man Jesus, as a Cloak or Veil to shroud Himself in, for a Time. Which is the very Heresy of Cerinthus, against which St. John wrote these Words. For Cerinthus said, That Christ did Descend upon Jesus, at his Baptism. Thus Dividing Christ from Jesus; as say the Quakers, That Jesus was not the Lamb: Only the Lamb or Christ Dwelled in Jesus; as He does in Their Vessels! G. Fox is before Quoted saying in his Several Papers for the spreading of Truth. p. 55. That Christ according to the Flesh was Crucify'd in the Days of Adam. And that in That Flesh of His was the Reconciliation. Then it was not in the Flesh, which He took 4000 years after of the Blessed Virgin. You see how Necessary it is for these Men to Explain themselves. And that Generals will not do. Now if any Testimony can be brought Contrary to this their Lurking Distinction of a Flesh of the Heavenly, and a Flesh of the Earthly Nature: or that places the Merit of our Salvation upon the Sufferings of the Earthly Nature, they will indeed be to the Purpose; And nothing can be so, that is short of that. For Example.  
7. The seventh Testimony. p. 18. is brought out of the Serious Apology just now Quoted, which Denies our Lord Jesus, who Suffered, to be Properly the Son of God. But let us hear them. This Testimony is taken out of p. 149. but three pages after what is above Recited. And it Confesses to One Lord Jesus Christ— who took upon him Flesh— to whose Holy Life, Power, Mediation, and Blood, we only ascribe our Sanctification, Justification, Redemption, and Perfect Salvation. Now see what Hold can be taken of these Men, or what Trust is in their words! Here I Appeal to the Reader, whether this Quotation does not seem to say, That our Justification is ascribed to Christ? And to Him Only? Yet, but the very page before. p. 148. they fiercely oppose Justification by the Rightcousness which Christ hath fulfilled in His own Person for Us, wholly without Us. Not that the Effect is wholly without us, for it is rather wholly within us, that is, the Application of that Justification which Christ hath wrought for Us, when it is brought home to our Consciences: But the Price, the Satisfaction for our Sins, which is our Justification, that is Wholly without Us, we are no Part of the Meritorious, and Procuring Cause of our Justification, that is only Christ, His Blessed Death, Sufferings, and Perfect Rightcousness, Performed in His own Person, wholly without us. But this is far from the Quaker meaning, tho' it seems to be the Import of their Words. And in the above Quotation where they ascribe their Sanctification, Justification etc. to our Lord Jesus Christ to Him Only, and to His Blood, they mean the Blood within, and Christ within. But as for Justification by the outward Christ, as above, they Return this Prodigious Answer, which I have before Quoted, And indeed this we Deny, and Boldly Affirm it, In the Name of the Lord, To be the Doctrine of Devils, and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption, which does now Deluge the whole World. This is within less than the Compass of one Page to the above Quotation. And but two pages before this, they Deny that Person who Suffered, that is, our Lord Jesus Christ to be Properly the Son of God; whom, in this Quotation they Seem to call His only Son. And this is not Contradicting themselves: For the Mystery lies here; they allow that Christ took Flesh; but not into His own Person; so that it was not His own Flesh, only as He Borrowed and wore it for a while: And therefore that it was not His Person which Suffered, only the Person of that Man Jesus in which He Dwelled. The Person they Deny to be the Son of God, but the Light within that Person they call the Christ, the only Son etc. And all this comes upon them, because they do not truly believe the Incarnation of Christ, or that He took our Nature into His own Person. Which is the Charge against them, and these are all the Testimonies which they have brought to Clear themselves. And these do, by no means, Clear them: But have Detected their Artifice much the more: And Rendered them Doubly Guilty.  
I have taken All the Quotations beforementioned upon Trust (except that out of the Serious Apology which I had by me) for I would not Causelessly suspect others of Deceit (tho' themselves do it) And because these Testimonies here brought by Appen. are nothing to their Purpose, as has been shown.  

Of the Reality of the Sufferings and Death of Christ.  II. The next Sect. 3. in Appen. p. 19 etc. contains Testimonies to the Truth and Reality of Christ 's Death and Sufferings. But I may save the Reader and myself the Pains of Examining these. Because if Christ was not Truly Incarnate, He could not Truly Suffer: And tho' He be said to Suffer, Die, etc. yet that is not, cannot be meant Properly, by those who think that the Person which Suffered was not Properly the Son of God. But they call these the Sufferings of Christ, only because He permitted that Body to be Crucify'd, which He assumed as a Cloak or Veil, but did not take it into His own Person, by which Means only those Sufferings could be said to be His, Properly. Therefore all they can say of the Death and Sufferings of Christ will never Clear them, while they tell us, that they mean it not in a Plain and Proper Sense: But as our Sufferings may be called the Sufferings of Christ. 
Col 1.24.  Which in a Large Sense. is True. But our Dispute proceeds of Christ's Sufferings, only in the Strict and Proper Sense. Not as the Quakers think their own Blood, to be the Blood of Christ; And that same Blood, by which we are saved. Thus they told some who, they said, had shed their Blood. You will by no means be thence Cleansed, but by the same Blood which you so Cruelly shed. This is in a Book Published by them An. 1657. called The Guilty Clergyman Unveiled etc. p. 17. Many Quotations of the like Nature can be Produced out of their Books. But I stay not here.  

Of the Resurrection, and Future Judgement.  III. Appen. Sect. iv. p. 25. gins the Contrary Testimonies concerning The Resurrection and Future Judgement. Where observe first their stating of the Case, ibid. p. 25. We are more Learned (say they) in the School of Christ, than to Deny, or be Ignorant of so Inestimable an Advantage, as is The Resurrection by Christ to Eternal Glory; and of that Future Judgement by which the States of Men must be Determined. Now nothing at all of this is the Question. The Quakers have been told in the Sn. and Sat. Dis. of their Notion of an Inward Resurrection of Christ or the Light in their Hearts; and of a Judgement there likewise Past upon Sin. But the Question is of the Resurrection of the Body, of the Same Body that Died. And concerning this, there is not one word of a Contrary Testimony among all those here Produced. The word Body is not so much as named in all these Testimonies, except one, which is a Testimony brought from Will. Penn. p. 29. where he says, as there Quoted, We own the Resurrection of the Body, according to the Pleasure of God: And every Seed shall have its own Body. What Body they mean by this, is told in the Sn. Sect. xii. That by a Spiritual Body they mean no Body at all: but only the Soul freed from the Natural Body: which Natural Body they do not allow ever to be Raised again, or Joined to the Soul. And there it is shown at large, That Will. Penn allows no Resurrection of the Body that Dies; and Denies Positively, That that Description of the Resurrection 1 Cor. xv. Relates to the Resurrection of the Body at all; but to the two States of Man, in the Natural and Spiritual Birth. And this same Appen. instead of Contradicting, does Re-assert, and endeavours to Justify the Testimonies of the Quakers against the Resurrection of the Body: And Repeats their old Argument against it. p. 31. thus. As for the Body, 1 Cor. xv. 37. Thou sowest not that Body that shall be. Thence they Infer, That it is not the Same Body that Rises. This is fully Answered in the Sn. Sect. xii. of which no Notice at all is taken by Appen. But the old Objection still Insisted upon. And this, where they Pretend to bring Contrary Testimonies to those Produced which Deny the Resurrection of the Body. Yet this hinders not their Constant Boast, which concludes Every of their Arguments, of having fully Cleared themselves, and totally Overthrown their Adversaries. Here (says Appen. p. 30.) I have brought Twelve Witnesses, to Testify contrary to this Man's False Charge; which they do so Scripturally, and Truly, as Effectually to wipe it off, and leave no Room for this Snake of Envy to Hid himself etc. And this Appen. will make up the Baker's Dozen, who do All Justify the Charge of the Snake: And Effectually show Themselves, not only to be Heretics, in this Article of our Faith; but of the most Impudent and Shameless sort that ever yet Appeared.  
In the Quotation brought from G. Fox. p. 28. of Appen. Reciting these words of the Apostles, We are Witnesses of all things which He did both in the Land of the Jews and in Jerusalem— And we did Eat and Drink with Him, after He Arose from the Dead, it is added, And to this do we Testify, which are the People of God in Scorn called Quakers. See hereafter Sect. seven. N. 3. more Quotations, where they do, vouch Themselves to be Eye-Witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ: which shows what Resurrection they mean. They are Witnesses too of Their own Resurrection: And have Got (if you will believe them) their Resurrection-Bodies Already. That is, The Bodies of Pure Souls. This is all they mean by it. If not, Let them tell us how our Resurrection-Bodies, if they be not the same Bodies that Died, are sown in Corruption, and Natural-Bodies! If the Soul gets a New Body, at the Resurrection, and that a Spiritual and Heavenly Body; How was it Sown, or When, a Natural Body, if it never was Natural, or Corruptible! Or how was it Sown, that is, Dead, if it never Died! And how is this then a Resurrection of the Dead! for the Soul never Died. What Dead then Rises, if not the Dead Body?  

Their Testimonies Allowed to be Contrary upon the Point of Government and Fight. And Why. Wherein a Deep Secret of their Government is Laid open.  iv The next Contrary Testimonies (and they are all) that are Produced, are Sect. vi. beginning at p. 40. of their Submission to Government. And these I Grant to be Contrary Testimonies; and have told them, That I could Produce ten times as many more for them: of their speaking Pro and Con, For and Against Every Government, as it was Up or Down: of their Dis-owning all Fight with the Carnal Weapon; and yet setting it up, at other times, beyond All the Bully's in Alsatia. That one Quaker could Cuff with Seven men, as G. Fox their General did Vapour. But I would Desire a Contrary Testimony to a Declaration (told in the Sn. Sect. xviii. p. 212.) where the Captains and Colonels of the Quakers do give it under their Hands, in Name of their whole Army, That they have an Heirship to Possess The Uttermost Parts of the Earth; And a Right to Fight for it too! This Declaration was Drawn by Lieutenant General Edw. Burrough, and being signed by himself, and Fourteen or Fifteen of the Principal Officers, was Printed in the year 1659. And has never yet been Called in, Retracted, or Condemned, that I could hear of. Now, Here, some Contrary Testimonies would do well! your Trimming and Shamming every Turn of Government will not do, while this your Declaration of War, against the whole Earth, stands Vn-repealed: your Magna Charta to take up Arms, whenever you see your Time; Till this be Cancelled, and Effectually Disowned by you, we lie at your Mercy; or else must Watch your Waters, to put it out of your Power.  
And the rather, because this very Declaration is Particularly Insisted upon in Prim. Heres. (to which this Appen. pretends to be an Answer) and Refers to Quotations out of Sam. Fisher's works, which are in the same page, p. 15. and are there brought only as a further Attestation to Second this Declaration: And yet there is not the least Notice taken of this Declaration in the Appen. or so much as named, as if no stress had been laid upon it, or that it did not Concern the Quakers at all! They would fain keep this, as a Secret, they are loathe it should be known; and therefore would not stir the Coals, by Mentioning of it in the Least. But as to other Quotations, they Fight amain, and Vindicate, Tooth and Nail! as p. 47. where they Quote p. 16. and 17. of Prim. Heres. in which are some Passages out of the Works of Edw. Burrough, of Fight, Killing, Slaying etc. And this Appen. would have them only to Refer to the Spiritual warfare; and says (but does not Prove) That they have not Any Tendency to outward War. Of which the Reader shall be Judge. Among these Quotations there are these. Give the Whore (that is Rome) double into her Bosom; as she hath loved Blood, so give her Blood, and Dash her Children against the stones. And to the English Army he says, Avenge the Blood of the Guiltless, through all the Dominions of the Pope, the Blood of the Just it cries through Italy and Spain— wherefore, How down the Tops, strike at the Branches, make way, that the Axe may be laid to the Root of the Tree; That your Sword, and the Sword of the Lord may neither leave Root nor Branch of Idolatry etc. Now were they Spiritual Swords which the Parliament Red-Coats than wore? Were these the Proper Persons to be Employed in a Spiritual Warfare? Was there no Tendency at all Here to any Outward War? Yet but for supposing such a thing, see how this Appen. does handle the Author of Prim. Heres. By what hath been now said and shown (says Appen. p. 47.) it may plainly appear, that his Charges are utterly False; and notwithstanding he Makes Quotations, Page 16.17. which he calls Edw. Burrough's (and Appen. does not Deny it) to Countenance his villainy herein; yet he is as far from Honesty in his Quotation, as he is from Truth in all those; for I shall show that he hath Committed Forgery, to make this Man's writings Answer his Mind. This is an High Charge! But how does the Forgery appear? Why in Splitting Sentences, in Colons, and Semicolons, as Before— Because he does not Transscribe whole Pages together, which are nothing to the Purpose. But not a word that he Quotes is Denied by Appen. or any thing Added to Burrough's words, yet Appen. calls this An Outrage, for which the Inquisition will hardly afford him Precedent (they meant Precedent) We see, by this, what stress is to be laid upon the Outcries of the Quakers! And how to Construe their Villainy, Forgery etc. when bestowed by them upon any who Oppose them; that is, you may be sure then, They are in a Desperate Plunge, some Villainous Hard Proof— It would not vex one to be Called a Knave or a Cheat, But to have it Proved— Patience cannot Bear it— Besides, it is Unmannerly. What! not to leave One small Starting-Hole— No Remedy, but Confess and Repent, which they have Abdicated! Bid men Retract, who cannot Err! There is no such Outrage in the Inquisition!  
Yet these Quakers do not Cry, before they are Hurt, for they were touched here in a very Sore Place. And they have not told you all. In the same Sect. vi. of Prim. Heres. which Appen. is here Answering, Reference is made p. 14. to Sect. xviii. of Sn. for further Proofs of the Quakers Principle as to Fight with the Carnal Sword. Where there are Testimonies a Good Many, out of their most Approved Authors, from G. Fox and Downwards, and so Vndenyable, that Appen. says not one Syllable to them, nor owns that ever they heard of any such thing. In that Sect. p. 216. and 228. it is told how Active the Quakers were against the Restoration of K. Charles II. How they Boasted it, as their Merit, to the then Usurpers, in the year 1659., that they had Given the first Intelligence against Sir George Booth, and the Royal Party, who Risen in the West: And Advised to put him to Death, and All the Cavaliers whom they had taken Prisoners, to spare none of them, but Crush them, like a Cockatrice Egg. And besides to have Good Guards of Horse continually Marching about, to watch their Motions. And it is there asked, whether these were Spiritual Horse? To which Appen. gives no Answer. Yet see what a Rage they are in, because we will not believe, That all they say for War and Fight is only meant of the Spiritual Warfare! or that it has the least Tendency towards Outward War! In the said Sect of Sn. p. 208, 210, 211. you have G. Fox Commanding Oliver, thus, Let thy SOLDIERS go forth with a free and willing Heart, that thou may'st Rock Nations as a Cradle— to set up his STANDARD at ROME, then to fall upon the Turk etc. And telling how Bravely the Quakers had Fought in his Army. When Thousands of Us (says he) went in the Front of you, and were with you in the Greatest Heat. Then Complains, That they were turned off for being QUAKERS, for saying THOU to a Particular, and for wearing their HATS. And such Tearing Fellows as they were! Valiant Captains (says fox) Soldiers and Officers, of whom it hath been said among you, That they had rather have had one of Them, than Seven Men, and could have turned one of Them to Seven Men. Now we must mean that Fox said this only of Disputing with Seven Men! That Oliver's Soldiers, both Horse and Foot, were Spiritual Horse and Foot; and that He only carried on a Spiritual War against the King: And that it was only in this Sort of War that the Quakers were! Valiant Captains etc. If you say a word to the Contrary, Appen. will Hue you Down, and Make a Greater Monster of you than any in the Inquisition!  
And Good Reason. For in Appen. p. 45.46. there is set down at large The Quakers Vindication, Presented to the Members of Parliament in December 1693. Subscribed by 31 of them, In behalf of the said People. Of which the Fourth Article is in these words. That Magistracy or Civil Government is God's Ordinance, the Good Ends thereof being for the Punishment of Evil Doers, and Praise of them that do Well. And now is not this a Full Vindication! What signifies All that can be said to the Contrary! Is not this a Contrary Testimony to all brought in the Sn. & c?  
No indeed, my Good Friends, Latet Anguis— This is no Contrary Testimony. It does not Unsay one of the Treasons and Rebellions which are Charged against you. For it is not Charged against you, That you Deny all Magistracy: But all that is not in Your own Hands. You Pretend to have the only Right of Magistracy, over the whole Earth, by virtue of your Universal Heirship before mentioned. And this was not Forgot in Prim. Heres. in the very Beginning of Sect. vi. p. 14. the same Place to which this part of Appen. now Quoted is in Answer: for there p. 94. of the Sn. is Quoted (it is p. 98. of the Third Edit.) where you Disown all Kings and Governments and Laws but Your Own. And Prophesy that the time will come (as soon as in your power) when England particularly shall be Cleansed (as you call it) of all other. That you will have no King to Rule but JESUS, nor no Government of force, but the Government of the LAMB. That is, of your Light within, or of the Quakers who you think do Only Truly Fellow it. And what says Appen. to all this? Not one word! only sets down the above Recited Vindication. Which Concludes thus. And we know of no other Doctrine or Principle Preached, Maintained, or ever Received among (or by) Us, since we were a People, contrary to these aforesaid. Now observe the Deep Hypocrisy of these men. They would have the Present Government believe that they do own Them, as God's Ordinance. This was the End of their Giving this Vindication to to the Members of Parliament: And why did they call it their Vindication, if it was not a Vindication to those to whom they Gave it? And yet, it is Plain that they own No Government, as God's Ordinance, but Their own; nor do they, at all, Contradict that, in this seeming Vindication. The Whore, and the Beast are their Common Appellations for the Church and the State; in Fox's Journal. Passim. And through all their Writings. Yet they would put a Face upon it, as if they bore Great Reverence to Both!  
Their above mentioned Declaration of Universal Hireship etc. and their Principle to Fight for it, has been over and over again laid in their Dish. In three Editions of the Sn. in Prim. Heres. again in Some seasonable Reflections upon the Quakers Solemn Protestation against G. Keith's Proceed at Turners-Hall: 29. Apr. 1697. which Ends with this Declaration, and Desires, that this may be the Test of the Quakers. But they will not Touch! No Provocation can bring them so much as to speak of it, let it be Objected never so often. For they know it to be Their own genuine Declaration. And that no Excuse can solve it from the Mahometan Principle, of Propagating Religion with the Sword: and Conquering (when they Can) the whole Earth; to which they have Put in their Claim, in Time.   

SECT IU. Their Witty Answer, and Repartees, upon the Point of their Denying MARRIAGE; And Preaching up of FORNICATION.  
I Have now done with all their Contrary Testimonies, which is all that bears the face of an Answer, in this Appen. And the Reader Sees to what they have Amounted. First, To Prove the Quakers Guilty of Contradictions, and consequently, not to be Christians, according to Will. Penn's Rule, before Quoted. p. 100 etc. Secondly, That they have a Double-meaning in their Testimonies: and can Cant in Scripture-Phrases; which they Quote (like the Devil to our Saviour) most Opposite to their True-Meaning.  
They have other Answers, which tho' not so Knavish, yet are so Exceedingly Childish, that I am afraid to venture upon the Readers Patience to Name them. But Patience is Necessary for any that has to do with the Quakers. And that they may not Complain, that any of their Answers are Neglected: And because I hope it may open the Eyes of those who are Sincere among Themselves, I will undergo the Penance of Exposing them.  
Appen. p. 35. makes a Great Noise of wrong done the Quakers in Prim. Heres. Sect. v. by the Charge of their Forbidding to Marry, and Preaching up of Fornication. As if this were Laid out as a General Charge upon the whole Body of the Quakers. Tho' it is Expressly said in the very Beginning of the Sect. p. 12. That they are not All Charged with it, nor Any of them but only the New Quakers in America. And this Appen. does confess too. And does not pretend to Clear them from it. Where then was the Abuse in Placing of the Charge? O says Appen. it's being against the whole Body of the Quakers, is Employed in the Title Page, and abundantly Charged in the Contents. For, says he, I cannot find one Married or Single Quaker left out. First, for the Title-Page, there is not one Syllable of it, or any thing like it. And the Contents saying, Their forbidding to Marry, is no more than the Hand of a Clock to Point where you may find the Hour. And the Page, being Named, There you See who are, or are not Charged. O but says Appen, The first Charge runs over England, and all the Rest of the World, where there are Quakers; the last is Limited only to America. Can any man make Sense of this? This Implys as if there were Two Charges one for England, and one for America. But by the first Charge they only mean the Title and Contents, which they say Run over England and all the World of the Quakers. This is Nonsense as to the Contents, for they never go, but where the Book goes. Indeed Title-Pages are stuck up, or may be put into the Advertisements of News-Papers. But there is not the least Hint towards this Charge of Marriage, in the Title-Page. So that all this Cry of the Quakers is no Wool. Yet Appen. calls this Looseness in the Author, and at best, an Equivocal Lye. They must give some Ill-words, or else they cannot Speak!  
If it were worth the while to make Reprisals upon these Quakers, and Re-criminate upon them, I might go over as many Books I believe as they have wrote (for I can say it of as many as I have seen) and show not only in their Contents, but Title-Pages, the most Fulsom Boasts of what you will find nothing in the Book. I have, in the First Part given several Instances of it, as to the Contents of the Antidote; and could give many more both in that, and this Appen. but that it is obvious to every one who will be at the Pains to Compare their Contents with their Performance.  
I will here give the Reader one Instance, because it is a Pleasant one; and Discovers some other of their Principles. There is a Gentleman who was long of their Communion, now one of their Separatists, and a member of Turners-Hall, Mr. Thom. Crisp: who, tho' a Quaker, and Zealous, even to Suffering with them, yet run not to all their Mad Extravagancies: he allowed himself to Pay Tithes, as a Just Debt, being Enacted by the Laws of the Land; for which he (with others such Moderate Quakers) were severely Censured by them. He committed another Great Offence against their Orders and Constitutions, he was Married in a Church, and by a Minister of the Church of England; which Raised their Indignation Exceedingly. Therefore they Pressed him very hard, to make a Public Confession of this Grievous Crime, and to sign an Instrument of Condemnation against himself for it, Pursuant to their Discipline. But not being able to Prevail, they underhand and without his Knowledge, dealt with his Wife; who being Terrified with their Threaten, all, In the Name of the Lord God Almighty! did sign such a Paper of Condemnation as they Required. But Mr. Crisp knew nothing of it, for several years after, till they themselves, upon his further Contests with them, Published it in Print; without the Consent, and against the mind of Mrs. Crisp, who was not willing her Husband should know it, lest he might be Displeased with her. But neither the sacredness of the Seal of Confession, nor the Hazard of making Difference 'twixt Husband and Wife, was strong enough for their Resentment, when they thought they could Reach a Blow at one who had Opposed them: or rather, who would not be Entirely and Implicitly subject to their Popedoms: for no other Opposition had Mr. Crisp then given them, but only as to their Discipline, in the Jurisdictions of their women's Meetings, and other Institutions set up by George Fox, as Cardinal Primate; contrary to their Original Principle, of leaving every one to the Measure of the Light within Himself. Under which Pretence, they Drew many away from their obedience to the Church: But would not Endure that Lose Plea (as W. Penn calls it) when urged by some among themselves, 
See Sn. Sect. vi. N. x. paragr. 12. p. 79,  against that High Authority which their Leaders Assumed, over all under their Dominion. This was all the Contest, at that time, betwixt: the Separate and other Quakers, as appears in what was then wrote by John Story, Wilkinson, Rogers, Crisp, Bugg, and others of the Seperats, wherein there is nothing of those Errors in Doctrine, and Damnable Heresies, which they have since Discovered: but were then Involved in, as Deep as the Rest. Yet for their Refusing to be subject to this Plenitude of the Quaker-Church-Authority, they called them Judass, Apostats, Devils In-carnate etc. tho' Agreeing with them in Doctrine, and all the other Articles of the Quaker-Creed. It was this made them Discover Mrs. Crisp her Paper of Condemnation against herself, for being Married by a Priest of the Church of England, in Revenge upon Mr. Crisp, who joined with their Separatists.  
But they were Disappointed of their Malice in thinking to make him Un-Easie as to his Wife: for he, as a wise Man, Considered their Importunity, and Terrible Denunciations of no less than Damnation, to all who would not come under their Discipline; which might work upon a Woman, that had given herself up to be Guided by them: And, as he ought, he placed the Abuse upon them, who had thus Imposed upon the Credulity of a woman, whom they had Deluded to Believe them. Thus says he in the 5th Part of his Babel's Builders. p. 9 Printed An. 1682. It is like She, as too many more have, gave too much Credit to what some of G. Fox 's CHEATS said: And She is not the first that hath been Deceived by you; And perhaps some among you, that have Prated others out of their Money, might Prate her unto the writing and giving you that Paper you Pretend to. This is thus Quoted by G. Whitehead, in his Judgement Fixed. p. 290. And how does he Answer it? Why thus. O Thomas! be Ashamed of thus Abusing thy Wife. And in his Contents (which is the thing I am Coming to) he sets it down thus. (p. 162.) His (Thom. crisps) Abuse of his Wife. This made several of the Quakers (particularly Ann Docwra) come to Mr. Crisp's house, thinking there had been a misunderstanding betwixt Mr. Crisp and his Wife; to Endeavour a Reconciliation. For a Man's Abuse of his Wife, is a Comprehensive Charge. And standing thus Generally in the Contents of a Book, might Raise strange thoughts in the Reader, as we see it did; and Probably was the Design of the Writer. For what other Design could he have? If there was no Discontent (as there was none in this Case) yet the Quakers did their Best to Raise one betwixt Man and Wife. At least, to Brand them to the world in the Contents of their Books; tho' when you come to the Proof, it is only putting the Abuse upon the Cheats the Quakers. To be Cheated is an Infirmity; but the Knavery is in the Cheaters. However this is called, Mr. crisps Abuse of his Wife!  
We see, by the way, what sort of Regard they have to the Church of England, when it is made so Heinous a Crime to Marry by any of her Priests. Ought not She to make it as Penal for any to Marry by the Priests of the Quakers?  
But that is not the Point now in hand. We are upon the Charges Exhibited in Contents. And how they are made Good in the Books. Particularly the Charge against the New-Quakers in Prim. Heres.  
Well, but the whole Body of the Quakers are brought in upon this Point, so far, as that the Principle upon which these New-Quakers go, is the avowed Principle of the Body of the Quakers. viz. of taking the Resurrection in an Inward Sense, to Mean only the Rising up of the Light in their Hearts; and upon this Account, they Deny the Literal Resurrection of the Body, which has been sufficiently shown. They say, that those who obey the Light have obtained the Resurrection already: And, in this Sense, They call themselves The Children of the Resurrection, in Opposition to The Children of this World, by which Name the Wicked, are Described. Now the New-Quakers finding it Written, That the Children of this World do Marry: But that The Children of the Resurrection neither Marry nor are Given in Marriage; consequently they finding Marriage Inconsistent with the Resurrection-state: and thinking, by the Received Principle of the Quakers, that they were come to the Resurrection-state, it followed, of Course, That they must turn off their Wives. But then, finding likewise, That these their Spiritual and Resurrection-bodys' Retained still a strange Hankering after the Old way of the Flesh; And that Propagation was still to be kept up, they could Fall no where else, but upon Fornication. For, The Children of this World MARRY! And indeed this is a Natural Consequence of the Quaker-Notion of the Resurrection; and were Enough to Cure them (any Sober man would think) of this Mad and Heritical Extravagance. But they still stick to it. For Infallibility must never Repent or Amend! Upon this occasion, they are Asked in Prim. Heres. p. 13. whether they are The Children of the Resurrection? If they Answer Yea, then, by this Text, in their Sense, they must not Marry. And if they say, Nay, then are they Reprobates, by their own Construction. And how do you think they get off from this Dilemma? By putting any other Sense upon the Text? or Denying this to be their Exposition of it? or showing, That this was not the Consequence of their Exposition? No. none of these ways. None of these would do. How then? Appen. p. 36, and 37. tries (for the first time) what the Quakers can do at Wit and Raillery. But it is so Heavily Dull, as shows Them to be Children, in the Literal Sense, but neither of the Resurrection, nor of This world, for there is neither Wit, nor Wisdom in their Poor Repartees. They say they will Turn the Tables (and most Ingeniously!) upon this Author, whom they call Charles. And thus they Begin. p. 37. Charles Art thou a Child of wrath? He must Answer Yea; or go against his own avowed Principles. Must he so? But what if he should not? than BAYS 's Suppose is spoiled. But if he should not, than he must Go against his own Avowed Principles. What Principles are these? they Name none. They leave us to Guess. And I think I have found it out. It is said in our Catechism, That we are By Nature Born in Sin, and the Children of Wrath. There it is! And now they Twit us again with our Confessing ourselves to be Sinners: And Hugg themselves in their Perfection! But Hark ye, my Friends, you have Read but Half. For it is said, That being by Nature Born in Sin, and the Children of Wrath, we are Hereby (that is, by coming, as we ought, to Christ's Holy Baptism) made the Children of Grace. So that, by our own Principles, we are Children of Grace; and you are The Children of Wrath, who Remain in your Natural Corruption; and Flout at, and Despise those Means of Grace, which Christ has Commanded. And therefore your Genteel Inference, upon your Forcing Charles to say Yea, whether he will or not, That it is very Hard, a Man should send Himself thus to Hell, must be sent Home again to be Answered at The Second-Days Meeting. And Charles has Escaped for Once! But don't wonder (says Appen.) till we see what the next Question will do. Well, we won't if we can Help it. Now Charles, look to thyself! Let me ask again, Charles, art thou a Disobedient Son? He will say, NAY. That is, if he be not Cross! And because we know he is a Sinner, he may, perhaps, not Clear himself from all Breaches even of the Fifth Command. But he shall not put those Tricks upon Us. He shall Answer Nay, as you would have him. And now what is your Inference? Be sure you hold him Fast. Why then, say you, It is written, Disobedience is as the Sin of Witchcraft: therefore say all Good Men, Disobedience is a wicked thing, and consequently of the Devil. Verily those Good Men are very Ingenious men, who have found it out, That Sin and witchcraft is a wicked thing! And more than that, That it is Consequently of the Devil! Well, what of all this? Now Reader (says Appen) see, Before he sent himself, and now he would Hale all the People thither. Whither? To the Devil! That's Hard indeed. But (Appen.) you have Forgot that you made him Answer Nay, to this Question of Disobedience. And then, How does this Affect him? No matter for that. It affects others. For (says Appen.) he calls those Disobedient who are truly Obedient and Loyal: And so would Hale All the People to the Devil. Does he then call All the People Disobedient? Does he Except None? This is a Terrible Fellow! we must look to him!  
But now Appen. suppose he should call for Proof of this? Have you your witness Ready? (For you must not Expect the Rogue will Confess!) Otherwise may he call Thee and thy Friends, who thus Accuse him, as you have done to others, upon Less occasion, Liars, Impostors, Cheats etc.  
He may bring you to as strict Account, as you did G. Keith at Turners-Hall (before mentioned) where you would not Admit of Witness brought against you, unless Particularly Named. 
Narrative of the Proceed at Turner's-Hall. 11 June 1696 p. 39.46.  You ought to Name his Name Particularly (said you to G. Keith) if thou dost not, thou art an Impostor— I Dare thee to Name their Names, or else thou art a Liar, an Impostor, a Cheat; I dare say it is a Cheat— O thou Liar— You must not think to come off with such a Proof as you bring p. 6. of a Lying Boast you Charge upon the Author of the Sn. of his having Brought over a Great many from the Quakers, for which you say only I have heard it. For, whatever he has done, in that Case, I Dare say, you cannot Prove that ever he Boasted of it. Come Produce your Witnesses, Name them, Name them, or else Thou art— But whoever has done it, it is Certainly known, that many of them of late, have left you, and Received Baptism, accord- to the Institution of the Church of England. Of which I could name several. But that would only Feed your Malice, to Rail against them: and if you could not Find, to Make stories of them; as you have done against the Author of the Sn. and All that Oppose you.  
But now, as to your Charge upon Hear-say, I desire you would Read Tho. Elwood's Antidote against the Infection of Will. Rogers' Book. Printed 1682. p. 42. And see what Censure is there passed upon this manner of Proceeding, and take it Home to you. Thus you speak there to your Opponents, It seems you are such as can take up a Report, and Publish it to the Nation, with a Comment upon it, as if it were True, tho' you do not know whether it be True or no. Is not this a Token of a Dark Spirit? I am sure you never Learned this of the Light, nor were led into it by the Spirit, or Grace of God. It is a sign you wanted Matter, and abounded with Envy, else you would not take up, or make, such Reports, to Employ yourselves in Answering them— But the Lord will Rebuke that Spirit in you, and you together with it— If Report be true! But what if Report be not True? what have you done then?— you shoot your Bolts at Random, etc. I think now the Author of the Sn. is pretty Even with you, for Charging him upon Hear-say, not only of Boasting, as here, but of what might Reach his Life, as mentioned before.  
But I have one Question to Ask here. You charge him with taking the Name of Loyalty to Himself: and fixing that of Dis-Loyalty upon All the People, and so Haling them All downright to the Devil! The Chief Import of this Appen. is to Vindicate Will. Penn. But not under his own Name: he having more Wit than to Burn his own Fingers, where he found it too Hot for him: And now Good Ap-Pen or Ape-Pen (when one Plays with Children, they may use children's wit) whether is Will. Penn included (along with Sn.) in the Term Loyal; or must he go down the stream with the All? if the Former, than He is as Deep in the Mud, as Sn. in the Mire: And you have made a very Pretty Apology for Him! But if the Latter, was He always so? if not, than He has Changed his Mind: and is as Fallible as other Mortals. Or, does He only Act a Part now, as He did Before? what then becomes of his Boast in his Preface to Fox's Journal (before Quoted) That their Light within does Guide and Direct them (and, by their Principles, Infallibly) not only in matters of Religion, but also, as to Civil Concerns? will no Experience serve to make them Wise? or, at least, not stark Mad, to fix Infallibility thus upon Every thing that they do! what Provoked Will. Penn to call his own Sins to Remembrance, by Handing about this his Darling Appen.? so much does Zeal or Resentment sometimes over-shoot a man's Reason, tho' Infallible! And men are Fond of their own, tho' they be Brats!  
Ap-Pen is very Angry at the General Charge in the Contents, before shown, and says, That not one Married or Single Quaker is left out. Tho' in p. 12. which the Contents point to, they are All, both Married and Single, not only Left out, but Expressly Discharged from that Accusation, except only the New Quakers in America. Now this calls to mind those sort of Accusations which the Quakers have given against All Sorts and Professions of Christians, especially against the Church of England; whom Will. Penn their Orator Distinguishes by the Delicious Epithets of Idle Gormandizing Priests of England. That Abominable Tribe. The very Bane of Soul and Body, etc. as, before Quoted. And to Apply the words of Ap-Pen, This is General enough; for I cannot find one single Priest of the Church of England, or in All the World, left out. We are now very Justly Advertised, by this Quaker objection against General Charges, and without making very Particular Exceptions, whom they mean, in All the Venom and Billingsgate they have spewed out. For which we thank them. And, if it be not our Fault, will make the Due use of it.  
We have now done with the Witty Repertee which Appen. throws at the Author of Prim. Heres. in answer to what he objected against the Quakers, as to the Inconsistency of their Marriage with their Notion of the Resurrection.  
But now (says Appen. ibid. p. 37.) I come more closely to Examine, etc. Now they have done with their Wit or Fooling, they come, Closely to the Business. And First, they give a long Description of their Light within, and how, by it, they are made Partakers of the First Resurrection; and that Believing in the Light, is Solid Christianity, etc. Secondly, p. 39 They tell you of their manner of Marrying here in England, what Caution, etc. they use in it. But what is all this to the business? Do they tell how to Reconcile this with that Text, that the Children of the Resurrection do not Marry? No. Not a word! They Forgot that Text. Why was that objected to them? Had they any thing to do to Answer that Text? so one would have thought! for this Text was the whole objection, as being that, which Persuaded the New Quakers to throw off Marriage. And they Answer it Closely (as they say) without so much as Naming of it, or taking the least notice, that ever it had been objected. This is their way! And thus they can Answer any Argument in the world, that is, by never Heeding it; but bringing in some long Discourse of other matters, till you Forget it: And then, if you Remember it no more, it is Fully Answered!   

SECT. V Their Reasserting of their own Infallibility, and Sinless-Perfection. Wherein of their Idolatry.  
THERE is one thing They can never Forget, and it is not fit that We should. Appen. brings it in Here again. That is, Their Infallibility, and Spirit of Discerning, Equally Infallible! In their Description of the Light within p. 38. say they. And it is Eternally true, That men by Believing in the Light (notwithstanding his Idle scoff) may become Children of the Light: And it is of necessity, that them that are truly such, must be separate from, and Discerners of the Children of this World. i. e. Darkness. Thus Appen. And if what I have said before, be not sufficient to Prove these men to be stark Mad, sure this will be such a Conviction as that none can Desire a Greater. It has been Proved upon them over and over again, that not only most Vile and Scandalous Livers; but even Witches, and Persons visibly Possessed with the Devil, have Preached Undiscovered amongst them, some for Twenty years together (see Sn. Sect. xxi.) as Winder's Witches, etc. Attested beyond all Contradiction. And their Books are full of Complaints of Judass among Themselves, so they call their Separatists, who lived long among them, but were not truly of them; whom yet they could not Discover. Did they Discover Christopher Atkinson and Thomas Symons' Maid, till they Discovered it themselves? (Sn. Sect. vi. N. v.) or George Archer (Sat. Dis. Glean. Sect. vi. N. 2. p. 92.) and many others, till their Whoring and Vileness Grew Notorious in the Countries where they lived? Who was it that Discovered H. Winder's murderous Witches to the Quakers, who stuck by them, to the very Last? Yet still notwithstanding of all these Convictions, they stand firmly to it, That it is of necessity, that they must be separate from, and Discerners of, the Children of Darkness! Have they not had Instances enough, to shame them out of this Senseless and Blasphemous Pretence! They call for more, while they Refuse to Repent. And (tho' it be needless) I will Gratify them, or the Reader, with one more that is Remarkable. The Great Quaker Apostle of Mary-Land, in America, was Thomas Thurston, who, while the Deputy Governor was absent a year or more in England, came with a Message from the Lord (as he Horridly pretended!) to his Wife, who was a Quaker, that he was sent to Propagate the Holy seed with her. And when her Husband Returned, finding a Child more than he had left, she Confessed the whole matter. Upon which he obliged her to go to the Quaker-Meeting, and there Publicly to Declare the whole Monstrous Truth, which she did. Nor could Thomas Deny it. Upon which he came to England, and, till it was otherwise Discovered, was Received by the Friends, and Preached among them, as Formerly. As he did in Mary-Land, for sometime after it was Publicly known there. And his Light within was thought so Infallible, that another Quaker-Preacher owned it to him (of Good Credit) who told it to me, That the Generality of the Quakers there, nay, said he, I myself Durst not Judge him, even in our minds, not to have had an Inspiration from God for what he did. Yet it is of necessity, That they that are truly Quakers, must be separate from, and Discerners of the Children of Darkness! And Rich. Hubberthorn. p. 212. of his works, says, That they can Discern the Elect from the World. And Denies those to be true Ministers of Christ, who cannot do it.  
This was the Argument by which G. Fox thought that he had Proved one Nathanael Stephens, who was Minister of Drayton, in the year 1655. not to be a True Minister of Christ. This you may see in a Book wrote by G. Fox and others of the Quakers, with this Title, The Spiritual Man Judgeth all things, or The Spiritual Man's True Judgement. And how by him the Hearts of others were and may be Judged by the Spirit of Truth; and also how things by the Spiritual Man were Judged of concerning both Salvation and Dammation, etc. Printed for Giles Calvert, at the Black Spread-Eagle, at the West-end of Paul's. 1655. This Spiritual Man here mentioned was G. Fox: And the Judgement which he passed upon the Hearts of Others, and the Occasion of it, is told p. 3. of a Chapter which bears this Superscription, This is to go abroad to stop Lies and Slanders, that Truth may be Cleared, etc. And it is subscribed George Fox. There he speaks of himself in the third Person, and says, GEORGE FOX coming to Drayton, to his Fathers in the Flesh— Christopher Fox's House [This was to Imitate the Style of our Blessed Lord. Rom. ix. 5.] upon the Sixth day of the week, being the twelfth day of the Eleventh Month— Thus Particularly he sets it down, with other Circumstances, as who were Present, etc. Because of the mighty Miracle he shown that Day, in Judging the Heart of Nat. Stephens! which he goes on to Relate, and tells how he came into the Grave-yard (so he called the Churchyard) and met with N. Stephen's the Priest (as he thought he Reproached him) and there before the Company, particularly Christopher Fox, his Father, According to the Flesh, being Present, Then George asked him (the Priest) what he did Believe, whether he (G. Fox) had such a Familiar Spirit (as it seems (with very good Reason) had been objected against him) Yea, or Nay? The Priest Answered and said, He could not tell. He might have a Good, and he might have a Bad. Then George told him, Here thou hast Manifested thyself to be no Minister of God, but a False Minister. For the Ministers of Christ and the New Covenant of God, they could Discern Spirits and Try them. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Joh. 4. And as you may Read in Isaiah, he Discerned the Familiar Spirit, and Judged it. Isa. 8. And the Apostle Discerned the Witchcraft of the Witches that had Bewitched the Galatians, read Gal. 3. And here thou hast Manifested thyself to be a Blind Guide, who can put no Difference between the Precious and the vile, who hast no Salt to savour withal, therefore thou art good for nothing but to be Cast out, and Trodden under Foot. Mat. 5. Then George told him that the Spiritual Man Judgeth All things. And Stephens, and the other Priest Chester both Denied it, and said the spiritual Man did not Judge All things. These are the words of G. Fox. And upon this occasion the Book wherein this is told was written. And bears the Title of The Spiritual Man Judgeth All things, etc. Through all which Book this Argument is carried on, That he can be no true Minister of Christ, who cannot Discern and Judge the Hearts of other men. And the Quakers here take to Themselves those Miraculous Gifts of the Holy Spirit which are mentioned. 1 Cor. xii. And equal Themselves to Isaiah, and the Holy Prophets and Apostles of our Lord. None of whom ever Pretended to that Prerogative of God Alone, to Know the Hearts of Men. Therefore it is said of Christ, 
Joh. two. 24, 25. ●  That He knew. All men: And needed not that any should testify of man: for He knew what was in Man. But this was never said of any Prophet or Apostle. They needed to be told of what was in Man. And sometimes God did tell them some things, 
2 Kin, vi. 12.  by Particular Revelation; as to Elisha, what the King of Syria was doing in his Bedchamber. To Peter, the Deceit of Ananias and Sapphira, 
Act. v.  etc. But they had no General Knowledge of men's Hearts, which these Blasphemous Quakers do Pretend to! And they put this, as a Test, to Mr. Stephens, whether he knew G. Fox's Heart? And from his not knowing it, concluded him to be a False Minister! And they make this to be a General Rule, so that none can be True Ministers of Christ, who have not this Gift! By which All the Present Quakers are Vn-ministered, at least, the Chief of them, whom I have heard say, That they do not Pretend to this Gift. Yet will they not Disown this Blasphemous and Senseless FOX; But still count him as having been a True Minister of Christ: And that All he Wrote was from the Mouth of the Lord. Which if True, there is not One True Minister of Christ among the Quakers at this Day. Even by their own Confession!  
Yet all this notwithstanding, They are Perfect and Sinless! They have not Changed, but are the same they were from the Beginning! They still Maintain the Doctrine and Holy Testimony of their Ancient Friends! And that, In All the Parts of it! For Truth is One, and Changes not! Thus it is worded in the Yearly Epistle for the year 1696. Given forth by their General Assembly at London.  
They have no Sins at all to Answer for, Poor Innocent Lambs! No. Not They! But did Christopher Atkinson, while carrying on his Intrigue with Thom. Symmons' Maid: or Thom. Thurston, while Debauching the Deputy-Governor's Wife; and Fathered his Adultery upon the Immediate Command of the H. Ghost! (O Dreadful!) or George Archer, Or any others of the Long etc. of the Quaker Harmless-ones, while they were Wallowing in such Beastly Sins, did they, during that Time, and before they Repent, Continue in the Office of their Ministry? Yea Verily! They Preached and Prayed, for all this, like Dragons! And did they, in all that time, Confess their Sins in Public? I mean not their Private sins (for that they were not obliged to do in Public, before they were Publicly known, to make Reparation for the Scandal) But did they Confess themselves to be Sinners in the General? Or Beg God to Pardon their Sins, or have Mercy upon them? Or own that they had, in the Least, Transgressed Any of His Laws, since they were Quakers? No! Thank you for that! What! Sinners● and Quakers! That would never do! That would have Contradicted the Testimony of all their Ancient Friends, and the Foundation of Sinless-Quakerism! As it has Quite overthrown all their Pretence to the Spirit of Discerning and Knowing the Hearts of Men: And consequently, by G. Fox's Doctrine, Rendered them all False Ministers and Conjurers!  
How Dreadfully Astonishing is this! To see these most Wretched and Desperate of Sinners, even while Reeking in the Foulest Sins, to set up the Pretence of Perfection: And Scorn to Own any Sin, or ask Mercy from God for it! Which, as before has been Observed, was never yet Herd at any Quaker-Meeting.  
See more upon this subject, in the First Part, Sect. xiii. which gins at p. 149. There p. 155, 156. You will find a Noble Stroke of a Quaker Prophet and Fidler, who said of St. John, That if John had said, he had been a Sinner, he had Lied. This was to show, that St. John did not Include himself, when he said (1 Joh. 1.8, 9, 10.) If we say, that we have not Sinned, we make Him (God) a Liar, and His word is not in us. But the Quaker here Returns the Lie upon the Apostle! He must Return it too upon the Prophet, who said, While I was Confessing MY Sin, and the Sin of my People. Dan. ix. 20. Here Daniel said My Sin. Did he not then Confess Himself to be a Sinner! Yet was he One of those Three, whom God named as the most Perfect of all the Earth. Ezek. xiv. 14. But the Quakers think Themselves more Perfect than all these! NOAH's Sin of Drunkenness, is Recorded. Gen. ix. 21. DANIEL here Owns His Sin. And JOB says, I Abhor myself, and Repent in Dust and Ashes. Chapt. xlii. 6. Would he Repent for his Good Deeds? Or Abhor himself for them? But Will. Shown, another Quaker Prophet, in his Treatise concerning Thoughts and Imaginations. Printed An. 1685. P. 25. tells us, that a QVAKER is Meeker than MOSES, Stronger than SAMSON, Wiser than SOLOMON, and more Patiented than JOB. Nay, Harmless, and Innocent as CHRIST! But either St. John was, in Good Earnest, a Liar, as Solomon Eccles (that was the Fiddling Prophet's Name) Civil calls him: Or otherwise, if he said Truth, than the Quakers make GOD to be a Liar, and His Word is not in Them.  
They are Past all the ordinary Means of Grace, who have Excluded the very first step, of Ask, and consequently of Expecting any Mercy from God. For if they Expected it, they would Ask it: And they Ask it not, because, they think, they have no Need of it.  
And this is Consequential to their notion of the Light within, which this Appen. instead of Excusing, does Re-maintain, in Reducing all Religion to Believing In their Light, which they make the Solid Christianity.  
If by the Light here they meant the outward Jesus of Nazareth, who was Born at Bechlehem, and Faith, in Him, there would be no Dispute betwixt them and us. But when by the Light they mean not any outward Person, but something within themselves (as elsewhere fully shown) whence they call it the Light within: And tell us of Faith In That; and that this Alone, without any thing else, is Sufficient for Salvation; which they make Common to all Heathens, to Everyman that cometh into the world, than I say, They are no Christians, But are Gross Idolaters, who Whorship something within Themselves; or some special Presence of God which they suppose to be There. For it is no less Idolatry to worship God In myself, than In any Other; In the Sun, Moon, or any Creature; for there is a Presence of God In them All. And this is the Excuse and Pretence of all Idolatry. For the Idolatries of the Quakers, see Sn. Sect. viij. and Sat. Dis. Glean. Sect. two. n. 4. p. 71. Let me here add one Instance more, which will Explain the Rest. It is in William Haworth his Book Entitled The Quaker Converted to Christianity. An. 1674. p. 4. of the Prefatory Epistle, where he tells, That he saw Jam. Naylor Suffer, for his Horrid Blasphemy, in taking Divine worship to Himself, and setting Himself up for the Messiah. And tho' Some of the Trimming and Time-serving of the Quakers made a Show of Disowning this Naylor, after he was (as he justly Deserved) Whipped, Pillory'd, Bored through the Tongue, and Branded on the Forehead, for his Hideous Blasphemies: Yet they did not Disown his Blasphemies (for they hold the Same) but they Meant only his Rashness, or Ill-Luck to Meet with His, and Their Due Deserts, or such like Mental-Reservation. G. Fox wrote several Papers, in Justification of James Naylor, his Calling himself Christ and his being Hosannaed as Christ was &c. which are Annexed to the Trial of James Naylor, Printed by the Quakers, An. 1657. With Marginal Notes in Defence of All his Blasphemies. Tho' this Volpone, like Judas, after he saw that Naylor was Condemned, turned Tail, and yet but Seemingly, Pretended to Disown him. But he Disowned None of his Books, Principles, or Doctrine: On the Contrary, he as well as the Rest of the Quakers, did Justify them, against several Opposers, who Quoted them, as the true Quaker-Doctrin; which they did not Dis-own. And Will. Penn, in his Serious Apology An. 1671. p. 156. Names James Naylor, and Vindicates him, as a Prophet, and Servant of the Lord, through whom the Holy Spirit did Utter His Mind. Haworth, in the Place above Quoted, says, That John Bolton (who was a Quaker) told him, That he stood by, and saw three Women one after another, Fall down and Worship James Naylor, and one of them in her Bowings, had these words, viz. Thy Name is no more James but I AM. And James Naylor told John Bolton, That if he worshipped his Body, he should Refuse it; But if that within, he would Accept it. This is the same Answer which G. Whitehead, in his Innocency against Envy. p. 18. Gives to Fran. Bugg his Charge of the Idolatries, and Blasphemous Names and Titles given by the Quakers to G. Fox; G. W. Replies, How Proves he they Gave and Intended those Names and Titles to the Person of George Fox, and not to the Life of Christ in him, whereof he was a Partaker? But how a Partaker? Was it of the Influences only or Inspirations of Christ's Blessed Spirit, that the Quakers Mean? No. No. That is but a small Dispensation, with them! They Mean, Partaking of Christ's very Nature and Essence, so as Themselves to be God See hereafter Sect. seven. N. 2. And that the Light within Them, is not only a Ray or Communication of Christ, but is Christ Himself in Person. And therefore Appen. does so often tell Us, not only of Believing, That there is such a Light in Us, But to Believe In That Light. viz. To make That the Object of our Faith. Thou take it as they will, Adoration Paid to them, upon Account of that Light in Them, is Downright Idolatry. The Body of Christ, while upon Earth, was not otherwise Adorable, than upon Account of the Divinity Residing in it, And there is no way by which the Quakers do Allow Adoration to Christ, but by the same, they take it to Themselves. I do not Doubt, but there is an Influence and Inspiration sent from the Holy Spirit of God into the Hearts of all True Believers. This I Believe: But I do not Believe In it. That is, To make That In me, the Object of my Faith. Tho' He is the Object of my Faith, from whom It comes. Therefore to talk, as Appen, of Believing In this Light within, is no less than Idolatry; and shows the Quakers to be Destitute of whole Christianity. Hence they Reject the Holy Scriptures as the Rule of Faith, which this Appen. instead of Denying, does again own, as shown before. And then Trusting only to what is within them, they are Given up to follow their own Imaginations; and take Every strong Impression which comes into their Brain, tho' by the Illusion of the Devil (of which there are many Instances In-disputable) for no less than the Immediate Dictates of the Holy Ghost. And they are Equally sure of Every thing they Say or Do.  
And tho' it be, but upon Hear-say, yet they can Pawn their Infallibility for the Truth of it. As in this Appen. where before Quoted, p. 6. speaking of the Boast which they would fix upon the Author of the Sn. of his having Converted many Quakers, for which they give no other Proof than I have heard, yet, within five Lines, it says, Therefore, when this his Pretended service is urged, as an Argument for his Atonement and Reconciliation, I can Assure them the Argument is False. May not the Quakers be here minded of what they say to this same Author, p. 49. of this Appen. where they Accuse him for saying, That G. Fox 's Inspirations came from the Spirit of Pride. But (says Appen.) how Charles will Assure any man of that, which he is not Infallibly Assured of himself (an Inspiration so Foul a Vessel must not Pretend to) cannot Readily be Guessed. It may very Easily be Guessed (my sweet Appen.) for does he say so, of his own Knowledge? or only by Hear-say? or does he give any sort of Proof for it? If none at all. He was a very Naughty Fellow. But, upon what occasion do you bring this in? It is, speaking of your Stiffness, in not pulling off your Hats. As you word it. But you mis-Quote Prim. Heres. This Charge is there Sect. seven. p. 17. And it is not worded Pulling, but only for not Taking off your Hats, (you have made Mountains of less Mis-Quotations than this, this is beyond a Colon, or a Semi-Colon) for he would not have you Pull or Lug at your Hats (that is not Mannerly) but to Take them off Handsomely, and with a Boon mien. And did he call G. Fox, Proud, for not doing of this? Why truly Appen. the world does call it a little Saucy not to Return a Civility, especially to ones Betters. But, Cry you Mercy, G. Fox thought no body Better, no, nor Half so Good as Himself! He called Himself, The Son of God, said His Kingdom was not of this world! He Trodden upon Princes, like Mortar! Nay He made Himself Equal to God (all which is shown in the Sn.) why then should He D'off His Bonnet to Mortal Man! And did that Scurvy Author of the Sn. say, That these Inspirations came from the Spirit of Pride? However here was something like to Proof, it was not mere Hear-say, but from G. Fox's own words, Printed in his Books. Tho' we know all this Proceeded from Pure spunk Humility! And you take no Pride at all, in keeping your Hats on, when men of Quality stand Bare before you! As did not that Friend who coming to K. Charles II. in Windsor-Park; and the King permitting him to walk by him, with his Hat on, said to him, How like a Fool dost thou look? See how Every body Stairs at thee, for having thy Hat on? The Ingenious Quaker Replied. And Charles, if my Hat were off, no body would look at me.  
Well, but notwithstanding of all these Proofs, here is no Infallibility in the Case! And How can Charles Assure any man of that, which he is not Infallibly Assured of Himself? There Appen. has Clinched him! But will not both words and Actions amount to an Infallible Proof? No, not in Charles! Why? Because so Foul a Vessel must not Pretend to it. But from the Clean Vessel of a Quaker, an Hear-say is enough for an Infallible Demonstration! And They can Pronounce I can Assure you of it, tho' in a Negative, as of his never having Converted any Quakers. Now if this should Provoke him to Name Names in Print (which I am Morally assured he can) then there would be Boasting with a witness! But the Quakers are as Infallibly sure, That he either Has, or Intends to urge this as an Argument for his Atonement and Reconciliation, tho' Appen. does not tell with whom. But whoever they be, I can Assure them (says it) the Argument is False. Now, Suppose, that he never urged this as an Argument of his Reconciliation with any Body, nor Ever had any such Intention, as all that know him do Believe, he does not think it a Matter of that Merit. Well, but How can be Persuade others (if he had a mind to it) of what he is not Infallibly Assured Himself? What, not of his own Thoughts, and Actions? No. For, he is a Foul Vessel, that is, He is one of the World, and so a Child of Darkness, because not a Quaker! And such have no Right to know their own Thoughts: But the Quakers know their own, and all other men's too; And that Infallibly! or else they are the Greatest Liars in the World; and their Fox was a Conjurer, by his own Confession. See Sn. p. 33. to 37. and p. 284.   

SECT. VI Their Defence of not taking off their Hats, or Giving Civil-Titles, Considered.  
And of their Plain Language (as they call it) in Theeing and Thouing.  
Both of which are shown, not to be Merely want of Manners; But a Formed Design to Subvert Government, when it is in Any other Hands but their Own. For that they think, None but Themselves have any Right to Govern..  
I Come now to Sect. seven. of Prim. Heres. And to Examine the Answers given to it by Appen. The subject is, The Quakers stiffness in not taking off their Hats, and Giving men their Civil Titles. Of which we just now spoke Obiter. But we will Examine their Answers more thoroly. They begin in Appen. p. 48. And first, this is called a Ridiculous Charge. And so indeed it is, in this Sense, as it is a Charge of a most Ridiculous Whim, if it were no worse: for it is not only a Proud and Senseless Singularity, but it is a Contempt of Government, and Dissolution of Order, and the Difference of Relations that men bare to one another; which God Ordained, and without which the world could not Subsist. And therefore it is brought in Prim. Heres. Next to Sect. vi. which treats of the Quakers Contempt of Magistracy and Government, as a Plain Instance of it. To this says Appen. in their Courtly way, He Falsely and Foolishly Insinuates this (that is, taking off our Hats, and Giving men their Civil Titles) to have been Commanded by the Apostles etc. They mean, That there is no Command in Scripture for taking off one's Hat. That is, Literally a Hat. They would have the word Hat named. And here they are Pretty Secure, for there were no Hats worn in those Days, nor many Ages after. But surely these Quakers are not so Dull, as not to know, That it is the Respect and Honour which is Due to our Superiors that is here Treated of, tho' the Manner of Expressing it may Differ, according to the Custom of Several Countries. Thus Uncovering of the Head is not used as a mark of Respect in Turkey. Therefore they do it not there, even in Presence of the Grand Signior. There the Quakers may have this Liberty of Conscience. But if they would observe the Scripture Literally (as they Pretend) they should put off their Shoes, instead of their Hats. For that was then the Token of Respect; thus Moses was Commanded to put off his Shoes, when he Approached to the Bush, not to take off his Hat. Now, if the Quakers would have Texts for showing Respect to Superiors; they may have Abundance. Honour to whom Honour is Due. etc. And if Taking off one's Hat be used as a mark of Paying Honour or Respect, than it is Included in this Command. And the not doing of it, is an Express Breach of this Command. And it is not in our Power to Appoint what shall be the Manner of Paying Honour: we must Submit, in that, to the Custom of the Country where we Live. You find frequent Instances in Scripture of Falling Prostrate to Kings, and Worshipping of them with our Faces bend down to the Earth; and not only to Proud and wicked Kings, but to David, and the Best of them. None came into their Presence, without Paying of this Honour to them. And this was a Great Deal more, than Bore Taking off one's Hat. We never find, That either Christ Himself, or His Apostles Refused to Give all the Respect and Civil Titles that were Customarily Paid even to Heathen Magistrates. He acknowleged to Pilate, that his Power was from Above. St. Paul gave Felix the Title of Most Noble, Even when Felix called him Mad: and Asked Pardon for speaking Dis-Respectfully to the High Priest, tho' Judging him, Contrary to the Law. A Quaker would have called him (if he Durst) a Chemarim, Baal's Priest, Serpent, Dog, Devil, as they have called our Bishops and Magistrates, when they were out of their fingers. And as Christ and His Apostles so those our H. Fathers in the Church, who succeeded them, did both Practice and Command, the same Honour to be Paid to all Magistrates and Superiors. Yet Appen. says That this is a Pretence so Idle, that he (the Author of Prim. Heres.) may as soon find in those Early times, the taking Snuff after his Manner to be Declared Heresy. This was by way of Wit, because he Supposes that Author takes Snuff! But I'll tell thee Appen. That if taking of Snuff, were, by the Custom of this Country, as Great a Disrespect to Superiors, as keeping on my Hat, I would think that Author, or any other who did it, Guilty of as much Ill-Manners, as a Quaker. But if they set up such Disrespect as a Principle, and made Themselves Distinguished by it; I should Condemn it, even as a Heresy: for such I think it, to Dissolve the Good Order of the World, and set Mankind Lose from the Distance and Duty to Superiors; and to Teach this, as a Doctrine of Christ.  
However, against the Quakers this holds good, by their own Principles, if it be any Sin (which has been fully Proved) to be not only Heresy, but even a Denying of the Lord who Bought them. For thus say they in Truth defending the Quakers, which is said in the Title Page, to be Written from the Spirit of Truth in George Whitehead and George Fox the Younger. p. 39 40. All Heretics are subverted and do sin, and in Sinning, they Deny the Lord that bought them; for Every Sin is a Transgression of the Law: And whatever sin they Commit against Christ, therein they Deny him. Here we see the Necessity of the Quakers Sinless Perfection! For they make Every Sin to be a Denying of the Lord that bought them. And consequently to be not only Heresy but Apostasy, and Renouncing of Christianity. Whereby they have, by their own Confession, Vn-christianed All of Themselves, in whom we can find the least Sin or Flaw. And that has been done, to Purpose, in many other Instances besides this of the Hat.  
But, besides the Heresy and Great Mischief of this, It is Gross Hypocrisy in you Quakers; for at the same time that you will not show that Respect to other men as to take off your Hats, because (Forsooth) you would not be the Servants of Men (we Believe you) you Exact that same Respect from your own Servants, and make them take off their Hats to You. Nay not only your Menial Servants, but your Apprentices, as seen every Day in London. Now, do you think these to be more Servants to you, and to owe you more Duty, than you own to the King, or any Human Governor? Yes. You do think so; and (as Judas of Galilee, and his Galileans) that you ought not to be Subject to any King or Government, but your own Jesus; in whose Right, you think that you have the Heirship of the whole Earth: and Just Power to Fight for it too, as you have set forth in your Printed Declaration, which you have been so often told of, but will Give no Answer to it. This is the Secret of your Stiffness in not taking off your Hats to any Governors who are Children of the World (as you call all but yourselves) that is, the Children of Darkness (as Appen. does Explain it) and yet Requiring the same Respect to be Paid to yourselves, by your own Servants. I say not, That all the Simpletons among you, Understand this. There are many that Fellow your Leaders as some did Absalon, in the Simplicity of their Hearts, not knowing any thing. It is not fit, that the Great Secret of your Empire (which you Hope for one Day) should be Exposed to Every Body.  
But, may be, you do not think that the taking off a Hat is any Token of Honour, only a Foolish Fancy some People have got, and you would not Comply with the Folly of the World. But you would not Deny any True Respect to Governors.  
No, this will not do. You Refuse it, because it is a Token of Respect, and for no other Reason. As Francis Howgil (a Quaker Pillar) said to Mr. Burton a Magistrate, before whom he was brought; who told him, he did not value his taking off his Hat to him, but there was a Respect due to Magistracy. Howgil Replied, That God had not Commanded him to take off his Hat, and that he did not owe him that Respect, nor would he give it him. Whereupon one that stood by, took off his Hat, and laid it upon the Table by him. But Howgil took it up again, and put it on. Another took it off again, and laid it on the Fire, but within his Reach. Yet Howgil would not stoop to take it off the Fire, for if it had been Burned, there had been Persecution: and this Hat would have been put into the Register of the Sufferings of Friends, with the children's Clouts, and Hundreds of Pins, etc. which are there carefully Inserted! But Howgil had not that Pleasure; for some body took his Hat off the Fire, before any Harm came to it, and gave it him; which on he clapped again, and would not be Controlled. This, and other Passages, you will find in the Irreligion of the Northern Quakers Printed 1653. p. 67.68. But Instances of this kind are so Frequent, that we need not make Quotations.  
But to show further, how much they think the taking off of the Hat to be a Token of Respect, there was a Civil-War among them, and several Books wrote upon it, of taking off the Hat at Prayer. Upon occasion of which, Will. Penn wrote his Judas and the Jews, against another Quaker Book, called The Spirit of the Hat. They may say, that this is an Honour Paid to God. True. But still it shows, what they think of taking off the Hat, that it is a Token of Respect. And this is the Reason why they will not Give it to any of the World's Magistrates.  
But says Appen. we Expected some Ancient Father to Condemn us, pursuant to the Title of Prim. Heres. And there are none Named in p. 17. But you were told p. 14. of the Repeated Exbortations in the Epistles, especially of St. Paul, of Obedience and Respect to Magistrates: And that the Occasion of this was the Principle of the Gaulonits', followers of Judas: who (like You) threw off the Obedience and Respect due to their Magistrates, who were not of their Religion. And what needed this be Repeated over again in the next Leaf, while he was treating upon the same Subject? That is the manner of the Quaker Writers who Like so well what they do Themselves, that they are never weary of Licking their Bears; but never into Good shape.  
But how did the Title of Prim. Heres. Oblige the Author to bring any more of the Primitive Fathers, in this Point, besides the Apostles? were not they Fathers of the Church; and Primitive too? And what the Title Engages is, to show that these Quaker-Heresics were Broached & Condemned, in the Days of the Apostles, & the first 150 years after Christ. These are the words of the Title. And is not this Answered, by showing the Authority of the Apostles in the Case? But we see what it is to have to do with Angry Men; who are Resolved not to be Satisfied, and to find Exceptions, whether they can or not. It were Easy to Multiply Quotations out of the Fathers, upon this Head; But that would be only to Over-Prove, and Tyre the Reader.  
Especially considering, what an Ample Testimony Appen. has Produced p. 44. out of one of the Quaker-Worthys, Will. Gibson, in these words. And those Rulers Governors or Magistrates, who are a Terror to Evil Doers, and a Praise to them that do well, are worthy of Honour, yea, of Double Honour: and all such are duly Honoured by us, with the Honour which belongs to them; and we Really and with Pleasure, Honour and Obey all such, not only for fear of wrath, but for Good Conscience-sake, as the Apostles, and Frimitive Fathers did. Here are the Primitive Fathers Quoted, and owned by the Friends, in this Case. But Falsely, and to very Ill Purpose. For the Import of this Testimony of Gibson's, is to Limit our Duty and Honour only to Good Governors: But so did not the Apostles and Primitive Fathers; for they both Paid and Preached, Obedience and Honour to Wicked and Persecuting Governors. Now we know whom the Quakers think Good Governors. They show it themselves; they have Given us here a Test. Those to whom they will take off their Hats and Pay them but that Single, instead of their Double Honour, these are they whom they Reckon Good Governors. And all those to whom they Refuse this, by their own Rules, are not Esteemed by them, as Good Governors. Now, they have Refused this to All the Governors that Ever yet were over them. Were none of them Good? Some (and not long since) have been very Kind to the Quakers. But that is not the Matter; They have not Got a Quaker-King yet. And they think, that none else have Right to Rule. All others are Usurpers upon their Universal Hiership. Therefore by Good here, they Mean Lawful Governors; which they think none can be but Themselves. This has been touched before. And, if Truth were known, the Principal Cause of their High Indignation against the Author of the Sn. is because he has Searched into this Secret, and laid it Open. They could Fence with him Long enough about Heresies and Doctrines, no matter whether in or out of Purpose; they thought the World (as now) would not Trouble themselves much about those Businesses: But when they Appear to be Downright Fifth-Monarchy Men, (as shown in the Preface) and for Setting up Worldly Empire; for taking to the Carnal Sword: And have Swelled to vast Numbers and Wealth: And now only watch an Opportunity— This strikes Deep—. And Swords ought to be kept out of the Hands of Madmen. Now their Submissions and Creeping to those in Power, will not Satisfy. This they have always done. And their Contrary Testimonies show but their Deceit. Let them fairly Renounce their Declaration of War before Mentioned. Or see if they can Reconcile the Thousands and Ten Thousands of the Saints, whom their King may Command to Fight in his Cause, to mean Spiritual Battles, such as they are Now Fight, with their Tongues and their Pens. That will go Hard. For, in the Same Declaration, p. 9 They tell, That they do not Yet believe, that their King will make use of Them, in That way: But that, for the Present, they are given up to Bear and Suffer etc. Therefore they Expect to be Employed in some other sort of War than their Present Passive, only to Bear and Suffer.  
and when they Get such a King, they will Take off their Hats to Him: and leave their Sulleness; which they would have Pass now, like David's Scrabling at Gath, only upon the Account of Madness, or at least Ill-Breeding. But there is a Snake in the Grass— They have a further Meaning; which we shall know, whenever it is in their Power.  
Now, I would Ask either Pen or Ap-Pen, whether if either of them were a King over the Quakers, he would not expect as much Respect from his Subjects, as now he does from his Servants, that is, to wait upon him, with their Hats off? If not, that he would give us a Reason. But if so, than Another Reason, why the same Respect should not be Paid to one of our Kings? And suppose him very Good to the Quakers, and Particularly to Will. Penn. Yet would not this be Sufficient, to Give him the Respect of the Hat. Let them then find any Reason for it, but that he is not a Quaker. And why a Quaker King should have more Respect than Another King, but because no other King can have the same Right to his Crown, as a Quaker: And the Reason of that, but Because none have a Right to Crowns, but Quakers. Jo Paean!  
And they give a Good Reason for it, in their Defence of the True Church of the Quakers. p. 19 for, say they, None knows aright how to Govern others, but them that are themselves Governed by the Lord Jesus Christ; who are Anointed to Govern, as well as to Preach; for the Spirit of Government is a Pure and Majestical Gift of God etc. This was wrote by the same hand that Penned their Declaration aforesaid, and serves as a Good Comment upon it.  
Now we know who they are whom the Quakers do suppose are Governed by the Lord Jesus Christ. i e. Those who Believe in and Worship the Light in their own Hearts; and that Only; Acknowleging no other, either God or Christ. In short, they mean by this, Themselves, and None other. See Sn. Sect. xuj. where they have Reprobated all others, of what Church, Sect. or Denomination whatsoever. Secondly, we find, That they think Themselves the Anointed, who have the Right to Govern. And Thirdly That this is a Majestical Gift. Therefore they are not against Majesty, or Giving that Title, their Hat or Knee, to any who they thought had a Right to Govern: who were the Lawful Higher Powers set over them by God. But who are these Higher Powers? what is that Higher Power to which Every Soul is Commanded to be Subject. Rom. xiii. 1.? This being urged to them, as an Argument for Obedience to Magistrates, it is Answered by Thom. Lawson, in his Lip of Truth. p. 48.49. The Power that Every Soul is to be Subject to, is but one just Power, which is Christ— That Power that Commands things Contrary to that in the Conscience, that is not the Power of God, that is not the Higher Power, but the Power that is from Below, and that is not it that the Soul is to be Subject to.  
Yet Christ owned the Power of Pilate to be from Above. Job. xix. 11. Even when he was assing an Unjust sentence upon Himself.  
And St. Paul applied that Text of obedience to Governors. Exod. xxii. 28. to a wicked Highpriest, who was Judging him contrary to the Law. Act. xxiii. 5 But I am not now Disputing against this Destructive Error, only showing you what is the Principle of the Quakers concerning it.  
G. Fox tells us, in his Visitation to the Jews. An. 1656. p. 35. Such as Believe not in the Light, such was not to be obeyed, whose souls were not subject to the Higher Power. Here they let us see what they mean by the Higher Powers. Rom. xiii. 1. that is, their Light within: and so all the Commands for Obedience to Government, is thus Transferred to obey the Light within. According to this Interpretation, Fox (ibid. p. 36.) says, Peter that was subject to the Higher Power, who was not subject to the Rulers. So here, Rulers are not the Higher Powers, but but Quite opposite: For they who are subject to the Higher Power (of the Light within) must not be subject to Rulers. That is, still to be supposed, except to Quaker Rulers, who only are subject to the Higher Power, the Light within, as Ed. Burrough says to them, in his Orders Directed To the Camp of the Lord in England.  
Only among you is God know— you are God's Only Witnesses— you are the Royal seed— whom God hath Chosen to Place His Name in, and to take up his Habitation among, above all the Families of the Earth— All Nations shall call you Blessed— Oh thou North of England! out of thee did the Branch spring, and the Daystar Arise, which gives Light unto all Regions round about— out of thee, Kings and Princes and Prophets did come forth, in the Name and Power of the most High, etc. Now see what the Quakers are, and what they Pretend to! If God is known among them Only; and that they are His Only witnesses; than it plainly follows, from what is said above, that they think Themselves only have any Right to Govern.  
They in Express words, have Abdicated all the Kings upon the Earth, as well as all Churches. And so now (says G. Fox) is all Professors, 
Great Mystery. p. 99  and Teachers upon the Earth; and Kings of the Earth Ravened inwardly from the Light, standing against the Light, and the Lamb, and the Saints— and are not to be Received into the Houses of the Saints, neither to bid them God speed.  
Now Paying of Reverence to them, by taking off the Hat, or Giving them their Civil Titles, is an Implicit owning of them, or Bidding them God speed. Which is the Reason why the Quakers will not do it. And the Reason is as Plain, è Contra, That if they had a King who obeyed the Light, that is, a Quaker-King, they would Bid him God speed, etc. They would then Give him Hat and Knee, and Titles.  
Nay they have given it to some in Expectation. When Will. Penn was walking towards the Stadt-House in Amsterdam, and his Son by his side, Attended with a Numerous Train of Quakers, one of them said, pointing to Will. Penn's Son, what a fine Prince would that make? I can Name Vouchers for this, if Denied. Surely then they would not Refuse him the Title of Prince, if he were in Possession. Would they think the Title of Prince too much, who take to Themselves, all the Styles of Christ, as Fox, Naylor, etc. have done, calling Themselves, and suffering others to call them, the Branch, the Star, the Son of God, the King of Saints, King of Israel, & c! And, as such, Receiving of Adoration from their People, falling down upon their Knees, or Prostrate before them! see Sn. Sect. viij. and Sat. Dis. Glean. Sect. two. N. 4. p. 71.  
Would G. Fox have thought any Honour too much for himself to Receive? who, when Jam. Naylor was brought upon his Knees before him, offered his Hand for Naylor to Kiss: But bethinking himself better, he pulled it in again, and thrust out his Foot to Naylor, that he might Kiss it. As is told by a Quaker, in his Hidden things, brought to Light. Printed. 1678. p. 37. and 40. who tells, in the same place, that he himself saw a Woman at John Kilkam's House, in Balby, Fall down before G. Fox, near an Hours time, and that he did not at all Reprove her. So Greatly could he keep his Port! And Act not only Regal, but a Papal state! Which the Quakers think to be Usurped by all Others but Themselves. And Intent to Recover it wholly from them, as soon as they are Able.  
For as all Kings upon the Earth, are Adjudged by them, to have quite Ravened away from the Light: and consequently, by their Principles, have Forfeited their Right to their Crowns: so the Quakers do not Despair of coming into Possession, of all and every Post of Government, from King down to Constable. When they come in, none must have a share! George Fox, in his News coming out of the North. p. 18. Directs a Challenge in these words. To the Heads of this Nation. And all the Dominions of the Earth. And to all who are under the Dominion of the Earthly Powers, Nations, and Kingdoms every where in all the World. To you all, Kings, Princes, Dukes, Rulers, Judges, Justices, Third-Burrows, or Town-Clerks. Here he has them all together, from Top to Bottom. And now what has he to say to them? Terrible News indeed! he gins, Tremble all before the Lord, O ye Earthly Powers— you have caused the Prophets to be Stoned— you have caused them to be Imprisoned, you have caused them to be Banished in this Great City Sodom, and to suffer Beating and Scourging out of your Synagogues.  
Dreadful is the Lord and Powerful, who is coming in His Power to Execute true Judgement upon all you Judges, and to change all your Laws, ye Kings— all you that have taken the Name of Justices, which are not in Justice, you must be Judged with the Just; and all you underling Officers, which have been as the Arms of this Great Tree— All your Branches must be cut down— And the Government shall be taken from you Pretended Rulers, 
p. 20.  Judges, and Justices, Lawyers, and Constables. 
p. 27.  All this Tree must be Cut down; and Jesus Christ will Rule Alone— Hue down all the Powers of the Earth— slay Baal, Baalam must be slain, all the Hirelings (the Clergy) must be turned out of the Kingdom— The sword of the Lord is Drawn against you all. You are Ruled by the Prince of the Air, and in the Power of Darkness ye stand— A Day of slaughter is coming upon you, who have made war against the Lamb, and against the Saints (the Quakers) for Destruction you are, the Sword you cannot Escape. And it shall be upon you ere Long— Now Destruction is drawing nigh, sorrow is coming, 
p. 28.  Sons and Daughters (of the Quakers) are going Abroad Joyfully in the Power and Strength of the Almighty— Howl, woe and Misery all ye Priests, ye Blind Priests— All Nations and Languages and Tongues and Kindred's and People, Tremble before the Lord's Host, and the Lord's Army. 
p 37.  (these are the Quakers) The Corrupt Judge must not stand up, and the Corrupt Rulers must not Rule— And thou Beast (the Civil Government) and False Prophet (the Church) must into the Fire: 
p. 38.  the False Prophet is the Counsellor to the Beast; and the Beast maintains the False Prophets— Both into the Pit, into the Lake, and Fire you must Both go. The Lord hath spoken it!  
But will they leave this to the Fire of the other World? No, no, they have a God that Answereth by Fire, even in this World▪ which we are told in a Terrible Book of the Quakers, called The Cry of Blood. Superscribed (like Princes!) upon the Title-Page by Geor Bishop, Thomas Goldney, Henry Roe, Edw. Fyott, and Dennis Hollister, Famous in the Congregation, all men of Renown, and Chiefs among the Worthies of Fox. There p. 61. They have Decreed against us in these words, Ere long, yea and the Day is at hand, wherein your Baal must Plead for himself; And even those that Guard him (the Magistrates) and his Prophets (the Clergy poor Souls!) shast be Content to have their Trial before the People, which is the God that answereth by Fire; and shall Deliver up the Prophets of Baal, to be cut off, by the People, whom they have Deceived. That is, when the People turn Quakers, than they will Answer by Fire etc. And there is no Doubt, but they will be as Good as their word. For are they not Infallible! Then slay Balaam! vex the Midianites Give the Priest's Blood to Drink etc.  
This is no Jesting Matter. And tho' the business of their Hats (if there were no more in it) were not worth a Button. Let them stick on their Heads, as upon Scarr-Crows: And they Bow after the same Fashion. Who would speak Three words, to Purchase their Ungainly Congees, as Stiff and Grave as an Elephant's? or to see them thrust out a Limb, for a Salute, as if they were going to make a Pass at you— But there is a Mystery at the Bottom, of Iniquity, and Rebellion. All that was Couched under the Parallel that is made to them of Judas, and his Gaulonites.  
And we may the Rather Believe this, because the Quakers, in this Appen. do, in plain Terms, Justify Judas: for having Repeated his Principle, as given in Prim. Heres. out of Josephus, That he and his Followers would Expose themselves to all Torments, rather than call any Mortal Man Lord or Master. Appen. Answers. p. 49. Now, Believe me, Friends, I cannot See the Heresy of this Doctrine. Here then the Charge is Confessed; And the Parallel Acknowleged to be Just, betwixt Judas and the Quakers; who own, That they Maintain the same Principle, with Him. And who can Doubt, but that it is to the same End?  
They Quarrel Prim. Heres. for bringing the Testimony of Josephus, as they would make the Reader believe, instead of one of the Primitive Fathers, which Appen. p. 48. calls Canonising this Jew. Whereas Josephus is only Quoted to show the Principles and Sect of Judas Galilaeus, not for the Condemning of them. That is shown from the Apostles. And what Canonising is hear of Josephus? Can the Reader bear with this Trifling! But these men will Complain, nay Boast, if they are not Answered. But whether is this so much a Canonising of Josephus, as Appen. does of Judas? who Justifies his wicked Heresy: And Consequently must Rank his Sufferings for it, upon the score of Martyrdom; as of the Quakers, for the same Cause. And is Every Primitive Father that is Quoted, therefore Canonised?  
But what Patience can hold out, to see these Quakers make objections, for want of Primitive Fathers: And to Quote them too, as Gibson before, and others? Do they lay any stress upon the Primitive Fathers: or Pretend to Fellow Them? O, yes, by all means! They would fain be in Good Company. And they call Quakerism, now of Late, Primitive Christianity; in which Book, there is not one Syllable of what the Primitive Fathers held; not one Quotation from one of them; nor any of them so much as named. How then does their Christianity appear to be Primitive? No matter for that, Primitive is a Good word; especially to stand upon a Title-Page; which 100 Read, for one that Reads the Book. This shows, They would be Primitive, or have the Reputation of it. And so they have. As Primitive as Judas; whose Doctrine they Espouse; and the Apostles Opposed. But, if they are so much for Primitive, what say they to those Quotations which are brought in Prim. Heres. out of the most Ancient and Undoubted of the Fathers; And which Confront their Tenets very Expressly? For them! They care not two pence for as many more of them! Appen. p. 10. 11. calls them Stolen Tracts of Uncertain Persons. Does he show, how they are Uncertain? No, not he, Let them look to that! or have the Quakers any Better Editions, or other Works of those Fathers, than those which are come to our Hands? No, no, no, They have None of them! they Hate and Abhor them! they were a Company of Bishops, and Doctors! But ne'er a one among them like George Fox, or Edw. Burrough, or G. Whitehead, or Little Appen. No, not one of them! Therefore says Appen. p. 10. We shall not need to be at all Affrighted, if we do find ourselves to Differ, from what is to be found, under the specious Names of Ignatius, Polycarp etc. tho' Living within 150 years after Christ; nor under the Great Names of them called Fathers in the Succeeding Ages. And p. 5. It will not Avail tho' he bring many Clouds of such Witnesses— And notwithstanding he calls this a Cavil, we learned from Elder Dissenters; we are not Afraid to stand by it; and therefore Pay little Reverence to those, nor any thing not Purely Apostolical. But Ignatius and Polycarp lived in the Apostles Days, and were Disciples to the Apostles. What is that to Us Quakers! It is no matter what they were, or where they were! We will have None of them! So set your heart at Rest! We have Better at Home! We never Liked G. Keith. since he was so Insolent to Compare the Books of our Friends, to them called the Greek and Latin Fathers, as supposing Friends Books to have been written by no Better Guidance, 
See Sat. Dis. Sect. iv. n. v. p. 47.  nor Clearer Light, than theirs, who Lived and wrote in those Dark times. For which Thom. Ellwood has Paid him to Purpose! And it is no wonder that he has left Us. For when any once get Fathers and Councils and Antiquity and such stuff into their Heads, they can never Endure Us afterwards. Therefore we Hate all Schools and Colleges and Learning, and Human Reason! for all these things make against Us. And now that we are Setting up Schools etc. of our own, I'm afraid we shall not be Long-lived. That by the buy. Therefore Appen. wisely throws off all your Fathers, and Primitives (which serve us only for Title-Pages) But says, p. 5. Indeed if he can Absolutely Determine the Question by the Scriptures, the work is done. Yet, in the Last Case, against Judas and the Quakers, the Proof was brought from Scripture, and from nothing else. And yet the work is not done! For than you called for the Fathers, than he has not Performed his Promise of Giving us Quotations out of the Fathers; but puts Josephus upon us, and Canonizes' him for a Father. But will the Scriptures do? Then indeed, the work would soon be done. Will you let the Scriptures be the Rule? we will Ask no more. Appen. Denies it, as shown before. Yet, they will stand to what the Scripture Commands, Provided the same thing be Required by Their Own Spirit Anew (See Sn. Sect. seven. p. 92, 93.) that is, if they Like it.  
They cannot Deny but that the Scripture Requires Honour to be Paid to Magistrates: Or that Taking off the Hat, is not a Paying of Honour (as Proved above) And therefore, Except the Reason I have Given (which they will not Give) I cannot Conjecture the shadow of a Reason, for their Refusing it. They say (as Howgil before) That God has not Commanded it. Not Particularly, as to the Hat. Neither has He Commanded to take off our Hats, at Prayer. Why then did they Contend so zealously for that? They Render themselves Self-condemned. They will (as Judas) call no man Lord or Master. Why then do they call any Man Father? for both are Forbidden in the same Place Matth. xxiii. 9 And in whatever Sense they take the one, they may take the other.  
But their Practice shows their meaning. They do call their Quaker Masters by the Name of Masters. And they do now use the word Lord, Speaking of or to Noblemen, but they will not add the word My to it, or Say My Lord; that is, None but a Quaker, must be Lord or Master to a Quaker. They must not be Servants to Men, that is, to the Men of the World. They! who Expect, as the Jews, to be Lords of the whole World! And the Quakers do Apply to Themselves all those Promises made to the Jews, which they Understand of a Temporal Monarchy. They make the Jews a Type of the Quakers. Sam. Fisher in his Several Messages, which he said he had, By Commission from God, p. 30. carries on the Parallel twixt the Jews and the Quakers; and Endeavours to show, how the Promises to the Jews, were Fulfilled, in the Quakers: and speaking, in the Person of God, Sesse, My People that were a Type of Them. i.e. of the Quakers. That is, the Jews, who where once God's People, were, in that, a Type of the Quakers, who think Themselves, now, to be the Only People of God, and Heirs to all those Promises that were made to the Jews! In the Testimonies to Francis Howgil, affixed before his works (as is the Custom of the Quakers) Thomas Langham and Thom. Carelton give theirs in Verse (the Quakers are Special Good at Poetry!) and there Apply the Prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel to Themselves, thus say they of Fr. Howgil.  
He was no Academian, as he said,  
But in our Northern Region he was Bred.  
Whereby this Observation may accrue,  
That Jeremiah Prophesied true;  
Because he said, out of the North should come,  
A Nation that shall Ruin Babylon.  
And this my Friend, of whom I speak was one,  
Among many Worthies more that shot at Babylon,  
Which out of the North arose etc.  
G. Fox, and the Original Quakers came out of the North of England (Omne Malum ab Aquilone) thence they were very fond of the North; and applied to Themselves all the Prophecies where the North was Named, or not Named— for they made the Branch and the Star of Righteousness arise out of the North of England! that is, G. Fox, whom they made the Christ. For Jesus of Nazareth did not come out of the North of England. But Fox their Messiah did. I say this, because some of them would now pretend, as if this had not been spoke of Fox, but of Christ.  
G. Fox wrote a Book An. 1656. for the Conversion of the Jews to Quakerism, to which he gave this Title. A Visitation to the Jews, from Them whom the Lord hath visited from on High: Among whom, He hath Performed His Promise made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and to his Seed, which Moses Saw, and the Prophets gave Testimony of, to which Seed the Apostles Witnessed, Which Seed We are! Here is a Full Recognition to Themselves, and Their Universal Heirship. If They are that Seed to which Abraham, Moses, the Prophets, and Apostles did Witness, they are no other than Christ. For He was that Seed. Gal. iii. 16. However, in the Lowest Sense can be put upon it, they think Themselves the Heirs of all the Promises made to the Jews. Among which, that of Universal Monarchy was certainly one; And Fulfilled in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth. But the Quakers turn it to their Christ, the Light within: In whose Right, they think, That they have a Full, and Indefeasable Title to it. And then indeed, All the King's of the World ought to come with Cap in Hand to the Quakers! And State belongs to Them! of which they have already taken Possession, in Refusing to Pay Homage to any Powers upon the Earth, so much as to move a Hat to the Best of them! or Treat them with Less Familiarity or other Ceremony than Plain Thee and Thou! Of which we come next to speak; and of the like Fig-Leaf Excuses they give for this, as for that of the Hat, Thereby to keep their Designs Undiscovered  

Concerning the Pure Language of Thee and Thou.  Appen. brings in, by Head and Shoulders, the business of their Singularity in Theeing and Thouing, for there was nothing spoken of it in Prim. Heres. But this is a Great Point with the Quakers; and cost them both Money and Pains in setting out a Large Folio, upon this Subject, called The Battle-dore, under the Name of G. Fox, which goes thro'? several Languages, of which G. F. knew not one Letter, though he Impudently puts his Name, not only to the Book, but to the several Pages, where the Hebrew, Greek etc. is Set down, only to show the use of the Singular Number to a Single Person, which no body ever yet did Deny. Yet the Quakers gave Large money (one Jew had 60 pounds) for this Learned Collection, not worth one Halfpenny. And, that All might not be Lost, Appen. will have it canvased here, And Demands, with Insulting, p. 49. That any Apostle or Primitive Father should be given, to Condemn the use of the singular Number, to a single Person (I never heard of any that did Condemn it) or to Authorise the use of the Plural, in the same Case. It was not a Case worth any of their Notice, to Enter into little poor Grammar niceties. Every Nation is Master of their own Language. And England now has, by Custom, made the word You both of a Singular and Plural Signification. And what has any man to say to this? If you speak of the Propriety or Impropriety of this, as to Criticising (at which the Quakers are Able hands!) let them show their Learning, and Compare all the Languages in the World. I wish they were no worse Employed. But to make a Case of Conscience of this: and set up this as their Discriminating Mark, upon a Religious Account, Exceeds Bedlam! What Scripture, what Authority have they for this? Except G. Fox's Blasphemous Journal, where he says p. 24. When the Lord sent me forth into the World, He forbade me to put off my Hat to any— and I was Required to Thee and Thou all Men and Women. It was the same Lord, that sent forth Judas, upon the same Errand of Levelling, to Destroy all Distinctions of Men; and so bring the World into Confusion. And lest our Outward Carriage should not be sufficient, here is Rudeness to Superiors brought into the Tongue, as well as Hands, Feet, or Head; That we should call them by no Better Names than they call us: And so verify the Old Proverb, Familiarity breeds Contempt. But if G. Fox had this by Special Command from God, what needed he go to Grammar for it? Or did God give Extraordinary Revelations to the world, for no other End but to save Priscian's Head from being Broke, in English? Blasphemous Wretch! These are like the Silly Senseless Excuses they have about the Hat. But the Bottom of it is nothing but Pride, and Contempt of Superiors; because they think none Superior to Themselves. If they Suppose that Genders and Cases, Singular and Plural are such matters of Conscience, why not the Eight Parts of Speech, Syntaxis, Prosody, and Orthography too, Colons, Semicolons etc. Right Spelling, and Speaking strictly according to the Letter? Otherwise it is a sort of Be-Lying the word, and Deceiving of the simple Re-ader; which may, in time, tend much to the Damage of the Pe-ople. There is the same Reason for the one as the other. But there is no Pride in this! No Contempt of Magistracy and Government! No Exalting of Themselves, and making Themselves Equal to Dignities and Powers! And their Pretence for Conscience in this, is so very Ridiculous, that no Heretics, before the Quakers, ever had so much want of Sense, as to fall upon any thing Like it: There is no Parellel to be found for it in all the Ancient Heresies; Therefore it is not Mentioned in Prim. Heres. But Appen. would have it in. And in he has it. Talking of the Singular and Plural Number were High things, Believe it, and Deep Learning to those Sorry Souls who first set up Quakerism! (See the Account of their Original, as given by Themselves, in Sat. Dis. Glean. Sect. iv. N. 2. p. 85.) This was the Reason, they made, at first, such a filthy noise about the Singular and Plural, they were fine Hard words! And made the Quakers look Considerably, in a Country Town! It was such a Glorious Discovery, that G. Fox puts it among his Openings (See Sn. Sect. xxiii. p. 33. to 37.) And Pretends to have had it by Inspiration.  
But now, after all, suppose the Quakers themselves (these Nice Critics!) should be found Guilty of the Heresy of False-Grammar, as well as the more Unlearned part of the world! It is common with them to use the Accusative for the Nominative Case, to say Thee for Thou. As, how dost Thee do? wilt Thee tell me, etc. And is it not as Great Heresy to put one Case for another, as one Number for another? Tho', as I told you before, we do not put one Number for another, but the word You is with us, both Singular and Plural, as the word Sheep (to Descend to your understanding) or (to come nearer to you) Swine. Next Review of Heresies that you Publish, let this Vulgar Error be set in the Highest Rank! and write yourselves Sheep's, or Swine's, which you like best, or to which you are most Like. But you say, if You be Singular, what use have we for the words Thee and Thou? O yes, for Variety! Two Strings to your Bow. As if I should call Appen. a Sheep, or a Mutton; a Swine, or a Hog. Let some of these be your Name Hereafter— for you have no Name as yet, but that of Quakers, which you say your Godfathers' gave you, in Scorn. With your Christianity, you have Lost your Names too. For what Name have you for your Flock, now through the world? Is it that of Christians? That does not Distinguish you from other Communities which bear the same Name. Is it, the Pe-ople of God? That others take to themselves too. You are the First Nameless Society that has yet appeared. O, but I forgot, your Name is Hidden from the World! Would your Heresies were so too. The time is Coming, when Both shall be Forgot, unless for Detestation. Appen. is very Angry p. 49. That G. Fox should be Deprived of the Glory of being an Original, by showing the semblance of his Wickedness in Judas: but herein Fox's Cubs are an Original, that they call themselves not by His Name, or by any other. Judas' Followers were called Gaulonites or Galileans, but Fox's, nothing at all, indeed they were not fit to be Named.  
But why was not Judas an Original to Fox, in the Point before mentioned, of Contempt of Magistracy? No, not in the Point of the Hat, because Judas wore no Hat! (No, nor likely, any Leathern Breeches, and Fox had both) nor in Thee and Thou, because Judas did not speak English! And then (as says Appen.) G. Fox has (in his own Foolish and False words) The Glory of being an Original. Whose Foolish and False words? Certainly he means this for the Author of Prim. Heres. But they are not his words, he only Quotes them from Will. Penn, who Boasts thus of G. Fox, in his Preface to Fox's Journal. p. 31. That Fox was No Man's Copy, etc. so that Appen. must take Home again his Compliment of False and Foolish, and Place the Saddle upon the Right Horse. Unless he thinks it was False and Foolish to Quote Will. Penn's Noble Character of his Beloved Fox; of whom he Exults thus, in the same Preface. Many have done Virtuously in this Day, But thou, Dear George Excellest them all!  
But, to make an End of this Head, Appen. says, p. 50. As for our Hats, we pull them not off in— Civility— yet we pay— Civility to all Men. You mean, some other way, but not in that. So say you (ibid.) we give Honour to whom Honour is Due. It has been told before, whom they are, to whom you think it Due. But if you think that any Honour at all is Due to our Magistrates, than this Particular Honour of the Hat, and Civil Titles are Due, because they are Required. Honour is as much Due to our Governors, as Tribute: And you may as well say we will Pay Tribute to whom Tribute is Due: but we will not Pay this Particular Tribute, which is Required. We may as justly Cut and Carve for ourselves what sort of Tribute, as what sort of Honour to Pay. We must Pay that which is Required, or else we are Offenders. Unless we can show some Positive Prohibition of God, against it. And therefore it Returns now upon the Quakers, since they Acknowledge some Honour to be Due, to show where God has Forbidden that Particular Honour of the Hat, or other Address than Thee and Thou, else they are Transgressor's as well against the Law of God, as of Man. If they say, that their Light forbids it (for they can show nothing else) then may it not Forbidden any other sort of Honour, as well as the Hat, or Titles? or any sort of Tribute, as it has done Tithes, Trophy-Money, etc. So that all our Laws, all Order and Government among Men, all things whatsoever, lie at the Mercy of the Quakers: while they Refuse to let Scripture, or any thing else, be a Rule to their Light; but set It up Paramount, as the Rule and Standart, to Confirm or to Annul all Laws, Customs, Constitutions, even the Holy Scriptures themselves. As Ample as the Commission given to Jeremiah, over the Nations, and over the Kingdoms, to Root out, and to Pull down, and to Destroy, and to Throw down, to Build, and to Plant. If it be not so, and that the Quakers will say, They are willing to take the Holy Scriptures for their Rule: Then let them show any Scripture which Forbids that Particular Honour of the Hat, or of Civil-Titles: Otherwise let them Confess, That the Light which has told them so is Darkness.  
But the truth is, They do not Acknowledge the Holy Scriptures as their Rule, which is shown before p. 29, 30. And Will. Penn has this Year 1699, Printed, tho' not Published, except to the Friends (for their Booksellers Refuse to Sell them, unless they know to whom, they Refused it to some that I employed) A Discourse of the General Rule of Faith and Practice, of which the whole Argument is, ex professo, to Prove, That the Scriptures cannot be that Rule. Wherein all the Popish Artillery is Mustered up, against the Holy Scriptures being the Rule. It has Received a very Substantial Answer by G. Keith, therefore I say no more of it here. But to take Notice of the Deceit of the Quakers, in their Quoting of Scripture. For to what Purpose do they Quote them, when they Own them not to be the Rule; And Consequently, will not be Determined by them? This is only to Amuse, and to bear a Face, as if they Own'd the Scriptures. And to use them, ad hominem, against those who do Acknowledge them.  
Yet they have no Proof, but what they Pretend from Scripture, for their Foundation-Principle, of The Light within (which they make the only Rule) being Christ and God. They cannot say, that the Light within does tell them this of its Self: For than it would tell others so, Seeing they make it Common to all Mankind: And: if it tells None so, but the Quakers; or if it does not tell all Others so, as well as the Quakers, then how is it the General Rule to All Men, as the Quakers would have it? Therefore they have Recourse, for this, to Joh. i. 9 That was the true Light, which Lighteth every Man that Cometh into the World. And to other Scriptures, which they Wrist, to their own Destruction. And yet they will not Own the Scriptures for the Rule. But, when Pinched, they Fly back again to their Light-within.  
This is all they have for their Principle of the Hat; and their Sulleness, which they call Gravity.  
But I would have them Distinguish betwixt the Gravity of an Angel, and a Devil. Both are Grave; But if an Angel Appeared, we must Suppose with his Gravety, the Greatest Sweetness, and Attraction that can be. On the other hand, if a Devil Appeared, he would be Grave too; but it would be an Abhorrent and Frightful Gravity, like that of a Lion, when he was going to Devour, or of a Mastiff Dog, with Grin, and Snarl. There is nothing Exotic, or Sour in the Gravity of Religion. It is all Decent, and Comely. It is the Beauty of Holiness. But in a Quaker-Meeting, Especially their Silent Ones, their Phiz and Mien, Hats pulled over Eyes, their Habit, their Grunts and Dogged Demureness, the Deformity of Holiness is Drawn to the Life. No Stranger but would think himself at a Bedlam, or a Funeral; or, as indeed it is, among a Company of People Possessed and Bewitched.  
But if he saw them fall to their Convulsions and Quaking-Fits, their Rolling and Roaring, Fomeing, Swelling, and Yelling, as, at first, was Common among them; I dare say, it would never. bring into his Mind, the Ecstasies and Tremble of the Holy Prophets, through the Excess of the Revelations given unto them (which the Quakers urge as their Precedent) But rather that of Fiends in their Torments; For the Devils believe too, And Tremble, as the Quakers do.  
I have now gone over the Several Heads Mentioned in Prim. Heres. And Consider'd the Defences which Appen. has Produced for them. This brings him to his Conclusion. Wherein is Nothing but what has been Answered already; Only their Vapouring, How Bravely they have Acquit themselves! Which I leave them to Enjoy. And Hasten to the Last Section that I may have Done.   

SECT. VII. The Asurdity and Blasphemy of the Quakers Notion of the Light Within.  

They hold, That there is no Natural Light, or Reason in Man: But that All in him is Divine.  1. I Now go on to Examine the Defence of Will. Pen, against the Friendly Expostulation with him in Prim. Heres. This gins in Appen. p. 53. And it says, p. 55. That the Author of Prim. Heres. would have Will Penn to suppose, That nothing but the Divine Light could Reprove of Evil. But (Says Appen.) I have looked, and find no such Supposition; And therefore no further Notice need be taken of the Consequences he draws as depending on that Supposition. This is Positive and Impudent to a Degree that could befall none but a Quaker! He says he has Looked— Therefore I beseech the Reader to Look too. The Charge is in Prim. Heres. p. 20. where the Pages of Will. Penn's Primitive Christianity are Quoted. viz. p. 29, 30. and 31. And a short Account of them given, to wit, That the Scripture makes no Distinction between Natural and Spiritual Light. That Will. Penn Provokes any to give so much as one Text to that Purpose. That he makes it as Absurd, as to talk of a Natural and Spiritual Darkness within. That he says, That there are not Two Lights from God in Man, that Regard Religion. Not that Reproves or Condemns a man for Sin. These are the words in Prim. Heres. I must ask the Reader's Pardon for Trans-Scribing them. And also, for Setting down Will. Penn's words more at Large, to satisfy the Importunate and Guilty Clamour of this his Appen. to Amuse those who have not Looked into the Books. Will. Penn first supposes (what All Agree to) That there is a Light in Man, which, as he words it, yields him the Knowledge of God: And likewise Reproves or Discovers that which offends Him. But whether this can be done by the Natural Light, or only by the Divine Light in Man? is the Question. Or, whether there be any such Natural Light in Man, that can do Both or Either of these? Now take Will. Penn's own words, in Answer to this, p. 29. It is Granted (says he) that what we call Divine, and some, Mistakenly, call Natural Light, can do Both. Secondly, If this Light be Natural, Notwithstanding it doth Manifest our Duty, and Reprove our Disobedience to God, they would do well to Assign Us some Certain Medium or Way, whereby we may truly Discern and Distinguish between the Manifestations and Reproofs of the Natural Light within, from those of the Divine Light within; since they Allow the Manifestation of God, and Reproof of Evil, as well to the one as the other. Let them give us but one Scripture that Distinguishes between a Natural and a Spiritual Light within. They may, with as much Reason, talk of a Natural and Spiritual Darkness within. All this is in p. 29. and 30. and p. 31. he pursues the same Argument, Neither is there (says he) so much as one Scripture that affords Us a Distinction between Light within and Light within; or that there are really Two Lights from God, in Man, that regard Religion. And p. 32. Therefore there are not Two Distinct Lights within, but one and the same Manifesting, Reproving, and Teaching Light within. And that this One, and but One Light within is not any Natural Light, he Particularly Explains and Distinguishes with Exactness, that none can (unless wilfully) mistake him, If by Natural (says he p. 14.) he meant a Created thing, as man is, or any thing that is Requisite to the Composition of a Man, I Deny it— For Man can no more be a Light to his Mind, than he is to his Body: he has the Capacity of seeing objects, when he has the help of Light, but cannot be a Light to himself by which to see them. Wherefore as the Sun in the Firmament is the Light of the Body, and gives us Discerning in our Temporal affairs; so the Life of the Word is the Glorious Light and Sun of the Soul etc. By which Logic, the Understanding has no more Light in itself, than the Eye; only a Capacity to Receive Light, ab Extrà And consequently has no Natural Light, only a Natural Capacity to Receive it, when sent from another. And this is Quoted, and thus Urged in Prim. Heres. p. 21. Yet Appen. has Looked, and could not see it! By which he offers us an Experiment (if we could Believe him) of the Natural Dulness of Human Understanding. But there is an Old saying, None so Blind, as they that Will not see.  
These men do their best, to Divest themselves of Reason; and they have gone very far towards it; And had done it, if Disowning of it, and Disputing Against it could have done it. Rich. Hubberthorn was an Eminent Apostle of the Quakers. His works were Collected and reprinted An. 1663. with Mighty Encomiums from G. Fox, G. Whitehead etc. There, in a Treatise which he calls Truth and Innocency Clearing its self etc. p. 41. he Denies Reason to be the Common Principle of Mankind; or that Men have any Natural Light, but only the Divine. Which he Endeavours to Prove thus. Some (says he) are Unreasonable Men, and so all have not Reason; and some are Idiots, and so have not Understanding: So then, all are not Enlightened with Reason and Understanding. If being Idiots, or most Extravagantly Unreasonable could Prove this, the Quakers have done it, to Demonstration! But it is that small Pittance of Reason, which they have Debauched, that Enables them to Dispute against Reason. Reason can never be Totally Extinguished, more than Life, while Man Remains. It Remains, tho' Dreadfully Clouded, even in Bedlam.  
And therefore, it is an Universal Principle or Light, which is Essential to Mar, as Man. And the Quakers, whether they will, or not ('tis a sad Story!) must have it. Yes, and must be Confounded by it; or else Converted. They say, that All Men have not REASON. But were it not much more true to say, that All men have not grace., that is, the Divine and Saving Light? And that the Light in some men is Darkness. I hope they will not say the Divine Light (which they make to be God Himself) is Darkness. Therefore they must find out some Fallible Light in Man, that is Capable of being Darkened. At least, other men have found it, and see it Plainly in Them, tho' They cannot see it themselves, it is so Darkened; or will not Own it. But Christ (says Hubberthorn ibid.) calls it not Reason nor Understanding. But where were Hubb's Eyes? did he never Read Isai. 1.18. Come now, let us Reason together, saith the Lord. And Prov. iii. 5. Lean not unto thine own Understanding. And 1 Cor xiv. 15. I will Pray with the Spirit, and I will Pray with the Understanding also. Then sure they were Two things. For ver. 14. it is said, My Spirit Prayeth, but my Understanding is unfruitful. Did Christ then never call the Light that is in Man by the Names of Reason or Understanding? or is there no Light of Reason in Man, besides the Light of the Spirit? How then is the Light of the Spirit Distinguished from that of the Understanding? If it be said, that Hubb Meant no more but that Christ did not call the Divine Light, Reason or Understanding. That was a mighty saying! upon the Quaker Principle, that the Divine Light in Man, is God: And makes this Sense, That Christ did not call God, Reason or Understanding. But what was it, which the Holy Scriptures call Reason or Understanding in Man? If it is not God, it must be a Creature: And if it be Created in Man, and is Part of the Composition of a Man, than it is of his Nature: And is Justly and Truly called a Natural Light, or Natural Reason: And is Distinguished from the Divine Light, which is God. It was to this Natural Light or Understanding of our own, that we are Commanded not to Lean, that is, to Fellow it, Absolutely, without a Due Sense of its weakness, and therefore Acknowleging the overruling Hand of God, to put our whole Trust in Him. The Foundation Principle of Quakerism, is, To Fellow the Light within: But here is a Light within, which God Commands Us not to Fellow: Therefore this Light cannot be Himself: And therefore there must be Another, and a Fallible Light in Man, which it is Dangerous to Fellow, without a Guard. And this is our Natural Light or Reason. Which does Manifest God to us, in a Great Measure, even His Eternal Power and Godhead. 
Rom. 1.19.20.  Which Renders all Sinners, even of the Gentiles, without Excuse, who do not Worship and Serve that God, Infinite and Eternal, Suitably to those Discoveries, which, by their own Natural Reason, they can Make of Him. 
Rom. 2.14.15.  And the Same Natural Conscience does also bear Witness, and Accuse or Excuse, according as men follow that Law, written in their Hearts, by Nature, as the Apostle of the Gentiles did Admonish them. But Hubb says (ibid.) That that Light in Man, is not Natural. He does not Square with Paul there! (as one of them said) unless (as W. P. says Extraordinarily! p. 15.) It is Natural to Man, to have a Supernatural Light. For which he is Spared in Prim Heres. for if it be Natural, to have any thing that is Supernatural, how is it Supernatural? Or if it be Supernatural, how is it Natural? This looks very like a Figure they call a Bull. But to Proceed.  
W. P. says, in the same p. 15. of his Primitive Christianity, as before Quoted, That Man can no more be a Light to his Mind, than he is to his Body. To this says Appen. p. 54. That W. P. adds afterwards, About those things that more Immediately concern our Better Inward and Eternal Man. He might have added too, Or about any thing Else. For if there be no Light in the Understanding, it cannot see these, or any other things. Why did you not likewise say, That there was no Light in the Eye; but that you meant only to see Dun Colours. For if the Understanding can see no more than the Eye, (as W. P. says) without an Adventitious (Natural Super Natural) Light, than it can see Nothing: for the Eye, without Light, can neither see Dun, nor if it were Dipped in Yellow. And if there be nothing in a man's Vaderstanding, more than in his Eye, to show it Light, or, as W. P. words it, That Man can no more be a Light to his mind, than he is to his Body, then cannot the Natural Understanding, of itself, see any thing, not only of Spiritual, but of Natural Matters; more than the Eye, when there is no Extraneous Light. That is, it is Actually Blind.  
But G. Fox's Blundering Spoils, at every Turn, Will. Penn's Fine Schemes, for this Marall will have the Light not to be any thing sent into the Understanding or Eye of the Soul, 
News out of the North. p. 19  but to be the Eye itself. The God of the World (says he) doth blind your Eye, which is the Light. By which Argument, the Light itself, which they say is Christ, is Blind. And the Eye, Christ, is put out by the Devil, who is the God of the World. And this Hideous Blasphemy must be the Consequence, upon the Quaker Foundation, if there be no Natural Light in the Understanding. And more, if, according to Fox, the Divine Light, that is Christ, be the Understanding itself. The Apostle says, The Eyes of your Understanding being Enlightened— 
Eph. 1.18.  Does Christ Enlighten Himself? Is the Light a Light to its Self? so the Quakers think, who Preach to the Light, and Instruct Christ Himself. 
ibid. p. 42. 43.  To that in Every one of your Consciences I speak (Says G. Fox) which is the Light— which Light is Christ. This was his, and the First Quakers common stile. But since it is much left off among them, for they have Discovered the Nonsense and the Blasphemy, of Preaching to Christ, Instructing and Admonishing of Christ! Which yet they cannot get off, while they Allow no other Light in the Conscience.  
They cannot come off with this Distinction (which they bring in, to Amuse the World) of the Natural Light being only Un-Capable to see the Mysteries of Faith, by its own Native and Inherent Powers. For that has been Yielded to them. And they Opposed it, as it is Instanced in Prim. Heres. p. 20. It was Granted by an Opponent to the Quakers, in these words, That no man, by that Native Light, Inherent in him, had Power to Believe. This G. Fox Opposes, in his Gr. Mystery. p. 42. and says, The Light that doth Enlighten Every man, he calls it Native and Inherent. The names he gives of Native and Inherent, are his own, out of the Truth. And Appen. p. 54. does Justify this, by way of Excuse, he says, That G. Fox had Reason to Oppose this Tenet. Why? Because (he says) his Adversary did mean by Native and Inherent Light, that Light wherewith Every one that cometh into the World is Enlightened withal. And what harm was there in this? Has not every man, and must he not have what is Natural to Man? else he were not a Man. O but Christ is called The Light that Lighteth Every man. Joh. 1.9. And what then? May not Christ Enlighten a man, that has a Natural Light in his Understanding? Indeed, how otherwise could He Enlighten him, more than a Beast, if he had no more Natural Light than a Beast, to Understand and Receive the Influences of the Holy Spirit? It is said, that Christ did open the Understandings of His Disciples, to Understand the Scriptures. Will it follow that they had no Natural Light in their Understandings? No. Therefore they had. And Christ, by the Blessed Influence of His Holy Spirit did Open and Improve their Light, and work upon it. You will not say, That Christ the Light did Open the Light, that is, Open or Instruct Himself. Therefore it was another Light, i. e. The Natural Light of their Understandings, which He Opened.  
Now here we have the Quaker Notion Truly. viz. That there is no Light in man, that is Native or Inherent. Tho', as W. P. says, Some Mistakenly call it Natural Light. But what other men Mistakenly call Natural Light, that the Quakers say, is the Light which is Christ, and God. And they say, That there is no other Light in the Understanding of Man but that. Now no man ever called Christ the Natural Light of our Understanding. What is it then which we Mistakenly call Natural Light? It is not Natural (say the Quakers) else, we do not call it so Mistakenly. Is it not therefore Plain that they Deny all Natural Light? otherwise, how do we Mistake in Calling it Natural? This Quotation out of W. P. is mentioned in Prim. Her. p. 20. But not a word is said to it in Appen. For, indeed, I think, it cannot be Answered. It is a full Demonstration, that the Quakers Deny all Natural Light, all that ever Mankind meant by the Light of Nature. They will have no Light in Man, but the very Original Divine Light, which is God, And this is the Original of all their Horrible Heresies, as shown in Prim. Her.  
This does necessarily Infer, that every Man is God: for this Light which is God, however it be, in itself, Supernatural to us, yet, if, as W. P. says, it be Natural for us to have it, than it is of our Nature: and consequently, every Man is God, even by Nature. And whatever is Natural for us to have, must needs be Native and Inherent. Why then will they not have it called Natural or Native and Inherent? Because Men do call the Light of Nature so. And this is, to beat down that Notion of any Natural Light in Man. Thom. Lawson, in his Book called The Lip of Truth opened. Printed 1656. p. 47. says, As for a Natural Light, the Scriptures mention no such thing; so when thou writes again, acquaint People what thou means by Natural; the Apostle speaks of a Divine Nature, which the Saints were Partakers of. 2 Pet. 1.4. But why does Thom. Lawson Limit this to the Saints? Here the Quakers confound themselves. For they say, That every Man that comes into the World is Partaker of the Light within: But the Apostle here (even as T. L. interprets it) says of none but the Saints, that they are Partakers of the Divine Nature: which is Plainly the Import of that Text. And therefore, the Light within, and the Divine Nature are two things. Because some may Partake of the One, who do not of the Other. Yet T. L. will not allow of Two Lights. Or that there is any Light in Man, that can be called Natural, Spiritual, Reason, or Grace, for which his Adversary Contends, in these very words. But he Answers p. 42. The Light is but one, even Christ. and p. 43. No Light we own, but Christ, who Lighteth every one. i e. The Light within is not any Inspiration from Christ, but Christ Himself. Nothing is more a Received and Common Principle of the Quakers than this; nor more Zealously contended for. Tho' now they would Smooth and Cover it, when they see it is thoroly Discovered, and thereby grown Odious to the Eyes of the World.  
If you would know (for it seems strange) why they are so Earnest against any Natural Light. It is this, That thereby they may bring Men to Lean wholly to their own Light within; while they think it to be no less than God Himself, and nothing of the Corrupt Nature of Man. And so it becomes a Rule Superior even to Scripture, or any thing else. And thinking that they have no Light but this, consequently, whatever comes into their Heads, they must think it to be the very Voice of God. And then in vain is either Scripture or Reason urged to Remove them. For they think they have what is Infallible within them. This Renders them (as we find them) Deaf to all Arguments. This is the most Dreadful Snare of the Devil; wherein when any are Caught, they are Proof against Conviction or Repentance, even in the most Senseless or Diabolical Heresies that Satan can put into their Heads. Whereas, if they did Acknowledge a Natural and Fallible Light in their Understandings, they would consider whether such Thoughts were Agreeable to the Rules of Scripture, and Reason; and Correct their Thoughts accordingly. They would then (and not before) be capable of Instruction and Improvement. Then they would Search for, and soon Find (what W. P. thought Impossible) a certain Medium and Way to Distinguish between the Fallible suggestions of the Light of Their own Corrupted Nature, and those Infallible Truths, which God has Revealed in His Holy Scriptures. They would Determine and Limit their own Lose and Fleeting Thoughts, by those Infallible Oracles. Which they now absolutely Refuse, saying, That they have the same Spirit, which gave forth the Scriptures. Not only a Ray or Communication of that Spirit; which all Good men do Experiment, Working upon, and Exciting the Natural Light of their Understandings; yet Resistable, else none could be in Error: Now it is not with our Hands or our Feet that we Resist it, but with our Mind: And our Mind could no more Resist it than our Hands, if our Mind had no more Light than our Hands, or no other Light than the Divine; unless you suppose that the Divine Light would Resist it Self! But this Argument is more Largely Pursued in Prim. Her. p. 24. to 29. of which no notice at all is taken in Appen. This is not only a Speculative Point, but of the last Consequence to the Quakers: And the first Step must be taken in order to their Recovery  

That, by this, they are not only Equal to, God in some Sense; But that they are very God Himself. And that Every Creature is God, even the Devil!  2. This has brought them (among other Dreadful consequences of this wild Notion) to say, That the Soul which God Breathed into Man, was not a Creature, but the Breath, that is, as they Explain it, the very Essence, Nature, Substance, and Person of God (as shown in Sn, Sect. 2. etc.) To Cover which, and make it appear less Frightful to all Men of Sense or Religion, they would now make it be Believed, that they said not this of the Soul itself, but of what God Breathed into the Soul. Tho' this could not alleviat the Blasphemy, to say that God Breathed His own very Essence and Being into our Soul. But when you Read the Quotations in the Sn. in the Place above Cited, you will see plainly, that it was of the Soul itself, and not of any thing in the Soul which they spoke. And this will appear, past all Contradiction, if any would be at the Pains to Read those Authors whom G. Fox there opposed; Who allowed all that could be said of the Divine Presence of God in the Soul, But put the Question concerning the Soul itself. Magnus' been (one of their opposers) says, in his Scornful Quakers Answered. An. 1656. p. 104. Tho' there be a Blessed Union between Christ and an Holy Soul, yet there is a vast Difference between the Essence or Being of the Soul, and Christ; the one being still a Creature, the other the Creator of it. This G. Fox opposes (Gr. Mystery. p. 29.) and falls upon him, for calling the Soul a Creature. T. Lawson in his Lip of Truth opened. p. 50. Charges him again for the same, and cries, Thou call'st the Soul a Creature. And I. Deny it (says he) show me a Scripture calling the Soul a Creature, etc. Mag. been allowed a kind of Infinitness in the Soul; But yet (says he) it is not Infinitness itself. Which G. Fox opposes (Gr. Mist. p. 90.) but altars the words from Infinitness itself, to Infinitness in itself; though p. 29. he says that the Soul is Infinite itself. This he Asserts, and was not content with any Kind of Infinity, less than Infinitness itself, which he ascribes to the Soul: And makes it without Beginning, as well as Ending; that is, from Eternity. And to be One with God, not in such a Spiritual Unity, as is allowed by all Christians; but even in Essence, and to be God Himself. Ra. Farmer; in what he calls The Great Mystery of Godliness and Ungodliness. An. 1655. p. 26, 27. Allows in these words, That God and Christ and the Spirit dwell in Us, and that God and Christ and the Saints are One: Yet are we to Understand this Union to be only in a way of Relation, through Participation of the same Spirit; And this Dwelling to be only in respect of Grace, and Powerful Operation and Influence, working in the Hearts of Believers. etc. But then he tells of another sort of Union which the Quakers drive at. viz. That Themselves are God and Christ, and what God is, they are; And what they are, God is. That they hold The Living Soul in Man to be Un-Created, and so Consequently, to be God Himself, and not Created by God. And so, That they have a God Within, and a Christ within, thereby Labouring to beget in People's Minds a Contempt and slight Esteem of Christ, His Word and Ordinances. That what is. Declared concerning the Death of Christ at Jerusalem, and His bearing our Iniquities, in His own Body upon the Cross, is but a Mere History and Shadow; the Scriptures are but a Letter, and the Ordinances of God, but Fleshly Forms. etc. To this Book G. Fox Answers, and to this very Page 27. which he Quotes, in his Gr. Mist. p. 173. But Recites only 2 or 3 ends of Sentences (according to his Custom) of which the Reader can make nothing. And he does not so much as Deny any Part of this Charge (for it is the true Quaker Doctrine) But, on the Contrary, Justifies it, in his silly Squinting Fashion, saying, That Jesus Christ is within, except ye be Reprobates. And where Jesus-Christ is within, the Word is there, and God is there etc.  
Not Denying such a Charge of Hideous Blasphemy, is, in this Case, a Confessing of it. And to give such General no Answers, shows only a Mind to Dodge, and not Plainly to Discover the Monstrous Root of their Infernal Heresy.  
But they have Discovered it, Plain enough, as before Quoted. For if the Soul of Man be not a Creature (which you see they have over and over again Asserted) than it must be God: for there is no Medium. And not only thus Negatively have they Asserted it: But Positively, and in the Affirmative: They say, that the Soul is Infinite, even Infinitness itself; and without Beginning. Which nothing can be but God.  
And if the Soul be God, it must follow that there is no Soul but God. Which R. Farmer. p. 27. above Quoted, does charge upon the Quakers, That they say, There is no Spirit but One, and so Deny any Angel or Spirit. Which page G. Fox does Quote in his Answer (Gr. Mist. p. 173.) but says nothing at all to this. he could not Deny this to be the Quaker Principle.  
And the Consequence of this is, That there is nothing Natural in Man: for if all in Man be God, then there is no Nature of Man, but only the Nature of God.  
This is the true Ground why the Quakers will not allow any Light that is in Man to be Natural; no, not that Light or Reason which is Common to All Men. Nor will be Content to say That this comes from God. No. They will have it nothing Less than God Himself. It was Granted to G. Fox, That the Eternal word Enlighteneth All men, with the Common Light of Nature. This G. F. Repeats, and Opposes. The Light (says he) which Every Man that cometh into the world is Enlightened withal, is not Natural. 
Gr. Mist. p. 172.  What is his Reason? Because, says he, The Light was before any thing was Made; and all things that was made, was made by it, which Lighteneth every Man that cometh into the World. By this Argument, nothing at all can be Natural to Us; because, not only our Light, but out Life, and Every thing we have is from God. And Consequently, we, nor any other Creature can have any Nature at all. And then, there can he No Creature at all; but All is God.  
This was the Ranters Blasphemous Notion. That God is Every thing: And Every thing is God. Thus they Understand that Text, That God is All in All. i. e. That Every thing comes by Emanation from God; or that Every thing is the Nature and Essence of God, Extended, and Varied: which Returns again into its self, as Rivers come from, and Return into the Sea; And so All things Return into the Nature of God, whence they Came. And that there is no Nature or Being but only that of God.  
And this the Quakers have Licked up from the Ranters, from whom they came: And tho' they seem to oppose them, yet from them they Learned, And still Propagate this, with others of their Vile Errors.  
This is the very Language of the Quakers. Is not this that cometh out from God, which is in God's hand, 
Gr. Must. p. 100  Part of God, and from God, and to God again? is not this of God's Being? And doth not the Scripture say, God is All, and in All?  
Is not the Soul without Beginning, 
ib. p. 90.  coming from God, Returning into God again, who hath it in His hand— Which brings it up into God, which came out from Him; hath this a Beginning or Ending? And is it not Infinite in itself, and more than all the world?  
Now Consider what a Condition they called Ministers are in: 
ib. p. 29.  They say, that which is a Spiritual Substance, is not Infinite in itself, but a Creature: That which came out from the Creator, and is in the Hand of the Creator, which brings it up, and to the Creator again, that is Infinite itself.  
And thou says, 
ib. p. 91.  the Soul is a Spiritual thing, and yet a Creature— But the Bishop of their Souls Christ the Power of God— brings the Soul up into God from whence it came, whereby they come to be One Soul.  
Thus G. Fox, which he had learned from his Lear-Father (as he was called) John Hinks a Chief man among the Ranters. Who allowed no Distinction at all betwixt God and Creatures, but said that All was God.  
And after him, the other Quakers proceed in the same strain. Christoph. Atkinson sets down this, as a False Principle, which he opposes, viz. That God who is Creator, 
Sword of the lord p. 3.  is Eternally DISTINCT from all Creatures, in His Being and Blessedness. And Replies in these words, The Being of God is not Distinct from them that are Begotten of Him: for as the Father and the Son are one without Distinction, so are they that are Begotten by Him. And p. 5. he Denies that Christ or God is a Distinct Person from all Saints and Angels. For (says he) Christ is but one in All, and not Distinct. And this says he, in his Title-Page, I was moved by the Lord God of Life to lay open— as it was made Manifest in me from the Lord. And now we see the Reason why G. Fox did not oppose what R. Farmer charged upon the Quakers, of their Denying and Created Angel or Spirit, and holding no other Spirit, but God. This G. Fox could not Deny, to be the very Principle of the Quakers. Nay he Contends and Disputes for it. In his Gr. Mist. p. 207. he sets this as an Error of the Professors, that, they say, God hath a Christ Distinct from all other things whatsoever, whether they be Spirits or Bodies. And Answers, God's Christ is not Distinct from His Saints, nor His Bodies. So that, by this, not only all Spirits, but all Bodies are God's Bodies; nay every Body, as well as Spirit is God. For so it must be, if God is not Dictinct from them. This is true Ranterism.  
And is the dregs of that old Corrupt Heathen Philosophy, which made God. to be only Anima Mundi, the Soul of the World; and consequently, every thing to be Part of God, of His Essence and Being. The Blasphemous Absurdity of which has been Exposed by many of the Heathens themselves. And is now licked up again by the most Gross of Heathens, the Quakers.  
Mr. Farmer, in his Book before mentioned, is Large, p. 58. etc. in showing now the Quakers took up this from the Ranters. That they Approved of the Ranters Principles. But Blained them, for not keeping up to them, to the Light that was in them; as they say of their own Quakers, when they Listen to the Flesh, and are taken Napping. In a Book wrote by G. Fox, and Jam. Naylor. An. 1654. called A word from the Lord, unto all the Faithless Generation of the World, etc. p. 13. they give this Testimony to the Ranters, You had a Pure Convincement, I witness, which did Convince you, and you started up to be as Gods. And Gods they thought Themselves, and were thought by the Quakers, till their Vileness (as of the Quakers now) was so fully Discovered, that mere Shame Drove all People from them.  
Their Great Edw. Burrough, and Fr. howgil wrote an Answer to some Quaeres put by one Reeve, of which this is the Second. viz. What the true Creator was, in his own distinct Essence, Nature, and Glory, from all Eternity, in Time, and to all Eternity: And wherein Elect men and Angels differ in their Natures and Glory, Distinct from their Creator in their Persons? And the Answer of the Quakers is, That the Nature and Glory of the Elect, differs not from the Nature and Glory of the Creator— For the Elect are one with the Creator— And, thy word, Distinct Essence, I Deny: For the Elect is not Distinct from the Creator.  
The First Quaere Asks, How God is Distinct from all Living Creatures? And the Answer is, He is not Distinct from Living Creatures: for in Him Living Creatures Lives, Moves, and hath their Being's. This shows how the Quakers and Ranters (their Predecessors) understand that Text. Act. xvii. 28. Not, as there Explained, and ver. 25. That God gives us, all these things: But that these things are Part of God's Essence, and not any Distinct Essence from Him. That there is but one Essence or Being, which is God: Of which All Creatures do Partake, in their several Degrees. By which Hypothesis, as Sebastian Frank (one of this Horrid Gang, in Germany) did Impiously Blaspheme, In Trunco, Dcum esse Truncum; in Porco, Porcum; in Diabolo, Diabolum. O Astonishment to Repeat it! That In a Block, God is a Block; in a Swine, a Swine; and in a Devil, He is a Devil.  
These last Quotations, I take from Mr. Farmer, not having seen that Answer of Burrough and Howgil to Reeve. But G. Fox, in his Answer to this Book of Mr. Farmer, does not Deny them; which there is no Doubt he would have done had they been False. Nay, on the Contrary, he does Justify the Doctrine and stand by it. He Quotes the very Place in Farmer, where these Quotations are, viz. p. 60, 61, 62. In p. 61. is that Dreadful Blasphemy above Quoted of Sebast. Frank; there called one of the same Gang with the Quakers: and in the same page, and beginning of p. 62. it is Compared with what I have above Quoted out of Christopher Atkinson's Sword of the Lord, etc. where he Denies God to be a Distinct Being from All Creatures. And G. Fox in his Gr. Mist. p. 174. Quotes this same Page of Farmer. viz. p. 62. and sets down this, as one of Farmer's False Principles, which he Opposes, He saith (says Fox) That God is Distinct in His Being and Blessedness from All Creatures; and that God who is the Creator, is Eternally Distinct from All Creatures. He Quotes the same again from p. 53. of Farmer, thus, He saith, That this God, who is the Creator, is Eternally Distinct from All Creatures. And from p. 55. That Christ being God, only in one Man's Person, remains a Distinct Person from All Creatures and Angels. And G. Fox's Answer is, This is Contrary to Scripture. And he Quotes some of the Scriptures, which they use to wrest to this Blasphemous Purpose, as That God is All in All. In Him we Live and move etc. And he Disowns not Sebast. Frank, or his Blasphemy.  
Thus they hold, That Christ is God, not only in One Man's Person, i. e. in the Person of our Lord Jesus of Nazareth; but in Every one of their Persons; and as much Incarnate in Them, as in Jesus: Nay, as much in Every other Man; ay and Beast too, by this Principle; which Degrades God into a Stock, to a Swine, to a Devil! (O Horror!) who, by this Means, would Maintain His Equality with God: And has Taught it to the Quakers,  
Who, from his Inspiration, think Themselves to be Infinite and Eternal, as God is! Thus says G. Fox, in the Introduction to his Battledoor for Teachers and Professors etc. All Languages are to me (says he) no More than Dust, who was before Languages were. And p. 214. Next follow a few words by George Fox, Who is before Confusion or Many Languages were. In the same Strain, says James Parnell, in his Book Entitled The Watchers etc. p. 37. To the End of all Disputes and Arguments I am come; for before they was, I AM.  
And thus it must be, if their Soul be not a Creature, and have no Beginning, as before has been Quoted, out of their Books.  
It will not now seem Strange, That they Allow not Created, that is, no Human Soul to Christ, Since they Deny it to themselves.  
This you may see in George Whitehead his Answer to Thomas Danson his Synopsis of Quakerism. Printed An. 1669. p. 18. There he says, As to T. Dansons' telling of the Son of God's Incarnation, the Creation of his Body and Soul, the Parts of that Nature he Subsisted in etc. To this I say, if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both Created, doth not this render him a Fourth Person? for Creation was in Time— Where doth the Scripture say, That his Soul was Created?  
The Consequences of this Horrid Opinion Engages the Quakers to believe That God may Grow and Increase, be Born, and Suffer, because they find it so with Themselves. They Suppose that what they call the Seed in their Hearts, does Grow from a Seed to become a Newborn Child: Thence to be a Son, that is, in the Perfection of a Man: And thence, by Degrees to Increase, till it be God This is the Climax of the Quaker-Perfection; for they Cannot say that they were Perfect at first. Thus Will. Penn gives it Us, in his Christian Quaker. An. 1674. p. 98. When (says he) what was but in the Condition of a SEED, or NEWBORN CHILD, should become the ONLY SON, the WONDERED COUNCILLOR, the MIGHTY GOD, the EVERLASTING FATHER. This is the same Language with Will. Bayly, in his Works. p. 291. CHRIST is known (says he) to be first a Holy thing; then a CHILD given; and a SON Born; Which is EMANVEL God with Us, a Saviour, a Wonderful Councillor, the MIGHTY GOD, the PRINCE OF PEACE etc.  
And this is not said of Our Blessed Lord Jesus of Nazareth, his Conception in the Womb of the Virgin MARY, and being Born of her Body: But the Quakers Mean it, as all fulfilled Within Themselves. viz. The SEED Sown, or Conceived in their VIRGIN Hearts, which, at the first, in Embryo, is only a Holy thing; But Increasing, it becomes a Child, in the Womb of the Heart; thence Repening, it has a Spiritual BIRTH, and is a SON Born; Which SON Grows up to be at last the MIGHTY GOD, the EVERLASTING EITHER.  
Nor do they Suppose that Christ was any otherwise Born of the Blessed Virgin, than as He is thus Born in Themselves. They Allegorise all the History of His Incarnation, into this Spiritual Birth of the Light, which they Call CHRIST, in their Hearts. The Virgin MOTHER of God, is a Virgin HEART, wherein God is Conceived and Born. They have Spiritual Shepherds too, heeping their Flocks by Night. A Spiritual STAR in the EAST, Spiritual WISE MEN who followed it, to a Spiritual BABE, in a Spiritual INN, MANGER etc. And all this Performed Within them, Now, at this Day! Awake therefore NOW (says Will. Bayly, p. 292. of his Works) Ye Shepherds, who have been keeping your Flocks by Night, and Look ye Upwards, ye Earthly-Minded, and behold His Star in the East; the Wise Men (whose Eyes are in their Head) have Seen it, and been Led by it, till the Babe was found Lying in a Manger, for in the Inn there was no Room for him. He that hath an Ear to Hear, let him Hear.  
Thus they Commonly Conclude, when they Speak Mystically. This is to show, that they Mean not according to the Letter. Therefore they Cry, He that hath Ears etc. For it is not given to Every One, to Understand these Quaker Mysteries! Therefore they speak to Us in Parables, that Seeing we might not See, nor Understand them; for they think Us not Worthy; as having Hardened our Hearts against them!  
Let me here set down a Quotation more at Large, out of the forecited place of Will. Bayly's Works, p. 291, 292. It will give the Reader a Plainer View of this their Principle. And they Complain often, that their Words are given too Short, and the whole Sentences not Produced at Large. Thus then says that Renowned Quaker.  So now this Christ was before the World (that now is) began, and was a Seed before any Name was given to it; which, in process of time, being Begotten of God, was Born of a Virgin, had a Body Prepared to do the will of his Father (as it is at this Day;) But none knows him (or ever shall) Born, but of a Virgin (he that hath Ears, let him hear) Whose Eye is Single, Mind stayed on God, Forsakes all, takes up the daily Cross, denies Self— These only know him Born, tho' once, like Mary, said, How can this be, Seeing I know not a Man? (Seeing I have no Strength, Wisdom, Parts, or Abilities of my Own:) But the Answer is, at it was, (Be thou but the Virgin) The Power of the Most High shall overshadow thee, And that Holy thing, which shall be Born of thee, shall be Called the Son of God: This was Christ's Name in the Womb, a Holy thing. Read within— This is the I AM, which was before Abraham— the Virgin is Subject to the Power of the Most High, Where Christ is known to be first a Holy thing, than a Child given etc. [as before Quoted]— That which may be known of God (or Christ, which is One) is Manifest IN People, there He is, and is ONLY to be found— This is that God (which Paul Preached to the Athenians) that Made the World etc. 
Thus Will. Bayly. And, by this, you see, That they make God and Christ to be all One. That this God was a Seed, before any Name was givin to it. i e. from Eternity. That this God, does in process of time, even at this Day, Beget God, IN Us. That this God does Grow and Increase IN Us, from a Seed, to a Child, then to a Son, lastly, to be the MIGHTY GOD, the EVERLASTING FATHER!  
Again you see, how they Allegorise the Virgin of Whom CHRIST was Born, to a Pure or Virgin HEART. That when Mary said, she knew not a Man, by Man here was only Meant Our own Wisdom, Strength, Parts, or Abilities, out of which Christ could not be Born. That they know Him Born of them, at this Day, as Mary knew Him Born of Her.  
And indeed it does not Appear, That they think Him to have been Born any otherwise of Her, than He is of Them. that is, Not of her Body, in a Literal Sense, but only in the Womb of her Heart, as in Theirs!  
They say that Christ, or the Light is Begotten of God. But they say not this of that Prepared Body (as they call it) of Jesus of Nazareth, in which Christ or the Light Dwelled, which was Literally Born of the Virgin MARY. Whom they do not (that I can find) own to have been a Virgin, in the Common Acceptation of the Word, that is, who had no Carnal Knowledge of a Man: but only that she had a Pure, that is a Virgin HEART. Therefore they are Desired to tell us, who they think was the Immediate Father, not of Christ or the Light, but of that Prepared Body of Jesus of Nazareth? Whether they think, as some Socinians have done, that it was Begot by Joseph, in the Ordinary way of Generation? If they Wave giving any Answer to this, It is Owning that they do think so. For if they Believe as all other Christians do, they can have no Scruple in Owning of it. Especially Now, when they are upon Smoothing of their Principles, and Endeavouring to make them Appear the same with other Christians, particularly with the Doctrine of the 39 Articles of the Church of England.  
And in their Answer to this, I here give them Caution, to Avoid Ambiguity of Terms. That they Word it not, Who was the Father of Christ, or of Jesus; for they can call their Light within sometimes by the Name of Jesus, that is, a Saviour, as well as by the Name of Christ, that is, Anointed: But that they Answer Directly, Who was the Father of that Outward Body of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Mary. And that they say not only, Who was his Father; for they may say, it was God; which is true, in a Large Sense, as He is the Father of All Living: But that they tell, Who was his IMMEDIATE Father. And whether He was Begotten of Any Mere Mortal Man?  
I Desire them to keep in the word Mortal, because they have a Notion of an Eternal Manhood of God (as shown in the beginning of the First Part) Therefore, I Desire they may say, whether our Jesus, was Begotten of any MORTAL Man? And because they have a Sense too, in which they think that God or the Light may Die in Our Hearts, Therefore, that they add the word Mere to Mortal, and say, Whether the Outward Body of Jesus of Nazareth, which was Born of Mary the Wife of Joseph, was Begotten by any Mere Mortal Man?  
There is Need of all this Caution with these Quakers, as sufficiently shown before. It is Impossible otherwise to Hold them! There are None who have such Starting-Holes and Evasions as they have: With all their Pretences to Flainness and Sincerity!  
Now if they shall Answer, in the Terms before set down, That Jesus was IMMEDIATELY Begotten by God, in the Womb of the B. Virgin: Then that they give a Good Reason, Why He was not Properly the Son of God. Or otherwise, That they Disown that Representation of their Belief which Will. Penn has Given, and says it in their Name, viz. That the outward Person which Suffered was Properly the Son of God, We Utterly Deny. As has been before Quoted from p. 146. of his Serious Apology.  
Then let them Own, That Christ was otherwise Begotten and Born of the Blessed Virgin, than He is in their Hearts, or Ever was, or will be in any other Person. That only at that Time, in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin, and Never Before, He did Assume our Flesh into an Hypostatical or Personal Union with His Divine Nature: And that He is now Truly and Properly a Man, in Complete Human Nature, of an Human Soul, and Human Body, And likewise, Truly and Properly the Son of God (Contrary to Will. Penn.) And that He is not such in Any Other Person Whatsoever. Not in the Person of Will. Penn, G. Whitehead, or Any of the Quakers. Reader, forgive me for using so many Words, Less Particular and Positive will not do with these Men. It is for their sakes that I do it, That I may, by any Means, if Possible, Open their Eyes, to Discover their Horrible Delusions!  
They have, by this Means of Allegorising the Incarnation and Birth of our Blessed Saviour from the Letter, to their Imagined Conception, Birth, Passion, Death, and Resurrection of the Light within, taken away all Certainty whereby we may know, Whether ever there was Such a Man in the World as Jesus Christ, or that He ever did any Miracle, or had any Attestation from Heaven for His Ministry.  
That Most Express, of the Glorious Appearance of a Light from Heaven, Descending Leasurly and Hover, upon the Head of Jesus, at His Baptism, after the Manner that a Dove Lights upon the Ground, the Quakers have Denied, that is, turned it to an Allegory. Dost thou believe (says G. Whitehead to his Opponent, in his Truth Defending the Quakers. p. 42.) That it was visible to the Carnal Eye, as a Created Dove is? or its Lightning (I believe he Meant Lighting) upon Him as a Dove, was in respect of its Nature and Comeliness? By this they Mean, That Innocency and Simplicity, like that of a Dove, was all that did Light upon Jesus, or which Expressed His Nature and Comeliness, at that Time. And then indeed they might well Ask, Was it visible to the Carnal Eye? But, by this, they have Quite Overthrown the Validity of that Miraculous Attestation given to Christ, And so they have done to all the Rest. That, as I said, they have not left One Single Proof, that Ever there was such a Man in the World. For that can not be known, but by Outward Acts, and Attestations. And if they can be thus Turned, there is an End of all Proof from them.  
But they would have no other Proof for Christ, or His Mission, than there is for their Own: Since they vouch Themselves to be Christ and God Indeed, as many Gods, as there are Quakers! For if, as they say, the Seed in them can Grow up to be God: That God does BEGET Himself in them: Then I do not see how they can avoid the Consequence of a Multiplication of Gods! Of God's having a Beginning, and being Created! For if He be Begotten in Time, Every Day, in Every New Quaker, He must be Created, and so, is both the Creature, and the Creator!  
If He be Capable of Increase, of Growing up from a Seed, to a Child etc. He must likewise be Subject to Dissolution! He must be Liable to Infirmities and Passions, as We are!  
And this the Quakers do not Deny. Nay, they Argue Expressly for it. They take in a Literal Sense those Expressions in Scripture, Where God is said to Repent, to be Weary, to Suffer etc. several of which G. Whitehead Quotes in his Divinity of Christ. p. 56. as Isai. 63, 10. Amos. 2.13. Host 11.8, 9 Psal. 95. Gen. 6.6. Psal. 78.40. Isai. 1. and chap. 43.24. These he brings as an Answer to the Argument of Thomas Vincent (against whom he Disputed) That Christ, as God, Could not make Satisfaction for our Sins, because, as God, He could not Suffer. The Contrary of which G. W. here Endeavours to Prove; and brings these Texts, to show, That God can Suffer.  
These are the Natural and Necessary Consequences of this Mad Foundation of the Quaker Faith, in Setting up their Light Within for Christ and God.  
I am Weary in Pursuing their Blasphemies. But it is Necessary, in Order to Un-Deceive the Simple and Deluded among them: Who know not these Depths of Satan, into which they have been Led.  
Especially Considering the Tenacious Obstinacy of their Leaders, Who, tho' they know these things, Yet, for Popularity, or other Ends, will not Suffer their Implicit Followers to Repent. But Buoy them up, with all the Artifice and Cunning they are Able, to Believe, That all is Well. And to adhere firmly to All that they have Taught them from the Beginning. And that, IN ALL THE PARTS OF IT.  

Some Texts Rescued from the False Glosses of the Quakers, to favour the Universality of what they call The Light within.  3. Let me, for a Conclusion, Rescue some Texts of Scripture, which the Quakers have wrested, to their own Destruction; And upon which they build their wild Notion of the Light-Within. That being undeceived in this, they may, by the Blessing of God, see their Error and Return. Their Chief Text, which they have Constantly in their Mouths, is Rom. x. 8. The word is Nigh thee, even in thy Mouth, and in thy Heart: that is the word of Faith which we Preach. This word of Faith, they take to be the Light, which is in Every man of the World: and not to Refer to the outward Christ, or to the Faith in Him; His outward Sufferings and Death: but to the Faith in their Light within, which Every man has, even those who never heard of Jesus of Nazareth. But the very next words, ver. 9 show the Apostle's Meaning to be quite otherwise, and to Refer wholly to Faith in the outward Christ. This is the word of Faith, which we Preach (says he) That if thou shalt Confess with thy Mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt Believe in thine Heart, that God hath Raised Him from the Dead, thou shalt be saved. Now that by Faith the Apostle did not mean that Light which is Common to All men, is plain from 2 Thess. iii. 2. For all men have not Faith. Sesse he. You see here, That in the very next verse following Rom. x. 8. (which is the Quakers Text) the Apostle does Limit it Expressly, not to the Light within, but to Faith in the outward Jesus. So in Deut. xxx. 11, 12, 13, 14. Whence the Apostle Quoted it, the very next Verse immediately Before, viz. Ver. 10. does Limit these words in Moses, to the outward Book of the Law, and not to their Light within. For thus says he, If thou wilt hearken unto the Voice of the Lord thy God, to keep His Commandments, and His Statutes, which are Written in this Book of the Law— For this Commandment, which I Command thee this Day, is not far off— It is not in Heaven— or Beyond the Sea etc. And Chap. xvii. 18, 19, 20. The King is Commanded to Write him a Copy of this Law, in a Book, out of that before the Priests the Levits. And to Read therein, all the Days of his Life: That he might (thereby) Learn to Fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this Law, and these Statutes, to do them. Was he to write a Copy of the Light within in a Book, out of the Levits' Book? And by Keeping the words of this Law, was no More Meant, than to Keep to his Light within? Could that have told him all that was Commanded in the Law of Moses? How came all the Heathen than not to Know it? for they had the Light within. As little could it, of itself, without the Help of outward Revelation, have Discovered a Messiah, the Son of God, to be Incarnate, and offered up a Sacrifice for the Sins of the World. This Faith, as the Apostle truly Says, All men have not. None Ever had it, by Means only of their Light within. But either by Express Revelation, such as was Given of it to Adam, to Abraham, and the Prophets; or by the outward Means of Hearing, as the Apostle says, in that same Chap. of the x. Rom. ver. 17. Describing how that same Faith cometh of which he spoke ver. 8. And he says, That it cometh by Hearing. viz. The outward Preaching of it. For, as he says, ver. 14. How shall they Believe in Him, of whom they have not Herd? And how shall they Hear without a Preacher? So Mad and Void of all Common Sense, as well as most Impious and Heretical Is that Quaker Exposition of Deut. xxx. 14. And Rom. x. 8. Whereby they would Exclude the outward Christ from being the Object of the Christian Faith: And Blasphemously Translate it to Themselves, that is, to their own Light Within. And, by this, make the Christian Faith Common to all Mankind, even to those who never Herd of the outward Christ: Which is, To make Him, His Blessed Death and Passion, useless and Unnecessary to the World!  
Another Text they urge mightily for the Universality of their Light within is Joh. 1.9. That was the true Light, which Lighteth Every man that cometh into the World. This they Understand of Faith, the True, Saving Faith: and so suppose that Every Man must have it. But the Apostle, from the beginning of this Chap. was speaking of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine Word, by whom All things were Made. And therefore, not only what Light, but what Life, Every man, or any Creature has is from Him. 
Act xvii. 25.28.  Seeing He giveth to All Life and Breath and All things. For in Him we Live and Move and have our Being. Now that Light which He giveth to All Men, is not the Light of Faith; which All Men have not; But the Natural Light of our Understanding, which is Common to All Men. And is a Ray Communicated from the Supreme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Reason.  
The Quakers, to Avoid this, set about that Mad Task, of Proving that All men have not Reason, as before is shown. And yet would give All men Faith; of which no man is Capable without supposing him to have the use of his Reason. Otherwise a Tree or a Stone might Believe, as well as a Man.  
I will Name but one Text more, upon which they Chime Exceedingly, that is, 1 Joh. 2.20, 27. But ye have an Unction from the Holy one, and ye know All things— And ye need not that any man Teach you, but as the Same Anointing Teacheth you of All things. This they Interpret of the Light within, which is Common to All Men. But then, by this, it would follow, That All Men do know All things. Quite contrary to what the Apostle there Supposes, who speaks of those who Knew not the Truth. And Applies this of the Anointing only to those who Knew the Truth. Ver. 21. I have not written unto you, because ye know not the Truth; but because ye Know it etc. Therefore this of the Anointing was spoken only To and Of the True Believers, and not of Infidels, or Generally of All Men, as is Plain to any who Read that Chapter.  
These are the Chief Texts they Insist upon, for the Universality of Faith, which they call The Light within. And they All prove Directly against them. There are others so Forced and Strained, as need not Confutation. As 2 Pet. 1.19. We have also a more sure word of Prophecy etc. which they apply to their Light within. Whereas it was plainly spoken of the Holy Scriptures; as the next Verse does Expressly Determine it. Knowing this first, that no Prophecy of SCRIPTURE is of any Private Interpretation. I wish the Quakers would Reflect Seriously upon this. It would correct the Exorbitancy of their Private Interpretations, by what they call their Light within, Different from the Sense of the whole Catholic Church, in All Ages. And let them see and Consider, that there was Great Reason for that Caution given in this same Epistle, Ch. iii. 16. That the Unlearned and Unstable do wrest the Scriptures to their own Destruction.  
The Quakers pretend sometimes to be Determined by Scripture: and to admit of no Interpretation, which is not in Express words of Scripture. See a Book of theirs called The Divinity of Christ; Wrote by G. Whitehead and G. Fox, where in the Epistle, they speak thus. Where do the Scriptures speak of three Persons in the Godhead, in these Express words? Let us see where it is written. Come do not shuffle, for we are Resolved the Scriptures shall Buffet you about. And where doth the Scripture speak of a Human Nature of Christ in Heaven? And where doth the Scripture say, the Soul is Part of Man's Nature? Give us plain Scripture, without Adding or Diminishing. Come let us see Chapter and Verse, etc.  
Now the Quakers cannot Refuse the same Measure which they have Meated to others. Therefore let us see Chapter and Verse where The Light within is spoke of, In these Express words? where is there any thing of Faith in the Light within, of Believing In The Light within, as this Appen does often speak? Where is it said, that Christ was not the Lamb, but that the Lamb was in Christ? where is there a word of the Manhood of God? of Christ's Heavenly Flesh, Blood, and Bones? of His Flesh that was Crucify'd, when Adam Fell? Where is His Body called a Garment, or a Vessel? where shall we find the Distinction of Christ Without, and Within, of an Outward, and an Inward Christ? of the Shedding of His Blood within Us? of the Blood and Bones of our Light within? where is it said, that the Person who Suffered upon the Cross, was not Properly the Son of God? He is oft called The Son of God, what Text says, that He was not Properly so, In these Express words? Come Produce Chapter and Verse— Where are the Holy Scriptures called Beastly ware, Serpent's meat, Death, and Dust? Where is the Text for Theeing and Thouing, and for not taking off your Hats? For your Silent-Meetings? For the Ceasing of Baptism and The Lord's Supper? For women's Preaching, and women's Meetings, which you call the Good Ordinance of Jesus Christ? what Text does Abolish Tithes, in these Express words? or Declare all going to War to be unlawful? To keep holidays? or Marry by a Priest? Where is it said, that the Quakers are Infallible? That their Preach are of as Great Authority as the Scriptures, and GREATER? And their Sufferings more unjust than the Sufferings of Christ? That the Blood of Christ was no more than the Blood of another Saint? That there is no Heaven or Hell but Within Men? That there shall be no Resurrection of our Dead Bodies; or General Judgement, at the End of the world?  
These are the men who call for Scripture, for every thing! And will allow of no Inferences: But will have All, in Express Words! And yet they have set up the most Vnscriptural Jargon that ever was heard of in the world. They Demand Scripture for Christ's having any Human Nature in Heaven: because they Deny it. They Require Scripture for the Soul being Part of Man's Nature: because they make it a Part of God, as before shown. Let them then Produce Scripture for the Soul being a Part of God, 
Gr. Mystery. P. 90.  for its being Infinite, and without Beginning, which they Assert, in these Express words. Will. Penn, speaking of Baptism, and The Lord's Supper; Denies them to be Ordinances of Christ. And for this Reason, says he, 
Reason against Railing. p. 108.  The Appellation, Ordinances of Christ, I therefore Renounce, as Vnscriptural and In-Evangelical. Yet the Quakers call Womens-preaching, and Womens-Meetings (set up by G. Fox) The Good Ordinances which Christ Jesus hath set up in His Church. And Accused those who opposed them, 
Solom. Eccles ●●tter to 〈◊〉 Sto-John Babel's Builders. 1st. Part. p. 15.  of no less than Rebellion against the Living God.  
This, to all Considering men, is sufficient to Render them Self-condemned. But they have a Salvo, which will carry with their Deluded Followers; that is, That their Appealing to Scripture, is only an Argumentum ad Hominem, against those who do own the Holy Scriptures for their Rule: which the Quakers do not; but Resolve all into the Guidings of their Light within: which they make the only True Gospel and Faith.  
And my Design is not so much to Confound, as to Convert them. Therefore I would Entreat the Sober-Minded among them, to Consider of that Gospel and Faith which the Apostles Preached; Whether they Taught a Faith in the Light within; or rather a Faith in the Outward Jesus? What was it, which St. Peter Preached to Cornelius? There was not a word of the Light within, or Reading within, Listening to that Within, or the like. But of Faith in the outward Jesus of Nazareth. 
Act. x. 38, etc.  That through His Name, whosoever Believeth in Him, shall receive Remission of Sins. And Cornelius had the Light within before: and the Attestation of God, that he had truly Followed it. ver. 2. And if that had been sufficient for Remission of Sins, what needed another Faith, in an Outward Man, Jesus of Nazareth, have been Preached to him? And why was that Faith which Peter Preached, called, Words by which Cornelius and all his House should be saved: And that God had granted to the Gentiles Repentance unto Life, 
Act. xl. 14, 18,  by allowing the Faith in Jesus of Nazareth to be Preached unto them, if Faith in the Light within, and obedience to that, had been Sufficient, without any thing else? If Good Cornelius had Died, before the Gospel had been Preached unto him (as I before have said) I will not take upon me to Determine of him; but leave him to the Vncovenanted Mercy of God: But if Cornelius had Rejected the Faith in Jesus of Nazareth, for the Remission of his Sins, when Preached to him, all his Former obedience to his Light within, had not been Sufficient to Save him. And therefore the case of the Vnconverted Gentiles, upon which the Quakers do so much Depend, will be no Relief to them; who do, after the Preaching of the Faith in Jesus of Nazareth, set up their Faith in their Light within, as Sufficient without It, for the Remission of their Sins.  
I do beseech these Quakers likewise to consider that large Description which the Apostle Paul gave of the Gospel which he Preached; whether it was the Faith in Jesus of Nazareth, His Outward Sufferings, Death, and Resurrection; or the Faith in the Light within?  
Moreover Brethren (says he) I Declare unto you the Gospel which I Preached unto you— by which also ye are saved, 
1. Cor. xv. 1, 2, etc.  if ye keep in memory what I Preached unto you, unless ye have Believed in vain: For I Delivered unto you first of all, that which I also Received how that Christ Died for our Sins according to the Scriptures: And that He was seen of Cephas, then of the Twelve: After that, He was seen of above Five hundred Brethren at once— After that, He was seen of James; then of all the Apostles. And last of all, He was seen of Me also. This cannot be Applied, by any means, to the Light within, which cannot be seen of any body. And this Great Article of the Resurrection of Christ, was the Chief thing in consideration of which Mathias was Chosen in the Room of Judas. Wherefore of these men which have Companyed with us, 
Act. 1.21, 22.  all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the Baptism of John, unto the same Day that He was Taken up from us, must one be Ordained, to be a witness, with us, of His RESURRECTION. This was the Great Foundation of the Christian Faith, 
1 Cor. xv. 14.  for says, St. Paul, If Christ be not Risen, then is our Preaching vain; and your Faith is also vain. Does not this make the Faith in the Light within, to be a Vain Faith? At least, this is a Demonstration, that it was not the Faith which the Apostles Preached. For the Apostles do Testify that the Faith which they Preached, had been Vain, if Christ be not Risen. Yea and we are found False Witnesses of God (say they) because we have Testified of God, that He Raised up Christ whom He Raised not up, 
ver. 15.  if so be that the Dead Rise not. But against all this Conviction, the Quakers will not let this be Meant of the outward Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, but of the Rising up of the Light in their Hearts: And therefore, they come in for Witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ, jointly with the Apostles. Which is Monstrous to Believe! But it is true. For thus says Edw. Burrough in his works. p. 42. We witness the same Christ made Manifest in Us, and His Resurrection; not because Paul said so; But we have seen it, And are Witnesses of it.  
And Will. Penn, in his Primitive Christianity. p. 103. Describing those who are True Ministers of Christ, says Ministers of Christ are his Witnesses; And the Credit of a Witness is, that he has Herd, Seen, or Handled. And thus the Beloved Disciple states the Truth and Authority of their Mission and Ministry. 1. Joh. 1.1, 3. That which we have Herd, which we have Seen with our Eyes, which we have Looked upon, and our Hands have Handled, that Declare we unto you— I say, if Christ's Ministers are His Witnesses, they must Know what they speak; that is, they must have Experienced and Passed through those States and Conditions they Preach of, and Practically know those Truths they Declare of to the People; or they come not in by the Door, but over the Wall, and are Thiefs and Robbers. Thus Will. Penn. And in the Contents of this Chapter. p. 97. He Intitules this Fourth Sect. thus. Christ's Ministers, True Witnesses, they speak what they Know, not by Report.  
So that, by this, the Quakers know nothing of the Resurrection of Christ, by Report of the Apostles, or others who saw it: But only that sort of Resurrection which (they say) they have Experienced, Pass through themselves, and Practically Known, of Christ in their Hearts. And they Pronounce all those who Now Preach the Resurrection of Christ, which they have not Seen; or any other Christ, but whom they have Seen with their Eyes, whom they have Looked upon, whom their Hands have Handled, they Pronounce all such Preachers, that is, All the Christian Preachers that are Now, or Ever were in the world since Christ Left it, to be Thiefs and Robbers.  
In the same Manner does. G. Fox, Conclude against them, Who are not the Eye-Witnesses, as the Apostles were. Gr. Mystery. p. 242. of whose Resurrection (say the Quakers) we are Eye-Witnesses. Of whose Resurrection? 
Will. Bayly's works. reprinted 1676. p. 173.  Was it of the Person of Christ, to the Resurrection of which the Apostles did Witness? No. For they lay no stress upon that Resurrection, neither do All of them Believe it. I have heard some, even of their Preachers, Deny it. But however, they make it of no Consequence to us. For says the same Quaker, Quoted on the Margin. ibid. p. 307. What was his Person, being Mean and Contemptible, to them (his Disciples) more than another Person? I can hardly believe my Eyes, tho' I take these words out of the Book now before me. For who could think that such vile Contempt of the Person of our Blessed Saviour could have come out of the Mouths of any who call themselves Christians! But they Deserve not that Name, who turn the Faith in Christ, to Faith in their Light within; and thus overturn the whole Foundation of the Gospel. Their Light is Darkness, even that may be Felt! Which has led them, as thus to Allegorise the Resurrection of our Blessed Lord, 
See Sn. Sect. xii. p. 160. 161.  into the Rising of their Light within; so Downright to Deny the Resurrection of our Bodies. Which Will. Penn does utterly Deny to be Meant at all in the xv. Chap. of the 1 Ep. to the Corinthians. Which if it be true, then by the Apostles Argument, ver. 16. the Quakers must likewise Deny the Resurrection of Christ, as they Do, but will not always Confess. For if the Dead Rise not, then is not Christ Raised. And hence I Recommend to their Consideration the next verse. And if Christ be not Raised, your Faith is vain, ye are yet in your Sins.  
Are they not then in their Sins, and is not their Faith vain, who Preach, That Christ was never seen with Carnal Eye, nor His voice heard, with any Carnal Ears? These are the words of one Worlidge a Quaker, in his Declaration to the Baptists. p. 13. And Justified by G. Whitehead, in his Light and Life. p. 39 For if Christ was never seen with Carnal Eye, how could the Apostles be Witnesses of His outward Resurrection? What does the Apostle mean by saying, That He was Seen of Cephas, then of the Twelve & c? Did none See, that is, Fcel the Light within, but these only? Was it to keep the Light within from Kising, that the High Priests Desired Guards to be set upon the Sepulchre of Jesus, our Lord? Did not Thomas see Christ, when he thrust his Hand in his side; And upon that Conviction, said to Him, My Lord, and My God What did Christ mean, when He said to him, Thomas, because thou hast seen, thou hast Believed: Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have Believed: Is not here a Plain Difference put betwixt Seeing and Believing? Believing is the Inward Seeing; Therefore the other must be meant of the outward Seeing, with the Carnal Eye. Christ said to His Disciples, Many Prophets and Kings have Desired to see what you see, and have not seen them. Did not the Prophets see the Light within, that is, Inwardly, in their Hearts? Did not Christ say The Poor ye have always with you: but Me ye have not Always. Is not the Light within Always with Us? Was not this then Spoke of His outward Person, which was to be taken from Us? Yet the Quakers will not Allow that He is Absent from Us even as to His Person, or we from Him. Tho' the Apostle says, Whilst we are at home in the Body, 
2 Cor. 5.6.  we are Absent from the Lord. Which G. Fox Opposes, in his Gr. Mist. p. 8.210.222.247. etc. and many other Places, where he Denies, that Christ is Absent from Us, As touching His Flesh, and as to His Bodily Presence. And does not Answer, but Confront the above Text with others, as That Christ is in you, except ye be Reprobates etc.  
Now from the words of St. Paul above Quoted, I leave it to the Consciences of the Sober among the Quakers, whether it be True which Will. Bayly so Positively Averrs p. 600. of his Works, That Paul did not Preach a visible Christ, with Flesh and Bones— But the word, says he, that is, the Light within. But Paul Preached That Same Jesus, whom the Jews, Took down from the Tree, and laid him in a Sepulchre. 
Act. xiii. 29.  Did they take the Light within down from the Tree? I am Ashamed to offer Proofs for a Point so Obvious to Every Christian. But it is Necessary for these Miserably Deluded Quakers, who have thrown off the Lord Jesus, and turn All that is said of Him, to their Christ, their own Light within; Even his being the Seed of Abraham, according to the Flesh: as Will. Bayly says p. 210. This Seed of Abraham, which is Christ In Us, which He hath Raised to offer up Living Sacrifices, acceptable in His Sight. So that, by this, the Living Sacrifice, and only Acceptible Offering for Sin, is Christ, or the Light within, Offered up, IN Us! But this has been Sufficiently Exposed before. And ten times more Authoritys than here Produced, are Ready when there shall be need.  
To the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, I will add the Experience and Confession of the Quakers themselves, that their Faith in what they call their Light within, is a Vain and Uncertain Faith: That they can never be sure of it, or know when they have it Right. G. Whitehead, in his Judgement fixed. Printed 1682. Inserts, with Approbation, a Letter, which he calls a Testimony of Benj. Furly's, Retracting some things he had formerly wrote against Fox and Whitehead, where he says thus. p. 268. As for those Papers so long since given forth by me, not Discerning what Spirit did then Influence me (for so it is, that the Actions of men are many times Influenced both by Good and Evil Spirits, tho' they Perceive it not) I did many years since Recall them, etc.  
Now, if so it is, that the Quakers (as Furly here) may be Influenced by Evil Spirits, and yet, not Perceive it, how know other of the Quakers, how knows Penn or Whitehead, but they are so Influenced, though they Perceive it not? (yet others do Perceive it; and have Proved it) But their Light within has not told them. No. For then they would Perceive it. Therefore they may be Deceived; and yet their Light within not Reprove them. And therefore, by their own Confession, it can be no Sure Rule to them. And their Faith in it is Vain. And in that it leads them from the Sure Rule of the Holy Scriptures, to Trust wholly to it; it is Pernicious, and of most Destructive Consequence to them.  
Their Divisions among themselves, who All pretend to be Guided by the Light within, were Sufficient to Convince them, if they had any Liberty of Judgement left, that this can be no Sure Rule. When G. Fox, by opposing all Order and Decency in the Worship of God, had Gathered a Party; and then Endeavoured to Reduce them again to some Decency under himself, so far at least, as to be Uncovered at Prayer. No. That would not Do. The Principle of their Light within, would Endure no Limits, but what every one Pleased to put to Himself. Thus some of them Argue against him, from the Principles which he had Taught them.  

Hidden things brought to Light. An. 1678. Preface.  George Fox (says they) has attained to Great Reputation among the Quakers, and is become of an Inconsiderable Shoemaker or Mean Servant, a Great Teacher and Leader of a Numerous Company of Men and Women, who All Profess to be Guided by the Light within them; which they say Errs not, but leads Every one of them (and every man that is Obedient to it) into all Truth, Righteousness &c, Hence it is Manifest, that according to their Doctrine, every man who knows himself to be Sincere, and obedient to his Light, and sees not Absolute Truth and Goodness in Geo. Fox and the Quakers Principles and Practices, is a Full Evidence against them, that they are Notoriously Defective both in Truth and Goodness— For whilst they are Sincerely Obedient to the Light in Themselves, it is certain, that, according to Geo. Fox 's Principles, they are Justified before God: and then if G. Fox Condemns them, he Condemns whom God Justifies, he casts out whom God Receives. Neither can he Pretend against these as against others, That they were never Obedient to their Measure: for, as to Appearance, they were as Obedient as Himself. And therefore he can have no Ground upon which to Condemn them, but merely his Pride, Censoriousness, or the like Exorbitant Passion— Behold here! how they have openly Betrayed their Great Principle, of The Light in Every Man his Unerring Guide. And say they (p. 35, 36. of the Book.) In as much as you Claim this Privilege to yourselves, why should you Deny it to others to Walk as God Enlightens them? Thus the Quakers not only See, but Feel the Vanity, and Uncertainty of their Rule, The Light within. It turns upon Themselves. And Confounds them amongst Themselves. It Countenances all the Schism, Violence, Outrage that can be Committed. For having no Rule, it is a Rule to itself. And sets men Lose from all Ties of Scripture, Reason, Laws, or any Restraint whatsoever. Of which Will. Penn became so Sensible, in their own Concerns, that he Run it down, and called it a Lose Plea (as shown, at large in the Sn. Sect. vi. n. x. par. 12. p. 79.) Yet since has wrote Books in Defence of it. So that he has given it two Handles. viz. That it is a Lose Plea, when Urged by others against Them: But when Urged by them against others, than it is Infallible, Indefeasible, etc. He has Represented the Quakers, and Twisted or Untwisted their Light in such a Fashion, it Looks like playing of Booty; That, as he says of the Papists, Many Unacquainted with their Practices, 
A seasonable Caveat against Popery. p. 3. An. 1670.  are ready to believe them what they say themselves to be; whose Moral is, to have two strings to their Bow, to be Ambodexters, and furnished with meanings to Suit the Compass of all occasions— We know they have so far Mastered their Ancient Fierceness, and Masked their Sanguine Looks, with those more Modest and Familiar: That tho' we need not more Reason than before, we need more Skill and Caution. Or else we may fatally Experience the force of that Vulgar Proverb, LAUGH IN THY FACE, AND CUT THY THROAT. This Hits two sort of Folks, with whom Will. Penn is very well Acquainted. And the Law that he lays down for the one, cannot, in Justice, be Refused to the other, Since, one Sauce will serve them Both: Therefore (as he says ibid. p. 35.) To Conclude, If we would not Receive a Thief, till he has Repent, Let the Papist Quaker first Recant his Volumnious Errors— But above all, let Us have good Testimony of his Hearty Sorrow.     

A COLLECTION OF SEVERAL PAPERS, Which Relate to the Foregoing DISCOURSE.  

Numb. I.  

Dr. Lancaster's Queries to the Quakers, with the Christian Quaker's Answer, Given at their General Meeting in Philadelphia in Pennsilvania the 18 day of September, 1695.  Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an Account to every man that asketh you a reason of the Hope that is in you, with Meekness and Fear, having a good Conscience, etc. 1 Pet. 3.15, 16. 
Printed in the Year 1695.   

THE PREFACE.  
Christian Reader;  
SInce the Breach and Division has happened a-among the Quakers here in America about the chief Doctrines & Principles of the Christian Religion, great has been the Noise they have made in the World one against another, each endeavouring to clear themselves, & cast blame upon the contrary party; so that many who live remote, are amazed at this Difference, not knowing where to lay the fault, both Parties pretending to Christianity; But there lately coming some Papers to my hand, which seem pertinent to make some further discovery in this Controversy, I thought myself obliged to commit them to public view, for the Information of all Christian Enquirers. And further, I do understand, that this Difference among the Quakers first began in Pennsilvania, in the year 1691. occasioned by Mr. George Keith's more earnestly preaching up the Person of our Saviour, the Necessity of Faith in him, as he Died, was Buried, Risen again and Ascended, and as he is now in Heaven in the true Nature of Man, our Mediator & Intercessor, and as he shall come again outwardly at the end of the World to judge the Quick & Dead, etc. But this sort of Doctrine was disliked by many of the Quakers, & caused many private Conferences among themselves, & at last a prevailing party Excommunicated Mr. Keith out of their Society, but a considerable Number of Quakers stood by and vindicated him and his Doctrine, and they set up several new Meetings, (as I am informed about twelve, in and near Pennsilvania) and Mr. Keith undertakes to write and print against the Errors of his old Friends, and tells the World, That there are such Damnable Doctrines and Heresies cloaked among the Quakers here, that no Protestant Society in Christendom would tolerate the like. His old Friends say they are belied by Mr. Keith; This has made some to be curious in searching into this Controversy; and among the rest my very good Friend Coll. Quarry, late Governor of Carolina, now residing in Philadelphia, has made some diligent enquiry into this Controversy, but received not full satsfaction (as he informs me) whether Mr. Keith, and these joined with him, had falsely charged their old Friends, or not. And there lately coming to his hands, (very providentially) a Copy of Queries, sent by Dr. Lancaster to the General Meeting of the Quakers in London last Whitsuntide, and not hearing of an Answer to the same, Mr. Quarry presents them to the General Meeting of the Quakers in Philadelphia, viz. both to that Meeting which join with Mr. Keith, and to that Meeting which Excommunicated him, desiring their Answer to each Query. That Meeting or Party of Quakers which join with Mr. Keith readily returned their Answer in writing to the Colonel, which is hereunto annexed. The other Meeting of Quakers which have Excommunicated Mr. Keith send three Messengers to the Colonel, viz. Mr. Cook, Mr. Jenings, and Mr. Pusey, who acquainted him, That they received his Letter, with the Queries annexed, which (they said) were read in their general Meeting, but not knowing whether their Friends in London had answered them, or not, they did not think fit to answer, till they had an account from their said Friends, and what Answer their London Friends gave, they would stand by, or to that effect. Whereupon the Colonel told them, That indeed they lay under severe Reflections, as to their soundness in the Christian Faith, and their answering the said Queries might have cleared them, and given the world satisfaction of their soundness therein. To which Mr. Jenings replied, That tho' by the said Paper of Queries it was insinuated, that they turned the Scripture into an Allegory, yet they did really believe that Christ was born, suffered, died, was buried, and risen again outwardly. But he stopping there, the Coll. repeated his words, adding, I also believe, that the same Body that so Arose, did Ascend into Heaven, is now in Heaven, and will come again at the end of the world, to judge the quick and the dead. Upon which Mr. Pusey (it seems) took up the Coll. very short, and interrogated him, Whether he believed that Christ's outward Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones ascended into Heaven? To which, when the Colonel answered, Yea, Mr. Pusey Replied, The Scripture says, Flesh and Blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, etc. Upon which the Colonel told him, He was sorry to find they understood the Scripture no better; and that he now perceived the Accusations against some of them was not altogether groundless. But. Mr. Jenings immediately broke off the Discourse, (whether upon finding his Friend Mr. Pusey had like to have spoiled all by discovering their Error, I'll not here determine, and) saying, We came not here to discourse, but to do our Message, took leave, and departed.  
I shall not here make any further Observation upon these Answers from each party of the Quakers, but commit the matter of fact to public view, and leave every man to judge for himself, hoping it may make some further discovery into this great Controversy among the Quakers, about the fundamental Principles and Doctrines of the Christian Religion, and show which party is the most Orthodox. I shall only add, Read impartially and judge Candidly. I am yours in all Offices of Love, and for the promoting the Cause and Testimony of the crucified Jesus, and his sincere Followers.  
J. C.   

To the People called Quakers, assembled at their New Meetinghouse in the second street in Philadelphia, Sept. 18. 1695.  
Gentlemen;  
I Have spent some time in perusing and considering what hath been printed on both sides, in reference to the Difference and Disputes which hath lately happened betwixt you and some of your Friends; and upon the whole matter I must own and declare, That as to the saving Fundamentals of the Christian Religion in Controversy betwixt you and tother Meeting, you have declared and published to the World, That your Principles and Doctrine, in those controverted Points, are sound and Orthodox, consonant and agreeable to the Scriptures, and Church of Christ in all Ages. But although it be my Opinion, yet knowing my own weakness, and very sensible that many of those called Quakers do abuse the World with false Glosses and ambiguous Terms, hiding their true meaning, and imposing false Notions on People, therefore I am not willing to trust my own Judgement, without a further confirmation. And Providence hath given me an extraordinary opportunity to be fully satisfied, I having lately met with a Copy of Queries, sent by Dr. Lancaster of London, to the Yearly Meeting of your Friends there met last Whitsuntide, the answer to which I have not heard of nor seen, and finding the Queries so full of substance, and so learnedly handled by the Doctor, and especially containing the full state of the fundamental Principles and Doctrines contested betwixt you and the other Meeting, I thought myself obliged to send it to you at this your general Meeting, and do beg the favour of a positive Answer, Yea or Nay to each Query, as the enclosed Paper doth intimate.  
Gentlemen, I do assure you, I have no other design or end in this my Address to you, but that by your clear and candid Answer to these Queries, I may satisfy myself and others of the Truth and Soundness of your Faith in the saving Fundamentals of the Christian Religion. I have sent another Copy of these Queries to the other Meeting, with the same request. Your Pardon for this trouble, and an Answer is desired by  
Your assured Friend & Servant, Robert Quary.  
Here follows the Answer of the said General Meeting.  
From our Yearly Meeting of the Christian People, called Quakers, (who are joined in Testimony with George Keith) held at the New Meetinghouse in Philadelphia, this 18 day of the 7th Month. 1695.  
Friend R. Q.  
WE this day received thy Letter, with the Queries hereunto annexed, and notwithstanding we might reasonally hope, that our former Printed Confessions of Faith might have given satisfaction to those who have had the opportunity of perusing them, yet because (as thy Letter intimates) some under our Profession have, as we are sensible, expressed themselves in Doubtful and Ambiguous words, and because (according to the Apostles command) we are ready and willing to give an account of the Hope and Faith that is in us, to every sober Enquirer, and indeed are glad of an opportunity to satisfy any such Person who may be in doubt of the soundness of our Faith in the saving Fundamentals of the Christian Religion, we have, with the full and Unanimous Consent of this our said Yearly (or General) Meeting, given a plain positive (and we hope) Christian Answer to each of the said Queries, which that they may give thee full and ample satisfaction of our soundness in the Christian Faith, in the sincere desire of Us, who in behalf, and by appointment of the said Meeting, do subscribe, and remain,  
They Loving Friends, 

Rich. Dungworth,  
John Hampton,  
Thomas Martin,  
Geo. Hutcheson,  
John Hart,  
Thomas Budd.    
Here follows Dr. Lancaster's Queries, with the abovenamed Meetings Answer to each Query.  
To the Quakers assembled in their Yearly Meeting at London, this Whitsun Week. 1695.  
GReat objections have been made against you in many Books, which of late Years have been writ, as well by those who have departed from your Communion, as by others: But because we would not willingly take an Account of you only from your Adversaries, no, nor yet the advantage which may be had from some of your own Apologists, we have chosen this solemn Time of your most general Assembly that you have in the World, where there comes of your Number out of all parts, where any of your Profession live, even as far as from the West Indies, on purpose to attend this your Yearly Meeting at London. We have chosen this most solemn and convenient time for you to vindicate and clear yourselves, and to give satisfaction to the World, particularly to the Church of England, as to these great and grievous objections which are made against you.  
It is said of you, that as Hymeneus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2.18.) did construe the Resurrection spiritually, saying, It was performed inwardly within our Souls; and so avoided the literal and outward Resurrection of the Body, which the Scripture calls, Overthrowing the Faith: so that you do construe the Resurrection in the same spiritual manner to be the rising again of Christ, or the Light in our hearts, and consequently that the Saints generally have attained the Resurrection already, and that there will be no Resurrection of these our Bodies after they lie down in the Dust. And not only this, but That you construe likewise those Scriptures which testify of our Lord Jesus Christ, in this Allegorical manner, to mean no more than what you call the Light within, and That this Christ or Light is Born and Crucified, Dyes., is Buried, Rises again, Ascends, and is Glorified within you: That it sheds its Bloods within you, and thereby quenches the Wrath of God in you, as your Sacrifice or Propitiation: And that Christ has now no other Blood or Body than what he has within his Saints, or other than he had with his Father before the World began: That the outward Blood of that Man Jesus that was shed at Jerusalem, was not the Propitiation, or any Satisfaction to the Justice of God for our sins, but only the spiritual Blood, shed inwardly within us. And by these means, when you are asked, Whether you believe in Christ that Died for our sins, Risen again and Ascended, and that by his Blood we are saved, etc. You can readily answer, Yea, That you believe all this, and yet mean it all in an inward Allegorical sense, that is, The Blood shed within you, The Light or Christ suffering within you, etc. and thereby deceive others, and yourselves, and keep your meaning hid and double, that the Truth of what you hold may not be known, which if in plain words told and asserted, would grate all Christian Ears, and show you to be those miserable Heretics before told, who brought in damnable Doctrines, denying the Lord who bought them. Therefore that you may clear yourselves from this great and grievous Charge, you are desired to give a plain, positive and direct Answer to these following Queries.  
Your Reasons or Explanations are not required, this not being intended for a Dispute, but only your plain Yea or Nay to each of these Queries, that your Doctrine and Faith may be known.  
Query 1. Do you believe in a Christ without you now in Heaven?  
The Christian Quaker answers, Yea.  
Qu. 2. Hath he now in Heaven the same Body (tho' changed in Qualities and Glorified) which he assumed in the Womb of the blessed Virgin, in which he Suffered, Dyed, was Buried, Risen again, and Ascended outwardly?  
Ch. Qu. answ. Yea.  
Qu. 3. Will he return in that same Body outwardly, or without men, to judge the World in the last day?  
Ch. Qu. answ. Yea.  
Qu. 4. Will our dead Bodies arise the same Bodies, (though altered in Properties and Qualities) which we now have, and shall lay down in the Dust? Or do you believe an outward and literal Resurrection, contrary to Hymeneus and Philerus? Do you believe that the Saints generally have already attained the Resurrectien, either before or since Christ came into the World?  
Ch. Qu. To the former part of this Query we answer, Yea, To the latter, Nay.  
Qu. 5. Do you believe that Christ, or the Eternal Word, was so made Flesh, as that he truly and really became Man, as truly Man as he was God? and not only, as the Socinians say, that he dwelled in or did inhabit the Person of that Man Jesus Christ, as a Garment or a Veil, as he dwells in, or inspires other holy Persons, though not in so high a Degree: or as Angels assume Bodies like men, wherein they appear, without taking them into their own Nature, or thereby becoming Men?  
Ch. Qu. answ. Yea.  
Qu. 6. Is Christ now at this day, and for ever to come, truly and really a Man, in true and proper humane Nature, without all other men?  
Ch. Qu. To this we answer, Yea, under the Qualifications contained in the second Query, viz. [changed in Qualities, and Glorified.]  
Qu. 7. And lastlv, Was his outward Blood, (outwardly shed at Jerusalem) the true Propitiation and Satisfaction for our sins? Is this the true saving Faith? Was not his outward Blood, that Blood, without shedding of which there could be no Atonement? Heb. 9.22.  
Ch. Qu. Answer, Yea, not excluding the work of the Spirit of Christ in our hearts.  
The above Queries were signed by Dr. Lancaster, Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of London, and delivered, Friday the 17th of May. 1695. into George Whitehead's own hands, in their general Assembly in Grace-Church-street, and there publicly read. They were desired to return their Answer to Dr. Lancanster at Mr. Wiseman's House, a Chirurgeon in Long-Acre. But we hear of no Answer that they returned. Wherefore the said Queries were presented to the Yearly Meeting of the Quakers in Philadelphia. That Party which have Excommunicated Mr. Keith, returned Answer as set down in the Preface. But that Party which join with Mr. Keith, presently returned the Answers above inserted after each Query.  

THis is Verbatim what was Printed at Philadelphia in Pennsilvania. An. 1695. And, by this, the Reader may Judge, whether it proceeded from Want of Capacity or Sincerity, in George Whitehead, and the Rest of the London Quakers, That in their Printed Answer to these Queries they say, They are Not Plain and Direct Queries, therefore cannot Positively be Answered by our Single Yea or Nay to Each Query, as Desired. We therefore at present send this General Answer to the Queries. Of which Sufficient has been said in the First Part, Sect. v. p. 9 etc.  
But here I would observe, That the Pennist Quakers in Pennsilvania durst not trust their own Light within, to Answer these Queries: And Bound themselves to stand by the Answer of their London Friends. Whereas those who (with G. Keith) had Returned to the Truth of Christianity, took no time to Consider, nor Tied themselves Implicitly to the Determination of Any Whatsoever. They said not, that the Truth was far off beyond the Seas, in Old England: And they must stay till some Good Body should Fetch it to them, with Safe Wind and Tide, and Deut. xxx. 13. See before Second Part. p. 225.  
From all this we may take Notice of the Different Assurances which Proceed from a Rational Faith, Founded upon the Rock of the H. Scriptures: And that which is Built upon the Sand of our own Imagination, which the Quakers call their Light Within.     

A FAITHFUL RELATION Of the great Opposition, made by some Preachers among the Quakers, to three great fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith, at Two several Meetings, at London, in the year 1678, appointed to hear the Charges made by them against me George Keith, for my asserting the said Three Fundamental Doctrines, in my Book called The way cast up. Printed 1677.  
AND The Reasons of my Publishing the said Relation.  
IN the Year 1678, at London, there being great Whisper and Complaints, privately spread among the People called Quakers, against Me; on the Account of Certain Principles laid down by Me, in a Book of Mine, Printed in the Year 1677 called, The way Cast up, And I happening to be then at London, and hearing of the said Complaints against me, and my said Book, I spoke to divers of the Ministry, of the People called Quakers, that they would appoint a Meeting, to hear the Complaints of those Persons that Objected against some things Contained in my Book, charging them to be False and Erroneous, and also to hear my Defence, and Vindication, touching the things to be charged against me.  
A Meeting was procured, at a Friend's house called John Osgood, a Merchant in White-Hart- Court in Grace-Church-street London, in the winter Season, which began about the Sixth hour at Night; where a Considerable number of those called Friends of the Ministry were met together, with divers other Persons of account among the Quakers, among whom were William Penn, George Whitehead, Thomas Green, William Mead, William Gibson, George Watt, Francis More, Thomas Hart, James Claypowl, John Bull; And many other besides.  
The persons that appeared against me at the said Meeting, were chief Samuel Newtown, a great Preacher then among them, (who not long after Broke, and went to Virginia, and still Preacheth there among the Quakers, as I have been certainly informed by some that heard him, and are ready to bear witness to it,) and William Shown a Preacher, and a great Writer among them, who hath Printed divers Books highly approved by many of the People called Quakers; Containing some abominable Principles, whereof I have given some account in my Second and Third Narratives, of the Proceed at Turners-Hall; This man was never. Censured by Friends of the Ministry for his Antichristian Doctrine Contained in some of his Books, but lived and died in Unity with them, and had Solemn Commendations, and Testimonies given him by some of the Ministry at his Funeral.  
The first Meeting not having time sufficient to hear all that was to be said, for and against, appointed another Meeting at the house of James Claypool Merchant in Scotch Yard in London, when some others were present, and mostly all the forementioned: the Meeting began about the Sixth hour at night as did the former.  
The particulars were Three especially, wherewith these two above named Persons severally charged me and blamed my Doctrine, and opposed against it, to be Contradictory to the Ancient Friends Books, whereof they brought a Considerable number, which were laid on the Table; but it happened that none of them were used, but instead of them, the Bible was called for, and some places in it read and Discoursed upon.  
The First Particular they blamed in my said Book, and charged to be false, was, that I had affirmed that Christ's Body that was Crucified on the Tree of the Cross, and was Buried, 
pag. 131.  Risen again, and Ascended into Heaven, and was in Heaven. Divers spoke their mind to it, one after another, some against it, and some for it, and some very doubtfully, which I was greatly astonished to find. I Quoted that place of Scripture, in defence of the Resurrection of Christ's Body. Psal. 16.10. compared with Act. 2.30, 31, 32. Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell, nor suffer thy holy one to see Corruption. Will. Mead said to me, dost thou understand this of an outward Body? that which was not to see Corruption, was the Seed within. I answered, let the places be read and compared, and it will be found, that they are to be understood of Christ's Body that was laid in the outward Grave, so these two places of Scripture were read, and several gave their assent to it, that by the Holy one that was not to see Corruption, was to be understood Christ's Body that was laid in the Grave; whereupon Thomas Green an ancient Preacher said, Friends, one of two things we must needs say, either that Christ's Body remains in some hole or cave of the Earth, or that it Rose and Ascended, for it did not see Corruption; and for my part I rather think it Rose and Ascended into Heaven, as George Keith affirms, than that it remains in any hole or cave of the Earth. Divers other places of Scripture I had, to bring forth to prove the truth of the Resurrection of Christ's Body, as his own words to the Jews; Destroy this Temple (meaning his Body) and after three days I will raise it up, and his appearing to his Disciples after his Resurrection; having said, as it is Luk. 24.39. Handle me, and Feel me, for a Spirit hath no Flesh and Bones, as ye see me have. After Thomas Green had spoke, as is above related: George Whitehead said, that whereas many both Priests and Professors had questioned Friends much concerning Christ's Body, what was become of it, and where it was? by occasion of Friends Preaching Christ within so frequently; he confesses that Friends were at some stand to give a positive answer, but rather evaded the Question. And though in former times, Friends were shy to answer the Priests and Professors Questions about Christ's Body, fearing they sought by their subtlety to ensnare them, yet now George Keith has given a plain answer to their Question; he tells them Christ's Body is Ascended into Heaven, and is in Heaven. 
Note this▪ fallacy G. W. knew well enough that what I had asserted about Christ's Body, his Ascension into Heaven, did contradict both his and his Brethren's Doctrine.  He doth Contradict what Friends had formerly said, but is positive and plain in his answer to the Professors question. So my opposers ceased any more to object against me upon that Head.  
The Second Particular they charged against me, was that in my Book I had said, the Friends did pray to Christ Jesus, and did Worship and Pray unto the Mediator betwixt God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus, the Anointed King, Priest and Prophet of his People, who also is God over all, blessed for ever, pag. 123. of The way cast up. And whereas I had set down some words of prayers that I had said I had heard some use in our own Meetings, and I had used, as Jesus son of David had mercy on us (pag. 121.) O thou blessed Lord Jesus, that wert Crucified and died for our sins, and shed thy Precious Blood for us, be gracious unto us, etc. the which prayer containeth a whole page in Print; wherein also the forgiveness of our sins is prayed for (a thing many say, they never heard in a Quaker's Meeting) to this these two men observed, that it was a sort of Popery, but with this difference; that the Papists prayed both to the Mother, and the Son: George Keith though he prayed not to the Mother, yet he prayed to the Son. Some present said it was a part of Common Prayer, to say, Son of David have mercy on us, but these two before mentioned Persons, my chief opposers, put me hard to it, to give some Instance, where ever I heard any ancient Friend of the Ministry, that was an English man, pray to Christ Jesus: It is possible (said they) thou hast heard some Scotch Friends pray so, whom thou hast taught so, and were thy Proselytes. I confess I was at a stand, to name any one English man, that ever I heard so pray, though in Scotland, I would have named one. But William Penn prevented me, and said, Friends I am an. English man, and a Friend of the Ministry: I have oft prayed to Christ Jesus, to my great comfort, and have been answered. And not long ago, being under some great weight upon my Spirit, and like to have been swallowed up by a power of Darkness; I uttered these words (its true I was in private) Lord Jesus who was Crucified for me, have mercy on me; and immediately I was eased and comforted. They objected, that William Penn was but a young Minister: Let George Keith give an instance, what ancient English Friend of the Ministry he ever heard pray to Christ Jesus. As I could remember none, so nor did any in all the Meeting give an Instance. But said George Whitehead, it is not what William Penn, or George Keith saith, let the Scripture decide it; whereupon he called for the Bible, and reads in 1 Cor. 1.2. Unto the Church of God, which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be Saints, with all that in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours. What say ye to this Friends? ye see, that Paul did-approve the Corinthians that called upon the name of the Lord Jesus. [Note Reader one would think that if G. Whitehead had made it his practice to pray to Christ Jesus, being an ancient Minister, and using to pray frequently in the public Meetings of the people called Quakers, he would have named himself to have been one who had prayed to Christ Jesus, or some that had oft heard him, there present, might have given him for an instance, but no instance was brought of any English ancient Friend of the Ministry, who had ever been heard so to pray; and had it been a frequent practice among them, to call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, it could not be supposed to be possible that these two men my opposers could have objected it against me, as a novelty, or such a singular practice, as that no English ancient Friend could be produced as a witness for that practice] their answe to George Whitehead's Question was, Paul was dark and ignorant in that thing, as George Keith is: for our parts we know better. George Whitehead replied, hold Friends, say not so. Ye know, we have been accused by divers, that we esteem ourselves equal to the Apostles, which for my part I never did; how will this be received by Professors, if they should hear, that we did set up ourselves above them, and above Paul, one of the chiefest of them: after he had so plentifully received the Holy Ghost, and had planted so many Churches? Pray let us not exalt ourselves above Paul, it is very well if we be where he was. But they still continued blaming my assertion in my Book, for saying, that Christ was to be prayed unto, and especially they blamed the manner of praying to him, by the name Son of David; objecting against one of the prooffs in my Book, how Bartimeus prayed to Christ in these words, Son of David have mercy on me. Poor blind Bartimeus (said they) had George Keith no better Arguments for him, than blind Bartimeus? he was as blind in his Soul, as he was in his Body. Thomas Hart replied to them, Friends say not so, ye are under a great mistake to think he was blind in his Soul; he was greatly enlightened in his Soul, and had a great Faith; and Christ answered him, and said thy Faith hath saved thee, which proveth he was not blind in his Soul, when he so prayed. They still remaining dissatisfied, and greatly blaming that manner of expression, Son of David, as improper, William Penn said, Friends we know that Christ after his Ascension, called himself the root and offspring of David: Now why may it not be supposed, that a Friend may be moved in prayer to say, O thou root and offspring of David have mercy on us. Some also brought that place in Acts. 7.59. how Stephen being filled with the Holy Ghost, at his death, called, saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit; so after several words of discourse made by other Friends present, mostly approving my assertion: they passed to their Third particular charged against in my Book; the passage in my Book that they blamed, is in pag. 123. Compared with pag. 136. where I had said pag. 123. He is that mighty one, upon whom the Father hath laid help, for that although the Father himself loveth us, and is most willing and ready to help us in all our Necessities; yet we can not otherwise receive his help, but as it comes to us by the Conveyance of the Man Christ Jesus, our alone Mediator. And pag. 136. I had said.— But still as in respect of Union, Manifestation, and Operation, and also in respect of Communion and Fellowship, the Man Christ Jesus, or word Incarnate, is the only and proper middle and Mediator between God and us; so that whereas God is immediately United with the Man Christ Jesus, no other Men, or Angels have, or indeed are Capable to have an immediate Union with God, their Union is only Mediate with God, and so their Communion and Fellowship with him is but Mediate also; by the means of Christ Jesus, although inrespect of other means, it is Immediate.  
All this passage they mightily censured, as Contradicting their own experience: 'tis true, said they, when we were Young and weak, at our first Convincement and Beginning, we had need of Christ, but now we have no need of him, we have access to God Immediately, without Christ, Thomas Hart replied to them, Friends I am sorry you should think ye have not need of Christ now, I cannot say so, and I dare not say it. I have as much need of him now as ever formerly, I need Him not only to cleanse me from my Sins, but to preserve me, that I sin not; let me tell you, It may be before ye Die, you may come to find your need of Christ. These words of Thomas Hart were much noticed and approved by divers Present, and after divers had spoke their minds about this whole matter, particularly George Whitehead and William Penn, who approved and Vindicated all these Three Particulars, which my opposers have objected against and severely censured, and all other lesser Matters, to every tittle and word that was objected; so that I had, need to say little, and indeed said not much, because I found them, (as seemed to me) well disposed and inclined to answer for me, as they readily did. Divers other Friends present, stood up in the Meeting and declared their great Satisfaction, with having heard those things so well cleared and opened to their understandings, which they Confessed, they had been formerly Mudled about, and blessed God for that good opportunity they had, to have things made so clear to them, among whom were Francis More, and James Claypool both Citizens of good account, and of good reputation among Friends and Neighbours. This is but a Summary and Abreviation of the matter, which was much more largely discoursed, and took up several hours time at each Meeting. In the Conclusion, the persons that had accused me were desired by the Meeting, to desist from their Charge, and say nothing against the Book: and whereas some Friends that were dissatisfied at my Book, had forbidden the Stationer in George-Yard, to sell it, because it was unsound: Order was given by the Meeting, that that the Stationer might be encouraged to Sell it, that it might have its Service in City and Country, as accordingly was done. And now Reader, wouldst thou not think that these men who had so exposed their Ignorance, Unbelief, and Antichristian principles directly opposest to the great Fundamentals of Christianity, would have received some severe Censure from the Friends of the Ministry, or at least, that they would have put them to disown their vile errors, before they could be owned, as either sound Ministers, or sound Friends? But nothing of this was done, and to the certain knowledge of divers as well as mine, these men, (as well as others that had privately sided with them,) remained Resolute and Stiff in their former errors, whereof the one, to wit William Shown, sometime after gave a public demomstration in the Face of the World, having after all this, printed a Book called by him A Treatise of Thoughts, where he saith pag. 37. Not to Jesus, the Son of Abraham, David, and Mary, Saint or Angel, but to God the Father, all worship, Honour and Glory is to be given through Jesus Christ, etc. Note Reader what he means by Jesus Christ etc. is easy to apprehend, not the Son of Abraham, of David, or Mary, for him he hath excluded from being the object of Worship; together with Saints and Angels, as in his own words is manifest, but this Jesus Christ, etc. is the Light within, so here are two Christ's with a witness by this Man's Doctrine, one the Son of David, to whom no Worship Honour and Glory is to be given, another through whom God the Father is to be Worshipped; and certainly he through whom we Worship God the Father, must be the object of Worship together with the Father: But how long did he allow Jesus Christ, etc. to be him through whom God the Father is to be Worshipped? No longer than until he hath restored all things into their primitive Order, that is, brought William Shown and his Brethren to a Sinless state, which many think they have attained already, and then Christ in them is known to surrender up the Kingdom to the Father, and God to become all in all. As he plainly declares in his pag. 38. and on the Margin he adds, This is the ascending of Christ up, where he was before he descended, and before there was any Cause for his descension, he that can understand (saith he) let him. (this passage of william Shown, is more fully Quoted out of his Book in my Third Narrative lately Printed) Judge Reader, what imaginary Heavens had this man got up into, after he hath witnessed a Sinless state, even in the mortal Body, than Christ surrenders up the Kingdom to the Father, in him, and it is no more Christ in him, but God all in all. And what Christ spoke of his Ascension, as Man, into Heavens without us, He wholly applieth, to Christ's putting off his Offices as Christ, and ceasing any more to Officiate as Christ in them, but as God the Father. The mystery of this is Rank and wild Ranterism, to wit that God and Christ within men, are but two inward Ministrations, and Operations; Christ is the lower, and the Father is the Higher, and by passing from the Lower to the Higher, as men pass from the lower story of a House, to the higher, they pass from Christ to God, and leave Christ behind or below them, and ascend up to God all in all, and so need not Christ either within them, or without them. That this is the real and genuine Sense of William Shewen's words in that above mentioned Treatise, any intelligent person that reads them, (more especially if he read those passages throughout, from first to last, a part whereof I have but quoted, for brevity sake) cannot but acknowledge.  
Now because it is probable many of the people called Quakers will say, that these things which I have above related as matter of Fact; are not truly related, and will be ready to oppose to the credit of my relation: That G. Whitehead who confesseth there was such a Meeting where he was present, denyeth that he remembereth that any such things were affirmed by them that found fault with me, for some things contained in my Book. But First, his not remembering, is but a Negative evidence against my positive evidence, therefore not so strong as mine. Secondly, I have brought William Shewen's own Book; Writ and Printed after that Meeting; sufficiently declaring, at least the Two last Particulars, or rather indeed all the Three. For since he construeth Christ's Ascension into Heaven, to be inwardly in Men; he has left us no proofs for his Ascension outwardly. Thirdly, had G. Whitehead been ingenuous, he would have been positive to have told what he did remember, seeing some present at these Meetings as old in years, and as weak in Memory as himself; hath very lately told, what was said in one of them Meetings, and that is the chiefest of the Three, and indeed includes all the three Particulars above mentioned. Fourthly, know then, for a further evidence; that Thomas Heart an ancient Citizen, of very good credit and fame, (a person of greater Age than G. Whitehead as I suppose; and one whom G. Whitehead I think will own to be worthy of Credit in any other thing, if not in this) hath lately declared to me, (in answer to my request to him, that seeing. I was called in question as a Liar, for saying some of my opposers at one of these Meetings had said, they needed not Christ then, he would be pleased for the truth's sake, to speak what he did remember was said by them to that effect) that he did remember that they did say, They needed not Christ, and also that he did reply to them, It may be before they Died, they would find their need of Christ; thus he freely and voluntarily declared to me in my House 22d. 12. Month. 1697. in answer to my request as above. I having told him, that to clear me of the Imputation of a Liar, I did desire him (by a few lines in writing) to speak with me, who came to my House, in compliance to my desire; and I having repeated to him all his words as they are above mentioned, that he spoke to them; he answered me directly, that his memory was weak, and did not remember the other passages, but this (said he) I do well remember, that when some of them said, they needed not Christ; I told them, before they Died they might come to find their need of him; and he said further, I own it to be a truth that I need Christ still, for I find my obedience so short, that I cannot rely upon it; and therefore I need that God be merciful to me, and forgive me my sins and failings for Christ's sake. And divers things he spoke to this purpose, very sensibly and Christianly, with which I was much refreshed to find him so sound and sensible, and that he still adhered to his former Testimony he gave at one of these Meetings. And seeing he hath confirmed the truth of my Relation, in one of the chief Particulars, that one containing all the rest: I judge it is an Authentic evidence to the whole; for if they needed not Christ, then sure they were not to Pray to him; and as sure it is, that there is no need of any such belief (according to their sentiments) that Christ's Body did Ascend into Heaven; for they having denied the end of his Ascension, which was that We might have him to be our merciful high Priest in Heaven, to make intercession for us, according to our need, they must consequently deny his Ascension, otherwise say he Ascended to no purpose or end, as to us! For a further evidence, I here add the Testimony of John Bull, who was present at one of these Meetings, who had also at my desire and request (obtesting him to speak the truth, seeing my Christian Name and Reputation was concerned in the case) declared, 
Note, since the writing of this Paper John-Bull is det ceased: But I have Evidence of some alive who heard him so affirm.  that it having been long ago, he did not remember much, but this he did remember, that they opposed to that passage in my Book, wherein I did assert that Christ's Body that was buried, risen again, and ascended into Heaven. As also that several Friends said, they were much benefited by the things that they heard discoursed, by way of Objections and Answers, and blessed God for that opportunity. This he told me at my House 23d. 12th. Mo. 1697.  
Having thus finished my Relation, touching these weighty Matters, which I solemnly declare to be true, and which I think I have give a sufficient Evidence of, by the concurring Evidences, of some of their Brethren, that remain in Unity with them, it now remains to give some Reasons of making public this Relation which I do thus.  
1. My first Reason of making public this Relation is to clear my Name both as a Man, and a Christian, from the imputation of Liar, Slanderer, and false Accuser; which some of the contrary Party have cast upon me, for my having affirmed, that some noted men among the Quakers, yea and Teachers too, Twenty years ago have opposed some of the great Fundamentals of Christianity, and greatly Censured me for asserting them.  
2. The second Reason, is, that this Account given by me here will serve for an Apology, and Excuse to me, in great part, why I have in some of my former Books, especially in my Controversies with some of the Preachers at Boston in New England, praised and defended William Penn and George Whitehead, as sound and Orthodox in the Fundamental Principles of the Christian Faith, Concerning Christ, and the real existence of his Manhood-Nature, consisting of a glorified Soul and Body in Heaven, being both God, and Man, and yet one Christ: And our Faith in him as such, for Remission of Sin, and eternal Salvation, whom these men did represent as unsound. Now that which gave me (as I thought) just ground so to judge, was, that they seemed to me, by the defence they made for me at these two Meetings aforesaid, to be not only sound in their judgements as touching these great truths, but to be cordially and zealously concerned for the defence of them: And in this persuasion of them I continued, until the differences arose in Pensilvania, betwixt my Adversaries and me, in the year 1691, concerning the necessity of Faith in Christ without us, for Remission of Sin, and eternal Salvation, as well as the belief of his inward appearance by his Light and Grace in our hearts, both which I affirmed was necessary, to our Christianity, which my Adversaries risen up against, charging it to be false as well new Doctrine, and contradicting the printed Testimonies and Books of sound Friends, and particularly of William Penn, and George Whitehead, so that I was accused by my Pensilvanian opposers, in our public Meetings there, for contradicting the Principles of William Penn and G. Whitehead, in their Printed Books, particularly in that Book called the Christian Quaker, both in relation to the sufficiency of the Light within, without any thing else, to Salvation, and also in relation to the Resurrection of the Body. And thus time after time they opposed me with these men's Books, and when I desired them to begin with the Scriptures, and prove the Contradiction of my Doctrine first to the holy Scriptures, and then it was time to Consider these men's Books, Samuel Jennings in a public Meeting at Philadelphia on a first day, said it was not necessary to prove me guilty of Heresy, (whereof they had accused me) from the Scriptures, but from Friends Books, for (said he) the Question betwixt, G. K. and them, is not who is the best Christian, but who is the best Quaker. And though I still desired them to bring their Scripture proofs, yet they for most part waved that, and continued clamouring that my Doctrine contradicted Will. Pen. Geo. Whitehead, and other Friends, which I did not know all that time that it did, for though the places they quoted out of their Books, seemed much to favour my Adversaries, yet I was not willing to think so, but laboured to retain my Charitable persuasion of them, putting the most Charitable Constructions upon their Words as was possible, so far as I had read the passages in their Books that seemed to interfere with me. At last, I came to a firm Resolution in my mind to Come for England, having first writ to George Whitehead and other Friends of the Ministry about our differences, desiring to know their sense; they seemed to blame me for the separation, but in great part, to approve of my Principles; but the words in their Epistles were so dubious, like the Heathen Oracles, that as to the main difference of Principles betwixt my Adversaries, and me in Pensilvania, it was rather increased by their Epistles, then allayed; my Adversaries Construing them one way, and I and my Friends another way. After I arrived in England and came to London, And had some private Conferrences with George Whitehead and William Penn, about these very Principles of the sufficiency of the Light within to Salvation, without any thing else, by the something else that I did plead for, declaring that I meant the man Christ Jesus, and his most holy and perfect Obedience unto death, for our Sins, and his Intercession for us in Heaven, I began easily to perceive that they greatly differed from me in those great things, yet they did seek to hid themselves as much as they well could, mainly and almost only blaming me for the Separation, and making a breach, in Pensilvania, and the neighbouring Provinces among Friends. But by degrees, the difference in Principles betwixt them and me began plainly to appear, before they Excommunicated me, at their yearly Meeting in the Year 1695. For at a large Meeting of Friends of the Ministry, where were many Country Friends, about two days before the yearly meeting, in 1694. William Penn accused me, for seeking to bring in a new method of Preaching Christ, and Faith in him, differing from that of Friends, and that new method was, to preach the Man Christ without us, and his Death and Sufferings, in order to bring people to know the Divine Principle within them, and the work of Regeneration. And at the said Meeting G. W. blamed me, for affirming that all the Light and Grace that any men had, in any age of the World, was the effect of Christ's Obedience unto death for us, and argued against it thus, Men had Light and Grace, before Christ came in the Flesh, to perform that obedience: can the Effect be before the Cause? this plainly enough let me see into G. Whitehead's Principles, he had the same strength of Argument (but that's none at all) against any men's having Remission of Sin by Christ's death, before he came in the Flesh, why, can the effect be before the Cause? I told him, a Moral effect can be before its cause, and oft times is, and gave an Example, how a man by a Contract or Covenant buyeth a House or Field, and possesseth it before the Money is paid, the Condition of the Covenant being that the Money is not to be paid until such a time, so by Virtue of the Covenant of Grace, which respected Christ to Come, and the satisfaction he was to make to divine justice, by his Death and Sufferings for men's sins passed, as well as to come, all the faithful had remission of sin, and inward Light and Grace, as well before he came as since. And some Months after this, at a public Meeting of the Quakers at Ratcliff by London, William Penn did publicly oppose my testimony, and charged me, to be an Apostate, and that I endeavoured to pluck up the testimony of truth by the roots. And at the same time He told the Auditory, that Friends saw no great need to preach the Faith of Christ's Death, and Sufferings, for all England had that Faith, and all Christendom had it, but it did not profit them. 
* Reader by this Argument it should not be Preached at all.  With many Abusive words all which he fathered upon a transport of the glorious power of God, at the next yearly Meeting, when I Complained upon his so abusing me. Yet they have, after all this, sought to hid the differences in Doctrine betwixt them and me, from public notice, so that in their sentence of Excommunication, they blame not my Doctrine, nor Morals in any particular thing, but cast out some general charges against me, for being turbulent etc. and separating myself from the Church of Christ. But their unchristian deal with me, as well as Antichristian Principles have sufficiently proved them not to be a Church of Christ, though still I have that charity to divers among them, that they belong to Christ and his Church; but not as respecting that visible Society, that has less the face of a Church, than any Society of Protestants any where in the world.  
A third Reason is, that this publication of the foregoing Relation, will be a true Evidence and Witness for me, that as to the great fundamentals of the Christian Faith, I am not changed, from what I was Twenty years ago, when owned among them; and for many years after, acknowledged by them, that I was in the Unity. And that therefore it is manifest to be a Calumny and false Accusation raised by some Malicious Persons among the Quakers against me; that I am Apostatised from my former Principles of Christianity, and have embraced new notions, or Priests and Professors Principles, as they are pleased 〈…〉 that formerly I had relinquished and from a tentation that I had let prevail over me, to seek and affect pre-eminence over my Brethren, and not finding my desire and end answered in that, I sought occasion to differ from them, and purposely changed my Principles, that I might have a ground of Strife and Contention with them, all which the Righteous Judge of the whole Earth, and the searcher of hearts knoweth to be false, and injurious charges. I have sufficiently in my late Printed Books, proved that I am the same in all Principles of Truth, that I was formerly, and wherein I am changed, in some lesser matters of Persuasion, it is to truth, and not from truth: God having been pleased further to Enlighten me, for which I desire to Praise him; and I have showed my adversaries, both William Penn and George Whitehead, to be much more guilty of Contradictions, than any thing that any have laid to my charge, as in my first Narrative of the proceed at Turners-Hall, and in other late Books: And wherein they charge me, to contradict some passages in my former Books, as in relation to Baptism and the Supper, and the having a better understanding of some places of Scripture than formerly I had, this is properly no Contradiction, but a Retractation. But my adversaries are justly chargeable with many contradictions, that (without any Retractation) hold contradictory propositions at once to be both true. This is contradiction with a Witness.  
Now judge Reader, whether as the above said Relation of the particulars mentioned in the first Sheet, is not some Apology for me, to excuse my praising G. Whitehead and William Penn, as Orthodox and sound Men, as to Christian Principles, they having, by their seeming Orthodox at that time, Deceived me, so hath not the late discovery of their insoundnesses in the Christian Faith, given me a far greater ground of Apology to excuse my charging them, to be guilty of Vile Antichristian Errors, as I have largely shown in my late Printed Books, particularly my three Naratives of the Proceed at Turners-Hall, the Second and Third of which has as yet received no shadow of answer, and what shadow of answer the First received by Thomas Elwood, hath been sufficiently demonstrated to be a mere Shadow, by the Book called Satan Disrobed, and also by my Second and Third Narratives, all which lie on their hand unanswered; and yet they falsely glory in Print, that they have answered all my former Books. And their most partial siding with my Adversaries in Penselvania, to cloak their vile Errors, as well as unjust Practices, is another ground of my just Apology, for my changing my thoughts of them; besides other great Prooffs I have to manifest their unsound and Antichristian Principles.   

Some Passages taken out of Humphrey Norton's Ms. mentioned in the II. Part p. 99 100  
I Begin with a Letter of George Fox's, which is not only Inserted, but Attested in this Ms. of Humph. Norton's, Part of which Letter being Quoted in The Snake p. 113. The Quakers in their Last Answer, which they call A Switches for the Snake p. 175. say, That it may be either Adulterated by the Snake, or some Apostate, or Forged by them. And, if they were G. F 's words, why did not the Snake give the whole Letter? To what purpose hath he made a Break in it? And what is Left out at it? Therefore you shall have the whole, and sufficiently Attested; Together with H. Norton's Impious Parallel of Oliver to our Lord Jesus Christ, his Death, Burial and Resurrection. Which take as follows out of the Ms. p. 21.  
The Message from O. Cromwell to G. Fox, upon 5th day of the 1st Month.  
That it was required by Oliver Cromwell from G. F. that he would promise, that he would not take up a Carnal Sword or weapon, against the Lord Protector, or Government, as it is now. And that G. F. would write down the words, in answer to that which the Protector required. And for G. F. to set his hand to it.  
THIS was demanded of G. F. in our presence and hearing, 
p. 21.  whose names in the Flesh, are called Tho. Aldam, and Robert Craven, Upon the Sixth day of the First Month, G. F. was moved to give forth these words following, which were written and given to Oliver Cromwell by Capt. Dury.  
Ans. I who am of the world called G. F. doth deny the carrying or drawing any carnal Sword against any, or against thee O. C. or any man, in the presence of the Lord I declare it, God is my witness, by whom I am moved to give this forth, for the truth's sake, from him whom the world calls G. Fox, WHO IS THE SON OF GOD, who is sent to stand a witness against all violence and against the works of Darkness; and to turn the People from Darkness to Light, and to bring them from the occasion of the War, and from the occasion of the Magistrates Sword, which is a terror to the evil doer, which acts contrary to the light of the Lord Jesus Christ; which is a praise to them that do well; which is a Protection to them that do well and not the evil; and such Soldiers as are put in place no false accusers must be, no violence must do, but be content with their Wages; And that Magistrate bears not the Sword in vain, from under the occasion of that Sword do I seek to bring people; my weapons are not Carnal but Spiritual, and MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD, therefore with Carnal weapon I do not fight, but am from those things dead, from him who is not of this world, called of the world by the Name of G. F. and this am I ready to seal with my Blood, this I am moved to give forth for the truth's sake, who a witness stands against all unrighteousness, and all ungodliness, who a Sufferer is for the righteous Seeds sake, waiting for the redemption of it, who a Crown that is mortal seeks not, for that fadeth away; but in the Light dwells which comprehends that Crown; which Light is the condemnation of all such, in which Light I witness the Crown that is Immortal, which fades not away, from him who to all your Souls is a friend, for establishing of righteousness, and cleaning the Land of evil doers; and a witness against all the wicked inventions of men, and Murderers Plots which answer shall be with the Light in all your Consciences, which makes no covenant with death, to which Light in you all I speak, and am clear. G. F. who a new Name hath which the World knows not.  
We are witnesses of this Testimony whose names in the flesh are 

Tho. Aldam  
Robt. Craven.    A call to O. Cromwell, OLiver thou art shut up, the Stone is sealed, 
p. 37.  and the watch is set, and Christ suffers, And the Lord God hath sent his Angel to call thee, and to roll away the stone, and if thou wilt come forth, come forth. This call is to thee through his Servant Humphrey Norton. 

A Question put, with others, to all that stumble at the Light. p. 31.  
WHat Child is it Eve shall be saved by, she Continuing in Faith and Sobriety? 
Norton's Ms. p. 31.  Seeing the Apostle gave this Advice to the Un-Married that could so abide, not to Marry, for he did better that did not give in Marriage than he that did.  
[N.B. The Meaning of this is plain. viz. That the Child by which Eve, and consequently the rest of Mankind was to be saved, was not to be an outward Child of Flesh and Blood, born of a Woman. Because that if so, it would have been better for Men to have Married, in order to have that Child brought into the World. This is the true Quaker Notion shown in the Second Part from p. 215 to 220, That the Child Promised Gen. iii. 15. as the Saviour of the World, is a Child born within Every Regenerate Person, in their Hearts, and not any Child Conceived in the Womb of a Woman. For as to what is Recorded of the Outward Jesus, His Birth, Passion, Resurrection etc. they can apply it to Oliver, or any other of their Favourites. They turn it all into an Allegory, and Suppose it Performed within Themselves. And that the Merit of their Salvation Lies Within Themselves, and not in the Merits of the Outward Jesus. Of which See more in the Said Ms.].]  
And whereas he accuseth us for denying Christ's Merits. 
Ms. p. 46.  I say that which can be merited is of self. And that which is of Christ is freely given. But such a word is not in Scripture as Christ's Merits, but is fetched from the Whore at Rome by them.  
To all these that pretend to wait for that which they call a personal Reign, 
p. 70.  for which they have no Scripture, but makes themselves manifest to be these that know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God, for they were Written for our Admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 1 Cor. 10.11. Mark, they knew the ends of the world come at that time, where sin was put away by the Sacrifice of Himself. Heb. 9.26. Now unto all you, this is the word of the Lord God; you that waits out of the Light wherewith you are Enlightened, waits out of the way, etc.— Tell me, have not many of your Brethren and Sisters pretended this waiting who are dead, (take warning) and said they looked as you do for a Christ to come, in another's Person, and not in your own. Are you not looking afar off, like Fools with your Eyes a broad. Pro. 17.24.— Answer these Queries, and prove what you speak by plain Scripture.  
Whether is not God and Christ one in every thing, Yea or Nay? 
p. 71.  or wherein do they differ in any thing? and whether he is not the same in this Generation, that he hath been in all others the I AM.  
Is not the righteousness fulfilled in Christ? and is not God satisfied with this Righteousness, where it is put on? as it is written, put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ. Rom. 13.14.  
Whether any one man visibly can put on another, and therein satisfy God for another man's Sins, Yea or Nay? or must not every Man or Woman put on the Lord Jesus Christ? and than no more a Carnal Christ; seeing it is written, woe unto them them that are covered and not with my spirit.  
And now all ye that speak of a Personal Reign, Answer this, from whence must this Christ come which must Reign Personally? Seeing the promises of God was but one, and to one; And all the Prophets of God prophysied but of one? and they declared of what Stock, and Family, and House, and Generation he should be off, Read Math. 1. and Luke. 3. And also where he should be born, and of whom (to wit) of a Virgin, which things are fulfilled, and come to pass, we are Witnesses of it, according to the Scriptures.  
Now Answer in plain words, whence must this Christ come you wait for? And in what Generation? Of what Family? And out of what Country? And of whom must he be born? that they may no Longer be deceived by you: who have kept them Gazing after a false Christ. Well may it be called Gazing. But leave it, and mind these in white Apparel which reproves you for it. Acts. 1.10, 11.  
And Seeing the Scripture saith that Christ is the way to the Father, 
p. 73.  then is not this the Spirit of truth that Leads into all truth, to the God of all truth? And doth not these that Look for a Christ to come, deny the way to God, tell me? What way must people go to God, if Christ be not come? Seeing they die daily. Joh. 14.6. Joh. 16.30.   

Some Queries with there Answers put forth by John Draper. Answered by H. Norton pag. 81.  
IN one of thy Queries thou asketh me whether the Saints shall partake of any other Glory, or Perfection then that they now Enjoy? or whether we that are called Quakers shall partake of any other Glory or perfection then what we now Enjoy.  
Ans. I say, the Saints can partake of no other Glory nor Perfection then what they now Enjoy. And we that are called Quakers partakes of the same. But if our Hope, Glory, and Perfection were only in this Life, we were of all men most miserable.  
Wherein thou asketh me if there be any other Heaven then what's in the Saints? And where that Heaven is that Christ Ascended up into?  
I know and believe that there is no other Heavens then that the Saints are in, wherein dwells Peace, Righteousness, and Joy. And that the Kingdom of Heaven is where that Christ himself preached it. Luke 17.21. viz. The Kingdom of God is within you.  
And whereas thou asketh me what I do believe concerning the second Coming of of Christ? or whether there is any other Coming of Christ, besides what is in his Saints?  
I believe that there was, 
p. 81.  five hundred Brethren at once that saw his Second coming. And that there is a Thousand now that sees the same. And that there is no other coming then what is revealed in his Saints. For herein is the righteousness of God revealed Rom. 1.17 and 19 therefore follow no more after the Lo hear and Lo there's.  
Wherein thou asketh me, whether it be not that very Christ that is in us that was Crucified at Jerusalem, whose hands and feet was nailed to the Cross and side pierced? and whether we do expect any benefit by Christ Crucified at Jerusalem? I say no other Christ we own, but Jesus the only begotten Son of God; the brightness of his Glory, the express Image of his person Heb. 1.7. who in our Vanity his Sides often we pierced, for which now in our bodies we bear his marks. And this benefit we have Redemption by him alone, from the filthiness of flesh and Spirit; and Saved by him from the Pride and Vanity the World lives in, and cleansed from all Sin by his Blood, according to that Scripture 1 Jo. 1.7.   
[N. B. What Blood this was which he means, you will see in the First Part p. 14.94, 95. viz. The Blood of God's Heavenly Manhood, which He had from all Eternity. And not the Blood of our Nature which Christ took upon Him, and shed upon the Cross. They here Renounce any such Christ. Any Christ that does differ in any thing from God, as before Quoted. Or who Suffered upon any other Cross than that Metaphorical Cross which He commanded His Disciples to take up Daily. Luk. ix. 23. And upon which He Daily Suffers in the Hearts of Wicked Men; as appears by his following Quaere.]  

Querie to John Draper, by H. Norton. p. 84. of Ms.  
WHether Christ Jesus suffered not upon that Cross which he Preached when he was in the Body, and said, He that will be my Disciple must take take up his Cross Daily. Luk. 9.23. Or what Cross he suffered on? And how oft he hath suffered since the beginning? [See Second Part. p. 114.]  
Ms. p. 81. Wherein thou asketh me what do I understand by the Eternal Judgement? Or whether there shall be a time when God shall Judge all Men, and make their works manifest, and also give to every Man according to his Deeds.  
Ans. The Eternal Judge is upon his Throne, and the time of his Judgement is come, and the Hearts of all Men are made manifest before him. And the wicked shall not Escape, but shall Receive a Portion according to their Deeds. Therefore say I, arise ye Dead, and come to Judgement, for the Hour is Coming, and now is, when the Dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall Live. Joh. 5.25.   
[N. B. This shows in what sense they Understand the Scriptures, viz. That the Resurrection of the Dead, and the Final Judgement is already Come, as before Quoted, which they bid us Mark, That the End of the World was Come in the Apostles time, which they Infer from 1 Cor. 10.11.]  
Ms. p. 57 in a Letter to Lieut. Scot  
NEver hereafter suffer such words to proceed out of thy Mouth, as to say that the Glorious God was in a Wall, because thy Dark Wisdom finds it Written, that He fills Heaven and Earth. But this I say unto thee, That that Heaven, and that Earth which he fills thou knowest not, neither can any Vulturous Eye see into it—  
H. Norton.  
[N. B. The Quaker Means the Inward Heaven in the Heart, which he says no Vulturous Eye can see into. And they Acknowledge no other Heaven or Hell. (See First Part. p. 62. Snake p. 164. And Sat. Dis. p. 55.) For the Outward Heaven the Quaker Eyes can no more see into, than those Eyes which they call Vulturous.  
I will close my present Excerptions out of this Precious Ms. with an Account which this Norton and one Will. Shaw gave of their Examination before John Bret Governor of Wexford in Ireland. p. 86. of the Ms.].]  
Governor. 
Are you the Men?  Quakers. 
Yea.  Gou. 
Why did you Disturb the Minister yesterday?  Hum. Norton. 
Examine the business to the bottom: we were forced out of our Meeting. and brought to the Steeplehouse. And if there was any wrong done, we had it.  Gou. 
By whom.  Hum. 
By a Lieutenant.  Gou. 
But not to disturb the Minister.  Humb. 
A Minister of Christ cannot be disturbed, neither is it contrary to the order of the Church of Christ for all to speak one by one.  Gou. 
But you have transgressed the Law, in disturbing our Minister.  Hum. 
What's your Law contrary to the Law of God?  Gou. 
Nay.  Hum. 
He is no Minister of Christ, neither have we transgressed any Law of God.  Gou. 
Why is he not a Minister of Christ?  Hum. 
He was found in the Idols Temple, having the chief seat in the assembly, standing Praying in the Synagogue.  Gou. 
You all say so?  Hum. 
Send for him hither, let us speak with him.  Gou. 
I have no command of him, but I shall axamine the Lieutenant, and if he have transgressed let him suffer.  Hum. 
Be not partial, but let it be before us.  Gou. 
Take these men into your charge Jailer.  Hum. 
Well, mind the fear of God. This was the effect of what was spoken so near as can be remembered. Hum. Norton. Will. Shaw.   

The Recommendation of the above named Humphrey Norton, by E. Bourrough, and Francis Howgil, when he went to Ireland; and Answered, and put the above Queries.  
NOw dear Friends, I rejoice in the Lord that his care is towards you, and his love abids for you, who are unto him begotten, and not of him forgotten in visiting you with his power, to the refreshing of you, in sending this my dear Brother and faithful companion in the Kingdom of Jesus called Humphrey Norton, who cometh to you in the name and fear of the Lord, and not of his own will, but according to the will of God, as being moved thereunto by the spirit of the Father. And unto you all I do him recommend, as a faithful Labourer, to be received by you in the name of him that sends him, in tender pity for you all; and the blessing of the Lord upon his Faithfulness I doubt not. But the flock will receive refreshment, the weak will be strengthened, the weary laden will be comforted, and the body will be edified, and for this cause hath the Lord chosen him into this service, to manifest further unto you the power of the Gospel of God, by his Ministry, upon which the blessing of the Lord be for ever. And with my dear Love in the Lord saluting you all that are faithful, farewell in the Lord. London 10th. of 3d. Month 56. to the Churches in Christ in Ireland, by a lover of your Souls, and a Labourer in the Gospel of Jesus Christ E. B.  
Receive Hum. Norton in the Lord, whom the Lord hath moved to come unto you: who is a brother, and faithful in the Lords work, and be subject unto him in the Lord, all unto him, for I much desired that he might come unto you, and so the Lord hath ordered it. And as you receive him, you receive me Francis howgil.    

Some Few of the Many OMISSIONS and ALTERATIONS in the Reprinting of the Works of the Deceased QUAKERS (tho' said to have been given forth by the SPIRIT of the ETERNAL GOD) to Trim with every Turn of Government; And Cover the Deceit of their Horrid Principles.  
1. EDWARD BURROUGH, the Second in Honour to the Great FOX, among the Apostles of the Quakers, Printed a Book An. 1656. to which he gave this Title. A TRUMPET OF THE LORD, Sounded out of Zion: Which gives a Certain Sound in the Ears of All Nations; And is a True Noise of a fearful Earthquake at hand, which shall shake the whole Fabric of the Earth, and the Pillars of its standing shall Fall, and never more be set up again. Or, Fearful Voices of Terrible Thunders, uttered forth from the Throne— And is an Alarm and Preparation for War against all Nations where Gog and Magog resideth. And showeth the Wounding Sword of the Mighty God, from whose Blow the Kings, nor the Captains, nor the mighty Men cannot Fly, to Escape. Declared and Written by a Son of Thunder: In an unknown Language, which none can Understand, save the Redeemed of the Lord. By one whose Name is truly known by the Children of the same Birth, but unknown to the World, though it be called, EDWARD BURROUGH.  
There is more than here set down in that Magnificient Title-Page! But I would show the Reader thus much, to let him see the no ordinary Style of the Quakers! In this Book. p. 9 There is a Chapter against the King and his Cause, then under the Feet of the Rebels. But in the Reprinting of the Works of this Son of Thunder; after the Restauration of the King. An. 1672. that whole Chapter is left out. And is as follows.  

To all you who are, and have been always, Enemies to the very appearance of Righteousness, who are called Delinquents and Cavaliers.  
THus saith the Lord, my controversy is against you, even my hand in judgement is upon you already, and you are become cursed in all your hatchings and endeavours, and from time to time my hand hath been against you in Battle, and you have been, and you are given up to be a prey to your Enemies, for the purpose and intents of your hearts have been known always to be against the form of Truth, and much more against my powerful Truth itself, and because you attempted to take my throne (Conscience) therefore I risen in fury against you, and will have war with all your followers herein for ever, and though my hand hath been evidently against you, yet to this day you remain in rebellion in your minds in hatching Murder and Cruelty in your wicked hearts, and though your Kings, and Princes, and Nobles have been cut off in wrath, and your cruel desperate Inventions, and plots of wickedness (conceived in your cursed womb) have been broken, and you cut short in your desires, yet you repent not, nor will not see how you are given to be a curse, and a desolation, and a prey, in houses and lands, and persons, to them whom I raised against you and gave power over you, yet you are hardened, and your cruelty in the persecution of my servants cannot be measured, where you have any power, you smite with the fist of wickedness, and count it your glory to despise my Name, in the Valleys of vain hopes you feed, and on the Mountains of foolish expectation, and conceive in your cruel womb of Tyranny, the overthrow of the Nations, but in the bringing forth yourselves are overthrown, and it is not for well doing that you suffer, but my hand is against you, and my judgements are upon you, and except you repent, shall continue upon Earth with you, and follow you, and pursue you to the Lake of destruction, where there is no repentance, and you and your Kings, and Lordly power, (by which you have thought to exercise Lordship over my heritage) shall be enslaved by the Devil in the Pit of darkness, in everlasting bondage, where he shall reign your King and Lord for evermore.   
2. There is likewise, and for the same Reason, left out in Burrough's reprinted Works, a Paper of Council and Advice, directed To the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England, Dated at Lon. 6. of 8. Mon. 1659. It is too long to Insert the whole here. But take these few Passages, which the Quaking Editors knew would lay them open to objections after the Restauration of the Royal Family to their Hereditary Right; and of the People, to the Freedom of their Election in the choice of Members to serve for them in Parliament: Which at that time when this was wrote, An. 1659. was Obstructed by the then Army and other Short-lived Rouling-Vsurpations, as well upon the Privileges of the People (which they had made the Great Pretence for their Rebellion) as upon the Prerogative. For when the Members who had been, by Force, Secluded, were Restored to their Places in the House of Commons, they Immediately Voted in the King, and Ancient Hereditary Monarchy. Against which, and the Freedom of Parliaments this Burrow thus Belches forth, in Justification of the then present Government that was in being, p. 2. of his Council and Advice to those Usurpers who then called themselves The Parliament of the Commonwealth of England, as follows.  And while thus it hath been in our Nation, that our Kings have attained to the Throne of Government Hereditarily, and by Succession of Birth: And our Parliaments and Rulers have attained to the Place of Judgement over us, by such a way of Traditional Choice as hath been the Custom in our Forefathers days (that knew no better, being in the days of Apostasy and great Ignorance themselves) and thus it hath Continued for many Ages, whereby the Inhabitants have been always suffering under, and liable to great Oppressions and Vexations, being subjected under such a Government, falling as aforesaid, from Parents to Children, after the manner of the Heathen Nations, and being subjected to such Laws, made and Executed by Men, not truly called and ordained of God thereunto, insomuch that nothing hath been perceived or intended by Men of the hand of the Lord, and of his good Spirit in the calling of our Kings, and choosing of our Rulers; but these things have comed to pass, and been after the Traditions of Men, and not after the order and Council of the Lord God. And our Nation hath been under the bonds of Slavery in this respect, even because Men have Governed that ought not: And while the Great and Rich men have been set to Rule over the Poor; and while Men for earthly Honour, and for Riches sake in Birth and Breeding, have Claimed to be Princes over us Successively; And to be chosen our Rulers according to Custom— And have comed into the place of Authority over us, otherwise than by appointment and Right calling from the Lord, as I have said, and thus the Government of our Nation hath been out of Course, and not as the Lord requireth it, even until this Day. 
p. 3. But now in as much as the Lord God our Deliverer hath begun to appear for the Freedom of the Nations, and hath showed us the Captivity and Bondage which our Forefathers hath Lived under, and we ourselves been subject and liable too, by reason of the Government standing in a Single Person Successively; and we being Forced to live under the Authority of such Men as had no Right from God thereunto, as I have said, And now our Eyes are opened to behold better things, and we are in good expectations, that the Lord will suddenly so Appear, as to free us from future Oppressions in this Respect, etc.  
p. 6. Wherefore it is upon me to lay it before you, even you, as the First Asserters of, and Contenders for England's Liberty, and whom the Lord hath Honoured in Beginning to Remove Tyranny and Oppression, and Reaching after our Long Lost Liberties, etc.  
[Here to Flatter the Tail of the Rump-Parliament (which then Ruled the Roast) the Quakers Run down all the several sorts of Rebels, who had Usurped before them: Each of whom the Quakers had Worshipped, in their Day (as fully shown in Sn. Sect. xviii. p. 215. to p. 219. etc.) called them Restorers, Deliverers, Chosen Instruments in the Hand of God, by whom he did Great things. But now that they were all Gone, This last Parliament were the First Assertors of the Liberty of England; and were Honoured in Beginning to Remove Tyranny. All the Rest had done nothing before them! And upon these the QUAKERS built their Hopes: And Prophesied of the Mighty things which GOD had to do with them! In order to which the QUAKERS gave them their Directions, from THE LORD, how to Manage.  
But their SPIRIT of DISCERNING Failed them here, as it used to serve them: For within seven Days after the Date of this their Address to that Parliament, they were Turned out by Lambert. Which they little suspecting, but thinking that they were to hold the Reins of Government for a longer time, gave their Wise Instructions, in the above Quoted Council and Advice, to Employ the QUAKERS in their Affairs: And then all would do well, without Doubt! Tho' by the Advice they Gave, the Quakers were of all Men the least Fit to be Employed: They Hit Themselves Exactly, in the Description they gave of other Men: For they Advised, not to Employ WILFUL and HEADY Men, not UNCONSTANT and CHANGEABLE Men, nor TRAITORS that have Turned for self Advantage, and will CHANGE with the TIMES to any way of Government, etc. But especially they Guarded against the Return of Hereditary Monarchy, as before Quoted. Yet as soon as that Returned, in the Restauration of the Royal Family, (which was within 7 Months after this was wrote) then the Quakers were for the King and Monarchy! And without any Blush, Upbraided and Accused the other Dissenters to the King, as Changeable Men, who Turned to Every Power, and every Government, as it Turned, And therefore not fit to be Trusted. (See their Two Declarations, in Sn. p. 224. and p. 227.) And from this time, they Began to Chop and Change, Curtail and Alter their Former Books, in the Reprinting of them. And this, not only in leaving out whole Chapters, and some Entire Treatises, as those before Instanced, which were so Rank, as could not possibly be Screwed to mean any thing short of Barefaced TREASON and REBELLION: But they took care likewise of Words and Expressions that might give Offence, for Example.]  
3. In The Trumpet of Burrough's, before Quoted. p. 7. he Accuses the Officers and Soldiers for Exercising the like Tyranny as the King had done. The same Oppression (says he) and Kingly Power of Cruelty stands in Dominion, under another Appearance. But in his Works reprinted p. 99 the word Kingly is left out.  
4. In a Letter to Oliver, with whom he Rejoiceth, and Congratulats for the Many Victories Honourable and Remarkable, which (says he to OLIVER) were given thee over them who had Exalted themselves above God, [And Ruled in Tyranny over his People; whom the Lord pitied, and thou an Instrument in his Hand, was ordained by him, to lead forth a People, whom he Blessed with thee, against a Cruel People and Generation of Oppressors, who Exercised Tyranny over the Lord's Heritage, till they were taken away, and cast out, and is a Reproach unto the Lord, and his People unto this day; and even so shall all be that follows their Example, and are Oppressors and Tyrants, over the seed of God, as they were] And this thou knowest, etc.  
This Letter is in p. 552. of Burrough's Works reprinted. But all within the Crotchets, in Roman Letters, is left out; which I have Copied out of the First Edition of what he Intitules, Good Council and Advice, Rejected. Printed An. 1659. p. 4. And it bears this Direction, For the hands of the Protector. This Book consists of Letters from Burrough to Oliver and Richard Protectors. And on the Title-Page he says, Put to Public View, by one that wished well to them in their Day. But this is likewise left out in the Re-print.  
There are several other such like Passages of this Book left out in the Reprinting of it, among the Rest of Burrough's Works. As  
5. In p. 17. Where Instigating Oliver against his Enemies, Scattered through all these Nations, who is full of Wrath and Ravening Envy towards thee [Even of those known by the Name of MALIGNANT'S party] in whose hearts to this day there is continual Hatred, and evil surmising lodgeth against thee, and all thy offspring— And not slipping any Advantage how to Revenge themselves, and the Cause of their King. The above words within the Crotchet. viz. Those known by the Name of MALIGNANT'S Party, are left out in p. 559. of Burrough's Works. And the last words in this Quotation. viz. The Cause of their King, are Changed thus, To Promote their Cause.  
6. In the same Page, he says thus to Oliver, of the King, and the Malignants. I know the Lord hath Cursed them, and their Endeavours to this day; and thou hast had Dominion and Power given thee of God, to Bruise them and Break them to Pieces. [And what thou hast done unto their KING, should not be Reckoned against thee by the Lord, if now thou wert faithful to what he Requireth of thee] for because of the Wickedness of that Generation, which was Grown to the full, did the Lord Raise thee up, etc. These words within the Crotchets are left out in his Works. p. 560. Whereby neither King, nor Malignants being Named, the Quakers may have a Latitude to Pretend, when Challenged, That they did not mean Them, but some other Wicked People. Especially they would not Desire to have it known, That they Pronounced Absolution from the Lord to Oliver, for his Murder of the King.  
7. In p. 38. He writes To the Protector's Kindred, his Wife and Children, and says, God gave you the Palace of Princes [And threw out the High and Mighty before you, because of their Wickedness which was Great in the sight of the Lord— Even for that Cause was the Generations of the STEWARTS cast out] And if you walk in the same steps, etc. These words within the Crotchets are left out in p. 569. of Burrough's Works. Tho' in the same above cited p. 38. he says, Remember that you are now Warned from the Lord God, by whom I am moved to Write this unto you, in Dear and Tender Love to you all. What Spirit then was it which moved the after Quakers thus to Diminish and Curtail these Words which Burrough said he was Moved of the Lord to Write?  
8. The following words in p. 64. are left out in p. 580. of his Works. viz. And as concerning the Armies abroad, let Faithful and Just Men that will not seek themselves be put in trust, for the Army is of Great Consequence to thee, to stand or Fall by them, as to Man's account: And the War against Spain be faithful to God in it, and let Trusty Men have Authority, The Lord may Accomplish something by it to his Honour, and to Thine, if thou be Meek and Humble, and Walk with the Lord. And to say no more about it, there is something in it known to the Lord, and he may bring it to pass in his Season.  
The after Quakers left out this Prophetical Admonition; for it was Given to Richard, in the Beginning of his short Protectorship, the 18. of the 8. Month. 1658. And they had Reason to be Ashamed of those Auspicious Hopes, which their Light within had made them Conceive of his very silly Reign. Especially considering, that, according to their wont, they gave forth the above Quoted words to Richard P. in the Name of The Lord, for Immediately after those, these words follow, And thus Friend, according as it lay upon me from the Lord, I have Written this unto thee, in Dear and Pure Love, God is Witness. And yet they have Hypocritically Nibbed This out of the aforesaid Letter, to Hid their Shame. And God is Witness of that too.  
9 There are several other Instances of the like Practice in other Parts of this same Book as in p. 23. where the Quakers Boast to the Protector and his Council of their own Merits, thus, Who have in times past, as faithfully as yourselves, served their Nation, with their Lives and Estates, to the Purchasing of this Peace and Freedom out of the Hands of TYRANTS. But in the Re-print. p. 563. of E. B's Works, instead of the word Tyrants, they put the word Oppressors, that it might not look so Directly upon the Kings, Cham I. and II. but be Turned to any other, as they saw Cause. Tho' it could not properly be Applied to any other. For the Government was in Their Hands, and therefore could not be Purchased out of Other Hands. And therefore They, the Kings, were the Tyrants here meant; at least Principally, and Chief, They having the Chief Part in the Government, and it was against them, that Oliver and the Quakers took Arms.  
10. Again, p. 35. they say to Oliver, in the like strain as that before Quoted to his Son Richard, And as concerning thy War, and Armies abroad in Spain, something there is in it known to the Lord, seek not thine own Honour in it, but be faithful; and leave the Issue of all things to the Lord; Make no Covenant with Idolators, but Tread down their Idol Gods that they have set up; and Hue down their Mountains, in which their Confidence stands; and Blow up their Ground, that the seed may be sown after thee: it's Honour enough, to be the Lord's Ploughman. All this is left out in the Re-print. p. 568. of E. B's. Works. They had conceived mighty Hopes of that Army in Spain. Which they Hollood thus to Shed Blood without Mercy (see Sn. p. 239. what is there Quoted out of this same Book Council and Advice) That they might Sow their Seed, in the Ruin and Destruction of whole Nations. This they then Greedily Gaped for, and Expected. They were sure, Something there was in it, known to the Lord. But the Lord knew, that there was Nothing in it. For Oliver Died about a Month after they had Wrote this Letter to him, which bears Date in the 6. Month. 1658. And was then Delivered to him at Hampton Court, as is told at the end of this Letter p. 36. But their Confidence did not Die with him. One Disappointment is a small matter with a Quaker Prophet! Two Months after, they renewed the same to his Hero Son Richard, as before Quoted, And then they were as sure To say no more about it, That there was something in it! But he failed them too. And now they have Dashed out Both these Prophecies, for Spite, or Shame. Yet they are not Ashamed! However, will say no more about it.  
11. In this same Edw. Burrough his Message to the present Rulers of England. An. 1659. p. 6. these words viz. [He (God) overthrew the oppressing Power of Kings, Lords, and Bishops, both in Church and Civil State: And brought some Tyrants and Oppressors to Just Execution, for their Wickedness] are left out in the Re-print of E. B's Works. p. 591. Yet this Message E. B. said he had from the Lord God, whose Ambassador he styles himself, and says p. 1. In his Name and Authority, I am come unto you. And as such, Affixes an Imprimatur to his Book, in these words, I order this to be Printed, and given to their Particular Hands, with Speed. E. B.  
12. In what he calls A Just and Lawful Trial of the Teachers, and Professed Ministers of England. The Re-print instead of England, put, of this Age, and so in several other places in this Book. And p. 8. where they Reproach other men's Preaching to be, At the best, but what the Saints of the Lord said before them; And this is no more than stealing of the Prophet's words. They seeing how this must Expose them, and make them Stealers too, if they said any thing of what the Saints said before them, in the Re-print they Add to these words thus, And this is no more, AS DON BY THEM, then Stealing, etc. i. e. It is Stealing in Others, but not in the Quakers.  
13. Ibid. p. 9 E. B. says of the Ministers of England, or of this Age, as they now turn it, Most of them are Lovers of Wine, etc. But his new Editors, knowing the Wicked Falsehood of this Charge, and how it must Expose their Boundless Malice, have taken away the word, Most, and put in the Re-print only SOME of them are Lovers of Wine, etc. So that if they can fix this but upon One or Two, they may come off with the word SOME. The like Trick is used in several other Places of this Book. And thus they take upon them to Alter and Mend E. B's Message, which he said he had from The Lord God It is not worth while to make Reprisals upon the numerous Train of Wet-Quakers. That is not the business now.  
14. But if they take from the full Extent of his Message in one Place, they Add to it in another. Speaking of those who Profess themselves to be Orthodox Divines, he says p. 16. They seek to Allure all People to follow them, in their way of Wickedness. But the new Editors of his Works, thinking this not to be Angry enough; instead of their way of Wickedness, put it, their Idol Worship.  
15. Ibid. p. 22. Says E. B. I have accounted, and I find the Sum of their (the Ministers) Maintenance yearly in this Nation, being Reckoned in a whole Sum, is about or above Fifteen hundred Thousand pounds a Year. This was wrote in the year 1657. And the Quakers being sensible how Grossly their Prophet had over-shot himself, to make the Mistake more Easy, in the Re-print, they leave out the words, I have Accounted, and, I find; which being so Positive an Assertion, would Render this Horrible Prophet, a most Impudent Blasphemer, to Father what he knew to be a Lie upon the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost! And to Deliver it as a Message from the Lord God But E. B. goes on to Prove it. ibid. If any doubt of this Account (says he) and shall think this not to be like to be true, upon an even Reckoning it may be Proved and made Appear, considering how many Parishes there is in England, and Reckon what belongs to every Priest's Parish. But this very Reckoning will Prove him to be a Blasphemous Liar, for what was Allotted to every Parish Priest (as he calls them) in England, in the year 1657. will not Amount to near that Sum. Well then, having bethought himself, he after this, in p. 25. Inflames the Reckoning thus. Considering all things, it can come to no less their Funeral Sermons, their Great Tithes, and Small Tithes, and Marriages, and Sprinkling of Infants, and Churching of Women, with other such Penuries claimed by the Priests (in the Re-print, it is changed into the Church) of England, with what is given to them out of the Nations Treasure, which is many Hundreds of pounds a year. Here he confounds the times of the Dissenters, and of the Church of England. For the Dissenters did not use the Churching of Women in 1657. And the Clergy now have not Stipends or Annuities out of the Treasury, as some of the Dissenters had. But put all these together, it will not come near 150000 pounds. Therefore his Editors have endeavoured to help him out, by Adding to what is before Quoted, thus, Also considering how much a year is spent at 2 or 3 Colleges in this Nation, etc. as to bringing up some to Attain to the Ministry, with abundance of such Charges, consumed the Nations Treasure, which is wasted as in Relation to this Ministry spoken of. I do not speak against Good Education and Learning, which is, in its Place, a virtue (as for Travellers, and many others) neither do I account such Money wasted— But only as to the Ministry of Christ, or Enable them thereunto, but that Money which is spent is Wasted— And how much is spent— for such an end only wise Men Judge, which will make up a long Sum in the whole. All this is Inserted in the Re-print. And yet does not help this Lame-Dog over the Style. They may as well Reckon the Charge of Nursing any Child his Parent's design for the Ministry, if he should Prove fit for it: for, on that Condition it is that they send their Children to Schools or Colleges, in order to Qualify them for the Ministry. And to Reckon this a spending the Treasure of the Nation, to Swell the Account: To call the Charges of Education which comes out of Private Pockets, a Burden upon the Nation, is as Ridiculous, as it is over and above Malicious to Account this among the Expenses which the Clergy put the People to. And this must go in to make up Will. Penn's Reckoning, who, in his Guide Mistaken p. 18. Ann. 1668. gives the same Account of the Revenues of the Clergy then, whom he calls Idle Gormondizing Priests of England, who Run away with above 150000 pounds a year, etc. as be fore Quoted. 2 P. p. 34. He comes up last of all with the same Bill. Alt a Mall.  
But this is not the subject I am upon. I am now showing, how the Quakers deal with their Dead Prophets in the Reprinting of their Works. And the Instances Increase so fast upon me, that I will shorten my Labour for the present; because it would make a Volume by itself, to go through with them. And a larger Collection is Ready, if it be thought serviceable. In the mean time, the Reader will, I suppose, be easily Persuaded, from the Taste that is here given out of two or three of their Small Pamphlets wrote by E. Burrough, that their is not one of their Books, which they have Reprinted of their Deceased Friends, that is given to us Truly as they were first Printed. Tho' God knows, they have left enough behind, to make them the Greatest Monsters, that this, or Perhaps any other Age has Produced.  
There are are several Instances scattered in the Sn. of this their Mutilating, Adding, and Altering the Testimonies of their Ancient Friends, to serve New Turns, as p. 216, 217, 218. you will see some Instances in the New Edition of of Howgil's Works. But especially p. 212. there is a Passage Greatly to be noticed, of their Concealing and Leaving out in the New Edition a most Material, Bloody, and Threatening Clause in a Declaration they Published An. 1659. wherein they Assert their Right, even to the Fight with Carnal weapons, and Killing of men's Persons, to Establish their Heirship to Possess the Uttermost parts of the Earth. And that they do Expect the Time to come, tho' they say it is not YET come. This is in p. 8. and 9 of the said Declaration, and left out in the New Edition of Edw. Burrough's Works, p. 603. This is put among his Works, because he was the Penman. And the Declaration ends p. 14. with these words, The substance of this was given forth the Twentieth day of this Tenth Month, being moved of the Lord by His Spirit thereunto, through E. Burrough, and is now Judged Meet to be Published to the Nation, in behalf of Us, and our Friends, under our Hands. GER. ROBERTS. THO. HARTE. GILB. LATYE. JOH. AND ERTON. J. OSGOOD— and others of them to the Number of Fifteen, all whose Names are subscribed. But the Names are left out in the New Edition, together with these last words. viz. And is now Judged Meet to be Published to the Nation, in behalf of Us and our Friends, under our Hands. It was then Meet, in December 1659. when, Tumults in London, the Rump readmitted, and an Abjuration of K. Char. II. and the whole Line of K. James; when there was not settled Government in the Nation, but all things in that Confusion, that it seemed a fit Time for the Quakers to strike in, and Assert their Universal Heirship. But in 1672, when the King was happily Re-Established, and the Kingdom Strengthened in his Hand, than this was to be kept Close, till some other fit Occasion should Offer. The Disclosing of it then, would have given the Government a Just Jealousy of them. Therefore it was stifled at that time, in the New Edition of E. B's Works. And instead thereof, the Quakers Printed Declarations full of Loyalty and Affection to the King, and Renouncing the Principle of taking to the Carnal Sword, upon any Pretence whatsoever, as shown in Sn. p. 224. 227. and 229.  
In the Re-Print of the said Declaration, there are several other things Left out, and Altered, according to the Times, as in p. 4. 7. 12. etc. the words Kings and Tyrants are left out in their Rail. And other such like Amendments.  
The 15 Instances which are before related of the Quakers new Coining, Adding to, and Diminishing from the Works of their Ancient Friends, are all taken out of two or three small Pamphlets only of Edw. Burrough, which came to my hands. Judge then what a Volume it would make, if we had the First Editions of that Great Folio of his Works which is reprinted, to Compare all the Alterations they have made in them. And so in the Many and Large Volumes of the Works of their other Prophets which they have reprinted! Of which I will give but an Instance in two or three, and so Leave them, for this time.  
1. In Sn. p. 113. there is a Notorious Instance of this Forgery of the Quakers, in the Journal of G. Fox. I will add one more here. In a Book of his, and other Quakers, called The West answering to the North. Printed. An. 1657. p. 16. there is a Long Letter to Chief Justice Glynn, which gins thus, Friend, we are Freemen of England, Freeborn; our Rights and Liberties in and with our Countries, with the Laws, the Defence of them, have we in the Late Wars, Vindicated in the Field with our Blood. Which in the Journal is Altered thus. Friend; We are Freemen of England, Freeborn, Our Rights and Liberties are according to Law, and aught to be Defended by it. Leaving out that Ugly Passage, The Defence of them, have we, in the Late Wars, Vindicated in the Field with our Blood. For this they have now a Mind should be Forgotten. Both as to their Pretended Principle against Fight: And also, their Siding with the then Usurpations against the King. Whereas they say, in p. 14. of their Declaration just now Mentioned, We have been Silent, and not Meddling with this Party or the other, but by way of Reproof of evil in All, and Informing all to the Good; And it cannot be Charged upon us, that we have sided with One or other. But in the 9th Instance before Mentioned, they made their brags, That they had served, with their Lives and Estates, as Faithfully as the Protector Oliver himself and his Council, to the Purchasing that Peace and Freedom (An. 1657.) out of the Hands of TYRANTS. i e. of K. Char. I. and II. Of their Siding, and Meddling to Purpose against the King, with all the Usurpations in their time, see sufficient Testimonies in Sn. §. xviii. And which in their new Switches they do not Deny, nor Justify themselves any otherwise than by Endeavouring to cast as Black Aspersions upon the King himself Char. II. And of their Silence you may Judge by that Paper which they have stifled of Ed. Burrough's which I have Printed in the 1st. of the 15 Instances, besides many others that can be Produced, wherein they Damn the King and Caviliers to the Pit of Hell. See Sn. p. 216. and p. 228. of their Giving Intelligence against Sir George Booth, and other Royalists who Risen for the King; And Commanding, in the Name of the Lord, to put such of them to Death, as they had taken Prisoners. And to stand out to the Uttermost, against the King, and think of No Reconciliation with him.  
2. In the year 1659. One of the Quakers Great Apostles, Richard Hubberthorn wrote an Answer to A Declaration of the Ana-Baptists in London, wherein they Owned it as their Principle, That they were Willing to Live peaceably Under whatever Government is, or shall be Established in the Nation. This the Quakers then did violently Oppose, as a Poor, Time-serving, and Pernicious Principle, tho' of Late, they Pretend, That it is their own Principle, and that they do, Now, Govern themselves by it; And Promise so to do. But then, they fell upon the Ana-Baptists, and said, This is far below that Spirit which was once in some of you in that Profession: for you told of having the Laws regulated according to the Scriptures; And of having Judges as at the first, and Councillors as at the beginning: And then not to submit to what Government soever, but that which is according to Equity and Justice. And what do you bear Arms, and Fight for, if not for a Government according to Truth, and that Righteousness may Establish the Nation? Some have Judged this to be the very Design and End of the War and Controversy against many that were called Governors and Magistrates, and were by some called the Ordinance of God, and the Higher Power: And if now you Resolve to live Peaceably, and submit to whatever Government shall be Established, than your Fight is at an End: And if Charles Stuart shall come in, and Establish Popery, and Govern by Tyranny, you have begged Pardon, by Promising to live Peaceably under it, as the Ordinance of God. etc.  
But this smelling so Rank, in the Reprinting of Hubberthorn's Works An. 1663. they leave out the words Charles Stuart, And instead of that, they put it thus, And if any Shall Come in and Establish Popery etc.  
That Principle for the Breach of which they Charge the Ana-Baptists, was not Peculiar to the Ana-Baptists, nor any thing wherein they Differed from the Quakers; for it is mostly in the Quakers own words. But it was the Joint Principle of all these several sorts of Rebels, and is, and ever will be the Pretence of all Rebels, to Reform, and Change for the Better. And to this, that Principle of Submitting to whatever Government is Established, is most Adverse. And for which the Quakers did, at that time, Upbraid this Pretence of the Ana-Baptists. As sincere, perhaps, in the Ana-Baptists then, as it is in the Quakers now. For the Quakers Principle of Obedience to the Higher Powers; And what they mean by the Higher Power, I Refer backward to 2. P. p. 172, 173. etc.  
3. Humphrey Smith a Notable Quaker Printed a Book An. 1658. Entitled, The True and Everlasting Rule from God. Published from the Spirit of Truth. Where p. 48. he says, Where are Queen Mary 's Judges and Bloody Persecutors? Where are King Charles 's Nobles— and his Vnmerciful Tyrants, who sought to Drive down all by their Devilish Power, who were as High in Tyranny— as any of you— Where are your Cardinals, Jesuits, and Monks? Where are your Bishops, Arch-Bishops, Deans, and Deacons, your Abbots, Nunneries, and Bishoprics, Altars, Crosses, Surplices, and Common-Prayer-Books, your Rails about your Tables, Organs, Choristers, and Singing-Boys? Even as your Eyes have seen the Overturning of all these, so shall the Offspring and Residue follow after, and the Priests howl. etc.  
But in the Reprinting of this Man's Works after the Restoration, All that concerning King Charles, his Nobles, Tyranny, etc. And all concerning the Church of England, then Established, of Bishops, Deans, Common-Prayer, Surplices, Organs, etc. are left quite out. Tho' said to be Published from the Spirit of Truth! But the Spirit of Convenience, and Worldly Politics has Prevailed.  
I have given but one Instance, a piece, in the reprinted Works of Fox, Hubberthorn, and Smith, because I would keep within Limits, this having swelled so much already. And if I should go through all, it would take up more Paper than all that I have Written.  
But we would Desire them more Particularly to Produce two Tracts they have taken care to stifle; one is a Piece of Parnell's called Satan's Designs, mentioned 2 P. p. 106. The other of Lawson's mentioned ibid. p. 108.  
And now the Reason appears Plain, Why the Quakers are so Diligent in keeping up the First Editions of their Friends Books. That none might be seen, but as they have New-Drest and Vaumpt them. Their Booksellers have Refused to Sell them, or so much as Show them to several that I have Employed. Particularly W. Penn's Sandy Foundation. And where one I sent had found Six of them, over night; next day, when I sent for them, not one of them was to be had. When he is Dead, that too must pass the Index Expurgatorius, with the Rest of his Works. If Quakerism be not out of Fashion before that time; which I Hope he may Live to see.  
If they would Call in, or Commit to the Flames all their Old Editions, I should be very well Pleased to Rake no More into them; But let them and their Heresies Die together. And let the Present Quakers slide Gently from their Errors, without the Shame of Recanting. For it is their Conversion, not Victory over them that we seek.  
But when these Old Quaker Books, are still kept as Sacred Relics by the Generality of the Ignorant and Besotted Quakers. And their Now Governing and Subtle Teachers, in all the Apologies they have, of Late, Published, still Pretend to stand by, and Confirm All the Testimonies and Writings of their Ancient Friends, and that In all the Parts of them: And that they are thus Enjoined by the Yearly Epistle of their General Council, as supposing them all Infallible, and Dictated by the Immediate Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, as they Horridly Pretend (yet are not Afraid to Alter, Correct, and Amend them!) It becomes Necessary, and our Duty to Search out, and Expose them. That being the Most Likely Means to Open those Eyes, which are not Sealed up, to their own Destruction.  
And now, let others think, That if the Figure of Quakerism be so Abhorrent, even as Represented to Us, in their reprinted, and Corrected Books; How ten times more Deformed and Frightful it would Appear, if taken off their first Rude Draught, if their Original Books were Exposed to Public view; if the Public would take some Method, to have them Collected, and Reserved in some safe Place, till there should be no Longer Use for them, but what they first Deserved, the Animadversion of the Hangman, and a Faggot.  
In the mean time, Let the more sober among the Quakers Reflect how the Words of their Prophets give a Certain sound (as Boasted in the Title-Page of BVRROVGH's Trumpet before Quoted) when they are Chopped and Changed, as we have seen, and made Speak the Language of Every Turn, tho' in Direct Opposition to one Another! And if their Words are the Immediate Dictates of the Holy-Ghost (as they Blasphemously Pretend) then must the Curse of Adding to, or Diminishing from the Word of God Light upon those, who have Added, or Substracted, or Altered any thing in Any of these Quaker-writing: Which Curse they May Read in the Book of Rev. xxii. 18, 19 To have their Part taken away out of the Book of Life, and out of the Holy City, and from the things which are written in this Book: And to have the Plagues which are written in this Book added unto them. This they must take to Themselves; or else Confess, as the Truth is, That the Words of these Quaker-Prophets were not Wrote from the Spirit of God: And if so, then because they do Pretend to be so Written, they must be Acknowleged to have been Wrote by the Spirit of Blasphemy, that is, the Devil. And that this is the Spirit which has Possessed these QUAKERS.   

To Sir Thomas Lane, Lord Mayor of London.  
HAving been Lately Summoned before Thee, by Dr. Linford and Marmaduke Hopkins, who are more Diligent to seek thy Warrant to take Our Goods, than to seek us; thereby showing, That it's Ours more than We they desire and Love: Which to us shows, That they have no more Right to esteem themselves Ministers of Christ, than as such to take Tyths, or Plead for them; For Christ said to his Ministers, freely ye have received freely Give. He did not Advise nor Teach, That if any would not Give they should take from them whether they would or nay.  
Therefore Consider whether such (who take by force) abide in or transgress the Doctrine of Christ. If they Transgress, as certainly they Do, who abide not in his Doctrine, Then his Apostle declares their Condition. 2. John. 9  
And we Entreat thee Mayor seriously consider how he either bids God speed to such, or assists them in such a Work; For, Thou, and All must receive a Reward from the hand of the Righteous God, According to your Works.  
We have also herewith sent a small Collection out of the Book of Martyrs Fol. 669.670. To show that the Priests have no Right to Tithes, and that it was anciently so Testified by other Conscientious men besides us, and made an Article against them, as well as it is against us, Read and consider the following Collection is the Request of us who are Sincere Well wishers to the Mayor and All men, and truly desire that We nor any Other may Do that here that we cannot Answer hereafter in the Great Day of Account.  


John Feild.  
Will. Bingley.    
The Collection.  
IN the New Law neither Christ nor any of his Apostles took Tithes of the People, nor Commanded the People to pay Tithes, neither to Priests nor Deacons.  
But in the 1000 year of Our Lord 211. One Pope Gregory the 10th. Ordained Tithes First to be Given to Priests.  
Again, Paul saith, He was not Chargeable unto them but with his hands got his Own Living. It were Good Council That all Priests took Good heed to the Heavenly Learning of Paul, not Charging the People for their Bodily Livelihood. And Paul saith since the Priesthood is Changed its necessary a Change also be made of the Law, so that Priests Live without Tithes— For the Priests that Challenge Tithes say in effect, That Christ is not become Man, nor that he Suffered Death for man's Love.  
Again, the Taking of Tithes and of such other Duties that Priests Challenge now wrongfully neither Christ nor his Apostles Challenged nor took such Duties, Therefore these taking of Priests now, are to be called and holden The slanderous Covetousness, and because of the Covetousness of Priests and Pride, it stirreth God to take Vengeance both upon Lords and Commons which Suffer Priests Charitably.  
This is Verbatim according to the Original Letter, which I have in my Possession. The Collection added out of Fox's Martyrs, is not, as here set down, But gathered out of several places of the Answers of one Will. Thorp, an Ignorant Zealous Man, but no Martyr, in the Reign of Hen. 4. I would not Mend any of the words, to make sense of them (as In the 1000 year of our Lord 211.) but give them just as Quoted by the Quakers: Who took what was for their Purpose. 1. To make Tithes to be Antichristian, as being a Denial of Christ's having Come in the Flesh. 2 That the Clergy are not to be supported, Nor so much as God Speed be given to them. 3 That the Vengeance of God is upon both Lords and Commons, who suffer Priests, Charitably. The Arguments of the Quakers against Tithes, I have Promised to Consider in a Treatise by itself. But I have Printed this Letter of theirs, to show what Moderation they now, at this time of Day, have put on towards our Clergy: And do their utmost to stir up the Civil Power against them; Even to Destroy them, And not to Suffer them, tho' Charitably. This was in the Year 1695, when Sir Thomas Lane was Lord Mayor of London.   

In the Post-Man. 14 January 1699. The Quakers have Published the following Paragraph.  
WHereas there have been several Fabulous Accounts in the Post Boy, concerning a dispute at West Deerham in Norfolk, between some of the Clergy of the C. of E. and some Quakers, which by reason of its partiality the Quakers were willing Charitably to suppose the said Clergy were not the Authors of. Since which there is a larger account called the Quakers Challenge made to the Norfolk Clergy, which, although far from an impartial relation, yet in it may be seen, (notwithstanding the Title) that the Quakers were not first in the Challenge, but Defendants to the Clergys' Charge of Blasphemy, etc. taken (as they say) out of their Ancient Writings; which the Quakers offered to meet them upon, provided they might have a Copy of their Charge, Author's Names, Titles, and pages of such Books, with convenient time to prepare their Defence, which was denied them, although timely demanded; and at the said meeting was insisted upon; and again pressed thereto; THE QUAKERS NOT QUESTIONING BUT TO ACQUIT THEIR ANCIENT FRIENDS AND THEIR WRITINGS FROM THOSE BLACK CHARGES, NOT BEING CONSCIOUS OF DEVIATING IN ANY ONE POINT OF DOCTRINE, FROM WHAT THEY FIRST HELD. And that no people have a greater detestation of the Sin of Blasphemy against God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Scriptures than they; and one of the said Clergy was heard to say that he believed the Quakers of this Generation to be Orthodox.  
N. B. This has been fully Answered by the Norfolk Clergymen. I insert it here only to show, That the Quakers Adhere still to All the Blasphemies, Errors, and Heresies that can be found in Any of their Ancient Writings. For which Purpose it is Referred to in the foregoing Sheets.   


A DECLARATION Against Wigs or Periwigs.  Phil. 3.3. Jer. 22.24. Wigs not Peri-wigs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [Peri] in composition signifies [Excellency,] as well as [about] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excellent cut, as well as cut about. 
SEveral Testimonies having been given by Friends against Pride in Apparel relating to Women; 'tis considerable whether Women being reflected on may not reasonably reflect on Men, their artificial frizzled Hair; for women's Hairs on men's Heads swarm like one of Egypt's Plagues, and creep in too much upon and among Christians. And a Nehemiah is desirable, that might pluck off this strange Hair of strange Women lusted after, Nehem. 13.25. And the Heathen may rise up against us; for an Ambassador coming before a Senate with false Hair, a Grave Senator said, What credit is to be had to him whose very Locks do lie? And if upon necessity the Locks of any amongst us do lie, 'tis fit they should lie to purpose, viz. so as not to be discerned from native Locks: For to seek to deceive, so as to be perceived, argues as much want of Wit as of Sincerity; and a want of an endeavour in it not to be perceived, argues a want of Humility and Moderation.  
Isocrates, a Famous, Wise, Virtuous Grecian, seeing his Neighbour wear his Hair of another colour than Natural, because in Fashion, gave this ironical excuse for him, viz. That it was lest any should ask Council of him; intimating that none should seek Wisdom in so Fantastical a Head.  
Philip King of Macedon, put a Courtier of his out of his Office, because he wore Hair of another colour than Natural; saying, He would not be true to the Public, that was treacherous to his own Hairs.  
And the Emperor Titus thrust one from him, because he smelled of Perfume, saying, He had rather he had smelled of Garlic; and denied him his Suit.  
Plato, in the Tyrant Dionysius' Court, said, He would not wear women's Attire. Then,  
What wonder Women wear Gay Gold and Pearls,  
When Men Religious wear Gold Locks of Girls?  
Should Christian Guides affect a Whorish Guise,  
Which Heathen tempt by Tyrant did dispize?  
I have read in our Chronicles (I think it was about the twelfth Age) that the Clergy wore Periwigs of a light Colour, as our Priests and others do now; though I have heard that of late the Bishop of Exeter, censured his Priests, in his Visitation, for wearing them.  
The Physician is but a course Covering, as if wearing of Gold and shaving of Heads were Wholesome: This pretence for Pride, is no better than that which is for Drunkenness and Whoredom; for they will say, 'Tis Physic to be Drunk once a Month: And Oxford Scholars had half a Crown a Month allowed to go to a Whore, ad purgandos renes. But the Protestants of Bohemia disputing at the Council of Basil, about Fifty Days on Four Questions, one of them was, That no Sin should be Tolerated to prevent a greater: Then much less to prevent a bodily Infirmity, which may be done by other lawful means, and not by working Confusion in wearing women's Cover, Deut. 22.5. 1 Cor. 11.15. Some say, Shaving is to prevent the Pox; Small honour to Wigwearers to incur such a suspicion of it, or of any Infirmity or Defect. If Heat cause Headache, sure a Wig under a Hat is not a means to cure it. The Prophet Elisha likely had neither, when Bethel Boys cried, A bald Head. Polling of Heads came first in Fashion, by occasion of the Emperor Charles the Fifth, his being troubled with the Headache; whose Example all his Court followed, and all Europe theirs; (see ye the force of Example, and the abuse of it) yet they wore no Wigs: Insomuch, that a Ruffian with long Hair, meeting Earl Cromwell, and excusing himself that he had a Vow for it, the Earl told him, He should lie in Prison till 'twas ended. One would think, that they that have for wearing Wigs the most excuse, should have most care to stop the abuse coming by Example that it may not produce the taking of an Ell, through the allowance of an Inch; and that they should stir up Sober, Virtuous People to take notice how far they that wear them are necessitated thereto; and if so, what Modesty they used therein. This as cold Water to dash them, expects something a coming hotter than a Crisping-Iron to burn them.  
John Milliner, a Friend about Northampton, a Wig-Maker, left off his Trade, and was made to burn one in his Prentice's sight, and Print against it. John Hall, a Gentleman of Northumberland, being Convinced, sitting at a Meeting, was shaken by the Lord's Power, plucked off, and threw down his Wig; so 'tis considerable whether care may not be taken, that conceited counterfeit Calvinists may not continue amongst us, 
Calvus bald.  nor that any of the People of God make themselves bald for Pride now, as they did of old for Sorrow, Levit. 21.5.  
Objection, Wigs may be worn not only for Use, but Ornament.  
Answer, It appears very opposite to the Apostles Doctrine, and also their Practice; for not only the Apostle James, James 2.2. reproves respect to gay Clothing in general, (and is not Gay Clothing to gain Respect, as Modest is to avoid Contempt) but also in particular, the Apostles Peter and Paul forbade ornament of plaited Hair, 
1 Pet. 3 3. 1 Tim. 2.9. Vulgar tortis. Lucian, Clemens, Chrysostom.  (as ours translate, Crisped or Curled as others) and the Ancients writ, that they both had Bald-Heads; and if they should have covered them with women's Hair, would they not have retorted, Was that the Cause, Peter and Paul, that you bade us leave off our Locks, that you, and such like, might get them yourselves, to make Peri-wigs of? Can any Christian believe, that Peter and Paul would run into such an absurdity? who 'tis very probable, restrained Women, not Men, expressly as needless. Solon, a Wise, Virtuous Lawgiver, made none against Parricide, as not to be supposed. It was a shame then, for Men to have long Hair naturally like Women, among the Greeks and Romans too: For Julius Caesar, as I remember, was by his Foes called scornfully [Puer comatus] Long haired Lad, viz. in effect, a Lass. Was it then likely they would wear long Wigs of Lasses Hair for an Ornament? Woodland a Martyr, a Deacon, taunted by a Persecuting Bishop (for his stocked Hose) saying, He was decked like a Deacon, answered, More like a Deacon, than thou like an Apostle. True, For if Deacons Wives must be Grave and Sober, and their Ornament not outward but inward, much rather the Deacons, and then much more Bishops. And most Apostles, whom Christ sent forth with Sandals, a single Coat, etc. Math. 10.10. whose Examples the famousest Primitive Christians followed. Origen went in a plain Coat, bare Footed, and that too before the Emperor, who yet admired his Majesty. Tertullian left off the Gown, and took the plain Coat, for which he wrote a Book Depallio. Clemens wore a White Coat, and writes in defence thereof. So did John Huss the Martyr, the eminentest Preacher in Bohemia, and bequeathed his White Coat to one, his Grey Coat to another; not his White Wig to one, his Brown Wig to another. He suffered for opposing Preachers Pride.  
It remains to show, That 'tis not an Ornament, but a Deformity, more than that it would Cover, as if it were not in Fashion would appear, even to the simple natural Eye. The Americans seeing one, Captain Morley, take off his Wig, cried he had two Heads. And 'twere apt to affright a Child unused to it, like the horrid and hideous Head of a Snake-hair-twisted Gorgon, or cristed Bellona; as Homer says Hector did his Son with his Horse-maned Helmet. And who can refrain to fall into a Poetical Vein, and Paint it out in such sad Colours, that it may look as ugly as it doth: For a glorying in a Shame, as an Ornament, sharpens a Pen to describe it to make it appear as it is. Difficile est satyram non scribere.  

Metamorphoses.  
The manner of this Age unmannerly  
Is, Man unmaning, women's hair to buy,  
Dub Poles and Joles Dame Venus' Knights to be,  
Smock-Coat and Petticoat Breech their Livery,  
Scarce Manlike Faced, though Woman like in Hair,  
As sting-tailed Locusts in the Vision were,  
As of Hyena's kind, Hermaphrodites,  
Or as abused Italian Catamites;  
And like unto the Phrygian Ganymede,  
Or as Tiresias Femalized indeed,  
Or one that (sigh he would a Woman be)  
Put Period to Assyrian Monarchy.  
Hair in a Night turned hue, of Old 'twas said,  
An Old Man Young, a Boy a Girl was made;  
Elders so now transformed to Girls appear,  
And Girls to Boys by their short curtailed Hair.  
By Bulls some seem i'th' twilight turned to Owls,  
As Antique Harpies or some new Night Fowls,  
As charming Sirens (bate their ugly Hair)  
Having their Arms, Necks, Breasts, Backs, Shoulders bare,  
Nay for their Knights rich Garters some prepare.   
Richard Richardson.   
I have not Mended any of the Spelling or other Blunders, as Depallio for de Pallio etc. As in the foregoing Letter to Sir Thom. Lane N. V p. 80. slanderous for Slanderous But I give it you in pure. Quaker Orthography, Points, Spelling and all.   

The Excommunication of Will. Wilkins, for Marrying one who was not a Quaker: And for being Married by a Clergyman.  
From our Quarterly Meeting held at Dorchester, the 15th of the 5th Month, 1696.  
WHereas William Wilkins of Vplime in the County of Devon Cloathier, have for a long time frequented the Meetings of the People called Quakers, and made profession of the holy truth (and been some time a Sufferer in Testimony thereof) which as believed in is sufficient to cleanse the heart, purge the Conscience, and preserve out of the evil of the world, but of late the said William for want of watchfulness in the pure Light of Christ have let in a contrary Spirit, by which his mind is drawn aside from the way of the Lord, so far as to join himself in Marriage with one who do not profess the same way and truth with us, and thereby is become unequally yoked, and also Married by a Priest contrary to the practice of God's people in all Ages, for we do not find in all the holy Scriptures the Priests in time of the Law or Ministers of the Gospel ever Married people; and altho' we are far from judging all the Marriages of other people to be unlawful, yet for any of us whom the Lord hath separated from the world (its ways customs and Traditions that are vain) to return thither again for the sake of a Wife, Husband or any other advantage, is no less than turning with the Dog to his vomit, and with the Sow that was washed to her wallowing again in the mire— And notwithstanding the said W. W. have been often in the love of God visited and in much tenderness warned to avoid going into the aforesaid practice, as being persuaded it would prove to his hurt and loss, yet he have very wilfully and obstinately slighted the love of God, and good counsel of his Friends, and followed the counsel of his own evil heart, and is backsliden from the way of the holy truth he have long made profession off, by which he hath excluded himself from the fellowship of the Gospel and those that walk therein.  
And therefore for the clearing of the blessed truth and our holy profession, we do hereby Testify and declare that the said William Wilkins is departed from the truth, and is gone into the Spirit of the World; and therefore we do not own him, nor can we have fellowship with him (altho' he may frequent our Religious Meetings) until he shall publicly condemn his evil practice and unfeignedly repent of the same (if he can find a place) which is truly desired by us who are grieved, and our hearts saddened (whom the Lord hath not made so) at the hearing of this or any disorderly walking by any professing the holy truth.  
Signed by appointment and on behalf of the said Meeting, By Daniel Taylor.  
The Quaker Discipline goes on, (like the Roman) to Deny what they call Christian Burial to those who Die not in their Unity. And they have Refused to those Quakers who had some Differences with their Church, or Governing Part, the Privilege of Burying their Children in their Burying Ground, tho' they had been Contributors towards the Purchase of it. Of which I could give several Instances, But for the Present shall Name only one, because Part of the Cause was having been Married by one of our Clergy. And I will give it in the words of an Account of it sent to me, from a Quaker who will make it good, if Denied; But I set not his Name, to Avoid the Now Vngovernable Malice of the Quakers.  THomas Bradly of the Parish of St. Olives Southwark Bodice-maker, died the 25th of October 1693. and that day upon his Deathbed, desired that he might be interred in the Park Burying ground, where he had buried a Wife and Seven Children; he requested of those called Quakers that visited him that day while his senses Remained, that he might be buried there i e. in the Quakers Burying ground. The next day following being the 26th, his Daughter Eliz. Bradly desired a Friend to go with her to have the Ground granted, (for her Father) and accordingly one went with her to James Braithwaite one entrusted by the Quakers, to grant the Ground, but his Answer was he could not do it: And the said James Braithwaite went with Eliz. Bradly and the Friend aforesaid to Hen. Snooke another entrusted for the same purpose, who also said he could not, nor would not i e. give the Ground, notwithstanding the said Tho. B. so earnestly desired it upon his death Bed. And when an answer was demanded of J. B. and H. Snooke whether they would give it or not? The said J. Braithwaite answered, They could not do it, by Reason he was at a Twofold distance from them, First as belonging to a separate Meeting (by him so called) Secondly by Reason he was some years past Married by a Priest. And withal shifted Eliz. Bradly off, by sending of her to Walter Miers and William Chandler for to ask them: who also Denied it, saying there was the Artillery nearer, so they would not give it, this is in short a true Relation of there Unchristian behaviour in Denying of the said Tho. Bradly his desire. 
Thus that Account sent to Me.  FAS EST AB HOSTE DOCERI.