SATAN Disrobed From his Disguise of Light: OR, The Quakers Last Shift to Cover their Monstrous Heresies, Laid Fully open.  
IN A REPLY TO Thomas Ellwood 's ANSWER (Published the End of Last Month) TO George Keith's NARRATIVE OF THE Proceed at Turners-Hall, June 11. 1696.  
Which also may serve for a REPLY (as to the main Points of Doctrine) to GEO. WHITEHEAD's Answer to The Snake in the Grass; to be published the End of next Month, if this prevent it not.  
By the Author of The Snake in the Grass.  They shall make their own Tongue to fall upon themselves: All that see them shall flee away, Psal. LXIV. 8. 
LONDON: Printed for C. Brome at the Gun near the West End of St. Paul's; W. Keblewhite at the Swan in St. Paul's Churchyard; and H. Hindmarsh at the Golden Ball over-against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill. 1697.   

TO THE READER.  
1. THis Reply is short in Comparison of the Answer▪ which consists of 232 pages. Yet I think is Full, as having omitted nothing that is material.  
2. I have undertaken this Task, neither out of Pique or Favour to either of the Parties herein Engaged; but only so far as the Christian Religion is concerned between them. And therefore (as I have Cautioned, Sect. I. Num. VII.) This is not meant as a Defence of Geo. Keith, any further than he Defends the Truth of the Christian Faith. For which Reason I have wholly omitted All the Personal Reflections cast upon him; and the Contradictions which Tho. Ellwood pretends to find in his former Books (while he was a Quaker of their Communion) to the Doctrines which he now sets up in Opposition to them. For since he has in his Narrative, acknowledged some Errors in his former Books, and promised a Retractation of them; we may have Patience till we see what those Errors are which he will confess. In the mean time we must acknowledge, That he having had an Academic Education, and more Learning than is ordinary among the Quakers, has, by the blessing of God, Improved it to so good Purpose, as to discover those very gross Errors among them, which till of late, lay hidden from the Eyes of the World.  
3. Those Errors in their Faith and Doctrine, which I have setdown in The Snake in the Grass, I have taken out of their most Approved Books, especially of George Fox, the Head and Founder of their Order. And I have been very Punctual in my Quotations; Else I should have heard of it before this time.  
Now this Answer of T. Ellwood's, though it be not to The Snake, yet it is to the Chief Heresies therein objected. And this being the Defence they have to make, if it prove Sophistical, Evasive and Unsound (for which I Rej●r to what follows) this will wind up the Controversy, and leave to Room to the Quakers but only for Repentance, and a Fu●l and Free Acknowledgement of their Errors, which have kept ●●em so long Divided from the whole Catholic Church, to the Dreadful Peril of their Souls.  
I wish from my Heart that this may be the Answer they will Return. But if otherwise, I hope they will not take so long time to do it as in Answering The Snake.  
And I desire that they may not Count mean Enemy because I tell them the Truth.   

ERRATA.  
PAg. 15. l. 7. for Yes r. No, p. 17. l. 2. r. as to, p. 24. l. 16. r. Adversary, p. 33. ante penult, r. Father, p 45. l. 1. r. a Son is, p. 47. l. 13. deal shid, and instead of it, r. So was not Christ's Sacrifice completed by his Death but by His Blood afterwards shed, p. 48. l. 12. for T. G's. r. T. Is.  
In the Glean. Pag. 8. l. 21. r. he Proved, p. 12. l. 3. for Piously, r. Impiously.   

A FULL REPLY to Thomas Ellwood's Answer, etc.  

Section 1.  
1. THat which makes this Reply so short, is, only by cutting off the Frivolous and Impertinent Digressions, by which T. E. seeks either to ●ire or Divert the Reader from the main stress of the Contest betwixt G. K. and the other Quakers, which is their Heretical and Blasphemous Doctrines: And this will make my Reply the more Full for being so Short; by letting the Reader have a fair View of the Controversy, without Interruption or Confusion.  
He spends the first 23 pages in Excusing their not coming to Defend themselves at Turners-Hall, as p. 11. because of The King's absence. Want of Trade. Scarcity of Current Money. 
Reply to the first 23 pages.  Which might have occasioned a Mobb, etc. And p. 20. That G. K. did not give Notice what Weapon he intended to use, and of what Length, that they might have provided themselves accordingly. i.e. That he did not, in the short Advertisement, of half a Sheet, which he printed to give Notice of that Meeting, set down all the Books and Quotations which he intended to produce against them.  
II. But, to come to the Business, T.E. p. 26. Justifies this Reasoning of George Whitehead's. Who ca●ls it Non sense, to tell of God being Co-Creator with the Father, or that God had Glory with God. D●es not this imply into Gods, and that God had a Father? Let the Reader judge, says he. Now T. E. would makes us believe that G. W. in all this, Quarrelled only with the Particle Co, which signifies with, viz. That, the Word was Creator jointly with the Father.  
Answ. 1. Then, by this, T. E. yields that G. W. did not believe that the Word was a 〈◊〉 with the Father. 2 This is the very Language of Scripture, John 1.1. The Word was with God, and that All things were made by Hug. 3. It is G. W ●s own Language, as quoted by T. E. p. 32. The Word, in the Beginning and with the Father, in His Glory before the world began. Therefore G. W. found no Fault with the Particle Co, o● with, because he uses it himself 4. G. W. ●s Reasoning proceeds further than the Particle Co, for he argues, that God, that is, the Word, could not have a Father; and that this would imply Two God's. p. 27. T. E. quotes G. W. saying a●ain, To tell of the word God, Co Creator with the Father, is all one as to tell of God being Co-Creator with God, if the Father be God; and this is to make Two Gods, Two Creators, etc. By which it is undeniable that he did not allow the Word to be God, or to have a Father.  
T. E. after this, quotes several Passages out of other Books of G. W's owning the Divinity of Christ. But these (if sincerely meant) are no Explanation, but a Flat Contradiction to this. Therefore, let these Quakers Detract their Heresies and Blasphemies, that is all that is desired of them.  
But, in the next place, it would be enquired what they mean by ascribing Divinity to Christ, or the Word. This is the Way to Reconcile these Contradictions. And, intruth, I cannot find that they mean, by it, any Distinction from the Father, otherwise than as the Sabellians held, a Distinct Operation or Manifestation of the Father. Christ is not Distinct from the Father, says George Fox, and They (the Father, Son, 
Great Mystery, p. 242. 293.  and Holy Ghost) are not Distinct. And he opposes Chr. Wade for saying, that God the Father never took upon him Humane Nature (but the Son, 
pag. 246.  as Chr. Wade words it) and quotes against it, that Text where Christ is called The Everlasting Father. So that herein they join with those Old Heretics the Patripassians, and with Muggleton, who say, that it was God the Father who was Incarnate and Dyed. And they cannot think otherwise, if they believe the Word to be nothing else but a Distinct Operation or Manifestation of the Father, and so but Nominally Different from Him; as some of them do express it; for an Operation or Manifestation can neither be Incarnate or Dye.  
III. The next Heresy of G. W's and the Quakers, which T.E. defends, is that against the Incarnation of Christ, in making Christ or the Word to have assumed an Humane Body, only as a Veil or a Garment, wherein He Dwelled for a time, as Angels, when they appeared in Bodies; but Deny (with the Socinians) that He really became a Man, by taking our Nature into His own Person; and therefore say that He had not an Humane Soul, tho' He dwelled in an Humane Body. For this G. K. produced this passage out of a Book of G. W's, which T. E. owns, and Repeats p. 33. viZ. If the Body and Soul of the Son of God were, Both, Created, doth not this render him a Fourth Person? In excuse of this, T. E. supposes that he, in answer to whom G. W. wrote this (one T. Danson, a Presbyterian Preacher) did hold that Christ had a Created Soul from Eternity: and upon that Supposition, that G. W. brought this as an Absurdity following from Danson's Position; that this would infer a Fourth Person in the Divinity. Now this is so gross a Prevarication, that not only no Presbyterian, but no Christian, ever held that Christ's created Soul was from Eternity: It is a Contradiction; for if it was created, it could not be from Eternity. And therefore such a Pretence as this, is downright pleading Guilty. But shows the true Quaker Doctrine, that Christ had no Human Soul; and consequently that He was not truly a Man. For proof of which, this Quotation of G: K's was most Pertinent; and T. Is Answer confirms it much more.  
IV. G. K. brought another Proof to show, that G. W. does not acknowledge that Christ has now the Body of a Man; or will come in that Body, to Judge the World. T. E. repeats the Words of G. W. p. 37. Dost thou look for Christ as he was Son of Mary, to appear outwardly, in a Bodily Existence to save thee? if thou dost, thou mayst look until thy Eyes drop out, before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him. This George Whitehead wrote against one Robert Gordon; and says T. Ellwood, pag 38. If he be Dead, his Eyes may be already dropped out, without seeing it. This was spoke like Merry Andrew. Why? did Robert Gordon pretend that the Last Judgement should come before he Died? was that the Dispute betwixt him and G. W? No. Their Dispute was concerning Christ's coming, in His Human Body, to the Last Judgement; and T. E. does not pretend to the Contrary. And therefore this Childish put off, as it is an Affront to his Readers, so is it a Total yielding up the Cause; and that in the most Shameful Manner. As is his other Excuse, that that coming to Judgement was not to save us; for the Contest was not for what End He came; But whether He would come or not? None ever said, that the Saints were not saved, that is, justified, and in Bliss, before the Day of Judgements yet the Full and Complete Consummation of their Bliss, in the Reunion of Soul and Body, and Perfect Happiness, will not be till then; which is the Ultimate and Complete Salvation.  
V The next Quotation out of G. W's Books, is p. 39 in these words, And that he (Christ) existeth outwardly Bodily, without us, at God's Right hand: what Scripture-proof hath he for these Words? and then what and where is God's Right hand? Is it Visible or Invisible? within us, or without us only? And is Christ the Saviour, as an outward Bodily Existence or Person without us, Distinct from God, and on that consideration, to be worshipped as God, yea, or nay? And where doth the Scripture say, He is Outwardly and Bodily Glorified at God's Right hand? Do these terms express the Glory that he had with the Father before the World began, in which He is now Glorified? In Excuse for all this Vehement Denial of Christ's BODILY Existence at the Right Hand of God. T. E. says, p. 40. That sometimes Questions are only for Information, or to amuse an Adversary, not to show ones own Opinion. Yes, sometimes they are so. And it is very Plain when they are so. And sometimes they are the most Positive way of asserting; as implying an Astonishment or Wonder of the Contrary, as so manifest an Absurdity, as not to be Defended. And it is as manifest when Questions are in this strain. And T. E. dares not say, that these Questions of G. W. were not in this later sense. And therefore his suggesting this, was against his own Conscience; and to show that he was Resolved to support his Cause, Right or Wrong.  
His second Answer is yet more Notorious, p. 40. He supposes that R. Gordon, G. W 's Opponent intended to Deny the Divinity of Christ (which he never Denied, but Strongly asserts) and to set up the Body that was born of the Virgin, for the only, whole, Entire Christ and Saviour. And that G. W. only meant to oppose him in this. 1st, The Words above quoted were a strange sort of opposition, if this had been so. But 2dly, This is as Errand a Slander as ever was Invented; and T. E. and G. W. know it full well. For R. Gordon held no such thing, nor any thing like it; No, nor any Man that ever was Born, that only the Body was Christ! Did that ever enter into the Head of any Creature! So Confounded, so Destitute of all appearance of Truth, are these Quaker Pretences, whereby, in stead of forsaking, they seek to cover and sow Fig-leaves before their Nakedness. They have but one Security left, That it is a shame to Confute them. But this Drudgery some must undergo, for the Good of those among them, who are not stung with the Deaf Adder; and to save others out of their Cobweb but Destructive Snares, to those who are bewitched into them.  
VI As vile and gross, but more Impudent is that Imputation which T.E. puts upon whole Professions of Christians, in Vindication of G. W's answer to a Baptist, who from Rev. 1.7. inferred that Those who Pierced him (Christ) in his Body of Flesh, shall see that Body visibly come again: which G. W. opposes, and says that this is an addition to the Scripture. And T. E. p. 47. brings him off, as before, by supposing that the Baptist meant, as if Christ's Body, at his coming to Judgement, should not be changed at all from the condition and appearance it had upon Earth, and that it was only this sort of Appearance which G. W. opposed. It is well known (says he, p. 49.) that many of the Baptists, as well as others of other Professions, do hold the Body of Christ now in Heaven, to be as Really and Materially a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, as it was when upon the Cross. And p. 47. Not so much as mentioning any Change in it. Now if there never was a Christian, who did not believe that Christ's Body was Glorified in Heaven, and much changed from the Condition it was in upon the Cross, how will T. E. answer for this Horrid and Senseless Imputation cast upon so many Christians? How will he clear G. W. from Denying Christ's outward appearance at the Great Day, when he can save him by no other Supposition than this, which is notoriously False, to all that bear the Name of Christians? Ay, and must be so to T. E. and G. W. themselves.  
VII. Here T. E. spends a great deal of fruitless pains (as in several other places) in Retorting upon G. K. But I leave him to Defend himself. He needs no Second in his Contest with them. For as to the Points of Doctrine Debated, he has brought them (for the most part) to comply with him, at least to Counterfeit an Agreement, which is a Greater Victory, if that were his aim. They Confess that they have no Objection against his Morals, and that they Differ not in Doctrine from him: and yet have Excommunicated him, that is, have Condemned themselves. And as to their Retortions and In-consistencies, charged upon him, he has hitherto kept himself superior to them. And set them an Example, which is the only Method to save their Consciences and Reputation; if they have not too much Pride to follow it, that is, he has owned that there are some Errors in his former Books, and has Promised to Print a Re-tractation of them, as St. Augustine, and other Great Men have done; and to their Greater Praise. But T. E. and the Party he defends, stand still upon their Infallibility, after it is Exposed to the utmost Contempt. They will yield no Error in themselves, no not in an jota; not in their saying that Christ was b●rn at NaZ●reth: which T. E. in his Truth Defended, printed 1695. p. 167. quotes out of W. Pean's Christian Quaker, p. 104. But, on the contrary, They Invent such Salv●'s, and strange Fetches, to Reconcile their Heresies and Contradictions (as T. E. in the Present Case) that sinks them Deeper into the Mire, is a Plain conviction of their guilt; and makes them a Laughingstock to all Mankind. But like a Bird that hides his Head, and thinks no body sees him: so they, while they do not confess against themselves, think themselves safe, and will persuade many of their Implicit Followers, that no body else sees them.  
VIII. But enough of this. Let us Return to T. E. p. 53. he Defends G. W's Disputation against a Baptist, for asserting that there was a Personal Christ now in Heaven, at God's Right Hand: all which G. W. turns Inward, viz. a God's Right Hand WITHIN US; and a Christ WITHIN US: and to understand these as out of his People, in a Personal being, which are no Scripture terms (says he) still implies him to be a Personal God or Christ, like the Anthropomorphite or Muggletonians conceit of him. So that it seems a Personal God or Christ WITHOUT US, is as Ridiculous to G. W. as the Anthropomorphit or Muggletonian conceit, of God's having a Body, in shape and circumscription like to ours. Can we imagine these Men so Ignorant as to know no Difference betwixt Person and Body; but to think every Person to be a Body; because, in common speaking, when we say such a Person, we mean a Man; and this Man has a Body? This, sure, must be the Size of their Philosophy! though it is hard to believe it, that Men who are Writers, and trouble the World with Books, should remain in such Childish Ignorance, as to think that no Spirit is a Person; for which only reason, they Deny Personality to God; and by this fall into the same Muggletonism with which they charge the Baptist. For, if God cannot be a Person without having a Body; then He must have a Body, or have no Existence, because every Intelligent Being is a Person, that is the Meaning of the word Person: Which if the Quakers have not hitherto understood, Let them go to School again, and Learn to Read before they Writ, and to Humbly themselves Greatly before God; and confess their Fault before Men; for Causing so Grievous a Schism in the Church; and Branding so many Christians, all the World, but themselves, as Limbs of the Devil, and Deserters of the Faith, upon a Mistake, which Proceeds merely from their own Ignorance. But though God be a Person without a Body; yet Christ has now, and ever will have a Body, an Human Body, in His Person; even the same Body which he took of the Blessed Virgin, in which He Suffered, Risen from the Dead, and Ascended into Heaven. And for G. W. to call this the Anthropomorphit, or Muggletonian Conceit, shows his Utter Ignorance, and Blind Heresy; for both these give a Body to God, i. e. to God the Father, to the very Nature of the Deity. Which has no Relation to those who acknowledge only the Body of Christ, but own no Body of the Father. But G. W. puts both in the same Bottom; and makes the one as absurd and contradictory as the other, to show how sound and orthodox he is in the Christian Faith! And T. E. makes not other Defence for G. W. but his Old False Suppose, that this Baptist was an Anthropomorphit. Nay, p. 53. he finds fault with G. K. for saying that There is no Church of England Man, Presbyterian, or Baptist, that holds that notion, That the Godhead has the shape of a Man. T. E. tells him that he is too slight a Voucher for all of these Communions. Insinuating as if some of them did hold that Notion; against his own Heart; which knows the contrary. All the World knows it, That all these Communions do Detest and Abominate any such Notion. Nor can I tell him, in all Christendom, where to find (except himself and Partners) any Associates for the Muggletonians in this Point, but only their Brethren the Bidleite Socinians, or unitarians, for Bidle was a Professed Anthropomorphit, as he has Published in his Socinian Catechism. But T. E. takes great pains to prove that G. W. does acknowledge (in what Sophistical sense he understands, and we too now understand them) a Body of Christ now in Heaven. Let him free himself then, upon this Hypothesis, from Muggletonism, and he will at the same time see all those set free, whom he most falsely accuses with it. But what Body of Christ does he allow now in Heaven? a Spiritual Body all do allow. But is it a true Human Body in our Nature? No, keep off that— That would discover all— for the Nature of Christ (says G. W. as quoted by T. E. p. 58.) is Pure, so that it is not their (i. e. Human) Nature, for their Nature is Filthy, therefore it is not in Christ. Here G. W. expressly Denys, and endeavours to Prove that Christ has not now our Human Nature; because (forsooth) our Nature is Filthy, that is, Corrupted. But did the Baptist say that it was Filthy in Christ? No. Expressly the Contrary. He said that it was Pure in Christ, tho' Corrupted in us. And how now does T. E. bring off G. W. in this? Why? after the Old Fashion, i. e. he says that G. W. only meant that our Nature was not in Christ, that is (says he) as it is Filthy! which the Baptist, nor any other ever said. So that he sets up a Man of Straw, and throws him down again; and thinks thus to Deceive all Mankind, and keep their Vile Heresies still in the Dark. But they are Discovered.  
IX. T. E. p. 67. sets down J. Faldo's Objection against the Quakers, viz. That Christianity was introduced by Preaching the Promised Messiah, and Pointing at His Human Person; but Quakerism by Preaching a Light within. And then gives W. Penn's Answer, that had they Preached a Christ Now coming in the Flesh, they had Denied his true Visible Appearance at Jerusalem. And therefore that since they believe that Appearance, they need not Preach what is not to be again. Why? did Faldo, or any other, contend for a New Incarnation of Christ, or His Now coming in the Flesh? This is a strange Perversion! But such are necessary to support the Quakers Doctrine: And then the Inference is as Wild; That there is no Need of Preaching the Incarnation of Christ, because It is not to be again. i e. We have done with it. It is past and gone, and of no more use to us. but T. E. excuses it thus, p. 71. That they should not Preach ONLY the Incarnation and Sufferings of Christ at Jerusalem, i●e. without Preaching likewise the Inward Operations of his Spirit in our Hearts. Why? did J. Faldo, or any other oppose this? No surely. Why then did they oppose J. Faldo's urging the Necessity of Preaching a Christ without, and not only The Light within? For that was all J. Faldo meant or said. T. E. says again (ibid.) that there is no need of Preaching Christ's outward Appearance ON THAT ACCOUNT, that is, for Proving his Spiritual Appearance. He might as well have said, For Proving there was a God, or any Influence from God. This was no Part of the Controversy. Again. T. E. says, (ibid.) there was no need of Preaching Christ's outward appearance UNTIL His Inward Appearance was Preached. Here are Saltoes, which if they Pass, there is no Treason, Heresy, Blasphemy, or Idolatry, but may securely be vended. For Example, if any should say that the King is not King of England, i. e. not only, for he is of Scotland and Ireland too. That Christ is not God, i. e. not only, for He is Man too. That GOD is not Just, i. e. not only, for He is Merciful too. That we need no more Preach Faith or Repentance, i. e. not only, for there are Good Works, etc. to be Preached. That we may worship an Image, i. e. Supposing it to be God, or a Special Presence of God in it, etc. If I should say that T. E. was not an Honorio est Man, or a Fair Dealer; and when taxed for it, should think to come off by saying, that he was not only so, but a Good Husband, and a Dutiful Son besides, would he so Excuse me? But what was the Reason which W. Penn gave why the outward appearance of Christ at Jerusalem need not be Preached any more? it was none of these Ingenuous Contrivances which T E. has since found out, it was not Only, or Until, or on that Account; but Himself tells the Reason very Plainly, it was, because that outward appearance was Past; and therefore, says he, for that Cause, and because it was not to be again, it need not now to be Preached. And therefore we need not Preach what is not to be again. But there is farther in Mr. Penn's Reasons, quoted by T. E. viz. And that the whole Christ an World besides (the Quakers) have so long and Lazily Depended on it, without their thirsting after his Inward Holy Appearance in the Conscience. This is a Hard Censure. But T. E. says, p. 73. That this does not Include every single Man (except the Quakers) in the whole Christian World. That is very Gracious! Though W. P. did not the Favour to Except Any. But our Dispute now is not concerning men's Practices, but their Principles: And if W. P. or T. E. 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 Holy Appearance in their Consciences; then against whom have they Disputed? Whom have they Condemned? And if all that can be said in Defence of such Desperate and Blasphemous Positions as have dropped from their Pens, be such a Supposition as this, then must they unavoidably fall under the Load of what is Charged upon them. And till they not only Repent, but Confess, they can have no Pardon from God or Men. For Christ's outward Appearance and Sufferings at Jerusalem, tho' Past; and not to be again, must always be Preached, as being the Foundation of the Whole Christian Faith. Which the Quakers have Reduced back again to the same Level with the Heathen, as will appear more fully in the next Quotation.  
X. Which is p. 74. where T. E. justifies these Words of W. P. The Distinction betwixt Moral and Christian, the making Holy Life Legal, and Faith in Christ's outward Manifestation, Christianity; has been a Deadly Poison th●se later Ages have been Infected with. Which T. E. after the Old Fashion, solus, by supposing, p. 75. that J. Faldo, and others his Opponents did hold, That a Bare Historical Belief of Christ's outward appearance in the Flesh, is of more value and advantage to them, than a Virtuous, Pious, Godly Life. What then? Is there therefore no Distinction betwixt Moral and Christian? But, in the next place, neither J. Faldo, or any of W. Penn's Opponents, ever Believed or Imagined any such thing, as that a Bare, Historical ●aith (which the Devils have, and Tremble) would save any Man, or was Preferable to a Pious, Godly Life. But you would make Monsters of other Men, to Hid your own Deformity. For, in the next Quotation, p. 75. W. P. not only Drops an Expression, but argues, at length, for the Heathen, that is, as he there describes them, those who never had the External Law nor History, and would prove them to be Christians thus, Let us but soberly consider (says he) what Christ is, and we shall the better know, whether Moral Men are to be Reckoned Christians. What is Christ but Meekness, justice, Mercy? etc. Can we then ●eny a Meek Man to be a Christian? This is according to Mr. Penn's Theology (which will be considered by and by) of making the Promised Seed of the Woman, Gen. 3.15. not to be Christ's Human Nature, which he took of the Blessed Virgin, but only an Inward Principle, i. e. the Light within; which the Heathens have; and so have Christ; and are therefore. Good Christians,  to the Quaker Doctrine.  
In Answer to this, T. E. has given the first Proof of Ingenuity, that I have found in this Book of his. For he goes not about (as in other cases) to excuse, or mollify this; But downright Justifies it, that moral Heathens are Good Christians: Nay, he seems to Prefer the Heathen, whom he calls A Child of God, in Contradistinction from a Christian. He makes nothing of Christianity but only an outward Character, or Discriminating Difference, viz. an Historical Faith of Christ's outward Appearance in the Flesh at Jerusalem. Which indeed, if that be all, is but a very small matter, a little History; But he makes the Heathen to have The Kind and Nature of a Christian, which he Prefers to that outward Character, or Discriminating Difference which does distinguish him from the Historical Christian. G. Keith had allowed that Morality was a part of Christianity, and did belong to the Genus of a Christian. But there are two things (said he) in the true Definition of a Man, the Genus and the Differentia; they have the Genus, but not the Differentia. But this would not satisfy T. E. he objects against this, and shows his Parts in Philosophy, as well as Divinity. And I pray (says he) which is of most Moment in this case, the Genus or the Differentia? To have the Kind and Nature of a Christian, or to have only some outward Character, or Discriminating Difference, to distinguish a Christian from a Child of God, as Namely an Historical Faith of Christ's outward appearance in the Flesh at Jerusalem? But with submission, I must correct T. Is Philosophy; for it is the Differentia, not the Genus which Determines the Kind or Nature. Animal is the Genus of Man, but it is Rationale which makes him of a Different Kind or Species from other Animals. And this sets the Differentia as much above the Genus, as Man is above a Beast. But by T. Is Logic, Bucephalus is little Inferior to him, only in some outward Character: For, which I pray, is of most Moment in this case, the Genus or the Differentia? Bucephalus has the Genus, and T. E. has the Differentia, and, as himself makes it, but a small one. Therefore, tho' a Moral Heathen have the Genus of a Christian, yet he can no more be a Christian without the Differentia, than a Horse can be T. E. And this Differentia is not only an Historical Faith in Christ's Appearance in the Flesh, as T. E. makes it? But a Living Faith in his Blood outwardly shed, as the Full Atonement and Satisfaction made to the Justice of God for our Sins. And as far as any one is from this Faith, so far he is from Christianity. Therefore the Quakers, by Disputing against and Disowning of this Faith, instead of bringing the Heathen within the Pale of Christianity, have thrust themselves out among the Heathen. From whom, their merely Historical Faith in the Death and Sufferings of Christ, as T. E. rightly argues, does Difference them very little. And let the Quakers here Consider to what a Condition they have brought themselves; That they cannot Pretend to be Christians, but upon such Principles as must bring in all the Heathen with them. That is to say Truly and Really, they are no more Christians than the Heathen; and that they are Preaching up Heathenism, instead of Christianity amongst us; by making them Both to be the same thing; or to Differ only in some small Circumstances, which are not necessary to the Christian Faith. For says W. P. as T. E. quotes him, p. 77. As he that Believes in Christ, Believes in God: so he that Believes in God, Believes in Christ. Which is a fine Round saying, but the latter Part is notoriously otherwise: for the Heathen Believe a God, who never heard of Christ. But Christ is the Light within! and the Light within is Christ! And all the Heathen have the Light within! therefore they all have Christ! This is the true Quaker Doctrine; and all the Notion they have of Christianity. They have let us see it very plainly. We thank them.  
XI. This is the Meaning of what T. E. would Excuse, p. 78. viZ That W. Penn spending about three Pages in Folio, to give the Description of A True Christian Quaker, has forgot to speak one Word of the Man Christ, as the Object either of the Christian Quaker's Faith, Love, or Homage. T. Is Excuse is, That W. P. was then Describing who he or they are that obey the Light. And was it not strange that the Quaker Light should quite overlook the outward Christ? It could not be, had they Believed in Him. as Impossible as that a Man could Describe the true Faith in God, and yet never name God at all. It is the same thing to Pretend to Describe the Christian Faith, without Naming of Christ. One would wonder how any could avoid it, even in the first Line. This cannot be Forgetfulness: or it was a very Artificial one.  
XII. So was not that which is next quoted of his, p. 79. etc. where he makes the Inward Work of Regeneration performed by the Light within, a Greater Mystery than the Incarnation of Christ. If the Manifestation (said he) of the Son of God in the Flesh be a Mystery; how much more is the Work of Regeneration a Mystery, that is wholly Inward and Spiritual in its operation? This shows how much they Prefer their Light within to the outward Christ. But T. E. says, p. 82. That the Comparison here did not lie between the Incarnation of Christ, and the work of Regeneration: But between the Difficulty of Believing the one, and Experiencing the other. But I must tell T. E. That he is Mistaken, and that his Excuse is point-blank contrary to Mr. Penn's own Words, which lay the Comparison Expressly betwixt the Incarnation of Christ, and the Work of Regeneration. And this Put-off, is to suppose all his Readers to be Children, or not to Understand English or Common sense. This is not Explaining, but quite Altering of Words: Adding and Substracting at Pleasure. Though if T. Is Sense were admitted, it would not mend the Matter. Because the Saving Faith of Christ's Incarnation, etc. is our Regeneration. But I will not stay upon that. My Business now being only to Consider his Defence of others, not to follow as many New Notions as he, in his Distress, is Forced to start. He says that W. P. has this same Notion in other Places. So let him. But we are now Considering of this Place: And if it be Unsound, let him confess and Retract. And it is a favour to him, not to Pursue those other Places which T. E. quotes out of his other Works, They make the Matter still worse and worse, as p. 82. where he brings in W. P. Objecting against J. Faldo, etc. That they made the History (i. e. Christ's Incarnation) the Greatest Mystery, i. e. Greater than the Operation of their Light within. And so do all true Christians. But W. P. calls the Incarnation of Christ the History, and the Light within the Mystery, as being Greater; 'Tis Strange (says he, in the same place which T. E. quotes, i. e. of his Rejoinder, p. 336.) that should be reputed most mysterious (speaking of Christ's Incarnation) which was the Introduction to the Mystery (i. e. of the Light within) and those Transactions, (i. e. of Christ's outward Sufferings) counted most Difficult, that were— as so many Tacile Representations of what was to be accomplished in Man. In short, it is to lessen, if not totally exclude the True Mystery of Godliness, which is Christ Manifested in his Children. Here he makes the Light within the True Mystery; which Implies the Incarnation and outward Sufferings of Christ were not the True Mystery. He calls them but facile Representations of the True Mystery, i. e. The Light within, and but the Introduction to it: and wonders that any should think the outward Sufferings of Christ, which he calls Those Transactions, to be more difficult than the Inward Transactions of the Light in their Hearts. And now I wish T. E. Joy of this Book of W. P's, which he has called in to his Aid. But I hasten from this, and much more of this sort, which I could Produce.  
I likewise pass over several Monstrous Absurdities in T. Is own Notions, which he Interposes, as not being the subject I am now Pursuing. He says, p. 83. That Christ's Incarnation was not properly called a Mystery, from the Perfection of Holiness that was in Him. Was it no part of the Mystery, or not Properly so, that the Fullness of the Godhead, the Highest Perfection of Holiness Dwelled Bodily in a Man? Is this no Mystery? But I proceed. He brings a New and his Old Defence for W. P. he says, p. 84. It is Plain that the Scope and Priest of th●se Words of W. P. was to persuade People not to rest Barely in an Historical Belief of Christ's Incarnation— But to come to a Living Faith, etc. But, as I have often Replied before, there being no such People whose Principle it is to Rest Barely upon an Historical Faith; none such who opposed W. P. therefore it is plain, that this is a mere shame pretence, only to cover and hid the Broadest of Heresies or Blasphemies that can be spoken. But T. E. in the same page, to Lessen the Faith in the outward Jesus, endeavours to Render it Mighty Easie, in comparison of their Inward Light. For little of Difficulty (says he) there is in Barely and Historically believing this (i. e. That God sent Christ to Die for Sinners, and to reconcile God to Men by His Death) the Common Faith of all that Part of the World called Christian shows, wherein all Professions, and the most Profligate and Profane in any Profession, doth so Believe it. I wish T. E. were not out in his Reckoning. i e. That all these he Names did Really and Truly Believe this, even Historically. But that itself (though that alone will not do) is not so Easy a Matter as he would make it. He sees, at least we do, how Hard a Task it is with the Quakers, who will not Believe that the outward Death of Christ was ordained as the Satisfaction for their Sin. The Socinians do likewise openly oppose this, and all the Deists. Into which Societies, the Greatest Numbers of our open Debauchees do glory to Inlist themselves. These call themselves the Beaux Esprits, the Men of Sense, and Large Thoughts: and among the Profligate and Profane of the Meaner Rank, Few, if any of them do Really Believe it, even Historically; or forget it, and never think of it: otherwise it would have a Greater Influence upon them. For the Historical Faith must be Inseparable from the Saving Faith; And indeed the Saving Faith, is the Historical, throughly Digested, and Applied. And it is often seen that they who do neglect so to aptly it, do, in time, quite lose it: And it is Generally Lost amongst the Vicious and Profane of all sorts; so that Few of them are to be found, who have even the Historical Faith. They Repeat not, that they may Believe, Matth. 21.32. A Virtuous Life is a necessary Qualification even for a True Belief of Christ: Which is a Gift of God, Ephes. 11.8. And John the Baptist was sent to Preach Repentance, as a Necessary Preparation to Receive the Faith of Christ. So that this is not so Easy a Matter as T. E. thinks; nor Common to the Vicious and Hypocrites; who lessen it, and slight it, as the Quakers have Endeavoured; as T. E. endeavours, p. 86. where speaking of his Beloved Heathen-Christians, he presses it upon G. Keith, That he must grant the Object of their Faith to be, not the outward Appearance of Christ in the Flesh; but His Inward Appearance and Manifestation, in and by His Divine Light, Life, Word and Power in their Hearts. This is Plain Language! And this, he says, must be Granted, if we allow that any of them can be saved. Which to be sure T.E. does, who gives them the Genus, which he thinks the chief Part of Christianity.  
How God will Deal with the Good Moral Heathen, who never Herd of Christ, I will not determine, nor enter into the Secrets of Providence: But that they have the Christian. Faith, by Believing their Light within: or that their is any Object of the Christian Faith without the outward Jesus, who suffered at Jerusalem, is a Quaker Dream, and opposite to the whole Tenure of the Gospel. And now that I have shown the difficulty of attaining to the outward and Historical Faith of Christ; let me Compare with it the Difficulty which the Quakers Pretend there is in attaining to what they call their Inward Faith in their Light within: which, as they have Managed it, is indeed as Difficult, as for a Man to run out of his Wits: But to Minds Prepared for such Enthusiastical Delusions, it is as Easy as to think Highly of ones self; and construe all the strong Imaginations of their own Brain, for Immediate Revelations: And of this Method the Easiness may appear, from the Qualifications of the Persons most subject to it. Ignorance is the true Mother of their Devotion. But such a Profound Degree of this Intoxication as Possesses the Generality of Quakers, I will grant is not Easy to be Met with; or to be found among any other Discrimination of Men, that are known in our Parts of the World, if any where at all, either of the Present or Past Ages: yet it is an Easy and a Common thing for Men to follow their own Jmaginations; and Supiness, Ignorance, and Conceitedness do naturally Produce it; so that (to apply T. Is own Distinction) To Believe even Historically, Christ's Coming in the Flesh; and the Ttue Ends and Design of it, is Harder than to Experience my Minds running without Care or Pains, after my own Fancy, which Men do to avoid Labour, and the difficulty of Examining and Comparing: For the Workings of Reas●n are full of Labour; not so of the Imagination; which is strongest in Mad Men, and those most Destitute of Reason. And the Sobriety of Religion is with much more Pains acquired, than the Levity of Imagination, which has no Stint or Rule, but Runs away with those who have not the Curb of Reason to govern it, as a wild Horse, when the Bridle is broke. And therefore the Believing of the One, which T. E. speaks of, i. e. the Historical Faith of Christ's Incarnation, etc. and the True Ends of it, is more Difficult than the Experiencing of the other, i e. the workings of what they call their Light within; as much mor● Difficult, as Knowledge is more Difficult than Ignorance, and Reason than Imagination. And they are Novices, know lest of Religion, who are soon lifted up with Pride: and these fall into the Condemnation of the Devil; 
1 Tim. three 6.  who Transforms himself into an Angel of Light; as often as h● can Persuade any to put Darkness for Light, and Light for Darkness.  
XIII. W. Penn contends earnestly that the Seed of the Woman Promised Gen. iii. 15. was not that Jesus who was Born of the Blessed Virgin, or any other Person, but only a Principle, or Seed in every Man's Heart. The Seed (says he, as quoted by T. E. p. 91.) cannot be that Body, (i. e. of Christ) and consequently the Seed of the Promise is an Holy and Spiritual Principle of Light, etc. received into the Heart. And this Light within he makes to be Christ. Now see how T. E. endeavours to Rescue him. He says, p. 90. concerning Christ's Body, That that Body, simply Considered as a Natural Body; which (says he) was the Notion the Adversaries had of it, was not properly the Christ. But there were no such Adversaries, no, not one that opposed W. P. who said, that the Body of Christ, simply considered as a Natural Body, was Properly the Christ. No Man in this World ever said so. Therefore W. P. is no ways Justified, but rather Exposed by this: and the Quaker Principles laid more open.  
XIV. One or W. P's Arguments by which he Endeavours to Prove that the outward Christ was not the Promised Seed, is, because (as he says) One outward thing cannot be the Proper Figure or Representation of another: And the Passover being a Type of Christ, he thence Infers, That the outward Lamb, shows forth the Inward Lamb, i.e. the Light within. This is set down, p. 90. of T. E. among other such like Arguments of W. P. and T. E. answers, p. 92. W. P. did not say the Paschal Lamb was no Figure of Christ without. Did he not? What then becomes of W. P's Argument, That one outward thing cannot be the Figure of another? CANNOT, it is Impossible, i. e. The Paschal Lamb, not only was not, but Can not be the Figure of Christ. But as T. E. has put it, Christ may still be the Promised Seed, even the outward Christ; which W. P. said▪ Can not be.  
T. E. Pleads again, p. 96. and catches hold of the Word Proper, in W. P. and seeks to Draw him out of the Mire by that Twig, viz. That one outward thing cannot Properly be the Figure or Representation of another. And so he makes the Paschal Lamb to be Properly a Figure of the Inward Lamb, i. e. The Light within: But Improperly a Figure of the outward Christ. This is hard Fishing! and renders their Heresy yet more Broad-faced. The Paschal Lamb was many ways a Type of the outward Christ, and of His Sufferings outwardly in the Flesh. It Sacrificed, so He: ●● Bone of it Broken, so none of His: The Door-Posts sprinkled with its Blood, so our Consciences by His Blo●d: It Saved from the destroying Angel, so His Blood from Sin and Death: It without Blemish, He without Sin: It with Bitter Herbs, He with Bitter Dolours upon the Cross— And several other Parallels which are betwixt them. Which all were proper and fit Types of Him. Otherwise T.E. arraigns' the Wisdom of God for making Improper Types. But these Types can no ways, but by a Mad Imagination, be applied to the Light within, which, in the Quaker Sense, sheds its Blood WITHIN, and its Bones are not Broken WITHIN, etc. And of this the Paschal Lamb was a Proper Type! But an Improper Type of Christ without! It could not be Applied to Him, but by Long and Strange Fetches! B●t of the Sufferings, Blood, and Bones of the Light within, you see how Naturally, and Most Properly, They are all Typifyed! And doth it not so? says T. E. p. 92. i. e. The outward Lamb show forth the Inward Lamb. Just as you have seen! and as T. E. stumbles upon it, p. 93. where he forgets himself (for Great Wits have Short Memories) and owns quite contrary to what I have quoted. That it was the outward Body, or Manhood only of Christ our Spiritual Passover, that, in a strict and proper Sense, was said to be slain. Now we are come quite about again. Now the outward Lamb shows forth the Inward Lamb, neither Strictly nor Properly; But the outward Body of Christ; and that Only. And now T. E. has left W. P. where he found him, To say what he can for one outward thing not being the Type of another. That the outward Lamb shows forth the Inward Lamb, etc.  
XV. T. E. shows us how hard it is to find out a Quaker by Words; what Double Meanings and Secret Reserves they have in every thing that they say: and that they can say (when Pinched) any Words that can be Required of them; without Danger of being Discovered. When they acknowledge Christ to be Man, do they mean the same thing as we do▪ No, far from it. They have a Spiritual Manhood, that means quite another thing. And in this Sense, T. E. acknowledges, p. 97. That Christ was truly a MAN, before he appeared in the outward Body, which was Nailed to the Cross; and that not only In his People, but out of, or without them also. How long before? Even From the Beginning. And if he was Truly Man, than (says he) to be sure He is not less truly Man now. Yes! to be sure! and they think Him to be as Little Man NOW, as He was Then. But they are Desired (if they would be so Good) to let us know, How Christ became the Son of Man, how He took upon Him our Flesh, how He was the Seed of the Woman Promised, Gen. 3. before He was Made of a Woman, and even before any Woman in the World was Made. This is New Divinity! These Men Dance in the Clouds. They have not a Mind to be understood; which is a Demonstration that they Mean not as we do; and that their Meaning is not Good.   

SECT. 2. Of Justification and Sanctification by the Blood of Christ, outwardly shed.  
1. WE come now to the Second Head of G. Keith's Charge, which T. E gins to Answer, p. 103. which is, That the Quakers do Deny Justification and Sanctification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed. And the first Proof is W. Penn, who Totally Excludes the Satisfaction of Christ. His Argument is from that Petition in the Lord's Prover, Forgive not our Debts, as we forgive our Debtors. From whence W.P. infers, That, if it is our Duty to forgive without a satisfaction received; and that God is to forgive us, as we forgive them, than is a Satisfaction Totally Excluded. But though the Debtor makes no satisfaction, yet God has promised to do it, in Full Measure, Pressed down, shaken together, and Running over, to those who Forgive any thing for His sake. So that here is Satisfaction not Totally Excluded; But Filled up, every to the Brim. But how does T. E. Answer this? He says, p. 104, 105. That W.P. meant only to Exclude a PLENARY, or FULL, or RIGID (which is the same) Satisfaction. 1st. Every true Satisfaction must be PLENARY, else it is no Satisfaction. Paying part of a Debt, is not a Satisfying of the Debt. But 2dly. W. P. neither made any such Distinction, nor could Intent it: For his Argument runs against All Satisfaction. He did not mean that we were Commanded to Forgive our Debtors only in part; else God was to Forgive us but in part, since, as he says, God is to forgive us, as we Forgive them. And thence concludes, That A Satisfaction, i. e. Any Satisfaction is not only Excluded, but, to show his Vehemence, TOTALLY Excluded. T. E. was no Friend to W. P. in mentioning his Sandy Foundation, upon this occasion, which is wholly Socinian, Disputing Expressly against the Holy Trinity, and the Satisfaction of Christ Particularly: and I Charitably believe, that he wishes it had never been wrote: and that it may be now Forgotten. Therefore I Forbear to Rip it up.  
II. The next Quotation is out of George Whitehead, which T E. comes to p. 109. and Repeating the Charge, That G. W. blames W. Burnet, his Opponent, for saying, The Blood shed upon the Cross, sprinkles the Conscience, Sanctifies, Justifies, Redeems us, says, That G. W. only Blames him for saying thus, as an Absurdity following upon what W. Burnet had said, That that Blood was not now in Being. Why? Does G. W. believe that that Blood is any otherwise in Being, than as W. Burnet did believe? He Dare not say so. And if not, their there was no Contest betwixt Burnet and him, upon that Head. So that this is Plainly giving us the Go by: and all the Consequences which G. W. draws, or pretends to draw from that saying of Burnet's are fully Chargeable upon Himself.  
But 2dly, I desire the Reader here to take Notice of the Grossest piece of Deceit, that, perhaps, ever he met with: For that saying of Burnet's (p. 40. of his Book) is only his Repetition of it, as being the Quakers own Objection against the Efficacy of that Blood which was shed upon the Cross, to us now, viz. That it was not now in Being, and therefore that we could not now be Justified by that which was not in Being. To which W. Burnet Answers, That though that Blood shed be not in Being (that is Supposing, but not Granting it) yet the Efficacy of that Blood is still in Being, and it still speaks in God's Ears, and cries aloud for Mercy. If Abel 's Blood did cry against the Murderer (for Vengeance) How much more louder doth the Blood of the Lamb slain, cry for Mercy? etc. Here Burnet only gives way to this Supposition of the Quakers, viz. That that Blood was not in Being, by way of Concession, not as his own Opinion; to show that no Consequence could be drawn from it, to favour the Quaker Heresy of Denying Justification by that Blood. And yet T. E. (concealing of this) would put it upon Us, That G. W. in Answer to this Place of Burnet, did oppose him only for that Supposition; and that (agreeing Perfectly with him in Justification by that Blood) he only showed the Ill Consequences of that Supposition, which was his own; and which he will not, no, nor T. E. or any other of their Quakers, Dare Deny at this Day, viz. That that Blood shed upon the Cross, is not now in Being. This is Turning the Tables upon W. Burnet, in such an Impudent Manner, that, if I had not seen his Book, I could not have believed it. But 3dly, If that Supposition had been W. Burnet's, and not the Quakers own, it would not Rescue G. W. because he plainly makes the Conclusion his own, by Denying Justification by that Blood: However, justly it is drawn from that supposed Supposition. 4thly, The Agonies and Passion of Christ upon the Cross, are not now in being: And this Argument of G. W's will Dissolve all the Merits of His Death, to our Justification thereby, as well as by His Blood; for indeed they are the same. But 5thly, All these little Cavillings about the Blood of Christ, which was shed either before or after His Death, are only to Amuse: For they Deny any Justification by the outward Christ, upon any account. In A Serious Apology, written by George Whitehead, and William Penn, printed 1671. p. 148. Repeating a Charge against them in these words. That we deny Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in His own Person for us (wholly without us) and therefore Deny the Lord who Bought us. To which W. Penn answers in these words. And indeed this we Deny, and Bodily 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. If they think to come off by that saying, wholly without us. I answer, that the Meritorious and only Procuring cause of our Justification is wholly without us, i e. By the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in His own Person for us; and the Satisfaction which He hath made by His Death and Passion for our Sins. But the Application of this to Particular Persons must be Inward, by the Operation of His blessed Spirit in our Hearts. And this hinders not, but rather supposes that the Meritorious Cause is wholly without us, i e. All the Merit is to be Attributed to what Christ hath done and suffered for us: for we can Merit nothing from God, of ourselves. And not only to Deny this, but to call it a Doctrine of Devils, etc. And that In the Name of the Lord! As it shows these Men to be utter Strangers to the true Principles of the Christian Religion; so does it Deserve an Animadversion which I will spare in this place.  
III. T. E. p. 111. puts the Baptist's Objection against G. W. in these words, Now the Quakers would be so far from directing Men to go to the Material Temple at Jerusalem, that they make it but a vain thing to look to Jerusalem, to the Anti-Type of that Temple, viz. to Jesus Christ, as he was there Crucified, or to that Blood that was there shed for Justification. Now says T. E. see the Answer which G. W. gives, thus, The Quakers see no need of Directing men to the Type for the Anti-Type, nor yet to Jerusalem, either to Jesus Christ, or His Blood And where do the Scriptures say, the Blood was There shed for Justification? T. E. says in Excuse, That there is a Typographical Error in this Passage. But does not Infallibility reach to Writing or Printing, as well as Speaking? It seems the Quaker Infallibility does not go throughout. But what is this Error? Why intread of The Quakers see no need of Directing Men to Jerusalem, either To Jesus Christ or His Blood, it should have been Either (says T. E.) For Jesus Christ, etc. i. e. That Men need not go to Jerusalem, For to look For the outward Material Blood which was shed There 1600 Years ago. Why? was that the Baptist's Meaning? T. E. dare not say that. The most Superstitious that ever went thither in Pilgrimage, never thought any thing so absurd as that. 2dly, What is the Difference betwixt FOR and TO in this Place? To send Men to Jerusalem, TO look for Jesus Christ or His Blood, or FOR to look for them? 3dly, Was this Typographical Error ever taken Notice of before? No, not a word of it, though it was Printed in the Year 1663. Were there any Errata of the Press Printed? Yes, a good many, at the End of the Book. Was not this among them? No. Then surely, it was either thought not to be an Erratum: or not so Material as Trasmutation for Transmutation, and several other Literal Erratas, which are there carefully Printed. And Trumping it up Now, shows the weak Efforts of a Dying Cause; like a Drowning Man catching at a Straw; which yet does not save him: For, as before said, this Typographical Error (supposing it to be one) does no service at all to his Cause, but leaves him just where it found him: But what says he to that Expression above quoted, Where do the Scriptures say, the Blood was there shed for Justification? This is a Crabbed Place. And though T. E. Repeats it again, p. 112. Yet he says not one Word in excuse for it. But G. W. lets us see his Opinion fully in the same Book here quoted by T. E. viz. The Light and Life of Christ within, Printed 1668. p. 51. where he makes a Dialogue betwixt the Baptist he Disputes against, and himself. Thus. I ask (says G. W.) who is He that satisfies and appeaseth God, Dischargeth the Guilty, and Pays the Debt? Bapt. It is the Man Christ Jesus. G. W. Whence came He? Bapt. God gave Him. G. W. And what is this Man Christ Jesus, who can Satisfy, Pacify an Infinite God? Bapt. He is God-Man, born of a Virgin. G. W. How would this Divide God, and set Him at 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. Thus G. W. Blasphemously (with the Socinians, and in their very words) Ridicules the Satisfaction of Christ, and our Justification by it: and shows his utter Ignorance of the true Christian Doctrine. Which I stay not now to Dispute: My Business being only to Detect these Men, That they have Grossly Mistaken it.  
But before I proceed, I find myself obliged to ask T. Is Pardon. For that I said just now, while I was considering his page 111. That he Durst not say, That the Baptist's meaning (against whom he Disputes) was to send Men now to Jerusalem, to look for the Blood of Christ which was shed There 1600 Years ago, as if it were now to be found there. And indeed I thought so, That neither T. E. or any Man whatever Durst have ventured upon a Supposition so Monstrously Absurd: But, to my great surprise, I find, reading, p. 115. That he Positively, and without any Haesitation asserts it. That the Baptist did Direct People now to go Thither (Jerusalem) for it (the Blood of Christ there shed) or Look thither for it, as if it were now to be found there. These are his Words. I will not take up the Reader's time to vindicate this Baptist, (W. Burnet) whom T. E. thus accuses; but Refer to his Book, Entitled, The Captital Errors of the People called Quakers, Printed 1668. In Answer to which G. W. wrote The Light and Life, etc. above quoted. And it will there appear, not only that W. Burnet had no such gross conceit: but that he Plainly and Fully Expresses himself to the Contrary, viz. That it was the Merit of Christ's Blood, and Faith in the Redemption thereby wrought, that he contended for: and not that the Material Blood which was shed at Jerusalem, was Now there to be found. But the Quakers oppose the Christian Doctrine: and (when pinched) think to Blind the Eyes of the World, by Pretending that they only spoke against such Opinions, as never were held; and which their Opposers Detest as much as they can do. But if they Differ not from us now in Doctrine, as they, of Late, would have us believe: Why then do they separate from us? Why have they Branded all other Communions, but themselves, as in the Apostasy, as Conjures, Devils, etc. Have they never understood our Doctrine, till Now? Then Now, tho' Lat● let them Return.  
iv The next Quotation objected by G. Keith, is out of a Letter of one Solomon Eccles (A Great Preacher and Prophet of the Quakers) where he said, That the Blood of Christ is no more than the Blood of another Saint. Which T. E. excuses thus, p. 117. But that Blood which he said was no more than than Blood of another Saint, was the Blood that was forced out of Him (Christ) by the Soldier after He was Dead. This is a Plain Confession instead of a Defence. But hear the Reason he gives for it. He makes a Difference betwixt the Blood which Christ shed, before His Breath went out, which he calls a Voluntary offering of Christ Himself; because He was then Alive: and betwixt the Blood shed after He was Dead; which he calls The Forcible Act of a Soldier, i. e. not Voluntary in Christ: and so of no more Virtue than the Blood of another Saint. This is Horrible! Did not Christ Voluntarily Deliver up His Body to the Death, and His Blood to be Spilt? yet these Men would render His Death, and the Blood Spilt after it, as a Force upon Him: and so take away all the Virtue and Efficacy of it; and make no more of it, than of the Blood of another Saint! But Saint John, ch. nineteen. 34.35. lays much Greater stress upon it; And tells this, with more Particular Observation, than of the shedding of any other Part of His Blood. Then it was that the Blood and Water Issued forth out of His side, the Two Sacraments of Baptism, and His Supper; and Two of the Three Great Witnesses upon Earth. 
1 John v. 8.  And this Piercing of Christ's Body, after He was Dead, is Recorded, ver. 37. as the Fulfilling of that Famous Prophecy, Zech. xii. 10. And, as the Great Ground and Confirmation of our Faith. And he that saw it, bare Record, and his Record is True: And he knoweth that he saith True, that ye might Believe. Know ye not (said St. Paul) That so many of us as were Baptised into Jesus Christ, were Baptised into His Death: 
Rom vi. 3, 4.  Therefore we are Buried with Him, by Baptism, into Death. But why Buried with Him (upon the Quaker Doctrine) more than with any other ●●int? For His Burial was not Voluntary: He was then Dead! And it is no Wonder that they have thrown off the Baptism of His Death, who have Renounced the Benefit of His Death itself, of His Blood after that shed, and of His Burial. He was no more to them after He was Dead, than any other of their Friends or Saints. Can Christian Ears bear this! Well then, to Mollify this, since Christians do take it so Ill, T. E. will let it pass as an unjustifiable Expression. And says that in his Truth Defended, p. 112. he has called it so: But when was this Book Printed? last Year, 1695. In Answer to this then objected against them by G. Keith; and to stop All Christians from Running upon them as Blasphemers. But 2dly, How does T. E. call this an unjustifiable Expression, in that Book? Does he do it Plainly and Honestly; and with any Zeal against so Foul a Contempt cast upon the Death of our Lord? No, nothing like it. Nay, he does not so much as own it to be unjustifiable; but puts an If to it. And therefore (says he) If Sol. Eccles did let fall any unjustifiable Expression concerning that Blood that was forced out of Christ's Body by the Soldiers Spear, after He was Dead, as that it was no more than the Blood of another Saint— How Mr. Ellwood! Do you make an If of it? It is Easie then to see what you think of it. You meant by an unjustifiable an Inconvenient Expression, and so unjustifiable, that should lay you open to the Odium of All that own the Name of Christ. You say that G. W. has likewise disclaimed those Words of Sol. Eccles. How is that? After such a Manner as you have done, by saving, as you Repeat his words, p. 117. I do not make S. Eccles 's Expressions therein an Article of our Faith. This was a Terrible Rebuke! They may be True and Laudable too for all this: For Many things are so, which are no Articles of Faith. But Hark you Good T. E. How came you to Falsify your Friend G. W's Words, by Concealing a Material Part of them; and Nibbing them out of the middle of one short Sentence? For his words are these (p. 59 of his Light and Life, etc.) And yet I do not make Sol. Eccles his Expressions therein (especially as construed by our Adversaries) to be an Article of our Faith. Here is a secret Reserve. As construed by our Adversaries. Then it seems the words are justifiable enough in themselves; but how do their Adversaries construe them? we have seen what Constructions they can put upon their Adversaries Meanings! And here is a Hole for them to creep out at; when ever they shall be Taxed by any of their own Party, with this their Modest Reproof of Sol. Eccles. G. Keith taxes them, very justly, for not showing their Dislike of this Blasphemy of S. Eccles, severely and sharply as T. E. mentions it, p. 124. and answers, That if they were as  as G. K. perhaps they might: But that Blasphemy is an High Charge, and they that understand it aright, are not so forward as G. K. (it seems) would be, to Brand Persons with it, for every unsound Expression. This is wonderful Cautious and Discreet! But they had not all this Moderation, when they Branded all the Christian World, in Heaps, as Apostates, Conjures, Devils, 
See G. Fox's Great Mystery, p. 89. 98. 111. 153. 158. 175. 217. 219. 226. 253. 267. and 311.  from the Days of the Apostles, for those same Doctrines, which they now Pretend to hold themselves. They Excommunicated John Story, John Wilkinson, and many more with them, for not submitting to the Jurisdiction of their women's Meetings, as an Ordinance of Christ, which was first Invented by George Fox. And they have since Past the same Sentence upon G. Keith, for not Retracting what he had wrote against the Corruption of their Doctrines But, as to the Broad and Impious Blasphemy of Sol. Eccles, That must pass, at the most, among other Unsound Expressions: And they must not judge so severely, and Brand Persons, for every Unsound Expression. No, not for Every one; and it seems this must go for a Peccadillo amongst the Rest. There never was, surely, such a Company of Good-natured Forgiving People! They can slip over, cover, and excuse the Lewdest Blasphemies, in a Charitable way! Nothing can Provoke them! They would not Censure any, or Give an Ill Name for the World! They can see no Faults in their own Friends! G. W. says of this very Passage of Sol. Eccles, that it was so Harmless, as might have satisfied any Spiritual or Vnbyassed Mind, (this is in his Light and Life, before quoted, p. 58.) And if so, it was Perfectly Innocent and Harmless indeed: And must satisfy the Friends that no Reproof was meant against it by G. W. though something (so seeming) must be said, by way of Policy, to stop the Clamours of All Christian People. It was this which put T. Is Wit upon the stretch; and it found out, at last, that Distinction abovenamed, betwixt the Blood of Christ, which was shed upon the Cross, before and after He was Dead; which helps not their Cause, but has made it worse, as before is shown. But, tho' Sol. Eccles names the Blood shed after He was Dead; yet he makes no Distinction betwixt that, and what was shed Before (which T. E. now Ingeniously puts upon him) But meant it, in the true Quaker Notion of the outward and Material Blood, whether shed Before or After Death, in opposition to their Notion of the Inward Blood, shed in their Hearts. For Sol. Eccles says, in the same Letter, That none of you (Baptists, Independents, Presbyterians, and Pope) Understand the Blood of Jesus Christ no more than a Bruit Beast, i. e. They All Understood and Contended for the outward Blood: But of the notion of Inward Blood, of the Light within, they knew no more than Bruit Beasts. Therefore Repent (says he) for God will suddenly overthrow your Faith (i. e. in the outward Blood) and your Imputative Righteousness too; for the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, which He did at Jerusalem, and without the Gates, the Pope, the Episcopal, the Presbyterian, Independants, and Baptists, shall far all alike; and shall sit down in Sorrow, short of the Eternal Rest: But the true Imputative Righteous of Christ we own; but it is Hid from you All, Till the Lord do open an Eye within you i. e. To see the Righteousness of The Light within, which is Imputed, that is, as some Learned Quakers have Expounded it (before those I can name) In-putted. Putted within them. Now here, by Sol. Eccles' Words, the Quakers have a Notion of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, which none in the World have but themselves. Others mean by it, The Merits of, and Satisfaction made by the OUTWARD Obedience, and Sufferings of the OUTWARD Jesus, which are Imputed, that is, Applied to us, by our INWARD Faith in Him, and Obedience to His Laws. So that here is both Outward and Inward: The Object of our Faith; and Meritorious, Procuring Cause of our Redemption wholly outward, or without us, i e. The Man, who is also God, Christ Jesus: The Inward is the Application or Imputation of His Righteousness, or Full and Complete Obedience to the Law of God; and Undergoing the Curse of it, as the Satisfaction Required for our Transgressions of it; Apprehended and fully Believed on in our Hearts. Now the Quakers opposing this, by setting up the Inward, shows that they wholly throw off the outward: Else, they do not oppose this. But T. E. would feign have it to pass, That they only speak against those, who wholly throw off the Inward; which none ever did. He says p. 121. That they oppose those only, who Deny Him (Christ) to be, with Respect to these Offices, At all within, and shut Him Wholly out, making the Work of Mediation, Sanctification, Justification, and Salvation to be Only and Altogether outward. Who ever made the Work of Sanctification, etc. to be WHOLLY outward? This is the Impudent and Impious Fiction I have so oft taken Notice of, of Imposing the most gross and Notoriously False Principles upon others; that in such a Dust as they have Raised, their own Vile Heresies may Pass Undiscovered. The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, and the Shedding of His Blood, as above Explained, is the Common Belief of Christendom: Now T. E. is Desired to tell us, in his next, what that Blood of Christ was, and what the Imputation which Sol. Eccles said that the Pope, the Episcopal, the Presbyterian, etc. knew no more of than Bruit Beasts? What other it could be than the Imaginary Blood and Sufferings of their Light within? If it was any thing else, they will please to tell us.  
V W. Burnet, G. W's Antagonist, seeing how they Endeavoured to depreciate the Outward or Material Blood of Christ, and turn all the Merit of the Redemption of Man to the Inward or Mystical Blood shed within them, argues thus, All things under the Law, in the Type, was Purged with Blood; and this Blood was Material Blood, and not Mystical; and that Blood which Christ shed, in Order to the Effecting the Salvation of Man, must needs be Visible and Material Blood. To this G. W. Replies, as quoted by T. E. p. 118. To say that Material Blood was the Type of that which was Material, is to give the Substance no Pre-eminence above the Type, or like as if one should say, one Type was the Type of another. By this G. W. makes Christ's Outward or Material Blood, not to be the Substance or Anti-Type, whereof the Legal Sacrifices were a Type: But that itself is a Type, i●e. of the Mystical Blood, or Light within. And his Proof is, That no Material thing can be the Anti-Type; and therefore that Christ's Material Blood, could be no more than a Type: and therefore that i● it was Typifyed by the Legal Sacrifices, one Type was the Type of another; which he makes the Absurdity. And T. E. Retorts thus upon W. ●u●●●, p. 122. This is to give the Substance no Pre-eminence above the Ty●e, when the Substance or Anti-Type is Denied to be Mystical, and made Only Material, because the Type thereof was only Material and not Mystical. Ans. 1st, W. Burnet never said, that Christ was ONLY Material, as if there had been no Mystery in His Incarnation, Passion, etc. no Christian ever said this. This is the Quakers never failing Artifice of Imposing Manifest Lies upon their Adversaries, that they may Confute them. But W: B. Disputed only against those who would not Allow Christ's outward Material Body and Blood, but only their own Light within to be that which was Typified by the Sacrifices under the Law: and even by the Sacrifice of Christ Himself. 2dly, T. Is Consequence is not good, for supposing that Christ was only Material, it will not follow that His Body had no Pre-eminence above that of a Bullock, such as was Sacrificed under the Law. And none who had any Reverence for the Body and Blood of Christ, Durst have made such a Blasphemous Comparison. 3dly, None say that the Legal Sacrifices were only Material, and n●t Mystical; for they were Types of Christ; and so Mystical. So that T. Is Premises are all False; and his Inference not Conclusive. Next he comes to Excuse, that Aphorism of G. W's That one Type cannot be the Type of another. And he says that G. W. in Words following those above cited, applies this to Circumcision. What then? Let him apply it to what ●● he will. But does he not apply it, in this place, to Christ? Let any one that can Read English judge.  
VI G. Keith objects, G. Ws Explanation of Acts xx. 28. The Church of God, which He Purchased with His own Blood, viz. Now the Blood of God (says G. W.) or that Blood that Relates to God, must needs be Spiritual, He being a Spirit; and the Covenant of God is Inward and Spiritual, and so is the Blood of it. This Excludes the outward blood of Christ from being the Blood of the New Covenant: And from so much as Relating to God; unless G. W. holds, with the Anthropomorphits and Muggleton, That God is Material and has a Body: For he says, That the Blood of a Spirit can only be Spiritual. To this says T. E. p. 131. Will G. Keith say, That the Blood of Christ which was outwardly shed, had no Spirituality in it, nor might, in Any Sense, be called Spiritual, considering the Miraculous Conception of the Body, etc. No. G. Keith, nor any body else will say so, except such as T. E. G. W. etc. And this is nothing at all in Excuse of G. W. But exposes him, and his Stickler much more. For suppose Christ's Blood had some Spirituality in it; and in some Sense might be called Spiritual, as the Spiritual Meat, and Spiritual Drink, and Spiritual Rock in the Wilderness: 
1 Cor x. 2.3.  Will this, if there be no more in it, makes His Blood to be the Blood of God? And what is this to G. W's Argument, That a Spirit cannot have Material Blood? and therefore, That if the Blood of the New Covenant, be the Blood of God, it cannot be Material Blood, i. e. That the Material Blood of Christ was not the Blood of God; otherwise than as the Spiritual Meat, and Spiritual Drink; and All things are His. This lets us into the Heart of the Quaker Divinity.  
VII. G. W. says in a Book of his called, The Voice of Wisdom, p. 36. That the Righteousness which God effects in us, is not Finit, but Infinite. T. E. says p. 113. That these Words are an Inference from a Position of his Adversaries one Thomas Danson, viz. That the Righteousness whereof Christ is the Subject, and that whereof He is the Efficient, are of one Species or Kind. 'Tis true that G. W. mentions this. But not as finding any Fault with it: For he says the same and more himself, in the same page, viz. That Righteousness which God works in us, by His Spirit, it's of the same Kind and Nature with that which worketh it; for the Saints are made Partakers of the Divine Nature, 2 Pet. 1.4. T. Danson made the Righteousness of the Man Christ of the same Species or Kind with ours, as His Human Nature is. But G. W. makes the Righteousness of God, to be of the same Kind and Nature with ours; which is Blasphemy: and far beyond what T. Danson had said: with which G. W. found no Fault, unless that he had said too little of the Oneness of the Righteousness of God and ours: But he brings this former saying of Danson's to Confront that Position of his, which G. W. sets down, viz. That the Righteousness which God works in us, is but Finite, as well as other Effects. This G. W. opposes, and brings the above-quoted, saying of Danson's, as a Contradiction to this: and then Proves against Danson (according to his skill) that the Righteousness which God effects in us, is not Finit, but Infinite. This is in opposition to the above saying of Danson's, That it was but Finit. And if G. W. thought it but Finit, why did he oppose Danson in this? But he not only says that it is Infinite, but goes on to Prove it. For (says he) Christ is God's Righteousness; and Christ is form in us, Gal. iv. 19 Thus miserably Perverting the Scripture. But they are Desired to tell us, how Infinity can be Form? 2dly, How form in that which is Finit? G. W. in the same place, Exclaims against those who would make that Righteousness in them (the Saints) but Finit. When as (says he) Christ His Infinite Righteousness, and the Saints are in one another. Here he makes the Righteousness of Christ, and of the Saints to be the same; and corrupts that Text, Heb. two. 11. to Prove it, which he Repeats thus, He that Sanctifieth, and they that are Sanctified, are one. Whereas the Text is, are all of one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And concludes thus: Then God's Righteousness in us, is not Finit, but Infinite. Yet T. E. would make us believe, that he said no such thing. But this is no Novelty with him.  
VIII. Again, p. 134. he justifies this saying of G. Ws, That Blood and Water that's said to Cleanse, is not of another Kind, but agrees in one with the Spirit. And Demands, in great assurance, Is not that True? No. Mr. E. it is not True, but far from Truth, That the Blood and Water are not of another Kind from the Spirit. They are Material and outward Blood and Water, which, through the operation of the Blessed Spirit, do cleanse. But this makes them not of the same Kind with the Spirit more than Christ's Human Nature is of the same Kind with His Divine Nature; or than a Man's Body is of the same Kind or Nature with his Soul. And this still shows more and more your Contempt and Denial of the outward and Material Body and Blood of Christ for your Justification.  
IX. T. E. p. 136. brings in W. Penn justifying this saying of Isaac Penington, viz. Can outward Blood Cleanse the Conscience? And W. P. says, We do Deny that outward Blood can be brought into the Conscience, to Perform that Inward Work: which they themselves (i. e. the Professors, as the Quakers called their Opponents) Dare not, nay, do not hold. Yet T. E. says, p. 135. that Isaac Pennington put this Question (Can outward Blood cleanse the Conscience?) to the Professors, who place ALL upon the OUTWARD. You must Excuse him, he Began, and was Resolved to go Quite through with this Topick, in every Case, to Misrepresent his Adversaries Meaning; and if he cannot Find Faults, to Make them. But here he stands fairly Corrected by the more Ingenious W. P. (whose Authority he Pretends to Maintain) who says that the Professors Dare not, nay Do not hold this.  
G. Keith, as quoted by T. E. p. 137. has given a clear Answer to this poor Subterfuge of Supposing that any did think the outward and Material Blood of Christ was to be brought into the Conscience; and there Materially Applied: which none, sure, in this World ever Imagined. G. K. says, The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience, is by the Application of a Living Faith in Christ, whose Blood it was, the Spirit of God working that Faith in me. This is Full and Orthodox. But says T. E. in answer to this, Why does he say, The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience, as if it had been Really and Materially brought in there? This is Intolerable! and shows that they either can not, or will nor take an Answer. T. E. p. 136. tells of a Distinction which W.P. made betwixt the Pardon of Past Sin; and the Present Sanctification of any Person: and applies it to this Purpose, as if the outward Blood of Christ could have no Tendency but only to the Former. But this, instead of Solving the Matter, serves only to Discover the strange Confusion and Ignorance of these Men in the Mystery of the Gospel: as if Christ's Blood, outwardly shed, were not as Effectual to our Sanctification, as to our Justification; to Procure for us, the Graces of the Holy Spirit towards Living acceptably to God for the Future, as the Pardon of Sins that are Past.   

SECT. 3. Concerning the Resurrection of the Body.  
I. T. E. is in Great Confusion upon this Head, making Tedious Repetition and long Digressions about the Bush, not knowing what to say; and yet that he might appear to say something. But I will Reduce his Immethodical Ramblement into this Order. 1st, To show his weak and Fallacious Excuse for that Great Opposition which the Quakers have given to this Article of our Faith. 2dly, That T. E. instead of Vindicating others, has himself downright opposed this Article of the Resurrection.  
First. His Excuse for the Quakers opposition to the Doctrine of the Resurrection. He would (as in Former Cases) Deceive his Readers, by Supposing, against all Sense and Reason, That we so understood the Resurrection, as if the Body were to Rise in the same Grossness and Carnality that it has in this Life. And that this was all that they opposed.  
But such a gross Notion of the Resurrection no Christian ever held. And G. Keith has sufficiently Explained himself, even as quoted by T. E. p. 145. 146. That the Body, when Raised again shall be the same, as to Substance, but not as to the Grossness and Carnality as now; and did Illustrate it by the Chemical Extraction of Spirits out of Herbs, etc. and by the Change that is wrought in the White and Yolk of an Egg, whereof a Chicken is made out of the same Substance. Yet T. E. will not understand him: But gives us a Dull Piece of Buffonery, and tells him, p. 147. That if he and G. K. were Fellow-Commoners at a Chicken, he would take the Substance, and leave the Rest to G. K. And p. 148. That to make his Instance of the Extraction of Spirits, to be Parallel with the Notion of the Resurrection which the Quakers opposed, the Gross Body of the Herbs, which he says, may be made so Subtle and Volatile, must still remain the same Gross Body of Herbs, that it was before, notwithstanding of its almost unconfinable subtlety by Chemical Operation. And, in the same page, Explaining what sort of Resurrection they opposed, says, We have always Denied the Body which shall be Raised, to the same Body that Died, with Respect to GROSSNESS and CARNEITY; Which all that they opposed Denied as much as they. And p. 145. he says, That which W. Penn reputed as absurd was, that a Body should be Changed from an Earthly or Animal Body, to an Heavenly Body, and yet, after such Change, continue to be the same Earthly or Animal Body that it was before. And Mr. Penn might Repute this to be Absurd. And Disprove it Effectually, and get the Victory over it: and Triumph! But he can name no body, that ever held any such Absurdity. That an Earthly Body, Changed into an Heavenly Body, may be the same Body, it is True: But that it should be the same Earthly Body, none ever said. It is a Contradiction, it is to say that it is Changed, and not Changed. But how is it possible (says Mr. Penn, ibid.) that it should be the same, and not the same? Very easily. Is Mr. Penn the same Man, as before he turned Quaker? No sure. There is a Great Change wrought in him. Yet it is the same W. Penn; or else He never Changed. But, says he, in his Reason against Railing, p. 134. If a thing can yet be the same, and notwithstanding Changed; for shame let us never make so much stir against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; for the Absurdity of it, is rather outdone, than Equalled by this Carnal Resurrection. But Mr. Penn is so far out in his Reasoning here, That a thing being Changed shows it to be the same. If you Dye one piece of Cloth, it is no change, in another piece of Cloth: And it were no change in the Cloth, if it was not the same Cloth that was changed. And if Mr Penn thinks Transubstantiation a Less Absurdity than this, we may yet see another change in him. But, to return to T. E. Notwithstanding of all that can be said or Done, he still holds to it, That we believe no Change of the Body in the Resurrection, and puts it upon G. Keith, p. 143. So that it seems (says he) according to G. Keith, it must be a Terrestrial Elementary Body, after it is Reunited to the Soul in Heaven. Though G. Keith has not only said, but Argued to the Contrary, even as quoted, in the same place, by T. E. Therefore we see he is Resolved. He will not Badge an Ace! It must and shall be so! For otherwise, the Quakers are Undone: Because if this be not the Notion of the Resurrection which they oppose; then there is nothing left, but that they downright oppose that Doctrine of the Resurrection, which has been all along Received in the Catholic Church; and makes one of the Articles in her Creed. But this will yet further appear in the second Point, viZ. That T. E. has not only Negatively, as in the first Point; but even Affirmatively, and in Plain Terms, Denied the Resurrection, in this his seeming Vindication of it. By the Resurrection, as ever Understood in the Church, is Meant the Resurrection of the same Body which Died. It is not otherwise a Re-surrection, i. e. a Rising again. For that cannot Rise which never Lay down: and that which was not Before, cannot be Again. The Quakers will sometimes say, as T. E. p. 151. that there is a Resurrection, and that of Bodies: and that there is an Heavenly Body: Because these are Express words of Scripture. But they Deny the Resurrection of our Dead Bodies: Or that ever they will be made Heavenly Bodies. What they Mean by a Heavenly Body, themselves, nor all the World can tell. One of their She-Preachers told a Friend of mine, That it was the Holy Ghost. But that they Deny the Resurrection of the same Body which Died, T. E. makes very Evident, p. 149. where he Disputes, That the Natural and the Spiritual Body are Two Distinct Bodies; and not the same Body, in Different States and Qualifications. Thus he Expounds the Apostle's words, 1 Cor. xv. 44. He does not say, The Natural is made a Spiritual Body; or the Natural Body and the Spiritual Body is but one and the same Body: but he sets them in opposition, as Two Distinct Bodies. And The Body (says he) that is put into the Grave, is a Natural Body: but the Body that is Raised, is a Spiritual Body— and that none might think this Spiritual Body was the same, he adds, There is a Natural Body, and there is a Spiritual Body. Thus T. E. understands that Scripture, and goes on to Prove it further by the Comparison of the first and second Adam; and says that the Spiritual and Natural Body, are no more the same Body, than the first and second Adam are the same Man, i. e. than Christ and Adam are the same.  
And to show their utter Ignorance of the Doctrine of the Resurrection, T. E. p. 140. etc. quotes W. Penn, and G. W. and joins with them himself, in Proposing as a Great Absurdity, that the Soul hath not its Perfect and Complete Happiness, before its Reunion with the Body: and Ridicules this, by saying that the Deceased Saints are in Heaven but by Halves: That the Soul is in a state of Widowhood, which is a sort of Purgatory: And that it is Unequal the Soul should be Rewarded so long before the Body, its Beloved Companion. But it is rather Punished, if it be in Purgatory, as these Men presume to Banter. And why (say they) must the Felicity of the Soul Depend upon the Body? I suppose they mean but in Part, as a Widower may have some Happiness, though Great Grief with it. But why not upon that Body it had before, as well as upon a New Body▪ For let me ask these Quakers, who say that the Soul will have a Body in Heaven; tho' not the same body it had before: will that New Body be any Addition of Happiness, or Advantage to the Soul? If not. To what Purpose is it? But if so, then is the Soul in an Imperfect State before it gets that Body: and all the Quaker Objections Return upon themselves. Let them then speak out, and own the True Quaker Opinion, viZ. That the Soul does Receive that Heavenly Body Immediately after Death. Nay, I have heard some say, That they had it already; and all the Resurrection that ever they expect. Indeed, they know not what they mean by it: and that Heavenly Body which they talk of, most of them understand nothing by it, but the Soul itself; or an Heavenly Frame or Disposition of the Soul: which they think they have attained already; or, may be, some of them may think, they may have it in an Higher Measure, after their Death. And this is all the Resurrection, and all the Heavenly Body, that they Mean, when they use these Words.  
II. T. E. p. 153. brings in the subject of their Infallibility; and stands stoutly by it. G. Keith had objected against this out of a Book of G. W's, called The Voice of Wisdom, before mentioned, where G. W. Boldly avers, p. 33. That they that want Infallibility— they are out of the Truth; and their Ministry is not of the Spirit; seeing they speak not from the Spirit, but from their own Hearts, which are Deceitful where they want Infallibility. And their Common Salvo, to those they would Impose upon, That they only Plead for the Infallibility of the Spirit, i. e. of God (which none ever Denied) will not do, in this Place: For p. 32. Danson, whom G. W. opposes, had put his Objection so Clear as to obviate that Distinction: His words are these, As for your Participation of the Infallible Spirit (if that were granted) that Infers not a Participation of the Spirit's Infallibility. As indeed it does not, more than of its Omnipotence, Omniscience, or any other of the Divine Attributes, But G. W. does violently oppose this, and says, most ignorantly, that This tends to Divide the Spirit from its Infallibility, as if such as Partake of the Spirit, do not Partake of its Infallibility, was there ever such Folly as this? Truly I think not; nor such Mad Enthusiastical Delusion ever heard of before in the World: For they may Pretend to Partake of God's Omnipotence; by the same Reason; and with as much Justice. Was W. P. Infallible, in not only saying, but Printing it, That Christ was born at Nazareth? Or, if there was an Error in the Press, and Nazareth put for Bethlehem, from the Likeness of the Words; was T. E. Infallible, in Printing this over again (as before is told) without Correcting of it? Were these Quakers Infallibly Guided into the Meaning of that Scripture, Matth. xi. 30. My Yoke is easy, and my Burden is Light, who quoted it, at a Conference, before those whom I know, as a Proof for their Light within? A little Human Learning would have done well here, to have understood the Meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Text, which signifies Light, not as opposed to Darkness, but to Weight of a Burden: which common sense much less Infallibility could not have mistaken in this Text. Was William Walker (a Great Quaker Preacher) Infallible, who mistook John xiv. 2. In my Father's House are many Mansions, for In my Father's House are many Manchets. And made the Application, what Plenty of Provision was in Heaven, fine White Bread, little Manchets; and Many of them? This I have from those who heard him: and heard other Quakers Improving upon his Doctrine, what Fine Bread there was in God's House. In-numerable Instances of the Like Ignorance might be Given; and of Lying Prophecies, the Rankest Treasons, and Blasphemies, Pronounced In The Name of the Lord: for which I Refer the Reader to The Snake in the Grass, where he will find a Plentiful Collection of them; and Undeniably Vouched.  
Now George Fox (their First and Great Apostle) in his Answer to the Westmorland Petition, 1653. p. 5. says, All you that Speak, and not from the Mouth of the Lord, are False Prophets. And in his Saul's Errand, etc. 1654. p. 7. says, They are Conjurers and Diviners; and their Preaching is from Conjuration that is not spoken from the Mouth of the Lord. If G. Fox told a Lie in this, then by his own Rule, he was a Conjurer, because he spoke not from The Mouth of The Lord. And if he spoke Truth. He is as much a Conjurer, and all the Quaker Preachers with him, who either Preached False Doctrine, or misunderstood, or Mis-applyed any Text of Scripture, or any other Man's Meaning (of which we have pretty Broad Instances now before us) because No Mistake, of any sort, can come from The Mouth of The Lord.   

SECT. 4. of Christ's Coming to Judge the Quick and the Dead.  
I. GEorge Whitead says, as quoted, p. 160. Now what is that Glory of the Father, in which His (Christ's) coming is? Is it visible to the Carnal Eye? And when was that coming to be? Is it now to be looked for outwardly? But further we do acknowledge the several Comings of Christ, according to the Scriptures, both that in the Flesh, and that in the Spirit, which is Manifest in several Degrees, as there is a Growing from Glory to Glory: But Three Comings of Christ, not only that in the Flesh at Jerusalem, and that in the Spirit; but also another Coming in the Flesh, yet to be Expected, we do not Read of, but a Second Coming without Sin unto Salvation, which in the Apostles days was looked for. The First Coming of Christ he confesses to be that in the Flesh at Jerusalem. The Second be makes to be His Inward Coming into our Hearts; which, he says, was looked for in the days of the Apostles, i. e. Christ was so ●ome, at that time, in their Hearts. But the Coming to the Future Judgement he calls the Third Coming; and this be Utterly Denys. And T. E. Endeavours to support him by Matth. xuj. 28. where Christ said, That some standing there should not taste of Death, till they saw the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom, i. e. till the Destruction of Jerusalem; which was a Glorious Manifestation of the Power of Christ, in Fulfilling those Judgements which he had Threatened upon the Jews. And it was likewise a Type of the Final Judgement and Destruction of the World. But T. E. knowing nothing of this, would understand those Scriptures which speak of Ghrist's coming to Judgement, to mean only His Inward Coming in the Heart; which he calls His Second Coming. This is the Meaning of those Questions above quoted. Is it visible to the Carnal Eye? And when was that Coming to be? Is it now to be looked for outwardly? etc. By which it is plain that they mean, That their is no visible Coming of Christ, to be Now looked for outwardly. I have told above, what they mean by a Glorified or Heavenly Body, not any thing either Visible or Intelligible. But if they would consider, that Christ's Glorified Body was visible to St. Paul at his Conversion; as to other of His Apostles, at His Trans-Figuration upon the Mount, they would not find such Difficulties in apprehending that He may be Visible at the Last Day, even to outward Eyes, when they shall be strengthened much more than those of the Apostles upon Earth. Then shall the Jews, with their outward Eyes look upon Him whom they Pierced, according to the Literal Prophecy, Zech. xii. 10. And St. Barnabas, in his Cathol. Epist. chap. seven. says, That His Body, tho' Glorified, shall then be so Like what it was upon Earth, that they shall be amazed at the Likeness. And he says, That this Likeness was Prefigured in the Likeness of the Two Goats, the Scape-Goat, and the other offered in Sacrifice, Leu. xuj.  
II. T. E. has another Pleasant come off, p. 161. He says that G. W. opposed W. Burnet only as to the Opinion of the Millennium, or Thousand Years Reign of Christ upon Earth: and that this was the Third Coming of Christ, which G. W. Denys. Whereas, neither in Burnet nor G. W's Book is there one Word of Millennium, or any thing like it; But their Dispute was only concerning the Last Judgement. So that this must pass among the rest of T. Is Supposes, to help him out at a Dead Lift.  
III. But if T. E. must Down, he is Resolved to Fall in Good Company. For p. 162. he makes St. Paul as Fallible as Himself. He supposes that Saint Paul did Expect the Day of Judgement to come in his time, from 1 Thess. iv. 17. We which are alive, shall be caught up in the Clouds, etc. G. Keith says, That the Apostle's using the word We, there, [we that Remain] is an Enallage Personae, putting [We] for [They] like that of James, Therewith Bless we God; and therewith Curse we Men, James iii. 9 But says T. E. Though he delivers it Positively and like a Dictator, yet I see not why he must needs be believed: Why might not the Apostle speak in the first Person [We] as supposing that Great and Extraordinary Appearance of Christ, was so near at hand, that it might Probably fall out in his time? Why might he not? I'll tell you Why, Mr. Ellwood, Because it did not fall out in his Life time: And if He thought it might, than it will follow that He was mistaken: and consequently that what He wrote was not Truth: and so not only the Authority of this Epistle, but of All His Epistles; and of all the Rest of the New Testament, will fall to the Ground; for did not He write by the same Spirit as the other Penmen of the New Testament? And you cannot think to come off by such a Text as 1 Cor. seven. 6. I speak this by Permission, and not of Commandment. For, concerning the other Text, he says Expressly, 1 Thess. iv. 15. This we say unto you, by the Word of the Lord: And if he was mistaken in this, than was He Guilty of Great Blasphemy, to speak a Lie In the Name of Lord: And we cannot Believe one Word of this, or any thing else that he either said or wrote.  
I Expect now that T. E. should tell me, That he only made a Quere of this; and put a Perhaps to it 1st, This was a very Reverend Suppose, to throw down the whole Scriptures all at once! But 2dly, T. E. goes further than a Suppose; for he afterwards Positively Asserts it, and endeavours to Prove it thus. For as the Apostles (says he) accounted the Times they Lived in the Last Days or Last Times— so they thought the End of the World was not far off. What else made Paul, when he had told the Corinthians, That the things he had Related were written for our Admonition, add, Upon whom the Ends of the World are come? 1 Cor. xi. 11. Why else did Peter say, The End of All things is at Hand? 1 Pet. iv. 7.  
And now I am come to vindicate the Apostles against T. E. He strikes Home! Therefore, let him know, That by the Later Times, and the Last Times was Understood, The Last Dispensation which was to be Given to the World, viz. That of the Gospel, or the Messiah. Which Time was usually called by the Jews, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Age that was to come, or the Last Age. But now as to Saint Paul, who seems homest Charged, He has, as foreseeing such misconstruction of his Words, or some having so misconstrued them, fully Cleared himself, and the other Apostles, in a following Epistle to the Thessalonians, 2 Thess. two. 2. Now I beseech you Brethren (says he, with Great Earnestness) by the Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; and by our Gathering together unto Him, That ye be not soon shaken in Mind, or be troubled, neither by Spirit, nor by Word, nor by Letter, as from us, as that the Day of Christ is at Hand. Let no man Deceive you, by any means, for that Day shall not come, except there come a Falling away first, etc. But T. E. will not Believe him, or else he must not believe G. W. who says in a Book he and others wrote, Anno 1659. called A Brief Discovery of the Dangerous Principles of John Horn, etc. p. 9 And as for that 1 Thess. iv. 15. concerning the Coming of our Lord from Heaven, which these Men aforesaid would blindly put Afar off— The Saints who then were Alive Remained unto it— so their Conversation was in Heaven (i. e. a Heaven within them; for) they did not say their Conversation was at a Distance off above the Clouds, from whence you ●ook for a Christ— And thence Concludes. That your Faith, which is not Grounded in Christ's Appearing In you, is to be turned up by the Roots. In the Title Page, This Book is said to be wrote, By the Truth which is in George Whitehead, John Whitehead, and George Fox the Younger. I will not Detain the Reader with Applications. These things are so gross, as not to be made Plainer.  
III. The next Quotation is, p. 164 G. W's words before mentioned. Dost thou look for Christ's coming again to appear outwardly, in a Bodily Existence? if thou dost, thou mayst look until thy Eyes Drop out, before thou wilt see such an appearance of him. And here T. E. cries out of Fraud and Falseness in G. Keith, for leaving out these Words, as the Son of Mary, Dost thou look for Christ, as the Son of Mary, to appear, etc. which mean no more than Christ, in His true Human Nature; and the same Body which He took of the Blessed Virgin, in opposition to the Quaker Notion of understanding Christ's Coming only of the Inward and Invisible Appearance or Manifestation of Christ in the Heart. And T. Is. objecting against this, of Christ's coming, as the Son of Mary, does further Confirm us, that these Quakers do not mean his coming in His true Human, and Outward Body. T. E. Objects too, that these words, to save thee, are not Repeated in this Second Quotation of G. W's Words. Which has been spoke to before, and so I dismiss this head, as I do likewise a long Contest, which lasts as far as p. 177. Concerning some Letrers, and other Papers in MS. which G. Keith Produced, full of the Heretical Delusions before mentioned: And which T. E. Confesses and Denies, as if he were Mumbling of Thistles; and Interlards with Billingsgate against G. Keith: With which I do not meddle. And having Proofs sufficient out of their Printed Books; I will not trouble the Reader with Examining of their Manuscripts.  
IV. T. E. Comes to defend himself. p. 177. And a Quotation of his own, which G. Keith cited, Viz. In comparing the Books of Friends, to the Books of them called the Greek and Latin Fathers, he (G K.) has not done as a Friend and Brother, but as an Enemy, in supposing Friends Books to have been Written by no better Guidance, nor clearer sight, than theirs, who Lived and Wrote in those Dark times. T. E. is very Angry that the Auditors at Turners-Hall, shouted at this Quotation. And well they might. To see the most Ignorant and Heretical of all the Sects that ever were in Christendom, thus to set up themselves above the Primitive Fathers of the Church; and to Prefer their own Writings, who could not rightly spell their own Mother Tongue, (Illiteral Mechanics!) to the Great Atbanasius, Basilius, the two Gregory's (Naziansen and Nysen) Cyril, Ambrose, Epiphanius, Chrisostom, Hierom, Augustin, Hilarius, etc. All of whom T. E. Instances, by Name, p. 178. As Inferior to the Quakers; and ascends Higher, to the Second Century, and p. 179. Names Cyprian, Tertullian, and Origen. None of these were to be Compared with George Fox, and his Disciples! These were Dark Times, to the Year 1650, when the New Light of the Quakers Arose in our Hemesphere! When (the Church being Pulled down) the Vilest, and most Monstrous, and Numerous Spawn of Multifarious Sects, that ever the Bottomless Pit spewed forth, at once, were, with a Thousand other Devils, let lose amongst us▪ A just Punishment for our Schism and Rebellion! And we are yet left to War with the Tail of this Hydra, which is Gathering New Life; and if it should (for our sins) Prevail, our Last S●●●e would be worst than the First. Who can refrain from Indignation! To see such a Conceited, Senseless, most Ignorant and Blasphemous Crew, Destitute of Common Modesty or ●hame, wipe their Mouths, and Gravely set up themselves above all the Glorious Lights of the Church, Confessors and Martyrs, ever since the Apostles; whom they Damn as Apostates! 
See Snake in the Grass 2. Part Sect iv.  As their Execrable Father G. Fox said, in his Great Mystery. p. 89. That the Quakers Have a Spirit given them beyond all the Forefathers, since the days of the Apostles, in the Apostasy. T. E. Quotes scraps out of Perkins, Jurieu, and Dalley, to show Errors in the Fathers, who did not pretend to Infallibility. Tho these Modern Authors have made much too Bold with them (There are Spots in the Sun.) But this must not Eclipse their Light; and Glorious Gifts they had from God; whereby they supported His Gospel, with Irresistible Learning, Piety, and Constancy, even to the Death. God chargeth His Angels with Folly; and suffered Imperfections in His Apostles Peter Deserved to be Blamed; and even Barnabas was carried away with his Dissimulation. 
Gal. 2.11.13.  There were great Failings in Noah, in Lot, in Moses, in Samson, in David, in Solomon: And the Quakers (who, while in the sink of Heresy and Corruption, ●oast of a Sinless Perfection) may set themselves above all these, by the same Rule. But what is so Extravagant, that they dare not, that they have not done! William Shown (a Great Quaker Writer and Preacher; and Highly Extolled by them, at his solemn Funeral about two years ago) in his Treatise concerning Thoughts and Imaginations. Printed 1685. p. 25. Sets up a Quaker, as Meeker than Moses, Stronger than Samson, Wiser than Solomon, And more Patiented than Job— Harmless and Innocent as He (Christ) was. If the Reader be Astonished at this; he will see more. p. 37. Where the Quakers pretend to be come even beyond the Outward Christ, or Jesus; They can come to God now without Him; And worship Him no more. Not to Jesus (says he on the Margin, that you may take the more Notice of it) 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. i e. Through the Inward Christ, or Light within. But to Worship the outward Jesus, the Son of Mary, he Ranks with the Worship of Saints and Angels. And his Ascension and Sitting at the Right Hand of God, W. Shown will not have it understood of the outward Jesus, but only of this Inward Christ. p. 38. Who, when he is thus known to perform all these Offices in his People, he is then, by such, known to sit down at the Right Hand of God— He is then also known to Surrender up the Kingdom to the Father. And in the Margin he puts this Note, Viz. This is the Ascending of Christ up where he was before he Descended. Turning all this to the Inward Christ, or their Light within; Performed within them; where they have an Inward Ascension, an Inward Right Hand of God, an Inward Kingdom, an Inward Delivering of it up, etc. And denying any thing of this to be Performed Outwardly, or to belong to the outward Jesus. Now T. E. is desired to show any such Errors as these; and the Denial of these Four great Essentials of Christianity; which is Ch●●ged and Proved against him, and his Partners; and is the Subject of our present Discourse. 1. Faith in Christ, as he Outwardly suffered at Jerusalem, to our Salvation. 2. Justification by his Blood outwardly shed. 3. The Resurrection of the Dead. 4. The Future Judgement. He is desired to show any such Errors as these, in those Fathers, whom he so much despises. No. If any had Published such Doctrines as these, in those which he calls Dark Times, they had been spewed out of the Church, with the utmost Abhorrence. Many were cast out for much less Errors than these. Nor ought such Errors to be Tolerated in any Christian Nation. And it is an horrible Scandal that such should be suffered to pass under the Name of Protestant. It is enough to make that Name odious to all other Christians. From the Place last Quoted to p. 197. There is nothing but a wrangling Personal Dispute betwixt T. E. and G. Keith, about some Papers Exhibited by the one against the other. All which I pass over. And come to G. Keiths' Appendix to his Narrative which T. E. gins there to Consider.   

SECT. V The several Charges in the Appendix.  
THese are some further Instances upon the Four Heads, which are the subject of the Narrative: And a few other things which come in by the by, and might have been spared. But that this Reply may be Full, I proceed to Examine them.  
1. A Quotation out of G: W. is set down. p. 198. Wherein he denies either the Soul or Body of Christ to be Human, or that he had an Human Nature, and he says that the Blood of God, with which he purchased his Church, Act. xx. 28. Was not the Blood of the Human Nature. And where doth the Scripture (says he) call the Blood of God Humane, or Humane Nature? To this T. E. Answers, That Christ, was not of a mere Earthly Extraction: That there was more of Divinity even in that Body, than in the Bodies of other Men. Which none, hardly the Socinians, will Deny. But T. Is Inference is not Good, That because Christ's Body had more Divinity in it than other men's, that therefore it was too Heavenly to he called Humane or Earthly. For the Hypostatical or Personal Union of his Human with his Divine Nature, did not Destroy or Swallow up his Humanity, as the Eutychians held; But his Human both Soul and Body, are still, and for ever, Truly and Properly Humane, else he were not Truly and Properly a Man. And the not knowing of this has greatly Milled the Quakers: Who▪ if they had given themselves, but a little, to Humane Learning (which they despised, because they had it not) and had known the Ancient Heresies which were Condemned by the Church, in several Ages; they would not have fallen in with so many of them, as they have Ignorantly done. T. E. Would not have given such an Answer as he does here, That Christ's making his Soul an offering for Sin, was true, and so it is (says he) in a Figurative Manner of Speaking. Which was the very Words and Excuse of these Primitive Heretics; who said that Christ's Passion was not Real, but only in Appearance to men's Eyes. And, if his Body was but a Veil or Garment, wherein he dwelled, as the Quakers and Socinians do make it, than indeed his sufferings were no other than Figurative or ●alse; and he could no more be said to have been Cruci●y'd, than a Man would be Crucify'd if his Cloak or Garment was Crucify'd. And thus it must be, if Christ's Humane Nature was not Hypostatically united to his Divine Nature, so as both to make but one Person, as Soul and Body is in Man. For otherwise the Soul could feel nothing, or be said to suffer for whatever was done to the Body. And T. Is. Argument, and G. W's▪ which he Recites, is most Ridiculous, that Christ's Soul was Immortal, and could not be put to Death. So is every Mans. And when we Kill a Man▪ no body says, that we Kill his Soul. But as the Separation of Body and Soul is Death to us; So it was, and us Really, to Christ: And not only In a Figurative ma●ner of speaking, as T. E. (with the Ancient Heretics) does contend.  
II. Page 202. There is a Quotation of G. W's, brought, wherein he denies, That there is continual need of Repentance. And T. E. Justifies it, by supposing, that the Quakers are free from all Sin Else, there must be Continual need of Repentance. I will not Enter now, upon their most Exploded Title to a Sinless Perfection (having done it sufficiently elsewhere) I only mention this now to show their Infallible Hardiness in pretending still to it, after it has been Exposed even to Laughter, and as many Failings shown of these Perfect, Sinless Creatures, as would make any of the Profane to appear Ridiculous. And this Pretence to a Sinless Perfection, is not the least Gross of their Imperfections: And shows the Excess of their Spiritual Pride. For which they may Read their Sentence. 1 John 1.8. If we say that we have no Sin, we deceive ourselves; and the Truth is not in us. For, as Solomon says, Prov. xx. 9 Who can say, I have made my Heart clean, I and Pure from Sin?  
III. The next Quotation is p. 202. Where G. W's. Perversion of Isa. ix. 6. Is set down. He turns that most Express Prophecy of Christ, Viz. Unto us a Child is ●orn, etc. To an Allegorical sense of Christ within, and his being Born in our Hearts. And says that he was thus Born in Isaiah himself, who wrote these Words, Who had also been as with Child, Says he, i. e. Of Christ. T. F. In Defence of this, says, p. 203. That this was meant of Both, Viz. Of Christ's Outward and his Inward Birth: but this is false; for the Prophecy was only of his Outward Birth. And if it can be turned to the Inward, how shall we thereby convince the Jews, as to the Outward Christ? This Liberty of Interpretation will confound all the Prophecies of Christ in the Old Testament. And it is Remarkable that Isaac Penington, a Quaker, having wrote a Book, Entitled, Some Queries and Answers of deep Concernment to the Jews, and Designed purposely for Their Conversion, does not, through the whole, once Name the outward Christ; But bids them only look to their Light within. T. E. Quotes a Book of G. Keith's called The Rector Corrected. p. 30. In Justification of this Exposition of his, of Isa. ix. 6. To mean both the Outward and the Inward Birth of Christ. And though my business is not here to Vindicate G. Keith, yet I had the Curiosity to look into that Book of his, and find, that this Text was not so much as under Consideration, or once named, in that place, but he was treating there wholly of another Subject; and which is no ways Applicable to this.  
iv The next Quotation is. p. 203. G. W. in his Book called The He Goat's Horn Broken (by way of Wittieism upon John Horn, whom he Answers) p. 33. 34. Charges this (among others) as an Error in J. Horn, Viz. That when Paul saith Christ was seen of him Last, 1 Cor. xv. 8. He must needs mean it of his Body seen, and seen by Bodily sight. Which is contrary (says G. W.) to Gal. 1.16. To this says T. E. that if G. W. had denied that Christ was Bodily seen of Paul, that had not Allegorized a-away Christ's Resurrection. And this is all he says to it. But if Christ was not Bodily seen of Paul, then was Paul a false Witness of Christ: For, in that Place 1 Cor. xv. He Name's himself among other Witnesses to Christ's outward Resurrection. He was seen (says St. Paul v. 5.) Of Cephas, then of the Twelve; After that he was seen of above 500 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. Now if he was not seen of Paul, then was he seen of none of the Rest: And so they are all together False-Witnesses. As St. Paul makes the Inference, v. 15. Yea, and We are found False-Witnesses of God; because we have Testified of God, that he Raised up Christ: Whom he Raised not up, if so be that the Dead Rise not. But T. E. says, quite contrary to this Reasoning of St. Paul, That though we should deny that Christ was Bodily seen of Paul, yet this would not Allegorise away Christ's Resurrection. St. Paul thought that it would totally overthrow it, and all our Faith with it. And moreover, That to deny the Resurrection of one bodies, does Infer the Denial of Christ's Resurrection. As he Argues, ver. 12, etc. Now if Christ he Preached, that he Risen from the Dead; 〈◊〉 say some among you, that there is no Resurrection of the Dead? But now if t●ere be no Resurrection of the Dead, then is Christ not Risen: And if Christ be not Risen, then is our Preaching vain, and your Faith is also vain. You see how these Articles of our Creed, the Resurrection of Christ, and our Resurrection, are linked so closely together, that they do mutually suppose one another; and taking away of the one, does destroy the other. Therefore I do Earnestly Recommend it to the Quakers, to Consider from whence they are Fallen; how their Error as to our Resurrection has taken away likewise the Resurrection of Christ: And the denial of his outward Resurrection, is Rendering our Faith vain; and overturning the whole Foundations of Christianity: Of which this of the outward Resurrection of Christ was the main Pillar: And therefore, in the Choice of one to succeed Judas, it is said, Act. 1.21. That he must be chosen out of those who had been Eye-Witnesses of Christ all along, that he might be a Witness with us (said the Apostles) of Christ's Resurrection. This was the Hinge, and very, Basis of the Christian Faith. Which the Quaker New Light has wholly overturned.  
V Page 204. The Perversion of that Text Isa. LIII. 9 Is instanced, He made his Grave with the wicked, which R. Hubberthorn (of the First Rank of Worthies among the Quakers) to favour their Notion of the Inward Christ, or Light within, Suffering, Dying, and Rising again in the Heart, Corrupts thus, He made his Grave in the wicked. To this says T. E. First, That R. Hubberthorn did not mention, Isa LIII. As if a Man might not Repeat a Text, and that it were not usual, without Quoting Chapter and Verse. Secondly, He says, that R. H. was not there treating Of the General Resurrection, or the Resurrection of the Body. His words are, Christ the Seed made his Grave in the wicked, and in the Rich in his Death; and out of that Grave shall rise with his Body into Everlasting Life. And adds, If thou canst Receive it, thou mayest be satisfied. Right! If thou canst Receive it! There you are pretty secure. For who can Receive such Unintelligible Jargon! T. E. is desired to tell us, what they mean by the Christ or Light within Rising out of the Wicked, into Everlasting Life. But to his Answer. He says this was not spoken of the Resurrection; whereas it is Plain, that it was spoken of the Resurrection, and of nothing else. Unless he will say, that by Rising out of the Grave, they do not mean a Resurrection; and so give us a New Language; and have secret meanings of their own for words, that no body may understand them. Which I am afraid is the Case.  
VI Here follows a War about Contradictions in G. W. with which I will not meddle; thinking it not worth a Victory to find Contradictions in him. But I will only mark where he discovers his Principles as to Religion. As at the end of p. 205, and beginning of p. 206. Did G. W. (says T. E) ever call or own Christ's Body, now in Heaven, or while it was on Earth, to be Terrestrial, or of the Earth? Then it was not a true Human Body, while on Earth, or now in Heaven: And Christ was not then, nor is now Truly and Really a Man. But of this enough before.  
VII. Page 207. T. E. makes a nice Distinction betwixt Summoning God as a Witness, as he words it, and declaring such a thing as truth In the Presence of God. He says, one is an Imprecation, especially the words So help me God; but that the other is not. But when I declare a thing as In the Presence of God, is there not an Imprecation Employed, if I speak False? But this touches a sore place of the Quakers. For there was nothing wherein they were more Positive, than of the Unlawfulness of Attesting God, in whatsoever Form, in any Worldly business, or going beyond plain Yea or Nay. And that every such Attestation was by them counted an Oath, and utterly Forbidden under the Gospel. What! (say they, in a Treatise of Oaths, Presented to King and Parliament, 1675. Signed by William Pen, George Whitehead, and 11 more p. 17.) make God, the great God of Heaven and Earth, our Caution in worldly Controversies, as if we proved bind him to obtain our own Ends! It is to make too Bold with him, etc. And p. 74, putting the Question. What shall we say is beyond Yea and Nay? Ans. Without doubt, an Oath. And in their Book called A Positive Testimony against all Swearing under the Gospel Printed 1692. p. 23. The Appealing (after any manner) to God as a Judge, or any ways using his sacred Name, or Mentioning any thing whereby it may be Employed, ●s by Heaven, Earth, etc. When Relating only to Human, Worldly and Inferior matters, may be Granted to be an OATH. And p. 31. How can any Invoke God for a Witness, or any other Purpose; or any ways Employ or use his sacred Name, for a security in Earthly matters, if it was not a PROPER OATH? And p. 39 From hence it may be seen an Invincible Reason against Swearing, and the Naming or using God's sacred Name, any ways, to Confirm the Truth of my Speech, Relating to Human and Worldly matters. And p. 46▪ 47. With what Face or Pretence can any that sincerely Profess Christianity take any Oath, or use any Higher Expressions, for Confirming Human and Temporal ma●ters, than Christ's Evangelical sentence of Yea, Yea, and Nay, Nay; or what is Equivalent thereto? And what Christian Men or Magistrates, or Powers of the Earth can Lawfully Prescribe or Require more than Christ hath Permitted herein? Yet all this Notwithstanding, they have, the very last Session of Parliament, not only submitted, but Employed their Interest to obtain; and when opposition was made, struggled hard; and at last Prevailed for an Act of Parliament, that they should be admitted to use in Temporal Courts, and for Worldly matters, this Form of giving their Evidence, In the Presence of the Almighty God, the Witness of the Truth of what I say. For they found themselves Pinched in their Temporal Affairs (which at first, were very small, when they set up their Principle against Swearing; But since are grown very Considerable; and they have now as large a share of Mammon, as most in the Kingdom, which is often Risqued) by their refusing to Swear in matters of Law: And they have hit upon this Medium to Reconcile their Interest, and their Consciences together. But which has got the better I leave the Reader to Judge. However to qualify the latter a little, they have since Published a Collection of Testimonies out of the Writings of their Ancient Friends (wherein all Contradictions are to be found) to justify their present Proceed, which with the opposite Testimonies (some whereof are above Recited) are Printed by John Pennyman, who remained a Member of their fraternity, till such Contradictory Practices as these drove him from them.  
VIII. Page 209. T. E. excuses W. Pen for saying, That to deny the Locality of Heaven and Hell was not very offensive; by giving this Definition of Locality; viz. Certain particular Places or Parts of the World, set out, bounded and limited to any certain and determinate Dimensions. Well: How does this excuse it? If this be so, then is not Christ's Body in any certain place, bounded and limited to any certain and determinate Dimensions; i e. in no place at all; for all space is thus determined and limited: else it were not space. And if Christ's Body be in no Place, then has he no Body; for every Body must be in some place or other. And if this be not offensive, then what can be? But T. E. says, 2dly, p. 210. That W. P. only said, it was not very offensive. Which shows (says T. E.) that he held it to be offensive, and was offended at it. Goodly! Goodly! Very angry he was indeed! But why not very offensive? Is the taking away any outward, that is, any Local Heaven or Hell, and the Truth of Christ's Human Body, but a Little offensive● No. But very Pleasing to the Quaker Light within, which would turn all these Inward; and make but an Allegory of them. And in this case, not very offensive, means the same as not offensive at all. And it is a Common Phrase; especially when we would Excuse any thing; and to Insinuate our Liking, at least, not Dislike of it: Particularly where the Case is such, that our open and Positive Commendation might be ill taken. It is like Sounding the Depth of the Water, that we may know how far we can go without danger. But if these be such small offences, and easily passed over, I would fain know what those Monstrous things are, for which the Church of England, and other Professions have been Stigmatised by the Name of Baal's Priests, Devils Incarnate, and such like Appellations, with which I will D●rty no more of my Paper? Why, verily for Preaching up the Locality of Heaven and Hell, and of the Body of Christ, now Lo●ally in that Local Heaven: And thus Running out from the Quaker Allegorical Doctrine, of finding all these within us, and no where else. This is the Grand Quarrel the Quakers have against us. For they can Name none other.  
IX. There is another Position which gave very little offence to W. P. as Sorting with a most Blasphemous and Absurd Notion of the Quakers, that the Soul of Man is a Part of God. Which is fully proved in The Snake in the Grass. Part 2. Sect VII. Where G. Fox's words are Quoted, making our Soul of the same Person and Substance with God, without Beginning or Ending, and Infinite in itself, to be one Soul with God, a Part of his Substance, Person, Essence, and Being. But this is something Mollified, as to the Expression, in that which T. E. says, p. 210. Was not very offensive to W. P. Viz. Assigning to it (the Soul of Man) something more of Divinity than the usual opinion doth. What was that something? And what more of Divinity is it which the Quakers ascribe to the Soul, than the usual opinion doth? The Divinity is not Divided; and therefore if we Truly and Properly partake of any Part of it, we partake of it All. Man's Soul was Breathed from God: and made a Glorious ●mage of him; and Partook of many Excellencies and Endowments which were Communicated to it by God: All this The usual opinion doth ascribe to the Soul. But what more is it, which the Quakers would have? Even what I have above told you out of the Founder of their Faith, G. Fox. And if this had not been Pleasing to W. P. he would not have been a little offended at those General Expressions which lead to this; and which do Imply all this. He would not have ascribed more of Divinity to the Soul than the usual opinion doth; since that more is Rank Blasphemy. But this he wrote in his Younger days, in the First Flights of his Zeal, and New Conversion to Quakerssin; when the Fascinations of that Spirit were Fresh and Vigorous. But I hope, and desire to believe that he will do it no more. And that he gives T. E. little thanks for these Lame Defences which he has made for him.  
X. The next thing observable, is the Quakers Notion of a Church, which T. E. p. 210. Sesse must not be taken with Respect to Particular Persons (the Faithful or Believing) but with Respect to a Gathered People; which (says he) is both the Common and True Notion of a Church. And, in this sense he boldly stands to it, that the Quakers are the only Church of Christ upon the Earth. And says, p. 211. That this is no Presumption in them to affirm, nor aught to be offensive to others to hear, since we (says he) therein Claim no more to ourselves, than every other Body of Professed Christians claim to themselves; Namely, that they, and they only (as a Gathered People) are the true Church of Christ. But of all these bodies of Christians which T. E. Names, I know of none with whom the Quakers do join in this, but only the Church of Rome. For the Church of Rome only (except the Quakers) make themselves the Catholic Church, excluding all others (as a Gathered People) who are not of their Communion. But the Church of England never yet called herself The Catholic Church, or excluded others, even as a Gathered People, from being Members of The Church. The most Rigid for Episcopacy, allow all Episcopal Churches, to be Included within the Denomination of The Church; which Appellation none of them (Rome only Excepted) do confine to their own Church. And ●is brings in the Churches of Denmark, Sweden, and vast Empire of Russia in Europe; the whole Greek Church, spread far both in Europe and Asia; the Numerous Churches of the Christians in the East-Indies, where St. Thomas the Apostle Planted the Christian Faith; and they derive themselves from him: And the large Region of the Abyssens in Africa. All which Churches are, and ever have been Episcopal And do far out number all the Anti-Episcopal Communions in Britain, Holland, Switzerland, Piedmont, Geneva, and a few other Hans-Towns in Germany; which are all of them in the whole World. And their Rise not above 150 Years ago. So small a Proportion do these Modern Dissenters from Episcopacy bear, either as to Antiquity or Numbers, to the Episcopal Churches of the World; without Reckoning those of the Romish Communion; who are indeed the greatest opposers of Episcopacy, Reducing it 〈◊〉 the See of Rome; which only they term Apostolical. But all these, and all the other Dissenters above named together with them, will not amount to a Tenth part of the Number of those in the Communion of the abovenamed Episcopal Churches, none of which ever owned the Supremacy of Rome, except Denmark and Sweden, who have, with us, thrown it off. And all these, the Church of England does own as Churches, and each of them as Members of the Catholic Church: And no one of them does assume to herself the Title of The Church. None but the Church of Rome, and the Quakers. If any other of our little Dissenters do assume this to themselves, we will give them into the Bargain. But I believe there is none of them will Pretend to it.  
And now since T. E. does own that a Gathered People, and not Particular Persons (however Holy) is the Common and true Notion of a Church; I would Gladly be informed where the Quakers do Place the Church before G. Fox? Or was there no Church of Christ before? Did it quite fail out of the World? And were Christ's Promises defeated, which said, that it should never Fail, or the Gates of Hell prevail against it? If he says, That there were particular Persons, in all Ages, of their Principles.  
1. They can show none such, except the vilest Heretics, who were condemned by the whole Catholic Church.  
But 2dly, This, if it could be proved, would not do their business; Because T. E. has here confined the Notion of the Church to a gathered Body of People.  
Then either there was such a Gathered Body before G. Fox, which the Quakers are obliged to show, or otherwise there was no Church of Christ before G. Fox; or otherwise the Quakers are not The Church now: Because they have separated from All other Gathered Bodies of Christians in the World. It is left to the Quakers Choice, which of All these Absurdities they will fall under; for it is impossible to avoid them All.  
If they think to Retort (which is no Answer), That this is like the Question which the Papists do ask at us, Where was your Church before LUTHER?  
Ans. This is not, where THE Church was? And if the particular Church of England were lost, as the Seven Famous Churches to whom St. John wrote in the Revelations (and she has no more Promise than they), yet THE Church is not lost, of which she is but One Member: And All the abovenamed Episcopal Churches, who never submitted to the Pope of Rome, are abundantly sufficient to Repel that Frivolous Objection of the Papists, as if there had been no Church of Christ before Luther, except only the Church of Rome. But to the Quakers, who make Themselves Only to be THE Church, this is an Invincible Argument: And they will never be able to struggle from under it.  
And it is to be observed how the Papists and the Quakers are alike involved, by this Contradictory Pretence of setting up a Particular for the Universal Church. Christ has promised to his Church, That it should never fail, or fall from the Faith, i. e. He will always preserve such a Church somewhere or other: But the Promise is to no Particular Church. Now when a Particular Church arrogates to its self the Title of THE Church, it is consequential to this, That she should set up for Infallibility too: Which Rome and the Quakers ONLY have done (and it obstructs Both, in Returning from their Errors) who ONLY have assumed that Presumptuous Title: Which whoever does, as Gregory the Great said, is a Lucifer for Pride, and the Forerunner of Antichrist. This the Papists and the Quakers have to divide among themselves. And the Contradiction of the Style, Roman-Catholick, i. e. Particular-Vniversal, is as Applicable to A Quaker Church for THE Church.  
Here, by the way, let me show the Extensive Charity of the Church of England, and other Episcopal Churches, above that of Rome, and of these Narrow and upstart Dissenters; who would confine the whole Church of God to themselves. But as St. Cyprian said of the Bishop of Rome, That while he sought to thrust other CHURCHES from him; he only thrust himself from the CATHOLIC CHURCH; So have these, in a much more plain and open manner; and with such Absurdity as is Loathsome. To hear such an Ignorant wretch as Solomon Eccles, a Prophet and great Preacher of the Quakers, say, the Quakers are in Truth, and none but they! Which T. E. Repeats, p. 212. (Being objected by G. Keith) and gives no other Answer, but I have not seen that Paper, that I remember. But passes no Censure or Reflection upon it.  
If the Quakers should say, That their Charity is as Extensive as that of the Episcopal Churches, which extend the Notion of The Church only to themselves: And the Quakers do it to themselves. Let them consider how far theirs is extended, viz. To a few ●n Pensilvania, and some other Colonies of the West-Indies, which, besides the Quakers here at home, are all the Gathered bodies they have to Brag of Except a very Few, and Inconsiderable in Holland; and much Fewer in one or two places in Germany. But 〈◊〉 them all come in, they bear not the Proportion of a Molehill to a Mountain, to the Episcopal Churches; which are all the whole Christian World; except a small parcel of Wens or Warts, which have lately grown to the Body of the Church, in these Western Parts. But then again: The Charity of the Present Episcopal Churches extends Backwards, to all the Ages of the Church, ever since Christ▪ For all these have, every where, and always been Episcopal, without one Exception, till of very late years, and only in this Corner of the World. But the Quaker Charity can extend no farther Backward than G. Fox, in the year 1650, but 46 ago: For, before that time, they cannot pretend to any Gathered Body of People, that ever was in the World of their Principles or Persuasion. So that this Comparison, lets them see their Diminutive Novelty; and aught to turn their Faces from whence they came.  
XI. Page 213. There is a dispace concerning a very offensive Passage in W. P's. Rejoinder to J. ●aldo, p. 310. Which G. Keith says is Nonsense, or Antichristian Doctrine; as being Intended to take away the Humane Body of Christ. For which G. Keith says that W. P's words, which follow, are given for a Reason, Viz. Because, that Flesh of Christ is called a Veil; but he himself is within the Veil, which is the Holy of Holies, whereunto Christ Jesus our High Priest hath entered, Heb. X. 20, 21. I confess the words are obscure. Nor do I well understand the meaning of Christ's entering within his own Flesh, which is the Veil; and then within himself, which is the Holy of Holies. It seems to bear this meaning, that as the High Priest, having entered through the Veil, left it behind him; so that Christ hath left his Body behind him, having passed through it, into the Holy of Holies. Which G. Keith says, one Robert Young, a Preacher among the Quakers in Pensilvania, Did assert, and brought these very words of W. P. to Confirm it. Which T. E. p. 215. Does not deny, but says, there ought to be some other Voucher besides G. Keith. However, this Sense of the words is agreeable to the General tendency of that Book, which is to Depreciate the Outward, in Comparison of the Inward Christ, or Light within; otherwise there could have been no difference betwixt W. P. and J. Faldo, who did not deny, either the Divinity of Christ; or the Inward Influence of his Blessed Spirit in our Hearts. Yet T. E. gives this Excuse for these words of W. P. That they were given as a Reason (among others) why the Body of Christ which was Nailed to the Cross, simply considered by itself, and Abstractedly from that Divine Life and Power which dwelled in it, should not be called the Christ.  
This makes the matter look much worse against W. P. than any thing G. Keith hath said. For it is certain that J. Faldo never said any such thing, as that the Body of Christ simply considered by itself, (which T. E. has put, as here, in a different Character, to show that he laid the stress upon that Limitation) and Abstractedly from the Divinity of Christ, was the Christ. No Christian could say or think any such thing. And therefore it was against something else, which W. P. disputed against something wherein J. Faldo opposed him; which was, in asserting the outward Body of Christ, against the Quakers Notion of turning it all into an Allegory of the Light within. And (as Robert Young, a fellow Preacher of W. P's. understood his words above Quoted) they were intended, that Christ had Passed through, or got within the Veil. i e. of his Body; and so left it behind him, when he wont beyond it, into the Holy of Holies. If this was not W. P's meaning let him clear himself from this Defence of T. Is which will not admit of any other Construction to be put upon it.  
XII. G. Keith Quotes W. P's. Truth Exalted. Reprinted. An. 1671. p. 13 14. But T. E. throws it off. p. 216. in this slight fashion, That neither deserves nor needs any other Answer here, than a bare denial. This made me suspect something, and to look into the place; where W. P. is describing the Quakers Christ, as he calls it; which he does at great length, several Pages together; and from Top to Bottom, not one word of the outward Christ; but applying the most express Prophecies of him, to that Christ or Light within the Heart. Unto us (says he, p. 13.) The most Afflicted, Despised, and Forsaken by all the Families of the Earth, is a Child Born unto us, a Son is Given, we call him Wonderful Councillor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, etc. and p. 14. This is the Second Adam, the Quickening Spirit— The Law writ in the Heart and Spirit, put in the Inward Parts— This is the Quakers Christ. And p. 15.— This Universal Light— is God's beloved Son, hear ye him.  
XII. Page 217. T. E. to save W. P. from having Sworn, by saying, As sure as the Lord Liveth, and yet Condemning that Form, As the Lord javeth, for a direct Oath, confesses this Latter to be an Oath, but not the Former. This is very Nice! But if T. E. (the Doctor subtilis of the Quakers) had not Informed our understandings, any Dull Reader would have been apt to think, that the Former had rather been the Greater Oath, as being more Positive; but could never have seen how it could have been not only less, but no Oath at all; because it is the very words of the Latter, and every word of it, only adding, as sure as, to it. But what was the occasion of W. P's. using of these words? They were the severe Sanction of a Prophecy, which (in his Book called Reason against Railing, p. 180.) he gave forth against Tho. Hicks, a Baptist Preacher, his opponent, in these words. So sure as the Lord Laveth— And I testify to thee from God's Living Spirit, if thou desist not, and come not to deep Repentance, the Lord will make thee an Example of his fury, and thy Head shall not go down to the Grave in Peace. To this, says T. E. p. 218. That he (Tho. Hicks) Desisted is certain; and that he did not come to Repentance, I suppose G. Keith will not adventure to say. This is in Justification of W. P's. Prophecy, as if it had been thus Fulfilled, or solved. First, By Tho. Hicks' having Desisted; i. e. From opposing the Quakers. Which T. E. says, is Certain. Secondly, By his Repenting for it; which he says only that he has Herd. And W. P's. Prophecy being Conditional, and these Conditions of it thus Performed, it saves his Prophecy from being a False one. But First, as to T. Hicks' DESISTING to oppose the Quakers after this; which T. E. will not have us to Doubt, because He, even He himself says, It is certain. Whereas the Contrary is most certain And I can give a most certain Demonstration of it. For T. Hicks did not Desist, but, after all this, he Printed an Answer to this very Book of W. P's. wherein this Prophecy is; and at the end of his Post Script, he takes notice of this same Prophecy, and says, That if W. P. were his Judge, be believed that he would make good his Prophecy, and my Head (says T. H.) Should not have gone to the Grave in Peace. This Book of T. Hicks' is Entitled. The Quakers Appeal Answered. And Printed 1674. Well, but T. E. may say, that he Desisted when he had Done. Most likely! i. e. He did not continue Writing to the last moment of his Life. But did his Head go down to the Grave in Peace? Yes. And was he not made an Example of God's Fury? Did he die in Despair? At least so, as to be an Example? Which must be Public, and Notorious to those about him, when he Died; otherwise it was no Example. No. There was nothing at all Extraordinary in his Death: But to all Appearance, he Died in Peace, and with Comfort: And gave not the least Sign of Repentance for the opposition which he had made against the Quakers. And here, I cannot refrain to say one word to Mr. Penn; That he would seriously Reflect upon the Dreadful Blasphemy of giving forth Lies, in The Name of the Lord! Nay, though any thing of his Prophecy had befallen T. Hicks, yet it had been no less Blasphemous, and a False Prophecy in W. P. if it was not Positively Revealed to him by God, in some Extraordinary manner; and in some other way, than the strong Impulse of his own Imagination.  
But he was carried into this, by the Common Track of the Quakers, whose constant custom it was, and seen in all their Writings, to Publish all their Conceits, as the Immediate word of the Everliving God. And (as W. P. here) to Pawn the very Being of God for the Truth of their Delusions; That As sure as the Lord Liveth, what they delivered should so come to pass. And though such of their Predictions have 1000 times been Defeated, and Proved False, yet this is no Mortification to them; But they Persist still in the assurance of their own Infallibility! Can such an Instance of strong Delusion be given, ever since the World began! Pray God to open their Eyes, that they may, at last, Consider of it, as they ought; And recover themselves out of this Snare of the Devil, wherein they are taken Captive by him, at his will.  
XIV. Page 218. 219. Some Contradictions of W. P. are Disputed, which I pass by, in this place, because their Doctrines is the subject which I now Pursue: And would not Interrupt.  
What follows of T. Is. Answer is in Vindication of himself, from Charges laid against him by G. Keith. Which are, for the most part, upon the same Heads, which have been already Considered: And his Defence of himself, is after the same fashion as he has defended W. P. and G. W. by always Perverting the Question; and Imposing False Positions upon his opponents, that he may seem to Confute them; and hid his own Principles the while. Of which method having seen so much before, I will, to save Repetition, but offer you a Taste here, to verify the Character I have given of him: And to ease the Reader; who, if he be not already Tired, I am sure I am; therefore I shall beg leave to Contract.  
XV. Page 220. 221. The Charge against T. E. is, That he denied the Blood of Christ, which was shed after his Death, by the Spear, to be any Part of the Sacrifice; from this Reason, because, he said upon the Cross, Consummatum est. It is finished. Whence G. Keith Inferred, That Christ's Death must be excluded by the same Rule, because that was after he had said It is Finished. No, says T. E. That cannot be charged upon me, because I said, that Christ had pronounced, It is finished, had Bowed his Head, and given up the Ghost, before his side was Pierced by the Spear. This was only too free himself from the Consequence of Excluding Christ's Death, from being a Part of the Sacrifice; which it does not. For if, It is Finished, was meant of the whole Sacrifice, than it was Finished before his Death. But however T. E. says nothing, in Excuse of his Excluding the Blood shed after his Death. Therefore that stands still Excluded by him, without any Defence.  
And this does exclude the Whole and Entire Sacrifice, to which Christ's last Words, It is finished, are not Extended; but only to All that he was to do and suffer before his Death. For as the Bodies of the Legal Sacrifices were Burned, that is, sacrificed; and their Blood offered, After the Death of the Beasts which were Sacrificed; so was it in Christ, whom they Frae-figured; his Body pierced and his Blood shed, after his Death, were Truly and Properly a Part of the Sacrifice, as much as what he suffered before he Expired. And as the Legal Sacrifice was not completed by the Death of the Beast; but by the Burning of it, and offering of the Blood afterwards shed. And those who Reject That Blood, do mutilate his Sacrifice, and render it ineffectual to themselves.  
XVI. Page 223. T. P. is charged with these Words, I deny that Christ came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary. This takes away the Hunane Nature of Christ. T. E. says, p. 225. he meant this only as to Christ's Divine Nature: Which is Nonsense. And none ever said, That his Divinity was Generated of the Properties of Man in Mary.  
XVII. G. Keith brought a Quotation out of T. Is. Truth defended, p. 138. wherein he said. That Jesus the Saviour was not Created. T. E Answers here, p. 226. That this Arose from hence, that he (G. K.) would make the Manhood only to be Christ, without the Godhead. Which G. K. was far from saying. Nay, but the page before, Viz. p. 225. T. E. owns that G. K. ●ad Confessed not to the Manhood only, but the Godhead and Manhood United.  
Therefore, it is plain, that T. E. meant to exclude the outward, or Created Christ. And places all upon the Inward Christ, or Light within, which he says, was not Created, i. e. upon Christ as God only, but not Man.  
XVIII. This will appear further in what follows. T. E. said, in the same Book, That Christ is the Great Cause of Regeneration and Sanctification, Chief as he is Manifested Inwardly in the Heart.  
This is to Prefer his Inward to his outward Appearance; and to his outward Birth, Death, etc. And This is as Absurd (says G. Keith) As to say, the Beams of the Sun that Descend on the Earth, are the Chief Cause of the Earth's Fruitfulness; and not the Sun itself that is in the Firmament. T. E. Answers, p. 229. As if Christ (says he) were not otherwise in the Saints, than the Sun is on the Earth, Viz. by its Beams. This shows us the Heart of the Quakers, who a●● not satisfied with the Influences and Inspiration of Christ: But will have the very Person of Christ within them. And acknowledge no other Christ now in being. It is the True and Real Heat and Light of the Sun which is conveyed to us in its Beams. And it is the True and Real Virtue and Light of Christ, which from him, in Heaven, is conveyed into our Hearts. And what more would the Quakers have? Nothing less than the very Body and Person of Christ within them! This is the Foundation of all the Quakers Errors. Whereby they pass over the outward Birth, and Sufferings of Christ, as so many Facile Representations, and Historical Transactions: But place all the Merit, and Salvation in their own Light within, which they think to be the only True, Real, Substantia, and Personal Christ; and that there is none other.  
XIX. What follows in the 3 next pages, which are the last of T. Is Answer, is nothing but some Personal Reflections, and Vapouring, wherein none but themselves are Concerned. Therefore I leave them. Having omitted nothing, I think, that is Material in T. Is. Answer, which Concerns the Principles of the Christian Religion; which only are my Concern, in this matter; otherwise I had neither put the Reader, nor myself to any Part of this Trouble.  
Pray God it may Answer the End for which it was Intended, that is, to Persuade those who wield their Pens amongst the Quakers, to Contend no longe● for vain Victory; or to Buoy up their own Reputations: That they would not misspend their Wit, and their Time to Gloss and Cover their Errors; which does but Expose them the more. And since they now do pretend, in Discourse, and otherwise, to be the same with the Church of England, in Faith and Doctrine; that they would, with a Noble and a Christian Courage, Fairly and Above-board, Retract and Condemn whatever they have said or wrote to the Contrary. This is Incumbent upon them; to Rescue the many Souls Deluded by them. For that they are so Deluded none can deny. I have many times heard several of them, some of their Preachers, plainly own all the Gross things Charged upon them; even Denying any Merit or Salvation by the Blood of Christ, which was outwardly shed: That Christ is now a Man: That there will be any Resurrection of our Dead bodies: or Future Universal Judgement. Now where did they Learn these Doctrines? There are none of any other Communion, who believe, few that ever heard of such things Therefore it is certain, that these have been, Deluded. And who have Deluded them? And nothing will undeceive them, but seeing their Leaders downright Retract these Errors. While they seem to excuse them, they Confirm their Ignorant Followers in them. Whose Blood will be required at their Hands, if they do not all that is in their Power, to retrieve them. What shall I say more? To my Persuasions I will add my Prayers for them. Which I do daily offer for their Conversion. And thus to God, and his Mercy I leave them, through Jesus Christ, who shed his Blood for them, Dyed, Rose, and Ascended OUTWARDLY, and will, in the same Body, come again to Judge them: In which Day, may they hear a Favourable sentence from Him; and, with us, be one with him to all Eternity, Amen   
Oct. 14. 1696.   

SOME GLEAN WITH Other further Improvements.  

I.  
1. THomas Ellwood is not only Chargeable with what he has wrote in this Answer, which has been Examined, but the whole Body of the Quakers (except Turners-Hall and those in Communion with them) because it has been approved of by The second days Meeting (as all Books are that they give forth) which is their Supreme Authority, in such Cases.  
2. Looking over his Answer again, I cannot but Remark a Bold stroke of his, p. 34. Thomas Danson, being a Presbyterian Minister (said G. Keith) did Head, that Christ, as Man, had a Crea●ed Soul. Nay, hold there (Replies T. E.) Thom. Danson spoke of the Son of God. i. e. That Christ is not the Son of God. If he thinks to come off by that Limitation in Danson's words, As Man, it will not Rescue him. For even, As Man, He was The Son of God, Luk. 1.35. And as to his Eternal Generation, He was the Son of God from all Eternity. Therefore T. E. is to tell us, in what sense he opposed Christ's being The Son of God: And with the assurance of a Nay hold there! As if some great Absurdity had been coming upon him!   

II.  
1. I told you, in my Conclusion, of the great Ignorance of the Generality of the Quakers: And that many of them, do, at this day, plainly own the most Blasphemous and Heretics Doctrines, which have been objected against them. And thence I inferred, that, whatever Face their Writers, since the late Controvers● against them, have put upon their Principles, yet this shows undeniably that such Heresies have been taught amongst them; and are still so understood by their People. And that vehemently. A present Preache● of theirs, not long since, being Pressed to acknowledge the Man Christ, without us, and the necessity of Faith in him. Answered, The Man Christ, a F— rt. Horrid! It Astonishes, to Repeat such disdainful Blasphemy! Tho it be necessary towards undeceiving of the World. I know the Man, and to whom he said it. He denied before me, and several others, at another time, That Christ's Body Risen out of the Grave: That our bodies should Rise: That there would be any General Judgement: Or that the Scriptures were all True. This is a Teacher: Thus he has been Taught: And thus he Teaches others. And it is no wonder, that they who are thus Taught to believe no outward Christ, now in being, should use him with the utmost Contempt; And his Worshippers with the greatest severity; as being the Grossest sort of Idolaters, to worship a Dead God, who is no more in Being. But the Quakers Faith is in an Inward Christ, Viz. Their Light within. And Inward Blood, Inwardly shed, etc.  
2. Can outward Blood Cleanse the Conscience? Says Isaac Pennington, in his Questions to the Professors, p. 25. Was it the Flesh and Blood of the Veil, or the Flesh and Blood within the Veil? I have before observed, that they call Christ's Body the Veil, or Garment which he wore, without taking it into his own Nature, or being any Part of Christ. For say they, in a Book Composed by a great Club of them, Entitled, Some Principles of the Elect People of God, in scorn called Quakers. Printed. 1671. p. 116. 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 Veiled, and the Veil that Veiled it— There was the outward Vessel, and the Inward Life. This we certainly know (say they) and can never call the Bodily Garment, Christ. So that the Blood of Christ's Body, was none of His Blood, it was but the Blood of his Garment or Veil; which the Quakers do not acknowledge to be Christ. And which Isaac Pennington says, cannot Cleanse the Conscience. What Blood then is it which Cleanses? Not the blood of the Veil, that is, of Christ's Body, but The Flesh and Blood within the Veil, i. e. of the Spirit, which was within Christ's Body. And this Spiritual Blood, must be Spiritually, that is, Inwardly, and not visibly shed. This totally excludes the outward Christ, and the outward Blood from having any Efficacy towards our Salvation. Which Isaac Pennington explains yet fuller: (ibid.) Was it (says he) The Flesh and Blood of the outward Earthly Nature, or the Flesh and Blood of the Inward Spiritual Nature? Was it the Flesh and Blood which Christ took of the First Adam's Nature, or the Flesh and Blood of the Second Adam's Nature? This is Nonsense, for Christ himself was the Second Adam; and this Quere is, whether he took Flesh and Blood of His own Nature? But by the Second Adam the Quakers mean only the Eternal word of God, exclusive of the Humane Nature. And they plainly here Exclude the Flesh and Blood which Christ took of the First Adam's Nature.  
3. Pursuant to this Notion, the Quakers do not confine this Blood (not ●● the Vail. i e. Of Christ's Body; but) the Blood within the Veil; i. e. the Mystical Blood of the Spirit that dwelled in the Body of Christ, they do not Confine this Blood to Christ alone, but say that it is in themselves; for they make i● to be nothing else than The Light within: And from hence they Arrogate the Name of Christ to themselves. As Isaac Pennington says, in his Book above quoted, p. 27. Doth not the Name (Christ) belong to the whole Body, and and every Member of the Body, as well as to the Head? Are they not all of 〈◊〉 yea, All one in the Anointing— Nor is the Apostle ashamed to give them the Name, Christ together with him. 1 Cor. XII. 12. The Body is the same with the Head. Thus they Reckon their own Blood to be the Blood of Christ: And to be that Blood, which Cleanseth from Sin. As you may Read in a Book of theirs, called, The Guilty Clergyman Vnvailed, by T. S. Printed. 1657. Where, p. 17. He tells their Persecutors (as he styled them) That you will by no means be thence Cleansed, (i. e. from the Gild of the Quakers Blood) B●● by the same Blood which you so Cruelly shed.  
4. This was the Reason of their frequent Idolatries to George Fox, giving him the Titles and Attributes of God: Falling Prostrate before Him, and Adoring Him with these Appellations; Thou art the Son of the Ever Living God, the King of Israel, All Nations shall Worship thee, etc. Which I have not only from their Books (Quoted in The Snake in the Grass) but from Eye-Witnesses. They said, This was not to the outward George Fox; But to the Christ or Light within him. And no otherwise would they allow to Worship CHRIST, while upon the Earth; i. e. Not the outward Person of Christ, which they make to be nothing but a Veil, or Garment (And they cannot call the Bodily Garment, Christ!) But to the Christ, or Light within Christ. They will sometimes allow, That Christ had a greater Measure of Christ, or The Light, than G. Fox: And G. Fox than other of the Friends. But I cannot see how they can allow this: For, if none can Partake of an Infallible Spirit, without Partaking of the Infallibility of the Spirit (which is the Quakers Plea for Infallibility) Then must All Partake of it Alike; for there are no Degrees in Infallibility. And thus every Quaker must be equally Infallible; and equally Adorable. And I have been told, that when some Quakers have been Reproved for Bo●●ng one to another (though they would not do it to the Men of the World) contrary to their Principle of not giving Honour to Man; They have Answered, That they did not Bow to the Man, but to the Light within him; which they take to be God. Thus Committing Wild Idolatry to one another, while they deny Civil Honour to others.  
5. Isaac Pennington, as above Quoted, calls the Blood of Christ, the Blood of the outward Earthly Nature. And George Whitehead, in his Light and Life, etc. (oft mentioned before) p. 58. In excuse of that Blasphemous saying of Solomon Eccles', That the Blood which was forced out of Christ'● side by the Spear, Was no more than the Blood of another Saint, says That ●t was no more Simply, as to the Essence of Blood. And Argues, That Se●ing the Children had Flesh and Blood, and Christ took Part of the same, how was it more, or another, simply as to the matter of Blood? Yet Thomas Ellwood, in his present Answer, when he would ward off the Consequence of Christ's Body being the same, in substance, which it was upon Earth; and so a true Humane Body still, which was urged upon G. Whitehead, cries out, p. 205. As in a surprise, But hold a little! 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? J. P. calls it the Earthly Nature. And G.W. says, that it was the same with ours, as to the Essence or matter of Blood. Yet says T.E. where did G.W. ever call it Terrestrial, or of the Earth. Thus do these Men turn and wind their Hypothesis, at every Pinch. They cannot make it hang together. The truth is, They are Bewildred; and know not what they say.  
6. The Quakers have an outward and an Inward Flesh of Christ. The outward they make nothing of; no more than of the Flesh of any other Good Man But their Faith is in the Inward Flesh, i. e. Their Light within. And this only is it, which, with them, does take away Sin. G. Fox in a Paper, which he directs To all People in Christendom, concerning Christ's Flesh which was offered, etc. Printed. 1671. p. 55. Sets forth, in a Monstrous Jargon (for he could Write no otherwise) this Inward Flesh of Christ as Crucify'd, etc. when Adam Fell. And in this Flesh (says he) is the Belief that takes away the Sin. This G. Keith objected. And, says Thom. Ellwood, in his Answer, p. 207. That G. Fox there speaks of Christ according to the Flesh Crucify'd. And was not this his outward Flesh? Says T. E. What! That was Crucify'd when Adam Fell● This is too Gross (Thomas!) to put upon us. Then he says, he has not seen the Book, That he remembers, and knows not how faithfully G. Keith recites out of it: Thomas G. K. said that he had the Book; and sets down G. Fox's words at Large. And p. 51. Of his Narrative, Invites all that Pleased to see the Books, which he had Quoted, at his House. And if T. E. disdained to go, or send thither, he might, no doubt, have purchased a sight of that Book, many other ways. Which I (a greater stranger to their Books) have done; And found the Quotation exact; except one Typographical Error, Viz. The Life Read, which in G. Fox's Book, is The Life Read An usual Cant among the Quakers, who cry often Read within! Read within! i. e. Harken to The Light within. And G. Fox, in this place, to let them know what sort of Flesh of Christ he spoke of; And what sort of offering of that Flesh, says, The Life Read. i e. Read, or understand that I mean all I have said of the Life or Light within. But take the whole sentence. It is, p. 50. of Fox. Speaking of the offering of Christ, when Adam Sinned. So through this offering (says he) is the Reconciliation, through the offering of that Flesh, that 〈◊〉 Corrupted, but takes away Corruptions, and his Blood Cleanseth from Corruption, The Life Read There is much more there to the same purpose, besides what G. K. hath Quoted. T. E. next Complains how hard it was for G. Keith, to fall thus upon his old Friend G. Fox; and tells how good an opinion G. Keith once had of him. Well▪ Let that Pass. I suppose he has altered his opinion, as of G. F. So of G. W. T. E. and several others. And he has fully satisfied the World, that he had good Cause so to do. And I verily believe, that what he did was out of a Principle of Conscience: For he has got nothing by his Change, but Losses, and great Abuse. The Quakers Prosecuted him for his Life, in Pensilvania: And had nor a New Governor (Colonel Fletcher) come there in time, he had, in all Probability, been Condemned; the Quakers being both his Prosecutors and Judges: And since he came to England, he has been Persecuted with the strife of Tongues, Excommunicated and Ruined, as much as in their Power; who before did highly Honour and Support him. Nor has he put himself in any other way that might Balance these Losses. So that he has visibly gone against his Worldly Interest: And what other Motive could he have but Conscience, to Enable him in a single War against so Many and such Potent Adversaries? But he Fought for the great Fundamentals of the Christian Religion, which the Quakers had vilely cast away: And than Spirit which Inspired them, has Armed all their Rage against him. But the Truths which he contends for has Prevailed so far against them, as to force them to, at least, a Feigned Compliance with the Doctrine that he Teaches which they Pretend always to have held, as he now does And thereby Condemn their Excommunication of him, ● unjust; since they have Publicly at ●urners-Hall, Declared that they had no objection against him, as to his Morals.  
7. T. E. often calls upon G. K. for a Reply to his Truth Defended, which he wrote in Answer to a Book of G. Keiths' called, A List of Vile and Gross Error, etc. But T. E. should first have given a Full Answer to that Book; and to another Book of G. K's, called, Gross Error and Hypocrisy Detected, which T. E. pretends to Answer, in this present Answer to the Naratin●, Particularly, p. 20, 21. Where G. K disputes against this the very Fundamental Error of Quakerising which is, Transferring the Merit and Satisfaction of the outward Sufferings and Sacrifice of the outward Christ, to their Fancied Sacrifice and Sufferings of the Inward Christ, or Light within. G. K. there produces their own words, as justified by W. Penn, G. Whitehead, etc. Viz. Christ in us, offereth himself a Living Sacrifice to God for us, by which the wrath of God is appeased to us. And again: Christ offers himself In his Children, in the Nature of a mediating Sacrifice. To this, says G. K. (I will set down his words, because they are short and Material) ● satisfaction be totally Excluded (which are W. P's words before Quoted) because a Sin or Debt cometh both Paid and Forgiven, what ●●d is 〈◊〉 is there of a Mediating Sacrifice of Christ within Men, more that without them▪ Secondly, seeing it is the Nature of all Sacrifices for Sin, that they be sl●●n, and their Blood shed, how is Christ sla●● in his Children, and when? For we Read in Scripture, that Christ ●●●th in the Faithful, as he did in Paul, but not that he is slain in them. Thirdly, If any sla● the 〈◊〉 of Christ in them, by their S●ns, doth not that hinder the Life to be a Sacrifice, by G. Whitehead's Argument; That the Killing of a Christ outwardly, being the Act of Wicked Man, could be no meritorious Act? Fourthly, Where doth the Scripture say Christ offers 〈◊〉 self In h●s Children a Sacrifice for 〈◊〉 Fifthly, Is not this to make more sacrifices, or at least to say that Christ offer himself often, yea, Millions of ti●●s; contrary to Scripture, that saith, Christ offered himself once? Sixthly, Why could no Beast under the Law that had a Blemish be offered, but to signify, that Christ was to offer up himself in no other Body but that which was without Sin? Seventhly, Why was it Prophesied of Christ, A Body hast thou Prepared me, why not Bodies many, if he offer up himself in the bodies of all the Saints? Eightly, Is not this to make th● Sacrifice of Christ, in his own Body, of less value and Efficacy than his Sacrifice in W. Penn's Body? Because the sacrifice in that Body which was offered at Jerusalem, was a Type; but this in W. Penn's Body the Anti-Type; That the History, This the Mystery (As he calls i● in his Answer to John Faldo, p. 336. 337.) Ninthly, Doth not this strengththen the Papists in their false Faith, That Christ is daily offered in the Mass and Unbloody Sacrifice? Now T. E. in his Truth Defended. p. 148. Falls upon defending W. P. for calling Christ but the History; and the Light within the Mystery; after his usual manner, of making the matter still worse: But very civilly slips all the rest, above Quoted, which is the Jugulum Causae, the very Heart of our Controversy with the Quakers: And yet calls his Book an Answer to G. K. and Insults, because he has not got a Replication: But he must first amend his Long-short Answer: Or let him put in an Additional Answer, as to the Nine Reasons above named, against their Inward Sacrifice: And then we will come with him, when he pleases, upon the Merits of the Cause.   

III.  
1. I have before taken notice of the great Moderation and stayed Judgement of the Quakers, in not Rashly passing Judgement upon any, without duly and seriously weighing the Consequence of the Charge, and the Defence of the Accused, and the utmost Good meaning that could be put upon words. Of which T. E. shows a Remarkable instance, p. 124. of his Answer. Where, in Return to G. K. who would have had them to have Censured, as Blasphemous, that Doctrine of a Prophet of their own, Sol. Eccles. Viz. That the Blood of Christ was no more than the Blood of another Saint. T. E. Answers, That if G. Whitehead (to whom G. K. spoke) had been as Hot Headed as G. K. perhaps he might: But that Blasphemy is an High Charge; and they that understand it aright, are not so Forward as G. K. (it seems) would be, to Brand Persons with it, for every unsound expression. When I Quoted this above, I laid before these Moderate Men, how freely they had Branded all the Christian World (for they have greater Tenderness towards the Heathen, whom they make the next True Christians to themselves) as Apostates, Blasphemers, Devils, Conjurers, etc. For making the outward Christ an object of their Faith. I will now show you, what other weighty Causes, they have Decreed to be Blasphemy, Viz. Any opposition whatsoever made to Them, or their Diana, the Light within. In a Renowned Book of theirs, Entitled, The West Answering to the North. Printed▪ 1657. Containing some of the Travels and Labours of their Fox Apostle, and other of his Cubs; there is 〈◊〉 down, p. 1. A Blasphemous Bantering Paper of his, turning the Christ to the Light within; which will bring you (says he) off all the World's Teachers, and Ways, and Doctrines, i. e. Off all the Doctrines and Teachers in the World; All that Preach an outward Christ. Which Paper being justly called Sinful and Wicked, Than which (says the said Book, p. 12.) What Higher Blasphemy is there, greater Abomination, or more Horrible Wickedness? Take another Instance. One William Rogers, a Quaker of Bristol, happened to differ with the other Quakers about their women's Meetings; Concerning Leaving Friends at Liberty to Pay Tithes, if their Light so directed; and some such other things; And he wrote a Book upon these Subjects, which he called, The Christian Quaker. Against whom one Christopher Taylor Wrote, what he styles, An Epistle of Caution to Friends, Printed. 1681. Where p. 4. he says, And for his Calling his Book, The Christian Quaker, etc. It is Notoriously Blasphemous. Now this W. Rogers was then, and is still a Quaker; And, at this day in Communion with them, and owned by them as one of the Friends. But no matter for all that. If he touch upon the Authority of the Quakers Inquisition, or Plead for the Original Freedom of the Light, in Particular Persons (by which they throw off all Lawful Authority) against the In-Errable Sanhedrin of Grace-Church-street; if any, be who he will, Dare turn their Cannon upon themselves, it is Notorious Blasphemy! Or to Censure one word of G. Fox's Infallible Dictates, what Higher Blasphemy! What Greater Abomination! What more Horrible Wickedness! But if a Friend, who submits Implicity to their Church; and will not dispute Her Authority, shall say, or Preach, or Print, That the Blood of Christ, is no more than the Blood of another Saint. And this should be Taxed as Blasphemous— O then, have a Care! Blasphemy is an Heavy Charge! And they that understand it aright, are not so Forward, as G. K. (it seems) would be, to Brand Persons with it, for every unsound Expression! What one said severely of the Church of Rome, That there was but one Sin in her Communion, viz. To oppose the Authority of the Church. Is much more true of the Quaker-Church, which Asserts her Authority Higher; and requires a more Implicit obedience, than Pope or Conclave. So far are they gone from the Original Principle, by which they seduced Men from under all other Church-Authority, Viz. The sufficiency and Independency of the Light in every Particular Person: And consequently, That all outward Impositions were Antichristian! But that Principle (like the Fair Pretences of Usurpers) is only Calculated to Begin a Rebellion, and withdraw our obedience from those to whom it is due; Till they can get into the Saddle: But then, like Scaffolding, it must stand no longer. And such Deluded Subjects find (when 'tis too late) That they have Changed their Masters; But not their Slavery.  
2. This will appear yet more, in the Quaker severity against those who dare to Speak or Writ against them: who shall Presume so much as to Countenance, or, any ways, Contribute towards the least Mutiny or Rebellion from their Authority. They fell upon the Printer, one John Bringhurst, a Quaker, who Printed that Book abovenamed of W. Rogers'; till he was forced to Sign a Condemnation of himself, for what he had done: Which he has Printed, and Prefixed, with his Name to it, to C. tailor's, Epistle of Caution, mentioned before: And so made his Peace. But John Barnet, a Quaker-Merchant, who had sold some of W. Rogers' Books; And refused to Sign such an Instrument of Condemnation against himself (according to their Discipline) because he had done it (as the Printer too alleged) before their Church had Censured it; And, being wrote by a known Quaker; And the Title of The Christian Quaker upon it; there was no Ground to suspect it. Yet all that would not do, he must (without disputing) come under them; And Condemn himself, though he thought himself Innocent: Which because he was not free to do, they, without more Ceremony Excommunicated him; and he stands still Excommunicated; ever since the 4th Day of the Eleventh Month. 1681. On which Day their Brutun Fulmen bears Date, and was given forth from The Monthly Meeting, at Demonshire-House. And it bears no other Crime against J. B. But his felling of this Book; which they said was Prejudicial to the Truth, by Corrupting People's M●nds, tending also to draw them into Disesteem of many of the Lords Servants, etc. For it told of some of G. Fox's Tricks, and others: And, which was Intolerable, Proved what he said. For which, The Epistle of C●●ion, abovenamed, P●●● Says, mildly, This Cursed Spirit of Satan is now entered into the Heart and Soul of W. Rogers, and such of his Abettors as own the Printing and Publishing of his wicked B●ok aforesaid, wherein he has Accused the Faithful Brethren at Large. If he had only said, That Christ was no more than an●ther Man, he had come off, and been Excused by the whole Fraternity, and Reperenced, as well as Solomon Eccles: But to Level G. Fox with other Mortals! Or touch the Faithful Brethren! To draw Men into Dis●esteem of these the Lords Servants! This was no less than Blasphemy! And to be Prosecuted without Mercy! And not only Authors, but Printers, and Publishers, must be struck with their Ecclesiastical T●under. But in Pensilvania, where the Law was in their own hands, this did not serve turn: For there, they gave forth Carnal Warrants, Seized and Imprisoned Printers and Publishers, of what was wrote against them: And improved it (like other Inquisitors) to a Design against the Government; and Tried some of them for their Lives. But their Chief Governor being superseded, and Colonel Fletcher, a Church of England Man, coming in his Room, before they had run through all the For as of their Process, he put a sudden stop to their Proceed; and this has left us only to Guests, whether all they did, was merely out of Love; and but In Terrorem, to Fright their opposers into Better manners. However, some were Ruined by it; and William Bradford the Printer forced to ●ly out of their Dominions, to New York, where he now Lives. If you would know what was the Cause of all this wrath. It was only for Expostulating with them, whether their Granting Commissions, and ●iring Indians to Fight for the Recovery of a S●●p the P●●ates had taken from them, was not contrary to their formerly declared Principle of the Vnlawfulness of using the Carnal weapon, though ●n their own defence? This they construed to be an Implicit Dis-Arming the Government of the Right or Power to Munta●● itself: And by this Innuendo, they Prosecuted Printers, Publishers, etc. As above is told. Of which there are full Narratives, and the trials in Print, Published by the Persons concerned, to which I refer the Reader.  
3. But though they Guarded so severely against any Printing, or Publishing against themselves: Yet they restrained not to Print and Publish every day, most virulent Invectives against the other Protestants; and dispersed them by order of their Yearly Meetings; for the Propagation of Truth, as they called it. And not only what they could do themselves against us; but they took pains to Re-Print and Publish the Bitterest and most Venomous Darts which the Church of Rome threw at the Protestants, especially of the Church of England. And that visibly with Approbation, and siding with them, against the Protestants. There was a Man of great Name among the Quakers, Josiah Coal, who wrote a Book called, The Whore unvailed. Printed. 1665. Wherein he undertakes to prove the Quakers to be the true Church, against the Church of Rome. But then having Conquered Rome (as he thought) he brings them in Aid with him against the Protestants; and borrows Arrows out of their Quiver, Bare faced and above board He reprinted a Scandalous Label of one A. S. a Roman Catholic against the Church of England, and also the rest of the Protestants; which he says, he leaves them to Answer, They, the Quakers, not being concerned. This Label is Printed in a Larger Character than the Rest of his Book, to make it more Conspicuous; and is mentioned in his Title Page, that none might overlook it. It gins at p. 48. of his Book. And calls the Protestant Clergy, especially of the Church of England, in the compass of two Lines, p. 49. Intruders, Thiefs, and ●obbers, Hypocrites, Ravenous Wolves, and Murderers, Sons of Belial, False Prophets, and Priests of Baal. These are the very words of G. Fox, and the rest of the Quakers, the sweet Appellations which they bestow upon all the Protestant Clergy. And here we may see whence they have Learned them. Page 50, That Senseless and Profane Papist. A. S. Blasphemes our Holy Bible: And describes the Hypocritical Intruders (so he styles our Clergy) ●●●ing in a Pulpit or Tub; (i. e. Both Conformists, and Non Conformists) with such a Braz●n Faced Book, as is their unjust, Corrupt, and Perverse Bible in their Hand, Lulling the ●our Ignorant People to the sleep of Death, etc. But are the Quakers concerned at this Intolerable and Blasphemous Contempt of the Holy Bible? No. ● of Coal Declares that they are not at all concerned; on the contrary, he Insults, p. 40. In this Home thrust which he thought his Confederate A. S. had given to the Sectaries (thus he Insolently styles the Protestants) their Bibles and Ministers, etc. Whose cause (saith he) I am not engaged in, therefore it doth not Concern me to Answer his Charges against them, but leave them to Answer for themselves. Now why should these Men be Reputed as Protestants? They count themselves none of us; who are not concerned, on our Part, no not against the Church of Rome; But draw their Arms against us; who join with them, not only against our Ministers, but our Bibles? Why should these be Reputed as Christians? Can they be Christians who Blaspheme the Holy Bible? Or have they another Bible than ours? I would earnestly Recommend to them that needful Caution, Mat. VI 23. If the Light that is in thee be Darkness! And surely their Light within is Darkness, who join with the most Ignorant and Bigoted of the Romish Emissaries against our Bible; which the Learned among them do know not to differ, in any thing that is Material, from their own Vul● Latin Translation. And what are they but under-journey-men to Rome, who help out the Cry against the Protestant Bible? As if we had quite thrown off the Bible, or made a New one. Which, by these means, many of the Ignorant and Implicit Papists are made to believe; thereby to Create the greater Abhorrence in them against the Protestants. And the Quakers do join, in this, with these most Wicked and Malicious of the Church of Rome. And we must bear with them, in this; Tho they will not bear the least Contradiction, not only to their Doctrine, but to the Practices of any of their Number, who Remain in Unity with their Church. There is an Ancient, worthy, and most sincere, Honest Gentleman, John Penyman, who had been Inveigled with their False Show and Pretences to Piety; Remained Zealous in their Communion, and suffered with them, till he discovered the grossest Immoralities among them, Lying, Cheating, and Foul uncleanness: Which having Complained of, and otherwise Represented to their Superiors; though the Facts could not be denied, yet would they not censure any that continued in their Unity. For which Reason, he, after long struggling with them, to amend their Scandalous vices, at last left them; and has since, though very modestly, detected some of them; which has Provoked their Rage, past all Bounds of Decency, or Christian Temper.  

See the Postscript, to some of the Quakers contradictions, which he has Printed. 1696. p. 10.  They can find no better Names for him than Grinning Dog. Whiffling Cur. The Devil's Agent. The Devil's Drudge. The Devil's Porter. Vassal of Hell, and Cursed Serpent, and Bondslave of the Devil. And 100 other such Compliments, which you will find in the Book Quoted in the Margin. They call him  Nasty Spirit. Now he is the Neatest old Man, and the most In-offensive, I think, that ever I saw. And as far from the least Tincture of Immodesty, or any Uncleanness, as they are from Sincerity and Charity. But if he was the Devil's Drudge, Agent, Porter, etc. for telling them of their Immoralities; are not they Agents, or Drudges to the same Master, at least to Rome, to Vend, Publish, Re-Print, and Recommend the most Virulent of their Invectives against the Protestants, and their Bible too! To clap them on the Back, and Holloo them at us! Themselves unconcerned: And Rejoicing in their Victory (as they think) over us! Approving of their Arguments, and making use of them against us! They Excommunicated J. B. for selling of a Book, which they thought might T●n● to bring some of their Friends into ; As before is told. And does not their Printing and Abetting of the Popish Scandalous Libels against us, at least, Tend to bring us into ? Was it not, at least, some small sort of  to the Blessed Jesus, to make no more of His Blood than of the Blood of another Saint? Yet no Reproof, no Excommunication for that! How Tame is the Church of England, that suffers Fox's journal to be Newly Printed, and Presented to the University of Oxford; and many other of the works of the Quaker Prophets to be Printed and reprinted, as oft as they please; which not only send to bring the Church of England, and all Protestants into , but downright calls them False Prophets, Ba●l's Priests, Dogs, Wolves, Conjurers, Devils, etc. Nay, not only this, but cast the utmost Contempt upon the Person of Jesus our God Surely if the Church of England should Excommunicate and Prosecute such as either Printed, Published, or otherwise Encouraged the Quaker Books, which throw so much Dirt upon Her, her Doctrine, and her God, the Quakers could not, by their own Rule, complain of it as any Persecution! Yet Complain they would, and put it in the Register of their Sufferings.   

iv  
1. In which there are many things as Groundless; and many down right Falsehoods: Which it is very fit the world should know. Because they take great Care to swell this Register; and have threatened to publish it to After-Ages (when the Facts cannot be disproven) whereby they hope to make their Sufferings for the Truth (as they call it) to exceed all the Ten Persecutions. And to be more undeserved than the sufferings of Christ himself, or of the Apostles. As Edward Burrough (their second Fillar, next to the Great Fox) expresses it, p. 273. Of his works lately Reprinted (without Molestation) The sufferings of the People of God (says he) called Quakers, in this Age, is greater suffering, and more unjust, than in the Days of Christ, or of the Apostles— What was done to Christ or the Apostles was Chief done by a Law, and, in great Part, by the 〈◊〉 Execution of a Law, etc. What a horrid Blasphemy is here cast upon the sufferings of Christ! I have before been put upon defending, not only the Greek and Latin Fathers, but St. Peter and St. Paul, from the Quaker Imputation of being Liars and False Witnesses of Christ; That they were Deceived, and expected the end of the World, in their Time. And now am I brought to Vindicate Christ our Lord, from dying a Malefactor; i. e Not only by a Law, but by the Due Execution of a Law. This Law therefore must be either a Law of the Jews, or of the Romans. The Jews said, Joh. XIX. 7 We have a Law, and by our Law, he ought to Die, because he made himself the Son of God. Now if this Law was Duly Executed upon Him, it must follow, that he was not the Son of God; Else he could not suffer by that Law. And as to the Law of the Romans, Pilate did Acquit him; and washed his hands in token of his Innocency. So that he neither suffered by a Law, nor by The due Execution of a Law: Neither In great Part (as Burrough piously Blasphemes) nor In any part at all. And the Case was the same with the Apostles. As S●. Paul Pleaded for himself, Act. XXV. 8. Neither against the Law of the Jews, neither against the Temple, neither against Caesar have I offended any thing at all.  
I hope this will be sufficient to clear our Blessed Lord, and his Holy Apostles from this Diabolical, and most Villainous Aspersion of Edw. Burrough. And will let the World see the Luciferian Pride of the Quakers in Comparing, nay, Preferring their sufferings before the sufferings of Christ and His Apostles, by making their own sufferings to be more unjust, and more undeserved!  
But what do the Quakers mean, by Insinuating as if they had nor suffered by a Law? Were not all their sufferings for their Contempt and Breach of the Laws?  
1. Their Chief suffering was for refusing to Pay their Tithes and other deuce, which were Required by Law; and moreover declaring such Laws to be Antichristian, and not to be obeyed.  
2. Many of them suffered (not so much as they deserved) for open and Notorious Blasphemy; As James Nailor, who was Hosannahed, as the Son of God, into Bristol. Fox, Hubberthorn, Fell, etc. Suffered little or nothing for as wild Blasphemies, a Schedule of which G. Fox has Printed in his Saul's Errand to Damascus. 1653. Which he designed as an Answer to them; but is indeed a Justification of them, as you may see more at Large in The Snake in the Grass. 1 Par. p. 210, etc.  
3. Very many of them did Provoke sufferings to themselves on Purpose (being Proud of it) by their Obstinate and Perverse Behaviour to the Magistrates before whom they were brought; Refusing to give any Account of themselves; some standing Mute; others Bantering in their Cant. As when one of them was asked his Name, he would Answer, It is hidden from the World. Whence came you? Answ. From Egypt. Where do ye Live▪ Ans. In God: And the like. Which many Eye-Witnesses can declare. And some, when Boys (provoked by their Exotic Figure, and Antic gestures) have thrown dirt at them, would not stir one foot out of their way, but, making up their Mouths, stand still close by a Dunghill, whence the Boys took their Artillery, till they were all over Besmeared with Dirt: While others of them (some of whom told it to me) that walked away from the Dunghill, were not Pursued or followed by the Roguish Persecutors: But were blamed by the Nasty Confessors, for going out of the way of sufferings: Which, in their Register, will be made Equivalent to the Stoning of the Prophets.  
4. Many of them were glad of being thus used, or Imprisoned, because they were better provided for, by the Large Contributions which the Quakers sent to them, than they could have Lived otherwise: And, in a Literal sense, They Fared sumptuously every day. Which some that suffered with them in Newgate can Witness. Several grew Rich, and made a good hand of their Confinements. I speak not of all. There is no doubt, but many of the Poorer sort of them, and in Rem●te Parts of the Country, did suffer the Hardships of Imprisonment, For that was the Greatest of their sufferings. The Law did not make their offen●'s to be Death; nor was it Inflicted upon any of them. And their sufferings were mightly Enhansed, and Aggravated without Measure. And the Accounts were sent into Foreign Countries. Gerard Croesius, 1 Dutch Man, has Lately wrote a History of the Quakers in Latin. Which was Translated into English, and Printed at London this year. 1696. Where, p. 172. He tells of the Death (which he makes a kind of Martyrdom) of Burrough before mentioned, who, he says, was esteemed by the Quakers as the Apostle of the Londoners. He says, That he Died in Prison (which was false) That they put him into an horrid Pla●e, full of Filth and Stench, and so Narrow that he could not well stand there; with which Miseries, after Eight Months, he falls Sick, etc. All which was likewise most False. For I know those who saw him, and were with him in Newgate, where he was Prisoner; And he had a Clean, Convenient, and Handsome, Airy Chamber; as good as that place could afford. Insomuch that Sir William Turner, who was once Lord Mayor, and then an Alderman and Justice of the Peace, upon the Application of one whom the Quakers do now Count as an Enemy, went thither to see that the Quakers might not be ill used; are gave that Gentleman Liberty to Remove from thence such he thought were Prejudiced by their Confinement: But coming, among the Rest, to Burroughs Apartment; and finding it Sweet, and Pleasant, Sir William did Congratulate him, in these words, Mr. Burrough, The world is well mended with you since I knew you first. Which was no small Mortification to Burrough, to mind him of his former mean Condition, before Company, he being then upon his Preferment, and Courting of a Rich Heiress. But however Burrough was Removed from thence; And did not Die there as Creesius Reports. Whether upon Misinformation, or the Natural desire he had (being a Presbyterian) to Aggravate every thing which might cast a Reflection, as of Persecution, upon the King and the Bishops, against whom he Spits his Venom, upon every occasion: And lays the sufferings of the Quakers in England at their Door, as being of a Persecuting Spirit; But when he comes to speak of their sufferings in Holland (for they suffered there too) than he turns the Tables, and puts it all upon the score of their Perverseness, and Opposition to the Government. But my business is not now with him. I would not lessen the sufferings of the Quakers; let them have their due weight; but I would not have them Aggravated beyond the Truth. And it is here worth Notice, That the first difference betwixt Mr. Pennyman (before mentioned) and the Quakers, was the False Returns of their Collections from the several Countries in England of the sufferings of the Friends: And Entering them, though Proved to be False, in their General Register of sufferings at London. For this, they (to quiet Mr. Pennyman, and others, who Exclaimed against this as a great deceit) made a show, as if they would turn off the Clerk of this Register, one Ellis Hook.  
But he was supported by G. Fox; and continued; and no Rectification of their Register could be obtained; being designed for the service of Truth! Which some think can be Propagated by Lies!  
2. Croesius makes though Quakers, and their Original much more Considerable than they deserved. The Fame of them, might grow Bigger, in other countries'. But here, where their Rise was, they are better known. Take a truer Account of them from one, not the meanest, among themselves, Isaac Penington, Famous in their Congregation, and a Man of Renown, in his Considerations concerning Israel, p. 3. he tells, that They were for the most part mean, as to the outward, young Country Lads, of no deep understanding, or ready Expression, but very fit to be depised every where by the wisdom of Man. How Ridiculous (says he) was their manner of coming forth and appearance to the Fie of Man! About what, Poor Trivial Circumstances, Habits, Gestures and things; did they seem to lay great weight, and make great matters of promont! How far did they seem from being acquainted with the Mysteries and Depths of Religion! But their chief Preaching was Repentance, and about a Light within, and of turning to that. Not mattering to Answer or satisfy the Reasoning Part of Man, but singly minding the Reaching to, and Raising of that (the Light within) to which their Testimony was, etc. Here is not a word of the outward Christ! Nay, he Compares and Prefers this Light within to Christ. This, which he says, was so Contemptible to the world; which appeared to fall so much short of the Dispensation of the Law of Moses to the Jews, much more of the Dispensation by Christ and his Apostles. Who would have looked for the Lord Have! (Says he) And yet this, hath the Lord Chosen to Gather his People; and to appear to the World in. This plainly gives that the Preferance to the Dispensations of Moses, or of Christ.  
But the Reader must know, that this whole Treatise is left out in the New Edition of Isaac Penington's Works, reprinted in a Large Polio. 1681. With Glorious Testimonies from G. Fox, G. Whitehead, and the Corona of their Chiefs, to the Memory of Isaac, as one of their greatest Ornaments. And though all he wrote was from the Mouth of the Lord (Or else, by G. Fox's Rule, he was a Conjurer) yet did the Friends take upon them to Clip and Pair, and Rectify it, to suit with their Convenience. As they have served all the Rest of their Prophets, whose works they have reprinted. Leaving out whole Baskets full of Hideous Blasphemies, and Treasons. All given forth In the Name of the Lord God Eternal: And some of them with Imprecations and Curses (wherein they are very Liberal) to those who shall add to them, or take from them. Tho if they were The word of God (as they Blasphemonsly Pretend) that Imprecation were Employed, and the Curse, Rev. XXII. 19 Several Instances of this sort are given in The Snake in the Grass: Where, 2 Par. p. 42, 43. there is Letter Inserted of G. Fox's to Oliver Cromwell, in which he says, speaking of himself, My Kingdom is not of this World. And I am moved of God (said he) To give this forth, from him whom the World calls George Fox, who is THE SON OF GOD. Instead of which, in his Journal, p. 137. Where this Letter is Recited, he only says, I set my Name to it. And leaves out, My Kingdom is not of this World. So the Editors or Composers thought fit. For, whoever wrote it in his Name, it was Printed and Gelded after his Death. And yet there is Blasphemy and Nonsense enough left in it, to exceed any other Legend that ever yet appeared. And as the Works of the great Fox himself, of Burrough, of Fisher, of Smith, of Howgil, and all their Great and Lesser Prophets, so must Isaac Penington's too, pass 〈◊〉 the Fire of the Quakers Index Expurgatorius, to leave several Scandals 〈◊〉 them, though all given forth In the Name of the Lord! Particularly 〈◊〉 Treatise now mentioned: For it gives too true an Account of the 〈◊〉 the Quakers; and their Sottish Ignorance; Preferring their Light 〈◊〉 to the Dispensation not only of Moses, but of Christ, etc.  
〈◊〉 ●●●ngton's Design in setting out the Rise of Quakerism, thus from 〈◊〉 Country Lads, who were not only Grossly Ignorant of the Mysteries 〈◊〉 Depth of Religion, but who wanted Common sense, as well as Learning, or Expression; and therefore durst not Attempt the Reasoning Part of Mankind. (〈◊〉 expresses it) but those only who were as Ignorant and Besotted as themselves; J. P's. Design, in this, was to turn it as an Argument that they were s●nt from God, because of the great Success they had, from such Contemptible Beginnings. And won'd make it Parallel to the Progress of the Gospel in the hands of the Apostles, who were Fishermen, of no Education or Learning. It is tree, they were so: But Christ, to show his Almighty Power, gave them that Learning, by the Miraculous and Visible Descent of the Holy Ghost, which others attain by long study and Pains. He endowed them, at an instant, with the gift of Languages, which they knew not before, to enable them to Convert Foreign Nations. And gave them such Wisdom as their Adversaries were not able to withstand. They were Ready, at all times, to Render a Reason of the Faith which they Preached, 1 Pet. III. 15. But the Quakers matter not to Answer, or satisfy the Reasoning Part of Man. They Began in their Ignorance: And their Ignorance continues with them still. Of which it is not the least Part● that they see it not:  
But dare compare themselves to the Holy and Inspired Prophets, and Apostles of the Lord. Some of them went to Convert the Pope, trusting that the Spirit would give them utterance, as to the Apostles. But when they came there, they could speak nothing but English: nor understood his Latin, or Italian; and so they Parted.  
And as to their Progress, in these miserably divided Kingdoms, it only shows the fatal Consequences of forfeiting the Church (which was thrown down, before they set up) and how far God may Permit Delusions (for our Sins) to spread. Of which Mahomet is a much greater Instance than the Quakers. But it may teach us this withal, That if a Blind Ignorant Zeal can do such great Things, how much more would a Godly Zeal for Truth and Religion Prevail!   

V  
Thomas Ellwood would turn all the Vile Billingsgate-Railing of the Quakers against the Church of England and others, into a Pure Godly Zeal. But W. Penn has very Justly Corrected any such Defence, in his Address to Protestants, 1st Edit. p. 242. and of the 2d Edit. p. 246. Where he speaks like a Christian and a Gentleman, thus: They that are Angry for God, Passionate for Christ, that call Names for Religion, and fling Stones, and Persecute for Faith, 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. G. Keith, in his Narrative, having quoted this, and objected W. Penn's own Practice, as very opposite to it, of which he gives some Imstances, particularly in his Guide mistaken, Printed 1668. p. 18. Where he falls upon The Idle Gormandizing Priests of England, as he calls our Clergy, and says, That No sort of People have been so universally, through Ages, the 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. And in his Quakerism a New Nickname, etc. p. 165. he calls the Dissenters, An Illbred Pedantic Crew, the Bane of Reason, and l'est 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, etc.  
These are Terrible Words! and very like being Angry. But T. F. says in his Answer, p. 219. That these Words did not proceed from Anger or Passion, but from a Just and Godly Zeal against Deceivers and Deceit. However, both the Church of England and Dissenters are much obliged to him for his moderate and Charitable Opinion of them! And Decently expressed, we cannot Deny! But which way soever they have deserved it from him, yet is not this Calling of Names? Is not this flinging of Stones with a Vengeance? If there be no Anger or Passion in this, what Words shall we find out wherein to express Anger or Passion? But I understood the Force of Mr. ●●nn's Reasoning to consist in this, That the Calling of Names, and 〈◊〉 Indecent manner of Expression, was a certain sign, that such a Zeal was not 〈◊〉 Christ. But if, as T. E. excuses it, the most Imbittered and Violent Express●●● can come from a Godly Zeal, then is there no meaning at all in what Mr. ●enn has said: And we may call Names, and sling Stones to the End of the Chapter, and still be good Christians, of Christ's making! But what is Anger in others, is Zeal in the Quakers; and so there's an End of the business.  
But if the utmost fierceness may be Excused upon Pronouncing a Sentence of Damnation, as here, and sending us together, Church of England, Dissenters, and All into the Bottomless Pit: 
See Snake in the Grass 2 par. p. 32.  And as such Reprobates we deserve no other Epithets, than Thiefs, Robbers, Conjurers, Witches, Devils, Scarlet-coloured Beasts, Bloodhounds, etc.  
Yet can such Senseless and Childish Rattle, as Green●headed Trumpeters, Gimcracks, Whirligags, Mo●●-Calss, Threadbare Tatter de Mallums, etc. Which the Quakers have bestowed upon their opponents, can these too come from a Godly Zeal● Can their abominable Nasty stuff come from thence too, which would make one Sick to Repeat! But I must venture the strength of the Readers stomach, to give him a little Taste of it, lest he should not believe me. See a Book Printed by J. Wiggans, whom the Quakers had Provoked to Dis●●● with them, which having Published, they Reply upon him thus: This hath caused thee to spew out on a Piece of Paper for the Dogs to ●ick up●●● And they take so much of thy Filthy spuing, that it causeth them to Vomit 〈…〉 Purges upwards and downwards— Thou hast need of one to wipe thee Th●● makest a pitiful stink— Through thy Vomiting and Purging, thou Besmears every one that comes nigh thee— One may follow thee by the smell Wi●t not give one Vomiting— Thou stinks all the Country ●●er— ●i●e a Man with a Sealed Herd, and a Horse with a Galled Back— Making People Vomit and Sp●●e. And Margaret Fell (afterwards M●●ry'd to G. Fox) wrote to him thus: Thou hast Committed Sacrilege, which will never be forgiven thee Thou art Accursed, and no other Portion ca● tho●e have— Thou Infidel Child of Darkness— The Curse Christ hath Pronounced on thee. Thou art the Man Thou Impudent Liar, Night Owl, wicked Liar, etc. Now the cause of all this Rage, was his denying The Light within to be Christ; yet he owned a Light to come from Chri●● into the Heart's 〈◊〉 True Believers. This Marg. ●ell, after she was Married to G. Fox, became the Mother of the Quaker Church. She was then Past the Age of Child hearing; yet he gave out, that she should have an Isaac. And she gr●w Big; and Great were the Expectations; The time came on; All things Provided for the Lying in; The Midwife attend●● several weeks in the House: But all vanished and c●me to n●thing. This Fox said, That his Marriage was a Figure of the Church coming out of the Wilderness; above the State of the first Adam, in his Innocency; in the State of the Second Adam that never ●ell. I can produce one that saw a Quaker fall down Prostrate at the Feet of this Margaret Fox, and say, O thou my Heavenly Mother, Pray to my Heavenly Father for me. I have before Quoted G. Fox, where he say, That wh●●ther speaks a word, and not from the ●●uth of the Lord, it is 〈◊〉 ●●w then by this Rule, All the Rancorous, All the Senseless, All the 〈◊〉 ●●tly Expressions above Quoted, were from ●he Mouth of the Lord 〈◊〉 otherwise All those who spoke them were Conjurer's. Will T. E. 〈…〉 were all Acted, in this, by a Godly Zeal? Otherwise, by 〈…〉 sentence, they were no Christians of Christ's making. How Dreadfully Astonishing is it, to see Men father their Rage and Fury, their Effeminate senseless Billingsgate, their very Nastiness upon the Holy Spirit of God But I am glad to leave this subject.   

VI  
1. I am come now to the Last point, and that is, to see how far the Present Quakers have Censured or Forsaken All these things, which have been objected and Proved against them.  
Were they Convinced of them, and only willing to come off without the shame of a Public Retractation; but would teach sound Doctrine for the Future: And Learn some more Decency (though they hate Manners) in Expressing of themselves; which they have come to more of Late than Formerly; and with it have, in a great Measure, Abstained from that Furious Damning of all Christendom, in such Dreadful and Boiling Passion as they were wont: If they could be Penitents, without being Confessors, in this Case, I should be glad of all the Ease that could be given them; and to let them Recover from their Errors with the least Pain. But where so Public a Scandal has been given to the whole Christian World: Especially where so many of the Generality of the Quakers do still (as above shown) stick in the very Bottom of that Sink of Heresies which they have been Taught; and are like so to stick, while they see their Leaders go about to Justify, to Excuse, and Palliate them: In this Case, there is an absolute necessity for them Plainly and Fully to Retract and Condemn these Heresies: And without this, there can be no True Repentance, without doing all that is in their Power to Draw those out of the Ditch, whom they have led into it. Were their Repentance sincere, it would Provoke not only a willingness, but a great Zeal to do this, to save those Souls whom they have misled: Without which they can never save their own.  
But so far have they been from doing any thing of this, that on the contrary they have, in the most Solemn and Public manner, that is Possible for them, Riveted and Confirmed All that they have Taught, even from the Beginning. They have a Yearly, General Council, every Whitsun-week, in London, composed of Representatives from all the Counties in England, and either Deputies or Letters of Consent from all the bodies of Quakers in the World. And every year, this Sovereign Authority of the Quaker-Church does Issue forth, in Print, an Yearly Epistle (as they call it) Directed to All Quakers throughout the World, which is their Supreme Law, and counted Infallible with them. I have seen that of this Year 1696. Wherein mention is made of Deputies or Letters sent thither from Barbadoes Maryland, West-Jersey, Pensilvania, Burmudoes, Antegua, Holland, Ireland, and Scotland. And since so great a Schism was Risen in their Church, by the opposition chief which G. Keith gave to them, by Accusing them of such Gross Heresies as we have heard, it would be Expected, That this their General Council should give an ultimate Decision in this Controversy; which they have done, in Terms as full, as they could, in Prudence, use, while the Contest was so Public. But it is plain enough to be understood by all those for whom it is intended. The Quakers are therein Required to Hold up the Holy Testimony of Truth, which hath made us (say they) a People to God, and Preserved us so unto this Day; and that in all the Parts of it; For Truth is one, and Changes not; And what it convinced us of to be Evil in the Beginning, it Reproves still. These are the words of their Decree. And by this, we are as Evil, in their opinion, as ever we were; And the Clergy of the Church of England are still That Abominable Tribe, Baal's Priests, Wolves, Dogs, Bears, Devils-Incarnate, etc. But what they think of us is not so Material. But, by this, they are all as bad, who place their Faith, in the outward Jesus. For it is only for this, that the Quakers have so Condemned us. It is for this that they say the Devil is in us All. As G. Fox said to Chr. Wade (Great mystery, p. 250.) The Devil was in thee, thou sayest thou art saved by Christ without thee, and so hast Recorded thyself to be a Reprobate. But we have seen enough of this before. And this which the Quakers call Truth, is not only to be kept in the main, the great Branches of their Doctrine, but In all the Parts of it! Every Tittle of all of what we have already seen. For Truth is one, and Changes not: i. e. The Quakers have not Changed, in any thing, from that Truth which they Taught at First. Infallibility must not give way, no, not in a Circumstance!  
2. But I have a Question to ask, which I know the sincerity of the Friends will not Refuse to Answer. Whether among the Quaker-Bishops who composed this their Last General Council, there was not one George Archer, by Name, a great Preacher in or about Wiltshire? Who this last year, having (out of Pure Zeal to Propagate the Truth) gotten a Woman with Child; to cover the Scandal, persuaded an Old Man to Marry her; and himself Performing the Priest's Office, Preached, at the Espousals, much in Commendation of the Bride. But she, not staying the Formality of nine Months, after her Marriage, and Teeming sooner, the Old Man complained to this Archer, who being assured of the Firmness of the wench; and to Remove all suspicion of himself, Prayed that she might not be delivered of her Pains, till she discovered the true Father. Which, beyond his Expectation, she did, and put the Saddle upon the Right Horse. And the Knaves of that Country getting this by the end, forced him to shift ●is Quarters; And he came up to London; to whom the other Quakers gave the Right hand of Fellowship: And there he Preached, and exercised his Talon, with great Approbation: Till Failing in a Worldly, as well as a Carnal sense; he was put in Prison for Debt, since the last Yearly Meeting. Wherein whether he did not Assist, as one of the Infallible, the Infallible Friends will let us know. But, if he be not Failed in another sense, a Prison will no more cool his Courage than it did Christopher Atkinson's, another Preacher, Prophet and great Author of the Quakers, who wrote The Sword of th● Lord Drawn, to cut down Churches, Kingdoms, and Nations; yet Lightened his Heart with Thomas Symonds his Maid in Norwich Goal. 1655. And none of the Infallible could find it out, till himself confessed it. You may see that sad story at Large in The Snake in the Grass. Par. 2. p. 89. etc. Yet none of these things, nor Henry Winder's Quaker-witches, nor 1000 other Instances can be given, does abate any thing of the Quakers Pretence to an Infallible discerning Spirit, to Judge all Persons, and all things, as well as Magistrates, Kingdoms, and Churches, which G. Fox Positively asserts, in his Great Mist, p. 5.96, etc. And says, p. 89. That they can discern who are Saints, who are Devils, and who Apostates, without speaking ever a word. And Edw. Burrough in his Epistle Prefixed, p. 7. Extends this to all and every of the Quakers. To us (says he) every one of us in Particular— And this Light gave us to discern between Truth and Error, between every False and Right way; And it Perfectly discovered to us the true State of ALL THINGS. And whoever wanted this Infallibility of Discerning, the Quakers counted them False-Ministers, Conjurers, Witches, Devils, &c, This was their great Charge against the Church of England and others, That because they did not Pretend to this Infallibility of Discerning, therefore they were False Churches, etc. As Fox in his Great Mystery, p. 94.107, etc. And all this, In all the Parts of it, this last Yearly Meeting has Confirmed.  
3. But they support this not only in words; they take care to have their youth fully Tinctured with the same Leven. In their Public Schools, it is Enjoined that the Scholars should Read such a Portion of that Blasphemous Journal of G. Fox's, every day. Particularly in their great School at Wansworth. The Public aught to take some care of this, in Pity to their Poor Souls. And in Private Families, that odious Journal is daily Read, where the Holy Bible is suffered to Mould. And the Travels of Fox are more Read and Valued by the Quakers than those of St. Paul, or any of the Acts of the Apostles.  
4. But to show how their Infection does spread (if what I have said be not enough) I will give this further Demonstrative Proof, which has occurred very lately. There is one Thomas Curtis, commonly called Captain Curtis (he was such in Oliver's Army) at Reading, a wealthy Man, and one of the Quakers of the most Ancient standing now among them; he has ●een a Preacher with them about 40 years, and so still continues: Has suffered and merited in their cause, as much as any. But is more open-hearted, and less Dissembling than the Rest. He freely owns the Doctrines he has Learned; and which he always taught since he first engaged amongst the Quakers; and carried it on with Indesatigable Zeal. He erected (or was chief Instrumental in it) a Monthly Quaker Meeting at Kings-Heath, in Lamborne Woodlands, in Berkshire, 25 Miles from Reading, it was called Thom. Curtis' Meeting. And Preaching there at their Monthly Meeting upon Sunday, the 4th of this Oct. 1696. He took notice of their Present Divisions upon Account of the New Doctrine (as they call it) which G. Keith had, of Late, Broached among them. And finding that some of that Meeting had a favourable opinion of G. Keith herein, and embraced his Principles, parcicularly one William Clark, he challenged him by Name, and any 5000 of that Party, to dispute with him. Whereupon Will. Clark did engage him. And there Publicly before them all, T. Curtis asserted. That Christ had a Prepared Body, but what is become of it, he knew not, neither (said he) do I care. Being asked whether Christ had a Soul? He said he knew not. Whether it was the Godhead or Manhood that suffered? He Answered, that he could not tell whether it was the Manhood, or the Godhead that suffered. He said, There was no Resurrection but of the Soul from the Death of Sin; and this (said he) I have often Preached, and do still maintain it. He said, That Paul got all the Resurrection while living in this World. That he did believe his own Body should be changed like unto Christ's Glorious Body while he was living in this World. That he knew nothing of Christ but within himself. Being asked by W. Clarke, whether he did believe that Christ is in Heaven, without us, in the Entire nature of Man, of Soul and Body, the some for substance it was on Earth, Glorified at God's Right Hand. He Rep●y'd, This is one of thy Quibbles, I will not Answer thee. And then asked, Where is God's Right Hand? Being again Demanded by W. C. Whether he had whole Christ in him? He Answered, I know nothing of Christ, but within myself. He said, That a man might be come to the Resurrection, and have the Resurrection, and yet not Past: i●e. That the Resurrection being once come, it Remains, and so is not Past. At which Rate, it will not be Past in Heaven after the Resurrection. But this is a Fetch of the Quakers to make their Denial of the Resurrection appear not to be the same with that of Hymeneus and Philetus, 2 Tim. 2.18. With which it is the very same; and St. Paul calls it 〈◊〉 overthrowing of the Faith. For he did not oppose them in the State of the Blessed after the Resurrection, being a Remaining State, and not to Pass away: But in that they said the Resurrection was already Past, i. e. Inwardly brained by the Faithful; and therefore no ●●ster or outward Resurrection of the Body to be expected.  
5. Thomas Ellwood, in his Answer, before ●●●●●der'd, p. 142, 143. Repeats these words, of George Whitehead's against our Notion of the Resurrection, viz. And their Assertion and Determination therein, is contrary to what the Apostle saith, 2 Cor. V For we know if our Earthly House of this Tabernacle were Dissolved, we have a Building of God, an House not made with hands, Eternal in the Heavens: For we that are in this Tabernacle do Groan, being Burdened, etc. But why would he close this with his etc. So soon? For the very next words in the same ver. 4. would have set him Right, and Determined the cause fully on our side, viz. Not for that we would be unclothed, but Clothed upon; that Mortality might be swallowed up of Life. i e. Not that we would be unclothed, or quite Divested of our bodies; but that a New Clothing of Immortality should be given to our bodies. The uncloathing is the Quaker Notion of the Resurrection; The Clothing upon is ours. T. E. by way of excuse says, p. 143. That G. W. wrote this against that Notion, That the Happiness of the Soul is not Perfect without the Body; and that the Soul hath a strong desire to a Reunion to the Body. This T. E. thought such an absurdity as that no Man would own it. Which shows how very far they have wandered from the Truth, in this Doctrine of the Resurrection. For it is not doubted among Christians, but the Soul hath a strong desire to a Reunion with the Body: And that her Joy is not Perfect; i. e. Complete before that time. Which makes them Cry, How Long, O Lord, 
Rev VI 10. XXII. 20.  Holy and Just? And Pray, that God would Hasten his Kingdom, and Come Quickly. And the Quakers endeavouring to Ridicule this, as before is shown, is a Proof, that they have more need of being Taught than Disputed against: And instead of meddling with Controversy, should be sent to Learn their Catechism. But to Return to Thom. Curtis.  
6. The Account I have above given, and all the Particulars, I have seen under the hand of William Clarke, the Person Concerned: And I am told, That a Narrative of the whole Proceed of that Monthly Meeting, is like to be Published. In the mean time, the use I have to make of it is this, to show that the Quakers do still hold these Abominable Heresies, and always have held them. Notwithstanding of the shuffling excuses which T. E. G. W. and W. P. would now put upon them.  
If it be objected, that Thom. Curtis is a Separatist from the Quakers of Grace-Church-street, and joined with those of Harp-Lane: And therefore that those of Grace-Church-street are not Accountable for any thing he says or does. Answ. 1. Those of Harp-Lane are Answerable, and all in Communion with them. And my present business is to show that these Vile Heresies are still Taught among the Quakers. Answ. 2. These of Harp-Lane did not separate from those of Grace-Church-street, upon any Principle of Faith or Doctrine: But merely upon a Punctilio of Church-Discipline, in submitting to the Jurisdictions of the women's Meetings; and other Instances of G. Fox's Authority; and their now Ruling Elders. But as to matters of Faith they are perfectly one: And as to all and every one of the Points which we have discussed. For which Reason, G. Keith has left Harp-Lane, as well as Grace-Church-street: And those of Harp-Lane are as violent opposers of him and the Christian Doctrine which he teaches, as the Quakers of Grace-Church-street: Therefore, as to matters of Faith (which we are now upon) Thom. Curtis, and all those of Harp-Lane, who join with him, are as Proper Instances, as if they had been all Picked out of Grace-Church-street. Answ. 3. If this be not True, let Grace-Church-street Disown Harp-Lane, as not holding the same Faith with them; or for any thing else but their Breach of Union, for the causes before told. But there is nothing else so much as Pretended betwixt them. They differ but as the Dominicans and Franciscans in the Church of Rome, all one in the Faith, only some disputes about their Orders.   

VII.  
And this Division of the Quakers concerning their Church Authority, though it be not of so great Consequence, as the Fundamentals of Faith which we have debated: Yet it Involves them in as great Absurdities and Contradictions as the other.  
Their Original Pretence was the Sufficiency and Independency of the Light within every Particular Person (as has been said) against all Impositions or Restrictions whatever, from any outward Authority. Which made W. Pen, in his Address to Protestant's (p. 152. 2d Edit.) Interpret that Text, Math. XVIII. 17. Tell it unto the Church, to Relate only to Private Injuries 'twixt Man and Man, and not at all to matters of Faith. This was when that Text was urged against the Quakers in General for their Defection from the Church. But in his Book called Judas and the Jews, which he wrote against the separate Quakers, there, p. 13. He brings this same Text full against them, and Argues from thence, That if in Case of Private offences betwixt Brethren, the Church is made Absolute Judge, from whom there is no Appeal in this World; how much more, in any the least Case that concerns the Nature, Being Faith, and Worship of the Church herself? T. E. Endeavours to solve this Contradiction, p. 218 of his Answer. It having been objected by G. Keith in his Narrative. He would put it off thus, That in Judas and the Jews W. P. only meant to give the Church Power to Try and Reject Spirits. And that in his Address to Protestants, he only denied Power to the Church to Define and Impose upon all People, under Temporal and Eternal Punishment, Articles of Faith, etc. And this, he says, is no Contradiction. But W. P. in his Judas, etc. Makes the Church ABSOLUTE JUDGE, from whom there is no Appeal in this World, of matters of FAITH as well as others. And what does this differ from all those Big words which T. E. brings together to Frighten us, and Divert the Question? For an Absolute Judge, from whom there is no Appeal, may Define, Impose upon all People, etc. And if his Power reaches to matters of Faith (as Mr. Pen says the Power of the Church doe●) then if matters of Faith do Reach to Temporal and Eternal Punishment, the Power of such Absolute Judge must Reach to those Cases Likewise. And to make the Church such an Absolute Judge, by virtue of that Text, Math. XVIII. 17. As Mr. Pen in his Judas, etc. And yet to say, as he does in his Address, etc. That this Text gives no Power at all to the Church, in matters of Faith; but that it Relates only to Private Injuries, is full as great a Contradiction as before T. E. meddled with the Defence of it.  
But having had occasion to consider this Passage of Mr. Penn's more fully, in my Discourse, Proving the Divine Institution of Water-Baptism, Sect. X. Num. V p. 42. I will Insist no further upon it in this Place. And tell the Reader the Good News, That I have done.  
Oct. 26. 1696.   
FINIS.