Quakerism is Paganism, BY W. L's Confession;  
In a BOOK Directed to Mr. N. L. Citizen of London: OR, Twelve of the Quakers Opinions, called by W. L. The Twelve Pagan Principles, or Opinions; for which the Quakers are opposed to Christians;  
Examined and Presented to WILLIAM PENN.  
By W. R. a Lover of CHRISTIANITY.  Is this thy kindness to thy Friend? desiring to be a Teacher of the Law, understanding neither what thou sayest, nor whereof thou affirmest, 2 Sam. 16. 17. 1 Tim. 1. 7. Tuum Testimonium, quod in aliena releve est; id, in tua, quoniam contra te est, gravissimum esse debet. Cicero Orat. Pro. L. Q. p. 12. Thy Testimony, which is but light and frivolous in another's Cause, yet is weighty in thine own, when it's against thyself. 
LONDON, Printed for Francis Smith, at the Elephant and Castle in Cornhill near the Royal Exchange. 1674.   

QUAKERISM is PAGANISM, By W. L's Confession, etc. OR, Twelve of the Quakers Opinions; Examined and presented TO WILLIAM PENN.  
SIR,  
AS I design not to traduce the Person of any Man, nor wrong him in his Sentiments about Religion; much less yourself in this Undertaking; having a high 〈◊〉 of those natural and acquired Parts, which manifest themselves more conspicuously in you, than in many others of your Friends: But these being alon● 〈◊〉 but Meteors adding Blaze, little of true Brightness, They have an umbrage of Grandeur, not a Spark of Saving Grace, or Dram of Heavenly Glory. The Enamel of those attainments are apt to fully and expire; and the Possessor in endeavouring to stand accerseth his fall. It is an Interest in 〈…〉 Conformity to his Will, as it is Revealed 〈…〉 Scriptures, and a Constant Perseverance therein; that would make you truly happy to Eternity.  
But Sir, I would employ my Pen at this time, humbly to entreat you, to examine what Ground you stand on; whether you have good Principles to support you? for I fear you stand in a slippery place; and that great will be your fall, without a timely Prevention.  
It is my design to be Instrumental (among others) to persuade you to own the Man Christ Jesus, whom to me you seem to deny: And to submit yourself to his Laws, recorded in Holy Scripture; which you now 'Slight and Trample upon. That those Parts which God hath been pleased to Honour you withal, might be employed to his Glory and the Salvation of your Soul, which are Matters most sublime and weighty.  
It is certain Christ will come in flaming Fire to take Vengeance on those that obey not the Gospel as it was at first delivered to the Saints; and much greater Vengeance may they expect, who Deny him and Oppose themselves against it: For God will Judge Men by the Gospel as a Rule, and by the Man Christ Jesus as their Judge, Rom. 2. 16. For he hath appointed a Day in the which he will Judge the World in Righteousness, by that Man whom he hath Ordained, and whom you Reject, Acts 17. 31. I pray God you have not cause one day to remember that you have been told so, but refused to be Admonished.  
Sir, If upon second thoughts you find you have gone too far, and have espoused a Cause not to be Justified by the Principles of right Reason and Christianity, count it not a dishonour to Retract. It 's no wrong to you or any man (but a kindness) to be delivered from an Error, it will be your advantage and honour to embrace Truth,  you are convinced and enlightened.  
But Sir, If you are confidently persuaded of the Truth of the Quakers Principles, as you profess; pray tell the World the Reason why you are so shy in discovering, so unwilling to confess, them, (for Truth seeks no Corners to hid herself) stand forth and declare you own those Doctrines; or let us know you are of another Mind, by rejecting the Men and their Books in which those Opinions (as charged upon you) are Asserted: Think not to hid yourselves under a Mask of Evasive pretences, and Clouds of Impertinences and Raillery; for that is seen through, and will be daily more and more by those that are judicious, to your great Reproach, notwithstanding all your Stratagems to prevent it.  
Among which I do find, That as you have taken New-ways, so there are New-Advocates risen up to plead your Cause; and propagate your Principles; one of which I have now taken upon me to Examine: I do promise you to do him Justice, though he hath been Unjust to himself and others; and do present my Sentiments of him to be Considered by you, for these Reasons.  
1. Because I understand he is an Intimate Friend and Associate of yours, and it may be you are more privy to what he hath done in this Matter than another Man, and so more capable to Judge of what I shall say.  
2. Because he hath Espoused your Quarrel, and Gratitude obligeth you to assist him.  
3. Because he hath opposed your Sentiments concerning Mr. HICKS: You call him a Liar, a Forger, and what not? W. L. lays not such thing to his Charge, but calls him his Friend, etc.  
4. Because I would have you return an Answer in Print, that we may know whether your mind be yet altered or not, touching Mr. HICKS, and these Twelve Pagan Principles.  
5. Because, if you shall insist upon the Confutation of Mr. HICKS, in all or any of these Particulars, that you would be pleased, not barely to call him a Liar, Forger, Slanderer, etc. but show wherein he hath belied you in any of them.  
I will first speak to the Title of William Luddington 's Book, which is The Twelve Pagan Principles: And my Opinion is, he hath rightly named them, (although I think he may have the honour of the Invention) and if W. L. say true, than a Quaker is a Pagan and no true Christian; for he Confesses they hold those Opinions he calls by that Name, and as He and I are agreed herein, so is T. H. also, by his own Confession: for he saith, it is for those Opinions, he hath Published the Quaker to be no Christian.  
He saith, he hath seriously considered them: but he gives me ground to think otherwise, in passing-over some things slightly, extenuating others, and avoiding simply what he could not subtly evade, or sound confute.  
But whereas he saith, Presented to Mr. N. L. Citizen of London: I do make bold to tell him, That he is much displeased with that causeless and impertinent Present: and were not he known to be a worthy Citizen, a Man of Integrity, and sound in the Principles of the Christian Religion; This had been Indication, sufficient to bring him into some Suspicion with others, as if he were tottering in the Fundamentals of Christianity: W. L. being known to be a Man fast of Whimsies, and Enthusiastical Notions, about the most sacred and weighty Points of the Christian Religion, of which this Book is no small Testimony: But by this we may see what ways are invented to impose upon the World when they are in a strait.  
Touching these Pagan Principles as W. L. calls them, I am more confirmed in my Opinion, that these are the very Principles of the Quakers from what he hath written: being persuaded, That if he continue writing for the Quakers, and against the Baptists, as he hath begun, not only in this Book, but also in that Impertinent Letter of his to Mr. Ives; he will do the like kindness for the Baptists, as that Man did for his Enemy, of whom it's Storied, That he thrust his Sword into his Body with an intent to kill him, but instead thereof, let out an Imposthume which was a means of his preservation: And my Reasons for it are these.  
1. Because he doth not deny any one of those Charges laid upon them by Mr. Hicks, but under each Head, he acts the part of an Advocate; I wish he had better Clients, and a better Cause. The Principles (he saith) are Pagan, and the Men are no Christians. Neither indeed do they impose upon us to believe them so, nor have they that Appollation given them; burr instead thereof, they call themselves, and are called by others, Quakers. He endeavours to Excuse them, from what they cannot Excuse themselves, without a manifest injury to their own Opinions: And where this will not do, he labours to Extenuate the Fault by substracting from, and adding to the Quakers Sayings; and then tells us, it is but a little word; as putting in (OF) and taking away (IRRELIGIOUS.) But sure less than either of these may totally destroy the sense; as will appear by these following instances.  
1. The first is, That a Compositor (that was a Papist) being employed at the King's Printing-House in the Days of King James, took out of the 7th Commandment the Particle (NOT) and then it was thus read, Thou shalt Commit Adultery, and that was less than the word (Irreligious:) and it was then esteemed so great a crime, that (it's said) the Printer was fined a 1000 Pounds.  
In the 1 Cor. 15. 51. where it's said, We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be Changed; leave out but (C) and then it must be read, we shall all be Hanged: and yet this is less than (OF.)  
Such liberty as this being allowed, I will make my Antagonist speak what I list; but this is the practice of this Author; I hope I may be allowed the liberty of thinking that the man is in a strait.  
2. Because where he cannot deny but those words were spoken by the Quakers, which T. H. charges upon them; and that they do also bear the same sense which he puts upon them: there he endeavours to persuade us that they may also bear another sense; and saith, It's a sign of hatred to catch at the worst.  
Now from thence I perceive (if W. L. say true) That the Quakers Words are delivered as Ambiguously, as the Heathen gods used to deliver their Oracles; that so the falsity thereof may be the less capable of detection. A Man of great credit among the Grecians, named Oenomaus, who for that he had been much delighted with Oracles, and more deceived; wrote a Book, in the end, of their Falsehoods and Lies; and yet showeth, That in many things wherein they deceived, it was not easy to convince them of open Falsehood; for that they would involve their answer (on purpose) with such Obscurities, Generalities, Equivocations, and Doubtfulness, that they would always leave themselves a Corner wherein to save their Credits, when the event should prove false. As for Example, When Croesus that famous and rich Monarch of Lydia, consulted with the Oracle of Apollo, whether he should make War against the Persians, and thereby obtain their Empire or no? Apollo desirous of Bloodshed (as the wicked spirits are) gave his Oracle in these words, for deceiving of Croesus. If Croesus without fear, shall pass over Halys, (this was a River that lay between him and Persia) he shall bring to confusion a great Rich Kingdom. Upon which words, Croesus' passed over his Army, in hopes to get Persia; but soon after he lost Lydia, by an evil understanding of this doubtful Prophecy. Eusebius, Lib. de Praep. Evan. Cap. 10.  
Surely, all such dark unintelligible language (in my understanding) ought to be exploded by all the Ministers of the Gospel, and all true Christians; for it hath no better tendency, than to deceive and beguile ignorant and unstable Souls. This was not the Practice of the Holy Apostles, of our dear Redeemer the Man Christ Jesus, who delivered their Doctrines in the most plain and intelligible words that might be, for the instruction and information of their Auditors; especially about the great and most important Truths of the Gospel: as the blessed Apostle Paul doth testify, 1 Thess. 2. 3, 4. For our exhortation was not of Deceit, nor of Uncleanness, nor in Guile; but as we were allowed of God to be put in Trust with the Gospel, so we speak: for if the Trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the Battle? So likewise you, except ye utter by the Tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken, for ye shall speak into the Air, 1 Cor. 14. 8, 9 The direct contrary is found in the Quakers, as appears, not only by this Man's Confession, but also by their Writings and Expressions, as is obvious to all that have experience of them. Surely they are not guided by the Spirit of the Lord, their Practice being so contrary to the first Ministers of the Gospel, and so agreeable to the Method used by the False gods among the Heathen; whose Words and Writings are like their Oracles, i. e. full of Deceit and Ambiguity. And if W. L. thinks this to be the way to make Men in Love with Quakerism, it must be such that are men of corrupt Minds, Reprobate concerning the Faith: As for me, I will say of all such vile and deceitful Practices, as Jacob said of Simeon and Levi, touching that wicked Act of theirs. Gen. 49. 6. O my Soul, come not thou into their Secret, unto their Assembly, mine honour be not thou united.  
3. Because in these 12. Pagan Principles, he hath cleared T. H. of those Black Charges the Quakers have laid upon him; in calling him Liar, Forger, Slanderer, etc. For if these words were spoken by the Quakers, or written in their Books, than he cannot be a Liar, Forger, etc. And that they are so, take W. L.'s Confession under each Head, (as they stand in his Book) in the method following.  

1. Pagan Principle.  
THe first Opinion Charged upon the Quakers is, That the Light in every man, or the Light with which every Man is enlightened, is God.  
W. L. His Answer is, How small a Word would stop this Breach? put in but (OF) and all's well.  
Rep. By the same Rule, where the Apostle John saith, He that doth good is of God; John 3. Epistle v. 11. Take out but (OF) and then it is thus; He that doth good is God; which as it refers to men, as by the scope of the place is evident; it is not only an Untruth, but Blasphemy: Neither will that relieve him to bring in W. P. saying, That every such Illumination is not very God, for if it were, than W. P. must believe there were as many Gods as there are Men in the World; because he faith that every man hath that Illumination: For W. P. in his Reason against Railing, Page 56. saith, Geo. Whitehead owns it in its own being to be no other than God himself; where he approves of that saying, and adds this to it himself; We assert the true Light with which every man is enlightened, to be in itself the Christ of God, and the Saviour of the World. Now if W. P. will contradict himself, who can help that? it's not T. H. his fault, but his own. Reader, here he confesses the charge, so that Mr. Hicks is no Forger.   

2. Pagan Principle.  
HIS Second Charge is, That the Soul is a Part of God, and of God's Being, without beginning and Infinite.  
W. L. His Answer is, What hurt is there in this? if they do say so: I never heard the Heathen were of this Opinion▪ I see no cause to be offended, much less to account them Heathen, if the Quakers do count it a part of God.  
Rep. Surely this Man is little Read in Heathen Authors, that he can say he never heard the Heathen were of this Opinion that the Soul is a Part of God etc. Let him but read Seneca (I presume he hath learning enough to do it because he is a Schoolmaster) and he will find him to be of this very Opinion; These are his Words, Quid aliud voces animum, quam Deum in Corpore humano hospitantem: What can we call the Soul (saith he) but God abiding in an humane Body? And of the Reason wherewith the Soul of Man is endowed he affirms, that it is Part of the Divine Spirit in Man's Body: For these are his Words, Ratio nihil aliud est, quam in corpus humanum pars Divini Spiritus, etc. Seneca Epist. 67. So that if I would trouble myself and you, I could show you that herein there is a great union between a Quaker and a Pagan in their Opinion about the Soul of Man; the which may be most elegantly detected in the Words of a Learned Author of our times, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: It is a little Deity guesting in a body of Flesh.  
Thus Reader thou mayest see that T. H. is no Forger, and also that W. L. (though ignorantly) hath rightly called this A Pagan Principle.  
But W. L. saith, The great Heat of disputes of that nature, has caused a scoffing Poet to Rhyme thus of OUR Disputes;  
These Disputants like Rams and Bulls,  
Do fight with Arms that spring from Skulls;  
And when they argue the greatest Part,  
O'th' Contest falls on Terms of Art.  
Who would but think these Verses had been made upon the late Disputes between us and the Quakers as W. L. words it? and yet I find that Hudibras is the Poet, and the Title of the Book tells me : it was written in the time of the late War, and Licenced November 11. 1662. Hudibras Part 1. page 267. Canto 3.  
But I perceive he can allow himself a liberty to say any thing, yea rather than T. H. shall go free, he will jeer his Friend W. P. also; for if the Author of the Quakers Quibbles be not much mistaken, the great fault (which made that Dispute so fruitless) lay in W. P. and his Friends; for in page 10. he asks W. P. this question: When thou camest to the Reasoning and Disputative part, how many shuffles and put-offs? How many pitiful Evasions and poor shifts didst thou make? how many delays? how much loss of time? I was not only ashamed to see it, but admired thyself and Friends did not blush at it, to see you make yourselves and party so ridiculous in the Eyes of others: What Railing instead of Reasoning! What Clamour! What Noise! What Tautologies! What Disorder! What Discord and Confusion! No Argument to me more fully proved you to be no Christians, than your Unchristian carriage in that Meeting. And he that speaks this is an Indifferent Person, neither Quaker nor Baptist.  
As for the abuse he hath done to the Poet in repeating the two first lines otherwise than they are in Hudibras, I question not but Hudibras knows how to right himself better than I can direct him; in the mean time I would advise W. L. to take that good advice nosec tripsum, to study the knowledge of himself more, and then he will not be at so much leisure to pry into the lives, and espouse the Quarrel of other Men: had he been so employed when he wrote this Book, he had saved me this pains; for I can assure him that I don't use to employ my Time after this sort; nor would I have done it now, only I hope God may have some Honour by detecting his folly, and it may be I may be made Instrumental to bring him to a sight of it.  
I had thought to have passed over this Head, but the man makes such a stir about an impertinent Question, that I am minded to say something to it, lest my silence should prove his prejudice.  
Quest. But, Why (saith W. L.) may not we aswel say, God hath given us a Part of himself; as a Part or Measure of his spirit which hath no beginning nor ending.  
Ans. I answer, as it is in the Question, and relates to the Soul of Man; I will tell you why we may not so speak, because there is a great Disparity betwixt the Soul of Man, and the Spirit of God: As,  
1. The Soul of Man is a Creature made by God. Isaiah 57 16. For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth, for the Spirit should fail before me, and the Souls which I have made.  
2. But the Holy Spirit is increated and of the same Essence with the Father, as the Quaker himself confesseth, and from thence takes occasion to confound the Personal Existence of all the Three.  
Now, though I may say God hath given us a measure of his Spirit, because we are made to partake of the Gifts and Graces thereof; yet I may not affirm that therefore the Soul in which they do reside, is a part of God and of God's Being, without Beginning and Infinite.  
But says W. L. That Man hath an Immortal Soul we all grant; and yet before he is got ten lines forward he saith, if the Soul be a Created part of Man coming by Generation, than (as I have heard it argued) it must be Mortal: and a little after. This is a great Mystery, and we must wait till another Seal of the Book of Life be opened, before we shall know what the Breath of Life was which God Breathed into Adam, Gen. 2. He saith, Philosophers and Divines have made a great Bustle about the Soul, but to define what it is, will be as hard a Task, as it was to one Simonides, to tell what God was; but still we are as wise as before.  
Ans. Truly I don't expect to be made wiser by this discourse of thine about the Soul; but give me leave to ask thee a few questions about it, notwithstanding thy confidence in saying It's strange we should differ about we know not what.  
1. Dost thou believe the Soul of Man was Created?  
2. Dost thou not believe God to be Increated, to subsist of, and from himself, and from no other?  
3. Dost thou believe it possible for the Blessed Creator of all things to become a Creature; or for a Creature to be made God Blessed for evermore, and to be without beginning and infinite? He that can believe this, may easily believe Transubstantiation.  
I would have W. P. and W. L. consult together once more, and see if they can invent some Answer that may Reconcile these 2 Propositions:  
1. That the Soul of Man was Created.  
2. That the Soul is God himself, without beginning and infinite.  
The first is asserted by God himself, Esay 57 16. The Souls which I have made.  
The latter is asserted by themselves, for they say the Soul is a part of God's Being, etc. and in this case that known Maxim will stand good, Quidquid est in Deo, est Deus: Whatsoever is in God, is God. Now if they cannot Reconcile them, if I come to be put to my choice whether I will Believe God's Word or Theirs, I shall not only believe what God hath spoken, but also that his Word will certainly stand against them for Evil. Jer. 44. ult. For they have rejected the Word of the Lord, and what Wisdom is in them? Now I hope W. L. may see, notwithstanding all that he hath said, That though the Soul of Man be made Immortal and can never Die, yet it had not always a Being, it is not without beginning; there being a time when it was not, and that it is not infinite and God himself.  
But I wonder W. L. should say that it is so hard to know what the Soul is; he forgets sure that the Quakers have a light in them that (they say) can teach them all things: if they cannot know what it is, now the Scripture hath so plainly told them that Man hath a Soul, surely they would have been hard put to it to have told us that, and all other things Recorded in Scripture concerning God, the Man Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Souls of Men; if they had not been written there. Notwithstanding they have often told us, That they could have known all those things contained in the Bible if they had never been written: But I am glad we are not forced to be beholding to them for the knowledge thereof; for if we were, I have ground to conclude we must go without it; for I have often asked, What some of those things were that our Saviour did when he was upon the Earth that are not written? But they could never tell me one of them.   

Pagan Principle the 3d.  
THe Third Opinion charged on the Quakers is, That Jesus Christ is not a distinct Person without us.  
W. L. His Answer is, These Expressions being not in Scripture are not owned by them, and why we should impose them I know not.  
Reader, here is a plain confession that the Quakers do not own Jesus Christ to be a Distinct Person without us, therefore T. H. is no Forger.  
But I will examine his Reason why they do not own it; It is (saith he) Because it is not expressed in the Scripture: Now in case that supposition were true, that cannot be the Reason why the Quakers do deny it.  
1. For first, They deny the Scriptures to be a Rule of Faith and Practice unto Christians, and therefore though they may sometimes make use of them against those that own them Argumentum ad hominem, as I may make use of the saying of a Heathen Poet against a Heathen; yet it's shameful for a Quaker having exploded them in print from being a Rule of Faith, to bring this as a Reason why they do not own it, because (as they say) it is not written in Scripture; and as W. P. doth, in calling this Doctrine of T. H. unscriptural: seeing all the real ground a Quaker can have to own any Doctrine is, Because he is Taught it by the Light within: and the pretence of any other proof to himself is but vain; for that's the Question, Whether the Quakers themselves do believe Christ to be a Distinct Person without them.  
2. But Secondly, These Expressions of T. H. are no more in effect than if I should say in other words, That Christ is a Man without us: and is he not called in Scripture the MAN Christ Jesus, 1 Tim. 2. 5. For surely to say he is a MAN, is to suppose him both to be distinct, and a Person without us.  
Obj. But Christ is said to be in his People, and to dwell in them  
Ans. I grant it, but the Scripture saith it is by the Spirit, 1 John 4. 13. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us; because he hath given us of his Spirit. Chap. 3. 24. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us; neither is this to be understood of the Essence, but of the Gifts and Graces of the Spirit, therefore it's said so, Ephes. 3. 16, 17. where the Apostle prays, that they might be strengthened with Might, by his Spirit in the inner Man; That Christ may dwell in your Hearts by FAITH.  
3. But thirdly, I will prove that Christ is called a PERSON in Scripture. Matt. 27. 24. Pilate saith, I am innocent of the Blood of this JUST PERSON: If they say he was a wicked man that said so, than it seems a wicked Man did own more concerning Christ than a Quaker is willing to do: But I can prove that the Apostle Paul useth that very Expression, 2 Cor. 2. 10. For your sakes forgave I it in the PERSON of CHRIST: and this doth not only prove Christ to be a PERSON, but also that he is a DISTINCT PERSON without us; Because Paul doth here tell the Church, that in that Act he did Represent the PERSON of Christ, he being (in respect of his HUMANE NATURE) absent, and in Heaven; and that he acted in his stead. But surely the Opposition the Quakers make against the PERSON of Christ is wholly unscriptural; Never any true Minister or Christian mentioned in Scripture did ever oppose this Doctrine of Christ's being a Distinct PERSON without us, if they did, let them show it us in their Next.  
4. But Fourthly, Seeing Syllogizing (which they formerly condemned) is now grown into Fashion among them; I will give them one Argument to prove Christ Jesus to be a REAL and True MAN.  
If all the Properties of a Humane Person were found in Christ, than he was a Real and True Man.  
But all the Properties of a Humane Person were found in Christ; Ergo, he was a Real and True Man.  
To deny the consequence of the Major, is to take away the very Rule of Distinction between the Species of different Creatures; so that if that be denied, than they may call a Man a Horse, and no body can contradict them.  
The Minor I prove thus: The Scripture tells us that Christ was made Flesh, and made of the Seed of DAVID according to the Flesh; made of a Woman, did partake of the same Flesh and Blood that Children do, that he was Born of the Virgin Mary, he did hunger and thirst, eat and drink, speak and sleep, was liable to all our Temptations; yea, was Tempted in all points as we are, did Travel from one place to another, was exposed to so many Sufferings, that he was called A MAN of Sorrows; and lastly, as the greatest Demonstration thereof, He who had a Reasonable Soul, and a True Body did lay down his Life as a Ransom for us, being himself Subject to Death, even the Death of the Cross; from all which I draw this Conclusion, Christ was a Real and true Man.  
But saith W. L. God manifest in the Flesh is yet so great a Mystery, that I know no Catechisms free from some seeming incongruities, attending the questions about it.  
〈◊〉. Sure he should have excepted Smith's Catechism, and the Catechism of the Quakers great Prophet George Fox; for they say they speak and write by an Infalliable Spirit, unless he doth not believe they have Immediate Revelation for the Rule of their Faith and Practice, notwithstanding they so confidently Assert it. But perhaps we are to understand him thus, That though there be some seeming Incongruities in them, yet they are not Really Incongruous; if so, than the dispute about that point may soon be ended? But to take him, as I conceive he would be understood, and as indeed his words do signify, then it's to make this Doctrine so doubtful, that (in his sense) it is lost labour to inquire about the Truth of the Proposition, viz. Whether Christ be Really a distinct Person without us, or no? and a thing not to be Resolved.  
To that I would give this Answer; It doth not follow that because there may be some Questions asked about the Manner, how that great Work was Accomplished, of God's being Manifest in the Flesh, (which is the wonder of Men and Angels) that cannot be resolved by any Man; That therefore we should disown it (as the Quakers do,) and conclude that no man can know de facto that such a thing was: For though I do not know what moved W. L. to write, nor what reward he expects for writing; yet I know he did write: W. L. cannot tell me how the Bones do grow in the Womb of her that is with Child: and yet he knows they did grow there, or else they had not been. He cannot tell me how the Corn that is cast into the Earth doth grow to be what it is at Harvest; and yet he knows it is so: A Stalk, an Ear, etc.  
By the same Argument that W. L. makes it doubtful whether Christ be a distinct Person without us, and the Quakers deny him so to be; a man may make it doubtful, yea deny that ever the Heavens and Earth were made, and so not only be no Christian, but an Atheist: for it's evident, when the most learned Men come to examine every point concerning the Creation of the Heavens and Earth, and the things therein; as, how, and what, and where, and in what manner, and when things were done? it doth astonish them all, to consider the difficulties which they find, and the depth of such infinite and inscrutable Mysteries. We may as well by William Luddington's way of reasoning conclude that these things had no beginning; nay, that they are not, notwithstanding the Scripture saith so plainly, Gen. 1. 1. In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth, and we see them with our Eyes. And by the same parity of Reason, because our Saviour saith John 3. 8. That the Wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; A Man may conclude that the Wind hath not its Origination and Termination: but how absurd such a conclusion would be, I leave to the Judicious to determine.  
I hope W. L. will acknowledge, That it is the Indispensable duty of all Men, to know God, and to believe that he is; and yet there may be some Questions asked about it, that no man living can resolve. I believe the Quakers themselves, though they say their Soul is a part of God, and the light they have in them is God himself, yet they would be as much puzzled, and find as hard a Task on't, as W. L. saith one Simonides did, when he took upon him to define what God was. But must we therefore turn Fools and Atheists like him that Holy David speaks of, Psalm 14. 1. And say in our Hearts there is no God. Reader, I am greatly offended when I find men trifle (as this Man doth) about the most Sacred and Divine Truths of the Gospel, and strain their Wits, to root up Religion out of the minds of Men, for I know (through grace) that nothing can make a man so happy as to be truly Religious; that inriches the Soul with Divine Truths and Heavenly Graces: but these Men take away him, whom the Father hath anointed and filled with Grace and Truth, and appointed to reveal unto us the most glorious Truths of the Gospel, and to give us Grace to enable us to obey his Will, from whom the Apostles and first Christians did receive BOTH. John. 1. 16, 17. And of his fullness have all we received, and Grace for Grace: For the Law was given by Moses, but GRACE. and TRUTH came by Jesus Christ. It's not sufficient for them to say, they do own there is a Christ, when they intent not the MAN Christ Jesus, but a Christ of their own setting up, and adoring as such, to wit, the Light within them; For our Saviour saith, If ye believe not that I am HE, ye shall die in your Sins, John 8. 24. The JEWS could have said as much for themselves as that, and more too; for they did not deny a Messiah, but, believed he should come: yea, and be a MAN also, when he did come; yet they and the Quakers are both agreed, that the Man Christ Jesus that is come in the Flesh is not HE: and that the True Christ can never die and be made a Sacrifice for Sin. That the Jews were of this Opinion, see John 12. 32, 33, 34. And I, if I be lifted up from the Earth, will draw all men unto me. (This he said, signifying what death he should die) The People answered him, We have heard out of the Law, That CHRIST abideth for EVER : And how sayest thou the SON of MAN must be lift up? Who is this SON of MAN? That made them to say when he was upon the Cross; If thou be the Son of God, come down from the Cross; Matt. 27. 40. and in vers. 42. The Chief Priests, Elders, and Scribes mocked him, saying, HE saved others Himself he cannot save: If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the Cross, and we will believe him. That the Quakers do also deny Christ's Death, and say, That he never did Dye; I and many others have been Ear-Witnesses, to the great grief and trouble of our Souls. But though these Men can so easily part with their Saviour; I hope when they or others tempt me so to do, I shall say, (and so I hope will many thousands that fear God) as the Apostle Peter did, LORD, to whom shall we go? thou hast the Words of Eternal Life: And we believe, and are sure, that thou art THAT Christ the Son of the Living God, John 6. 68, 69.  
Reader, I would not have detained thee so long upon this subject, but to let thee see, That the design of such insinuations is to make void plain and most necessary Truths, that they may the better introduce their own corrupt Principles: For it is not only in this, but about many other the most Important Truths of Christianity, which they endeavour to evade by raising Difficulties about the MODE of things, when we inquire not into the Manner how it shall be, but TRUTH of the Matter whether it is or shall ever be? and I will give thee one instance, in the room of many more; which I could give upon my own knowledge if there were occasion.  
I have asked many of the Quakers, Whether they did believe, that the same Body which doth now consist of Flesh, Blood and Bones, and is buried, shall be raised again out of the Grave, and made Spiritual and Glorious?  
The Answer they used to give me was, Thou art one of them Fools that Paul speaks of, that art enquiring about the manner how, what Body it shall have? etc. thinking thereby to have evaded and dropped the Question: But at length, when I have pressed them for a plain and full Answer, and desired them to tell me not how it should be raised, or with what a Body in respect of Form; But whether the same Body that dies shall Rise again, respecting the Matter of which it doth Consist? And they have often told me, That that Body which Dies shall not Rise again. But to return from whence I have digressed.  
W. L. saith; Nevertheless we and they agree, That he is unworthy to be called a Christian that denies the Divinity of Christ, and brings divers Scriptures to prove it: But, (saith he) When from other Texts more dark, we are taught to understand our Lord Jesus to be that very Jehovah, Creator or Father; of whom and to whom he himself speaks when he saith, My Father is greater than I And Father I will, that whom thou hast given me, etc. with many more of that kind: then I say, Are not our Apprehensions so darkened and bewildered, that we are apt to read Psalm 110. 1. thus, The Lord said unto himself, sit thou at my Right Hand. And John 3. 16. God so loved the World that he sent himself: and many others would come under the like Absurdities.  
Rep. This is such a confused heap of Words, that I know not well where to begin. First, If by Divinity of Christ he mean as I do; i. e. That though he were a Man, yet he was also Truly God by Nature, than I am of his Mind: But then he doth not truly represent the Quakers Notion, for they say he is only God, and not Man at all.  
2. If he means as they do, That he is only God; then I wonder at his confidence, to throw that absurdity upon others, which lies only at the door of the Quakers, Ranters, Muggletonians, etc. and how he, and they, conjoined, can remove it, I do not understand; but am of Opinion, That if W. L. and W. P. had one of them the Strength of Samson, and the other the Wisdom of Solomon, they might employ themselves all their life-time, and yet find it a difficulty too hard for them to resolve. But however, I know they are Men of confidence, and will venture upon hard things; I will therefore try their strength and skill in this Matter.  
1. W. L. tells us, We being taught that Christ is the very Jehovah, Creator or Father, etc. it doth so bewilder our Apprehensions, that we are apt to read Psalm 110. 1. The Lord said unto himself, etc. and John 3. 16. God so loved the World that he sent himself; which he saith is an Absurdity; And I think a great one too: But that it lies not at our doors, but at the Quakers; I think it no hard thing to prove: and in order thereunto, I would ask these few Questions.  
1. Whether W. L. ever heard any Man of T. H's Opinion about Christ, i. e. That he is both God and Man, and a Distinct Person without us, affirm, That in respect of his Person he was only Jehovah, Creator or Father (as he is pleased to word it) and whether it be sayable from their own Principles? when at the same time they also affirm, That he is truly Man.  
2. Whether the Quakers do not deny that the same Body which Christ had when he was upon the Earth, and is now ascended with into Heaven, is a Part of that Christ, and affirm it to be only a Body in which he was, and acted in for a time here upon Earth?  
3. Whether the Quakers do not believe That it is only the Light or Spirit which was in that Man which is the Christ, which Spirit (they say) is now in them and all Men?  
4. Whether it will not thence follow that the Quakers believe Christ to be only God? if they deny it, I am able to prove it against them.  
5. Whether the Quakers do not deny all Personal Distinction between the Father and the Son, and say, that the Son is the Father, and the Father is a Son to himself?  
If the Quakers should deny this and say, There is a Distinction of Persons in the Divine Essence; Will. Penn may remember what himself hath written in opposition to such a Distinction in his Book, Entitled, The Sandy Foundation shaken; where among many other say of that import, he lays down this Argument to prove that Doctrine Absurd and Ridiculous.  
If each Person be God, and God subsists in three Persons, then in each Person there are three Persons or Gods, and so from three they would increase to nine, and so in infinitum: from whence it is plain the Quakers deny all Distinction of Persons in the Divine Essence.  
6. Having gained thus far upon them, I therefore query, Whether according to their own Opinion this absurdity will not necessarily fall upon them, to read those Scriptures as W. L. hath done; That the Lord said to himself, sit thou on my Right Hand; and that he so loved the World, that he sent himself: and all other Scriptures of the like import, as that where he saith; If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another which beareth witness of me. The Father himself which hath sent me, hath born witness of me, John 5. 31, 32, 37. which they must read, If I bedr witness of myself, my witness is not true, But I bear witness of myself: and then how bravely will they make the Lip of Truth to contradict himself: and indeed make void the Father's Testimony concerning his Son, and make it doubtful whether he be the True Messiah?  
If they assert it, it's horrid Blasphemy, and the very Opinion of Muggleton and his Company, who they say are Impostors; for they agree with the Quakers in this, That there is no distinction of Persons in the Divine Essence: and therefore they say, That the Son was the Father, and the Father the Son; and that when Christ died, God himself died. But the Quakers, though they agree with them in the former, yet they differ in the latter; For the Quakers say. That Christ in respect of himself never died, neither could he, because he was only God,  
I do therefore beg of these two Gentlemen W. L. and W. P. to show us how it is possible for them to extricate themselves out of this difficulty, and that they would either remove this absurdity from the Quakers door, or else acknowledge they have been mistaken in charging their own Gild upon other Men.  
In the next place, W. L. tells us, And so I pass to the Humanity, and makes a full stop, only in the Margin, or rather a Break that is made for that purpose; he puts in these words, I know no better Text to teach us the Divinity and Humanity of Christ, than 1 Cor. 15. 27, 28.  
Reader, If this be a passing to the Humanity, no Man ever past from it (as I think) with that brevity before; if this be an account of the Humanity, I must confess I don't understand it: but let us consider those two Verses he hath quoted for our information, ver. 27. For he hath put all things under his Feet: but when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted that did put all things under him. ver. 28. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. Which words I have seriously considered, and I find nothing in them to the purpose pretended, i. e. to prove the Divinity and Humanity of Christ with that Cleverness W. L. speaks of: But I think I have found out his intent; namely, to lead us from the Matter we are upon. But I will examine his next words, which are these:  
W. L. Only with this Caution that because we oppose not our Teachers in these Mysteries which are above our Reason, we suffer not Mystical Babylon to impose others upon us contrary to Reason; for than we shall soon be able to give as little Reason of the hope that is in us, as the poor Irishmen.  
Rep. An excellent definition of the Humanity of Christ: sure this Man hath lost his Wits, or honesty, or both; but to proceed.  
W. L. Now (saith he) As to the Quakers denying the Distinct Person without them, if it were so (is it still but an If? W. L. confessed at the beginning of this Head, that they did not own it, sure he hath a bad Memory) then certainly there is no probability they should be of the Popish Pedigree, or easily 
☞  reduced to that Religion, as many conceit: And he gives us a jeer for his Reason; i. e. For that is busied most of all about the Person of Christ and his Mother too: and adds, If the Jesuits were their Fathers, (as a late printed sheet would persuade us) truly they went as wisely about their business, as General Venables to take Hispaniola: (and why not Admiral Penn too, for I think he was there) by landing his Army so far from it, that before they could get through the Woods, they met so many difficulties as forced them to retreat, and assault Jamaica.  
Ans. To which I answer, That the Quakers might be set on work by the Jesuits, notwithstanding they deny Christ to be a Distinct Person without them, and the Jesuits do not: For there is nothing more suiting Jesuitical Policy, than to pretend one thing, and intent another; Their Art and Order is almost as well filled with Subtleties and Equivocations, as the Order of Quakers; and had but this Man studied Machiavil, as well as W. P. is supposed to have done, he might get over this Objection with ease: For it is possible the Jesuits may design the introducing of Popery in England, by promoting Quakerism: And in my Opinion it's the likeliest way to do it, and that for these Reasons.  
1. Because the Quakers deny the Holy Scriptures to be a Rule of Faith and Practice to Christians; and it all England were of this mind, what Argument could be urged against the Church of Rome, but what a Jesuit could easily enervate. I have met with divers Popish Priests in my time, and I always found Scripture-Argumens the best Weapons against Popery. I would not have the Quakers take away from us the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, till they have found a better Sword to put into our hands.  
2. Because the Quakers agree with the Church of Rome, That there is some other infallible Rule of Faith and Practice: The Quakers use to tell us, It was the Light in every individual man that cometh into the World: But since some difference hath happened among themselves, which they could not reconcile, now it is the Spirit in the Body (as they call it) that is the Judge in Religious Controversies. And can it be thought when the Contest shall lie here between them and you, that a Jesuit cannot show better Antiquity and Authority for his Church, than you can for yours? I should be very sorry if England's remaining Protestants, or returning to Popery, depended upon that single issue. But to proceed:  
3. But suppose the Jesuits should miss of their end, which is to suppose all that W. L. supposes; this is no Argument to prove, that they may not therefore attempt the doing it; for many men have undertaken things which they could not effect, by reason of some unhappy and unseen Accident intervening, and yet their design no whit the more impolitickly laid. And why should not W. L. think this possible, seeing at the same time he opposes it, he brings in the instance of General Venables to prove de facto that such a thing was done: We must conclude by this man's Argument, That the Devil will never attempt the doing of an Impossibility, in respect of the event; and yet if he read but Chap. 4. of Matthew's Gospel, he will find he did so in the Assault he made upon our Saviour. And I believe, a Quaker that says he hath attained such perfection, that he doth not commit one sin, cannot say but the Devil tempts him to many. Now if the Devil be such a fool to attempt that which is never effected, why may not the Jesuits do the same? For I always thought the Devil was too cunning for a Jesuit, and I doubt they will find it so too at the last.  
4. But why doth W. L. make such a stir about this Book, called, The Quakers Pedigree? I am of opinion there is some wit, if not much truth contained therein: But why doth he insinuate, as if the Baptists made it, and as if they promoted it? This must needs be to render them ridiculous, which is a very unworthy design. But to prevent him from persevering therein for the future, I will tell him what the man is not which made that Book, HE is not one of the People called Baptists: I could let him know who did write it, but I will not humour him so far at this time, because he hath so pleased himself to throw dirt upon us in Print about it; for which he deserves a sharper Reproof, than I will permit my pen to give him at this time: Will. Pen, who seems to have dipped his quill in Gall and Wormwood, may do that piece of Justice for me, if he please.  
But said W. L. Why should we think they deny the Person of Christ? it is not long since they were railed on as the Spawn of SOCINUS, for denying the Divinity, and now they are faced about to oppose his Humanity? either they are very unsettled, or T. H. misunderstands them.  
Answ. Will. Luddington is no sooner got out of General Venables Wood, but he is got into one himself: But I'll do that kindness for him as the Law required (when a man saw his neighbour's Ox, or Ass going astray) to bring him home if I can.  
There is a man hath written a Book very lately, entitled, The Christian, a Quaker; The Quaker a Christian: Which they seem to glory in very much, and do him the kindness to sell his Books. And one Reason he gives to prove, that the name of a Christian doth most properly belong to a Quaker is this, Because a Quaker is an Ass: His words are these,  
He being before speaking of Antioch, saith, The Disciples were there first called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, Christ's Asses: And in a break made for that purpose, he inserts these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Asses; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Christ's Asses, page 23, 24. And continuing his Discourse upon this subject, in the latter end of p. 25. and beginning of p. 26. he hath these words:  
But these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whom this Author calls Quakers (meaning T. H.) walk by a better Rule; for if they receive a Blow on the one Cheek, they turn to them that give it the other also (so they profess) patiently undergoing all manner of Affronts, Persecutions, Reproaches, and Revile, returning not evil for evil, according to the Commandment of the Everlasting God: So that they may truly enough be termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Christ's Asses. To which I answer:  
Answ. 1. This Author doth abuse his unlearned Reader; for that word in the 11th of Acts vers. 26. is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Which the Learned Leigh in his Critica Sacra, p. 288. renders thus, Qui Christi discipulum se profitetur, & à Christo se denominat; Who professes themselves Disciples of Christ, and derive their name from Christ. And it is so used also in Acts 26. 28. and in 1 Pet. 4. 16. both quoted by the said Learned Author.  
But suppose we should interpret the word as the Quakers Advocate doth, than we must read Acts 26. 28. thus, Almost thou persuadest me to be one of Christ's Asses; and 1 Pet. 4. 16. But if any man suffer as one of Christ's Asses, let him not be ashamed. But how ridiculous this would be, I leave to all that hold the name of Christian as Venerable to determine: If this will not make a Quaker to blush, what will?  
2. But secondly, Besides those he mentions, I am persuaded he consulted as his Oracle in this point, that famous Conjurer Cornelius Agrippa, who at the end of his Book, called, The vanity of Sciences, gives the like ridiculous account of a Christian, by comparing him to an Ass. But what have the Quakers gained by this man's Book? He hath proved them to be Asses, and he that took them to be otherwise, was mistaken in them: And I am much afraid I shall find one property of an Ass in W. L. which is given by a very Learned Author now living; his words are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An Ass; some way or other (saith he) it seems to be a troublesome Beast by its name; for the root is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was troublesome, and so any Ass (tanquam Davus aliquis, perturbat omnia) troubleth all where he cometh. But let the trouble be as great as it will, I will go on to prosecute my purpose, and perform my promise, to bring him out of this Labyrinth, if I can.  
1. W. L. saith, They railed on them as the Spawn of SOCINUS, for denying the Divinity.  
2. But now (he saith) they are faced about to oppose his Humanity: From whence he draws this Conclusion, Either they are very unsettled, or T. H. misunderstands them. And till this Dilemma be removed, it seems W. L.  go forward: If this be the difficulty, I'll do him that kindness to remove it.  
1. I do affirm, That in this point T. H. doth not misunderstand them; for the Quakers do say, That Christ is not a distinct Person without us. Geo. Whitehead in Dip. pl. p. 13. saith, Jesus Christ a Person without us is not Scripture Language; but the Anthropomorphites, and Muggletonians. The Socinians tell us of a personal Christ, and that the Man Christ Jesus our Lord, hath in Heaven a place remote from Earth, a Humane body. But doth he believe him to be the Eternal God, whilst he imagines him to be a personal Christ? a Humane body so limited and confined to a remoteness. Geo. Whitehead, Append. to Reas. against Railing, p. 21. Therefore you see the difficulty lies not here.  
2. If any persons did rail on them as the Spawn of Socinus, for denying the Divinity, I suppose they were mistaken. But suppose they should have said, they held that part of Socinus Doctrine, that saith, Christ gave no plenary Satisfaction to the Justice of God for the sins of men, herein they had not wronged them: For while the Quakers believe Christ to be only God, he is not capable to suffer death; it being absurd to imagine, that the Deity can become Mortal: And because they deny the Body to be a part of the Christ, they are forced to say, Christ never died, and so consequently, he did not satisfy Justice thereby. So that W. L. may see, that the Quakers are not faced about to oppose the Humanity, for they always opposed it; neither is T. H. mistaken about their meaning.  
Well, I perceive W. L. is got halfway out of this Labyrinth; for in his next words he saith, Let's be charitable in these Mysterious points however, and expound these Extremes as we do that betwixt Paul and James, Gal. 2. and Rom. 4. with James 2. for as Faith and Works, so Divinity and Humanity must go together. And what God hath joined, let no man put asunder.  
Answ. I wish the Quakers would but do so, and then this Controversy would soon be ended. As to what he tells me of W. P. his words at the Barbican-Meeting, as an instance, I say this to it, When W. P. hath given us some infallible Demonstration, that he did not speak equivocally in those Expressions, then, and not till then, do they deserve my cognizance, any further, than to answer him in the words of the Roman Orator, Quid attinet gloriose loqui, nisi constanter loquare; Cic. l. 2. de Fin. p. 61. For what availeth it for a man to speak gloriously, if he be not constant, and sticks not firmly unto that which he speaketh. And I fear I may say of him, as it's said of some others by Augustine, Hoc in labiis, non in cord dicere. Aug. Epist. 20. Tom. 2. p. 588. They speak it but with their lips, they believe it not with their hearts. But let us proceed to the next particular.   

4. Pagan Principle.  
THe fourth Charge is (saith he,) That Christ Redeemed himself.  
W. L. His Answer is, This our Friend T. H. confesseth to be but his own Consequence from their words, which he leaves to the judgement of others, (as indeed all Consequences ought to be:) And I'll tell you what my weak apprehension is of it, The say from whence he hath drawn this Charge, I confess are above my capacity: I do not understand, how Christ is both the Election, and the Elect Seed: Nor how Abraham's old decayed Body, was a Type of the Seed of Abraham. Now I begin to like my Author, and I should have done so before, if he had spoke as honestly: I wish he may keep in this mind. A little after he saith, W. P. asserts the Redemption of the Seed, etc.  
But then he endeavours to extenuate the fault, saying, It's true, it looks with a strange countenance to us, but yet there is some of even the very same in Scripture; as that in Isa. 59 16. He wondered there was no Intercessor; therefore his own Arm brought Salvation to him: And in Chap. 63. 5. Mine own Arm brought Salvation unto me, and my fury it upheld me. Whence faith W. P. in Reas. against Railing, p. 63. It is no ways absurd that we affirm, That the end of Gods manifesting himself in the flesh, was for the Redemption or Deliverance of his holy life that was in man, as a small seed, even the smallest of seeds that had been long vexed, grieved and pressed down by sin and iniquity: And in page 64. This Seed was, and is pure for ever. Here, saith W. L. He tells what he means by Redemption of the Seed. In this he hath fully cleared T. H. from the guilt of Forgery: And I will also quit this point, when I have considered the meaning of those two Texts urged to prove it, or rather to excuse W. P.  
1. I take notice, That though W. P. and the Quakers deny the Scriptures to be a Rule, yet they can make use of them in favour of themselves, when they think they will serve for their purpose: But to pass that.  
2. It is obvious to all that will take the pains to consider them, that these Texts do not prove what they are brought for; i. e. That the end of Christ's coming was to redeem himself: For as there is no such words spoken by the Prophet, so it is contrary to the general scope and design of the Gospel, and to the express words of the Apostle Paul, 1 Tim. 1. 15. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, That Christ Jesus came into the World to save sinners, of whom I am chief: And that he came to seek and to save that which was lost; not a lost God, and a lost Christ, as Geo. Keith saith, but lost and undone sinners.  
3. If you will have my understanding of these two Scriptures, it is this; That by Salvation is meant by a figure the person saved, and that it signifies no more, but that he purchased them to himself, the Abstract being there put for the Concrete, as is usual in Scripture; as in Phil. 3. 3. Circumcision is put for the persons circumcised; and in 1 Cor. 12. 28. Helps, Governments, is put for Helpers and Governors, with many more of the like kind that might be mentioned: And therefore it's said in Isa. 49. 6. I also will give thee for a Light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my Salvation to the ends of the earth; that is, My Salvation that I have appointed for them. For God, who is always perfectly happy, and Blessedness itself, cannot stand in need of any Salvation; yea, it is as great an absurdity as any the Quakers can be guilty of, to affirm it. But from hence we may see, that the Light which is in them, doth teach them to have strange blasphemous thoughts of God; and sometimes out of the abundance of their hearts their mouths do utter it.   

5. Pagan Principle.  
THe fifth Charge is, That the Quakers do deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Practice unto Christians. And T. H. brings in W. P. his words for proof: Which are these,  
We deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Practice; In honour to that Divine-Light that was the Author of them. W. P. in Reas. against Rail. page 48.  
W. L. The Quakers sayings brought to prove this, I confess at a distance, or to a hasty, or a prejudiced Reader seem to do it; but look seriously and charitably on them, and there is as much truth in them as I desire. Ben. Furly says, There is nothing in the Scripture that is a duty upon him, or which he is obliged to obey, because there recorded; and so say I. He further acknowledgeth, that Geo. Whitehead saith, That it is Idolatry to call the Bible the means of our knowing God, Dip. pl. p. 17.  
Reply. Reader, W. L. hath gone very far already towards the clearing T. H. But hear what he saith further, page 17. he there confesses, They seem to him and others to speak slightly of the Scriptures, which (saith he) I would not have them do. But it seems they will not be ruled by him; for you have heard W. P. his positive denial already. And for Ben. Furly, he saith, It is the greatest error in the World, that ever was invented, and the ground of all error, to affirm, That the Scripture ought to be a Rule to Christians: Whatsoever is a command to me, I must not receive from any man or thing without me; nay, not the Scripture itself. And Edw. Burroughs in his Works, p. 62. saith, He that persuades people to let the Scriptures be the Rule of Faith and Practice, would keep people in darkness. Now I hope T. H. is no Forger.  
But whereas my Author doth endeavour to cover their nakedness by some pitiful Evasions that covering of his is too narrow, the Light in every man doth see their folly, and is above them; justly condemning them by the Light of the Holy Scriptures, which they do wickedly reject: And their great pretences to Light and Knowledge, are seen to be the manifest effects of Darkness and Ignorance. To the Law, and to the Testimony, because they speak against this Word, there can be no Light in them.  
Quest. W. L. asks this Question, What Scriptures do they disown for a Rule, but such as relate to some external parts of Worship? and do not we ourselves do the same?  
Answ. I answer, They deny the Scriptures, yea, as Geo. Whitehead phrases it (as quoted by W. L. himself) the BIBLE, which contains all the Books of holy Scripture both in the Old and New-Testament, to be a Rule; and therefore 'tis idle for him to talk as if it were some part of it only, that related to external Worship.  
Quest. But saith W. L. Do not we ourselves do the same?  
Answ. There is one thing I would be satisfied in, what W. L. means by saying, WE, US, and OUR in this Discourse? I suppose he doth it on purpose to insinuate, as if himself were a Baptist, because he hath been so some years ago: If that be his meaning, than I must tell him, it's unbecoming a man professing Religion so to carry it; for I do declare, That he hath not had Communion with any Baptised Church in England, nor been owned by them, as worthy their Communion, for several years, unless he hath gone to any place where he is unknown, and got it surreptitiously; which I think the method used in such cases, among our Churches, will hardly admit him to do: And to my knowledge, they have refused long ago to admit him to preach among them, because of his corrupt and dangerous Principles. And yet the chief of the Quakers in a scurrilous Book of theirs, in the Title-page, call him a Sober Baptist Preacher; signifying to the World, that he is owned so now, which is a most abominable untruth. But they seem to have no regard to Truth and Honesty, neither with their Tongues nor Penns: For as Mr. Ives showeth in his Questions for the Quakers, That two of these Publishers, i. e. William Mead, and John Osgood, have both of them (with others) took their Oaths in Chancery, one before Sir William Beversham, and the other before Sir William Child; and yet it's known to all, that this is the Quakers avowed Principle, That it is sinful to swear at all, or in any case: For as Geo. Fox saith in his Catechism, quoted by Mr. Ives, p. 107. All that swear are out of the Power of Jesus Christ and his Truth, and the Doctrine of the Apostles, etc. AND ARE FALSE CHRISTIANS, etc. Now though they can rail against others at pleasure, yet if we do but tell them of their faults, though it be with the greatest mildness that may be, they presently fall a raging and raving, as if they were possessed with, and under the power of some unclean Spirit. I will therefore leave them, and return to W. L. whom I know to be a man that hath adhered to, and contended for the Quakers Principles for divers years: And I would say thus much to W. L. by way of advice, That he would either be what he pretends to be, or profess to be what he is. Why dost thou halt between two Opinions? Be in earnest, and done't trifle thus about Religion. God is a jealous God, and he is very angry with Lukewarm Professors, but more with Apostates. Take heed to thyself, and to the Holy Scriptures; for thereby thou mayest be made wise to Salvation, through faith in Christ: And if thou shalt reject the same, know of a truth, that God's Word will certainly stand against thee for evil; for I perceive thou hast drunk down too large a draught of their poisonous Doctrines, as is manifest in this very instance under consideration (besides many other;) for thou sayest, There is as much truth in this Position, That the Scriptures are no Rule of Faith and Practice unto Christians, as thou desirest. Where is then the difference between W. L. and a Quaker? But we shall find much more of this in his Book.  
There is some other rambling nonsensical Discourse under this head, which I shall pass with this Observation upon it:  
1. That W. L. confesses T. H's. Charges, are matters of Opinions.  
2. W. L. saith, We read of no punishment denounced against men, nor rewards given for their Opinions at the last day.  
3. That if W. L. hath no reward from the Quakers, for this service he hath done for them, in contending about Opinions, he is like to have none in the last day.  
4. That a man may hold and maintain the most wicked and abominable Opinions that are in the World, though never so Atheistical and Antichristian, and not be condemned for it at the last day.  
But sure W. L. forgets, The corrupt Principles, lead to corrupt Practices; as he will certainly find this corrupt Principle will do (if prosecuted) in denying the Scriptures to be a Rule of Faith and Practice.  
Do but debauch a man's Conscience with wicked Principles, and you will quickly see him a man of a debauched Conversation. Why doth God appoint the Gospel to be preached? Surely, besides its Office in the revelation of himself and Son; it is, that by it we might come to have an evil opinion of the ways of sin, and so forsake them: And by presenting God therein as an Holy God, and the Beauty, Glory, and Excellency of Holiness, we might come to have our minds influenced thereby, fall into a love and liking of it, which begets holy Principles in us, and so leads us to a holy Life. And herein lies much of that difference, betwixt the obedience of a man that is merely Moral, and one that is Evangelical: The one being taught by the Law of Nature, doth that which is good for the matter of it; the other, as he is farther enlightened, doth not only obey in doing more, but in all the parts of his obedience he acts from higher Principles, and to a more noble end. But whilst others are slighting good Principles, I desire to prize and improve them for the honour of God, and my own Salvation; to believe and obey as God hath commanded in the Holy Scriptures.   

6. Pagan Principle.  
THe sixth charge is, That the speaking of the Spirit in any, is of greater Authority than the Scriptures. W. L. His Answer is, There is no reason in my opinion for this Charge; for the saying brought to prove it is thus, That which was spoken from the Spirit of Truth in any, is of as great Authority as the Scriptures, (and Chapters are) and greater. Geo. Whitehead's Serious Apol. p. 49.  
Reply. A man may see how dark the eyes of this man's understanding are become, that he should acknowledge, that G. W. speaks the very words that T. H. charges upon them, and yet can see no reason for this Charge: But I hope he can see that this proves T. H to be no Forger.  
W. L. Having confessed the Charge, he goes to excuse it by saying, That the addition of these words, [and greater] will easily make any moderate man to believe, G. W. means in some cases it may be greater.  
Answ. The Question that was put will inform us of his meaning; i. e. Do you esteem of your speakings to be of as great Authority as any Chapter in the BIBLE? Now both these words are in the Quakers Answer, Of as great Authority as the Scriptures (and Chapters) are, and greater; though W. L. hath the civility to leave out (and chapters are) I know not for what cause, unless it were to introduce that instance he gives, on purpose to evade the force of T. H. his evidence: But I will not let it slip.  
W. L. saith, And that we cannot deny! for if one of T. H. or I. G ' s. Sermons, should at any time make a greater impression upon you or I, than ever any Scripture did; may we not lawfully say, That the Spirit of Truth speaking in either of these men, was of greater Authority to us, that is, wrought more powerfully upon us by them, than by the Scriptures.  
Answ. To this I would make this answer:  
1. That W. L. mistakes the Question exceedingly; for it's not about the influence, but the Authority, which the Scripture hath over us as a Rule.  
2. That W. L. supposes by these expressions, that T. H. and I. G. do not expound the Holy Scriptures in their Sermons: Which is a false Supposition.  
3. And from thence he concludes, That the influences their Sermons have upon the Consciences of their Auditors, is not from the Power and Authority of God's Word, but of their own say.  
4. Whereas he supposes, the Spirit of Truth speaks by these men: I readily grant it, but not exclusive of, but in conjunction with the Doctrine they preach, agreeable to the Holy Scriptures.  
5. Therefore I conclude, That whatever good effect their Doctrine hath upon the Souls of men, for their Conversion and Salvation, it is wrought by those words they deliver unto us; not as they are the words of men taken abstractedly (for as such, they can have no such Efficacy) but as they are indeed the Word of God, which effectually worketh in them that believe. Thus all men may see this instance serves not to the purpose for which he intended it.  
Quest. But saith W. L. What need we fear any dangerous Consequences attending this saying? so long as they agree with us in this, That every Spirit speaking contrary to plain Scripture is false.  
Answ. This man is very apt in drawing fale sSuppositions: Do the Quakers that deny the Scriptures to be a Rule of Faith and Practice, make it the Standard to try Spirits by? and conclude all to be false that speak contrary thereunto? No, if they had done that, or would yet do it, they would see themselves to be false Teachers, no Christians, but Impostors: Their Principles and Practices being contrary to Holy Scripture, and the Rule of Christianity therein contained.   

7. Pagan Principle.  
THe Seventh Charge is, That is no Command from God to me, which God hath given by way of Command to another: Neither did any of the Saints act by the Command which was to another. Every one obeyed their own Command.  
W. L. He saith, There is no great difficulty nor danger in this; for it's very true in one sense, and as false in another, and Charity will always take the best.  
Reply. There is so great danger in it, that it leaves all men without a Rule for their Faith and Practice: For if I am to obey none of those Commands given by God to others, and recorded in Scripture for our Instruction; and there be no new Revelation for the Rule of my Faith and Practice, then are all men wholly destitute of a Rule; and yet this is the very case. And whereas he would salve it, by distinguishing between one Command and another, and allowing the Quakers a liberty to pick and choose, obey what they list, and leave the rest undone: This may not be allowed by the Quakers themselves; for they confess, that the Scriptures were all given forth by the same Spirit, and therefore must needs be of equal Authority in those Commands they enjoin upon us as our duty.  
Object. I know no Objection lies against this, but the Quakers affirming, They have immediate Revelation for the Rule of their Faith and Practice.  
Answ. I answer, It's easy to affirm any thing: But that they cannot prove it is evident, not only from the want of sufficient Testimony at all times, when they have been desired to prove it; but particularly, for that at the late Dispute in their own Meetinghouse in Wheelers-street, they were not able to give any other Demonstration of it, but what a Turk or Impostor might give, or pretend too, equal with them. But if they think they can do it; when they have further consulted one another about it, I will give them a longer time, that they may fetch in what other Auxiliaries they have: for I perceive the Light within them cannot supply them with sufficient Demonstration; for if it could, they had that to have been Geo Keith's Dictator in Wheelers-street. In the mean time I would ask W. L. a few Questions upon his Distinction.  
1. Why he should say, That the Quakers, except against some particular Commands, as not belonging to them; as that Command to the Jews, To anoint their heads when they fasted; that to the young man, To sell all, and give to the poor; and that to Paul, To go to Rome. Whereas it's manifest, the Quakers say, That not any one of the Commands in Scripture concern them: That the Scripture is no Rule to them.  
2. Why he should say, That no Quaker will say these Commands, Swear not at all, Love your Enemies, Quench not the Spirit, etc. concerns not them, because they were spoken to others. Whereas he knows, they do so confidently affirm, That those are no Commands to them, that were given by God to others, and recorded in the Scriptures.  
3. If the Scripture be no Rule, how comes the Quaker to know, that it is a sin to Swear, and a virtue not to Swear at all? He must not say, Because 'tis written in Matth. 5. Swear not at all; for that Command was given to those that lived 1600 years ago; and therefore that can be no Command to them: For Edw. Burroughs saith in his works, page 47. That is no Command from God to me, which he commands to another: Neither did any of the Saints we read of in Scripture, act by the Command which was to another, etc. They obeyed every one their own Command.  
4. If it be a sin as the Quaker saith, To take any Oath, how comes it then to pass, that the Quakers do frequently go to Law with their Neighbours, and employ men, yea, give them money to come in and swear for them: And also, when others cannot be accepted in their stead, Why do some of the chief Quakers in London take Oaths themselves? Surely if your Principle be true, both these Practices are Abomination to the Lord. Now with what face of Truth or Honesty can these men censure others, and do the same things themselves?  
5. How can the Quakers tell what Spirit it is they must receive, must not quench the motions of, must be taught and instructed by, and that those things it teaches them are true? What Rule is there to distinguish it from all false Spirits? that so all men may know what Spirit they are to follow, and what to reject: If these things be not discovered by the Light of the Holy Scriptures, how can they be known? If they must be examined by the Light thereof? then the Scriptures must be acknowledged to be our Rule, and the Commands therein binding to us, notwithstanding all that the Quakers say to the contrary.   

8. Pagan Principle.  
THe Eighth Charge is, That Justification by that Righteousness which Christ fulfilled for us, wholly without us, is a Doctrine of Devils.  
W. P's. Answer is thus, And indeed this we deny, (viz. Justification by the Righteousness which Christ fulfilled in his own Person for us, wholly without us :) And boldly affirm it in the name of the Lord, to be a Doctrine of Devils, and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption, which doth now Deluge the World. Will. Penn. Serious Apol. p. 148.  
Will. Lud. saith, This makes a great noise; surely somewhat more than ordinary moved W. P. to write at this rate: Herein he confesses the Charge, so that T. H. is no Forger.  
But first (saith W. L.) let us calmly consider the terms, whereupon he doth express himself in favour of W. P.  
W. L. This one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, serves for Justification and Righteousness all along the New-Testament; so that when we are said to be justified, it is all one in my understanding as to be made just or righteous.  
Reply. I will speak something to this, before I proceed any further: And first, whereas he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serves for Justification and Righteousness all along the New-Testament; I hope he doth not intent, that there is no other words used to express it by; for I think that word is but seldom used in the New-Testament upon that occasion, but most frequently other words to express the Spirits meaning by, as in Rom. 5. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Therefore being justified by faith, vers. 16. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But the free gift is of many offences unto Justification. v. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unto Justification of life. And Mr. Leigh in his Critica Sacra p. 69. saith thus upon that very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Justitia, i. e. Justice; in which sense he saith, the word is often used, and brings in Cornelius à Lapide speaking thus, Justitia ea quae est in nobis; and a little after, Est ipsa animi integritas, sanctitas, & innocentia, per quam sancti vivimus & placemus Deo vel bonis viris. So that it must be understood, to respect that Integrity, Holiness and Innocency of the souls of good men, by which they live a holy life, and please God. But this cannot be done, without their persons be first acquitted of their former sins, by the Justification they receive from Christ through believing.  
1. But here I do distinguish between a Legal Righteousness, so as to obey perfectly all that God requires at all times, both in thought, word and deed.  
2. An Evangelical Righteousness, which is a sincere endeavour of the Soul to do all that God requires; although by reason of the pravity of his nature, he cannot attain it; which is accepted with God for Christ's sake, as if he had perfectly done it.  
3. And that Righteousness which Christ fulfilled for us in his own Person, wholly without us; which was his keeping the Law perfectly in our stead, and his suffering death for our sins, 1 Cor. 15. 3. Christ died for OUR sins according to the Scriptures.  
Now this is imputed to us, if we believe, Rom. 4. 5, 6, 7, 8. & 22, 23, 24, 25. And Christ is made unto us Righteousness, 1 Cor. 1. 30. And in this sense he is called, The Lord OUR Righteousness, Jer. 23. 6. And therefore it's said, Christ was made sin for US, who knew no sin, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 5. ult. He bore OUR sins in his own body on the tree, 1 Pet. 2. 24. The truth is, if Legal Righteousness, and Justification THROUGH Christ, according to the Gospel, be the same thing, than the Quaker is right in denying Justification by that Righteousness Christ fulfilled for us, both Actively and Passively, in his own Person, wholly without us: But then the Apostle Paul was mistaken, who saith, A man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ: Even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law▪ for by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified— for if Righteousness come by the Law, than Christ is dead in vain, Gal. 2. 16, 21. But by this I perceive, That the Quakers rather than they will own Justification by that Righteousness Christ fulfilled for us, wholly without us, they will avoid that absurdity laid upon that Opinion by the Apostle, i. e. That then Christ died in vain; by affirming, That Christ, in respect of himself, never died. But why I may not from hence conclude, The Quakers professing Christianity to be vain, I know not: If W. P. can demonstrate the contrary, I desire he would. But let us hear what W. L. hath to say further touching this thing.  
W. L. Now that no man can make himself so, or that he can be so without Christ's Righteousness; and also, that this act of justifying us, or making us just, is of the free Grace of God, through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ, I believe it is granted by us and them.  
Answ. If by Us, W. L. mean, according to his former false Insinuation, the Baptists and himself, (though indeed he is not one of that number, neither can he be so accounted:) Then I answer, That those words expressed by him, if as honestly intended as plainly expressed, is that the Baptists and other Protestants own. But as I know the Quakers do not own it, I have reason to suspect W. L. also: For in a certain Discourse he had with R. S. a good Friend of mine about two years ago, he pleaded for a sinless Perfection here in this life (as it's opposite to that Imputed Righteousness of Christ, made Ours by believing) as the way by which he expected to be justifified. Whereupon R. S. asked him, Whether he had yet attained it? W. L. told him, he had not. Whereupon R. S. replied, You do not know, but you may die before you have attained it; how then can you think to stand justified before God? It cannot be by your own personal Righteousness; for that you confess you have it not. I should be amazed to hear him utter such expressions, so contrary thereunto as these are in his Book, but that I consider he may have learned the Art of Equivocation from W. P. by his often converse with him.  
But now I am upon this Head, I would make so bold as to ask W. P. and the Quakers one Question.  
Quest. Suppose they do attain to a state of sinless Perfection here in this life; yet seeing many of them have lived in a course of sinning twenty, thirty, or forty years before they attain it; What must make Compensation for the sins they have committed in the time passed of their lives?  
If they shall say, Their own Obedience which they perform to the Light within them, after they are thus perfect: That is to suppose, the good deeds they perform in the latter part of their lives, should make Compensation for their former evil deeds: Which will proclaim to all intelligent men, not only that they hold Justification by their own personal Righteousness, exclusive of Christ's Righteousness, which is to be justified by Works in the strictest Notion (being the next Principle we are to inquire into;) but also, that they do hold that other Popish Principle, To believe that they can do Works of Supererogation. And yet this Author is much displeased, that any should suppose the Quakers do derive their Pedigree from Rome.  
W. L. Goes on to excuse his beloved Friend W. P. by telling us, That forasmuch as many Teachers so word this Doctrine of Justification, as the weak are thereby misled into a vain hope, that God will justify them, or look upon them as just and righteous THROUGH Christ at the last day, though they live and die in sin: Hence (saith he) so great a zeal might arise in W. P. against such Expositions of Scripture-Justifications and chief against this phrase, THROUGH CHRIST.  
Answ. To which I answer, If W. P. hath so great a zeal risen up in him, CHIEF against this phrase, THROUGH CHRIST: Then it follows, That if we should word the Doctrine of Justification, so as to please Will. Penn, we must say, That men are justified WITHOUT CHRIST: But I hope I shall never make that one of the Articles of my Creed.  
But farther (W. L. saith) These words, Wholly without us, may very well satisfy us, That they levelly not at Scripture-Justification, but at our conceits of it.  
Reply. Then it seems W. L. concludes, That Justification by that Righteousness Christ fulfilled for us, wholly without us, is not a Doctrine agreeable to Scripture, but a conceit. I perceive now T. H. is no Forger; for W. L. doth not only own the words to be spoken by W. P. but owns the Doctrine of the Quakers about it: And yet forsooth, we must be very tender of calling this man a Quaker: Howbeit, I conclude, he avoids the name for no other Reason, but that he might be the more serviceable in propagating their cause. An excellent Stratagem!  
As for what he saith, about the Doctrine of Justification, springing from the Doctrine of Predestination, misunderstood, and as held by Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Synod of Dort, etc. As I do not believe it in the sense that I have defined it, and as Protestants generally hold it: So for those men's Opinions about the Decree of Absolute and Irrespective Reprobation, I shall leave it to them whose concern it is to clear themselves of it; for it's none of mine at this time.   

9 Pagan Principle.  
W. P. SAith, His ninth Charge against the Quakers is, That Justification is by Works. Here W. L. hath followed his own advice; viz. To leave out words most material in this Charge: For the words laid down by T. H. are;  
That the Quakers hold Justification by Works in the strictest Notion: And brings these proofs out of the Quakers own Books.  
God accepts not any, where there is any failing; or who do not fulfil the Law, and answer every Demand of Justice, Edw. Burrough's Works, p. 33. And in Answer to Quest. 14. Was not Abraham justified by Works? We must not conceive that his personal Offering, was not a justifying Righteousness; but that God was pleased to count it so. Nor was there any Imputation of another's Righteousness to Abraham: But on the contrary, his personal Obedience was the ground of that Imputation. Therefore that any should be justified by another's Righteousness imputed, and not inherent in him, is both ridiculous and dangerous. W. P. Reas. against Rail. p. 80. Now I hope T. H. is no Forger. But let us hear what W. L. hath to say.  
W. L. This is almost of the same nature as the former; and it's a greatdeal of pity to Heathenize men for preaching up Goodworks, especially in a day when they are so scarce.  
Reply. Rarely well guest. Is T. H. finding fault with men's preaching up good Works? Surely that's none of the Question: Neither doth he Heathenize any for so doing, that's no part of the Charge; nay, he doth not so much as mention the words Heathen, Pagan, or Pagan Principle, in all his twelve Charges. I wonder how W. L. did, to give them so right a name: The honour of that belongs to himself, and not to me nor T. H. But seeing so great a Friend of theirs as W. L. is, hath so often called them so, I hope they will not find fault with me, for writing after his Copy.  
As for what he is pleased to say, of his own renouncing meriting by Works; and that he thinks no rational Papist can be so weak to imagine, that forty or fifty years spent all in Goodworks, nay forty or fifty thousand years, can deserve Eternal Recompense of Reward; is no Argument to the contrary, but that an infatuated Quaker may be of that mind: And why we should not think so of them, till they have cleared themselves of it, by renouncing Edw. Burroughs, Will. Penn, and their Books, with all others, who have asserted such Doctrines as these, I see no Reason.   

10. Pagan Principle.  
THe tenth Charge is, That Christ fulfilled the Law ONLY as our Pattern.  
The proof cited by T. H. is W. P.'s own words, For not the hearers of the Law are just before God: But the doers of the Law shall be justified, Rom. 2. 13. From whence (saith W. P.) how unanswerably may I observe, Unless we become doers of that Law, which Christ came not to destroy, but as our example to fulfil, we can never be justified before God. Nor let any fancy, that Christ hath so fulfilled it for them, as to exclude their obedience from being requisite to their acceptance, but ONLY as their Pattern. W. P. Sandy Found. p. 26.  
W. L.'s Reply is, How T. H. puts an ill face upon an honest Sentence, and repeats W. P.'s words as cited by T. H. and endeavours, according to his accustomed manner, to excuse his great Friend W. P. but so faintly, that it expires with the breath that names it: And being soon spent, he concludes in these words, But take it at the worst, as in the Charge, though I will not justify it so worded, and understood as T. H. doth, yet methinks its too harsh to reckon it Heathen Doctrine; I would rather have compared him to Apollo's, and wishing him a little more fully instructed in the ends of Christ's Life and Death, have passed it by. But before I pass it with you, give me leave to ask a few Questions.  
1. Why you say, This is an honest Sentence of W. P. and yet afterwards say, you will not justify it: Sure you are very inconsistent with yourself.  
2. Why you say, T. H. puts an ill face upon it, when he repeats W. P.'s words as you yourself do, and as they are in his Book.  
3. Why you say, it's too harsh to reckon it Heathen Doctrine, when the word Heathen is not so much as mentioned by T. H. Sure W. L. hath the word Heathen by Inspiration, or else he would never hit of it so often as he doth.  
4. Why should you compare Will. Penn to Apollo's? Do you think him so great a man for Water-Baptism, when he denies the Baptism both of John the Baptist, Christ and his Apostles, who were all for Baptism in water.  
5. Why do you suppose that W. P. wants to be more fully instructed in the ends of Christ's Life and Death? Is it possible, that you should imagine the chief Freacher of, and Disputer for the Quakers, to be ignorant of the ends of Christ's Life and Death? If so, what Opinion must you needs have of the ignorance of many hundreds among them, that are men of an Orb much inferior to W. P. Surely they must be ignorant indeed.  
6. But pray tell me, how it's possible for any Quaker (admitting their Notions to be true) to be ignorant of any thing that is knowable, and necessary to be known? seeing they say, They have immediate Revelation for the Rule of their Faith and Practice; and could have known all that is in the Scripture, if it had never been written there, ONLY by the Teachings of the Light within them. But I wonder they should be so ignorant, as not to know the Author of the Quakers Quibbles: Sure they need not have come so often to the Bookseller to have known, if the Light within them could have taught them all things.  
If they shall object and say, It is matter of Fact.  
I answer, So are many things written in Scripture; as, the names of persons, the places of their dwellings, things done by them, etc. and some of them five thousand years ago: And shall I think they can know things done at so great a distance, seeing they are so ignorant as not to know things that are done at present?   

11. Pagan Principle.  
THe eleventh Charge against the Quakers is, That the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, is Irreligious and Irrational.  
T. H.'s Proof is out of W. P.'s Sandy Found. p. 22. where W. P. speaks thus, Consequences (that is, from this Doctrine) Irreligious and Irrational; and concludes one of his Consequences thus, O the Infamous Pourtaiture this Doctrine draws of the Infinite Goodness! Is this your Retribution? O Injurious Satisfactionists! Thus saith W. P. But what saith W. L.  
W. L. Subtract but the word Irreligious, and there have been others, neither Quakers, nor Heathens, nor Illiterate men, that have thought the common understanding of Christ's Satisfaction, as between Creditor and Debtor, to be Irrational; and therefore have Queried, how Free-Forgiveness, and Full-Satisfaction can stand together? I perceive T. H. is no Forger in this neither. But to Reply to W. L.  
1. As to what he saith, Subtract but the word IRRELIGIOUS, etc.  
Answ. I answer, Take away but the word IRRATIONAL too, and then the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction is: But who knows what? But W. L. may remember it's put in by W. P. and therefore the word irreligious is not to be substracted: for he speaks by immediate Inspiration, as G. Keith hath lately attempted to prove in a Public Dispute: And though he could not make it out, yet they would have People believe it without proof; for they say they witness it, and that may go very far with such ignorant men, as W. L. represents the Quakers to be.  
2. But if W. L. had come to me for advice, when he had been writing on this subject, I could have taught him a nearer way to the Wood than he hath gone: For if he had but taken away [It] from both the words, than it had been thus, That the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction is Religious and Rational: And if he could but have persuaded his intimate Friend W. P. and the rest of the Quakers to have believed it, than I would have persuaded T. H. to have substracted the whole Charge, and so the Dispute between him and them, as to this particular, should have been ended. But I have cause to fear W. L. will not undertake that, because he is so indifferent about it himself, saying, That for the sake of more necessary Truths, he never contends about this. So that (it seems) his speaking to it, is to gratify W. P.   

12. Pagan Principle.  
THe twelfth and last Principle (saith W. L.) T. H. charges on the Quakers is, That this body which dies, shall not rise again.  
The proofs T. H. brings to justify himself in the truth of this Charge. are as followeth:  
Geo. Whitehead asserted, in the hearing of many witnesses, That this body shall not rise again.  
Such a Resurrection is inconsistent with Scripture, Reason, and the Belief of all men right in their wits. W. Pen. Reas. ag. Rail. p. 133.  
For shame let us never make so much stir against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; for the absurdity of that is rather outdone than equalled, by this Carnal Resurrection. W. P. ib. p. 134.  
The change which shall be is not of Accidents, but of Bodies. W. P. ib. p. 136. and in p. 138. He calls it a Barbarous Conceit.  
From our denying the Resurrection of the Natural and Corruptible Body, etc. W. P. Sergeant Christian, p. 32.  
Now I hope every one will be satisfied, That Mr. Hicks is no Forger, Liar, Slanderer, etc. as the Lawless Quakers have allowed themselves a liberty (untruly, and without just cause given) so to call him: And I am much persuaded, the reason why they rail and rage thus furiously against him, is, Because no one of them singly, nor the whole Body conjoined, know how to clear themselves of those things he hath charged upon them, without rejecting the chief of their Ministry; whose Tongues and Pens have so often asserted these pernicious Doctrines: But that I perceive they are not yet willing to do. But let us hear how well W. L. can bring up the Rear, in excusing their denial of that great Fundamental Principle of the Christian Religion, The Resurrection of the Body.  
W. L. saith, Of all the Articles against the Quakers, none hath made many honest, serious People more afraid of them, nor the vulgar more rail at them, than this.  
1. As for the vulgars' railing, it concerns not me, they should have forbore divulging such dangerous Notions.  
2. But whereas he saith, This Principle of theirs (in denying the Resurrection of this Body that dies) hath made many honest, serious People more afraid of them, than any other Article they hold: I think it hath not been without just cause, from the perniciousness thereof. And I have good Authority to justify me therein; for the Apostle Paul saith, If there 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, and ye are yet in your sins: Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ, are perished. And if in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. These are some of those evil and dangerous Consequences, charged by the Apostle Paul upon this very Doctrine (as maintained by the Quakers) in denying the Resurrection of this Body from the dead; as you may see at large in 1 Cor. 15. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, etc. But let us hear W. L. speak his thoughts about it.  
W. L. saith, But to tell you freely my thoughts about it, there is less cause for it upon this account, than any of the former.  
Reply. I hope those that read this will be fully satisfied, that there is no more difference between the Quakers and W. L. in this Article, than there is between Fourpences and a Groat, which (with us in England) is the same piece of Money. But hath W. L. no way left to excuse his Friends at the last gasp, now their Cause is expiring? Yes, yes, don't think you shall find him without a shift.  
1. W. L. Flies to what he supposes the Charge suggests; viz. That there is no Resurrection; insomuch (saith he) that I have heard lewd men swear, and curse them for denying the Resurrection.  
Reply. But here W. L. evades the Question, which is so plain, that it needs none of his Suggestions to darken it. Why don't he answer to that? For the Quaker saith, This Body that dies, shall not rise again. Speak out, and be not afraid to answer, now it comes to the point.  
2. But saith W. L. Doth not their exposing themselves to all the miseries of this life, confute the charge?  
Answ. I answer, No: For the Sadducees were men that professed Religion, in opposition to the common received Opinion among the Jews, and so consequently were exposed to sufferings; and yet they denied the Resurrection of this Body, and the Being of Angels, which are Spirits, etc. Acts 23. 8. For it's evident, a man may give all his goods to the poor, and his body to be burned, and have no love to God, nor be truly Religious; 1 Cor. 13. 3. And what think you of the Esseans, a Sect among the Jews, of whom Josephus reports, That notwithstanding they denied the Resurrection of the body, saying, that it is corruptible, and that the matter thereof is not perpetual: Yet could they not be forced to revile their Lawmaker, or to eat any forbidden meats, by breaking off the members of their bodies, fiery Torments, and all kind of Tortures which were laid upon them: Nay, in the very midst of their griefs and pains, they scoffed at their Tormentors; and laughing, joyfully yielded up their Souls, as though they hoped to receive them again. Joseph. Of the Wars of the Jews, Lib. 2. p. 616.  
3. Whereas it may be objected. That they would be more Immoral in their lives, if they expected no Resurrection of the body.  
Answ. I answer, That the Sadducees were men of such strict lives, that it's reported, they had their name saducees from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tzidek, which signifies, Just or Righteous; and yet they denied the Resurrection from the dead, Matth. 22. 23. And for those Esseans , if he will read Josephus, he may find, that they were exceeding zealous for the Law, and stricter in their lives, than the Quakers are by many degrees: It's too long to be here inserted. But if W. L. will take the pains to read that Book of Josephus I have mentioned, Chap. 7. he will find what I say to be true. Besides, it's well known, that there were men among the Heathen, full of Moral Virtues, and men of great strictness in their lives, and yet agreed with the Quakers in this, That this body shall not rise again.  
Quest. If that be not the Resurrection intended, what then is it that shall rise from the dead?  
W. L. answers, The Apostle has given us as good an account of this Doctrine as we may desire, and to that they refer us. But suppose (saith he) they should tell us, This very Body should not rise, what care I, etc.  
Reply. 1. I am well satisfied with the account the Apostle Paul gives of the Resurrection in 1 Cor. 15. but not at all informed of the Quakers meaning about it, by their referring us thither; because I know they can Allegorise some of the plainest Texts in the Bible, and why may they not be supposed to do so by this?  
2. I cannot possibly understand, that the Quakers intent the same Resurrection the Apostle doth in 1 Cor. 15. for he tells us, That the same body that is buried (which he calls sown) in corruption, shall be raised in incorruption. Which agrees with the saying of our Saviour, The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth: They that have done good, to the Resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, to the Resurrection of damnation, John 5. 28, 29. As also with the Prophet Daniel, And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt, Dan. 12. 2. with many more that might be alleged; all which do plainly prove the Resurrection we contend for. But the Quaker saith, Such a Resurrection is inconsistent with Scripture, Reason, and the Belief of all men right in their wits. Will. Penn. Reas. ag. Rail. p. 133.  
3. But what doth W. L. mean when he saith, He is willing to part with this Body for a better? and that he will never be angry with him who promiseth and assures him a pound of Gold, for a pound of Clay?  
1. If the same body shall not be raised, as the Quakers say, than he cannot mean the glorious form of this body, which shall be made incorruptible, glorious, and full of majesty, like to the glorious Body of Christ, with which they shall shine forth as the Brightness of the Sun, in the Kingdom of their Father, Phil. 3. 21. Matth. 13. 43.  
2. If he means, That this body which goes into the grave shall rot there, and not be raised and reunited to the same soul: But that instead thereof, some other matter shall be form into a body, and possessed with the soul: This is not to be allowed; for it's highly rational, That if any body be raised and reunited to the soul, it should be the same body (because the Scripture declares, That the end of the Resurrection of Man is, that he might receive a reward according to the deeds done in the body, 2 Cor. 5. 10. and, that the Righteous shall go into life Eternal, Matth. 25. ult.) Seeing it was the same body in which these good deeds were done, why should not the same body receive the Reward together with the same soul? why must there be a new, another body to enjoy it, made of they know not what?  
3. If this be so, Then whether it be not most absurd to imagine (seeing some men shall be damned) that one body should commit the sin, and another body, that never sinned, should suffer Eternal punishment in Hell, for those sins another committed? This is to condemn the innocent, and acquit the guilty: Both which are an Abomination to the Lord: And the Quakers can no ways avoid this Absurdity, unless they will say, That no man shall be damned: Which I take to be the necessary Consequence of their affirming, The Soul to be a part of God's Being; and their denying, The Resurrection of the Body.  
4. If so, than all that W. L. hath done, is but Quibbling; for all the Resurrection he and they must be understood to intent, is only within men while they are in this World. And in truth, their Opinion about the Resurrection (as worded by some of their noted Teachers) is this:  
1. The Resurrection of the unjust, is sins rising in man, and getting above the Light.  
2. The Eternal Judgement, is the Lights condemning and reproving for sin.  
3. And as any one comes to hearken to the Teaching thereof, the Light comes to rise up in him: Which (say they) is the Resurrection of the just.  
Now from hence they infer, That they are in the Resurrection, and past the Eternal Judgement, even in this life; and that it is not they themselves, that shall rise, but the Light within them: Which Light (say they) is sufficient to lead them into all Truth, cleanse them from all sin, and will Eternally save them.  
Thus you see that W. L. hath discharged T. H. of Forgery in all these Twelve Pagan Principles of the Quakers. But how the Quakers can clear themselves of Lies and Forgery, would do well to be considered; seeing they tell T. H. that he hath belied them, when he hath not charged them with any thing in all these particulars, but what is truly chargeable upon them: As appears by this brief Account, and W. L.'s Confession under each Head.  
But saith Geo. Whitehead, I hope you have considered that moderate Account which your Friend and Brother W. L. hath given in his Book, entitled, The Twelve Pagan Principles or Opinions, etc. and what a serious Check it containeth to Thomas Hicks, for his immoderation, and unfair dealing. G. W. in The Quakers Plainness detecting Fallacy, p. 88 Now that there is no reason to account him a Baptist, as G. W. doth in these words, because they are the persons to whom he writes, I will here insert a Testimony given under the hands of two of the eminentest Baptists in those parts, where he hath had his abode for above seven years past; that in all that space of time, he hath not been a Member with them, nor any of the Churches to whom they belong, much less a Sober Baptist-Preacher, as the Quakers had the confidence to call him in the Title-page of their Book, touching the Barbican-Meeting, Octob. 9 1674.  
THis is to certify, That WILLIAM LUDDINGTON hath never been in Communion with the Congregations in the Country to whom we belong, either in Buckinghamshire, or the County of Hertford (which are the places in which he hath lived for above seven years' last passed) so as to partake with us in that Holy Ordinance of the Lord's Supper.  
Witness our hands, Tho. Monck. Tho. Heyward. Decemb. 1. 1674.  
I have two things to tell the World, and I have done.  
1. An Account of some Slanders, and Abuses of the Quakers cast upon me, for my opposing their Doctrine.  
2. Open and manifest Confessions of some Eminent in the Quakers Ministry, concerning the Man Christ Jesus; and, His dying for our sins.  
1. As touching the first of these: I being at the Bull and Mouth, May 8. 1674. and demanding of them to prove that Great Principle of theirs, which Geo. Whitehead was so baffled about in his Dispute with Mr. Ives in the Marketplace at Croyden in the County of Surrey, April 24. 1674. before hundreds of people. The Question was this:  
Quest. Whether every man that comes into the World, is enlightened with the Light of Christ?  
They did then affirm it: But when they saw they could not prove it, I was so pulled, struck, and abused, that I was not able to keep my standing, and attend the Discourse: They also made such a Bawling on purpose to prevent my being heard, that it was impossible to hear what was said: And at last to prevent any further Discourse, one of them concludes the Meeting in prayer.  
A Gentleman that was a stranger being present, and observing the violence they offered to my person, came up into the Gallery where I was, and said, Sir, I perceive, that if a man comes to dispute with these men, he had need to take a Guard with him to secure his person. And as we went out, one cries out, Children of Babylon, Brats of Babylon; another, Thou art a Blasphemer, etc.  
I being there again, May 15. 1674. to hear whether they had any thing further to say to that Question : And when their Friend in the Ministry had done, and I began to speak to the Question, one that is called a Friend in their Ministry, whose name is Samuel Thornton, thrust in between me and the post where I stood, and another Quaker crushed me up on the other side; the Rail of the Gallery was before me, and a crowd of Quakers at my back thronging upon me, and my leg between the Banisters, which were turned with knobs; he pitched his knee against mine, and his elbow against my breast, leaning upon me with his weight; and I having no liberty to give way, my breath was in danger of being forced out of my body, and my shirt wet with sweat, as if it had been dipped in water: And not being able to endure it, upon giving notice to the people, there came up some very lusty men, that were not Quakers, and relieved me.  
After this, when Sam. Thornton saw he was disappointed of his purpose he railed upon me, saying, Thou art a Thief, a Liar, a Murderer, a Devil, Thy name is Cain; and then cried out with a loud voice, Cain, Cain, Cain, Cain, Cain, just like a man bereft of his Reason. One said, I was a Drunkard; another Thou art drunk every day in the week. I not knowing what opinion some might have of me, that did not know my Conversation, asked what they meant by saying, I was a Drunkard? One of them answered, Thou art drunk with words, besotted with ignorance, etc. Now if these men can allow themselves a liberty thus to rail against one, at so desperate a rate, against whom they can prove none of those things whereof they accuse him, and when they have done, excuse it by saying, We meant Allegorically: Who then can have his Reputation secured from these men's virulent and reproachful Tongues?  
I being at the same Meeting place some time after, and hearing such expressions about Christ, which had a tendency to beguile the ignorant: When he that was speaking had done, I offered to discourse soberly with them about it; which they refused. Whereupon I told the People, that the Quakers held these Opinions; viz.  
1. That Jesus Christ is not a distinct Person without us.  
2. That Christ, in respect of himself, never died.  
3. That the Blood of Christ, shed upon the Cross, without the gates of Jerusalem, is of no more value in point of Justification, than the blood of another man.  
4. That the Imputed Righteousness of Christ, which he fulfilled for us in his own Person, wholly without us, is a Doctrine of Devils.  
The Quakers refusing to answer, notwithstanding I offered to make good each of these particulars them; I told the People, that I hoped they would believe what I had charged upon them; i. e. That they were afraid to bring their Doctrines to be tried by the Light of the Holy Scriptures; like those spoken of by Tertullian, whom he calls by the name of Lucifugae Scripturarum, Men that fly from the Light of the Scripture, as the Bats do into their holes, when the Sun appears.  
Whereupon Francis Campfield stood up and said, Thou art my Neighbour, and I know thee: And then made a speech to the people, telling them, He desired they would take no notice of what I said, for I was somewhat distempered in my head. Giving a strong Indication to the people, That I was a distracted man, and so not fit to we discoursed with.  
I told him, I hoped the people would not believe what he had said; but in case they should, if the Quakers would be pleased to appoint time and place, I would procure a man that should make good all that I had charged upon them, whom they should acknowledge to be in his right wits: But they refused to accept of that offer also.  
I being at the Barbican-Meeting, Octob. 9 1674. fell into some Discourse with a Quaker: Another that stood by, seeing his Friend at a loss, pulled him by the arm, saying, That I was a distracted man, or to that effect. The Quaker I was talking with, cried out, Alas for him, is this he! I told him he was mistaken, for (I thank the Lord) I am not in that condition. He presently replied, I was so, for Francis Campfield had declared me so to be in the Meeting at the Bull and Mouth. By this the Reader may see, what subtle Artifices these men make use of to evade the force of an Argument. What did all this signify to the matter in debate? was it not a mere shift?  
2. Open and manifest Confessions of some Eminent in the Quakers Ministry, concerning the Man Christ Jesus, and, His dying for our sins.  
1. I and many others, being present at Mr. Mekins, a Dyer in Oldstreet, we heard Josiah Cole affirm, That that Man which was born of the Virgin Mary, and suffered at Jerusalem without the gate, etc. is not the Christ, the Saviour of the World. And he would needs undertake the proof it: And having agreed beforehand, that the Scripture should be the Rule to try that present Controversy by (though he would not own it as the Rule of Faith) he attempted to prove it as followeth:  
J. C. It is written Isa. 45. 21, 22. I am God, and there is none else, a just God and a Saviour, there is none besides me: From whence he drew this inference; If God be the Saviour, and there is none besides him, than that Man is not the Saviour.  
It was replied, That Christ was God as well as man; and therefore his Argument was insufficient.  
Quest. It was asked J. C. Whether the Light or Spirit in that Man, was not the Christ? And he answered, Yea, it is so.  
Rep. His Respondent replied, A Spirit hath no flesh to be broken, nor blood to be shed; therefore if his Notion were true, Christ never died.  
Josaih Cole did affirm, (with a great deal of seeming seriousness) That the true Christ, in respect of himself, never died.  
A Friend of mine being present, one Mr. J. D. broke forth into Admiration, saying, He saith Christ never suffered. There being about eight of the chief Quakers in London present, one of them said, Thou liest, he did not say Christ never suffered (for he suffers in thee and others) but he said, Christ never died.  
I met with Josiah Cole twice afterwards, and both times discoursed with him about that point; and he was very positive and peremptory in it, asserting with the greatest confidence imaginable, That Christ never died.  
At another time, being at Edw. Man's the Hosier, I and divers others then present, heard Patrick Livingstone (another owned in the Ministry) affirm, That Christ, in respect of himself, never died, neither could he, because he was only God: There was indeed a holy Body, which he (i. e. The Light in him) took up, acted in for a time, and laid down again: But that Body was no part of the Christ, but only a holy Body in which he was. I than brought that Scripture, Luke 24. 39 to prove he had a Body, as well after, as before his Resurrection; Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself, handle me and see, for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me have. But it seems this very saying of our Saviour was so distasteful to them, that about ten of the Quakers cried out together, Blasphemy, Blasphemy, his Christ is a Christ of flesh and bones; Blasphemy: And that without any Provocation thereunto; for I made no Comment upon the words. And at the same time Charles Harris, another Eminent in the Ministry, being asked, Whether that holy Ordinance of the Lord's Supper was now to be practised? said, It's written, If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in and sup with him, etc. Rev. 3. 20. This is the Supper of the Lord, we witness it: And about the Resurrection and Judgement to come he said, I speak this from the Eternal God, That the Resurrection is come, the Judgement is come, and I witness it. And this very well agrees with Isaac Pennington's words, in his Book of Questions about Christ, p. 14. Now Friends, if you would know or believe aright, you must believe in him who was with the Father before the World was, who was the Saviour, the Jesus, the Christ, from Everlasting. This we firmly believe, etc. Yea, it is he to whom the name Jesus and Christ did of right belong, before he took up the Body: For that which he took upon him, was our garment, even the flesh and blood of our Nature, which is of an earthly and perishing Nature: But he is of an Eternal Nature, and his flesh, blood, and bones are of his Nature, viz. Eternal: For that which redeems, that which is Jesus the Saviour, came down from Heaven, page 20. que. 7. que. 8.  
Reader, Not knowing how short my time may be, I thought good to leave this to Posterity, lest I should not have such another opportunity: And will conclude with that saying of the Apostle, Ye therefore beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness: But grow in grace, and the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; to him be glory, both now and for ever, Amen, 2 Pet. 3. 17, 18.    

AN APPENDIX.  
SInce the finishing these Papers in answer to W. L. I have been earnestly importuned to write a few lines touching that great Question about the Lord Christ, as it relates to the Quakers Opinion: And to show who it is to whom the name Christ doth properly belong. And although I think myself a Child in the knowledge of such Divine and Metaphysical Truths, compared with those Worthies of our Age, whose parts and learned Acquirements may more amply fit them for such a Work: Yet seeing they have hitherto omitted it, I shall speak something to it; hoping it may be an occasion to set some abler Pen on work to discourse more accurately upon this subject: And by polishing what I have more briefly laid down, they may make the Truth appear more perspicuously in its own Brightness and Splendour. And I will give you the Question, as it is laid down by Mr. PENN in the Barbican-Meeting, and since printed, and published by some of the chief Quakers in London, viz. W. Mead, J. Osgood, W. Shown, E. Man, S. Newton, J. Claypool, W. Welch.  
W. P.'s Question is this, Was he the Christ of God before he was manifested in the flesh?  
Answ. I answer, He was never called the Christ of God before, but with respect to what he was to be, when, and after he was manifested in the flesh.  
To make this good, I shall use this method.  
1. To explain what is meant by the word Christ.  
2. To show that it is taken Relatively, is a name of Office, and as such applied to him.  
3. That this name cannot be properly and really applied to the Divine Nature, taken Abstractively.  
4. That it doth properly and really belong to that Sacred Person, who was Conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary, and called by the name of Jesus of Nazareth.  
1. To explain what is meant by the word Christ: It is a Derivative from the Hebrew and Greek, the two Original Languages in which the Holy Scriptures were written. The word in the Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mashiach; in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Christos; in the Latin Christus: All which signify in English, Anointed: Being derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ungo: All signifying to Anoint.  
2. That it is taken Relatively, and is a name of Office, etc. appears from the frequent use thereof in the Old-Testament, and applied to Priests, Prophets, and Kings, who were anointed with Oil when they entered upon their Offices; and therefore were called, The Lord's Anointed.  
1. To Priests, Exod. 40. 13, 14, 15. And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy Garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him, that he may minister unto me in the Priests Office. And thou shalt bring his sons, and cloth them with coats; and thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their Father, that they may minister unto me in the Priest's Office: And this was to be observed as a Rule throughout all their Generations.  
2. Touching the other two Offices of Prophet and King; we find the same method used in both, and that by the Command of God himself to the Prophet Elijah, 1 Kin. 19 15, 16. And the Lord said unto him, Go— Anoint Hazael to be King over Syria. And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be King over Israel. And Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-Meh-lah shalt thou anoint to be Prophet in thy room.  
Now that the name Christ is so applied to him, viz. Relatively, and as a name of Office, I shall prove, by showing you:  
1. That he is called, a Priest, a Prophet, and a King.  
2. That he was anointed by God the Father, when he entered upon his Offices.  
First, That he is called a Priest: These Scriptures following do sufficiently evince. But Christ being come an Highpriest of good things to come, Heb. 9 11. The Highpriest of our Profession Christ Jesus, Heb. 3. 1. This man because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable Priesthood, Heb. 7. 24. Seeing then that we have a great Highpriest, that is passed into the Heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our Profession. For we have not an Highpriest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin, Heb. 4. 14, 15.  
Secondly, That he is called a Prophet: Jesus of Nazareth, which was a Prophet, mighty in deed and word before God, and all the people, Luke 24. 19 And it shall come to pass, that every Soul which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people, Acts 3. 23.  
Thirdly, That he is called a King: Pilate called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered, My Kingdom is not of this World. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a King then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a King: To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the World, etc. John 18. 33. & 36, 37. Nathaneel answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel, John 1. 49. Who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords, 1 Tim. 6. 15. And he hath on his Vesture, and on his Thigh, a name written, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, Revel. 19 16.  
Secondly, That Christ was Anointed by God the Father, when he entered upon his Offices, with the holy Spirit: As the Priests, Prophets, and Kings under the Law, were anointed with Oil, when they entered upon Theirs; see Matth. 3. 16, 17. And Jesus when he was baptised, went up straightway out of the water: And lo, the Heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a Dove, and lighting upon him: And lo, a voice from Heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Heb. 1. 9 Therefore God, even thy God hath Anointed thee with the Oil of Gladness above thy fellows, Luke 4. 17, 18, 21. And there was delivered unto him the Book of Esaias▪ the Prophet; and when he had opened the Book, he found the place where it is written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the Gospel, etc. And applied this to his own Person, as being then fulfilled, Then he began to say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears. The word which God sent unto the Children of Israel was this, That God had Anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with Power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the Devil; for God was with him, Acts 10. 38. Now by this we may see, that as his Name is, so is the Person to whom it is given; for he being Anointed with the Holy Spirit above his fellows, he is properly and truly the Lord's Christ.  
Thirdly, That this Name cannot be properly and really applied to the Divine Nature, taken Abstractively: And my Reason for it is this, Because some of those things which were done by the Man Christ Jesus, could not have been performed by the Divine Nature in the sense before defined.  
1. Because if they could, there had then been no need for him to have been a man, made of a woman, to be made flesh and dwell among men, to have been exposed to all those sufferings and sorrows which befell him in the days of his flesh, while he was upon the earth.  
2. Because Christ died for our sins according to the Scripture, 1 Cor. 15. 3. But the Divine Nature taken Abstractively cannot die: For besides this Consideration; viz. That the Nature of the Divine Essence cannot possibly admit of it, and it's horrid Blasphemy to assert it: So on the contrary, it is positively affirmed, That God lives for ever. If I lift up my hand to Heaven, and say, I live for ever, Deut. 32. 40. yea, he swears by himself, As I live, saith the Lord, Isa. 49. 18. The name of the Lord, the Everlasting God, Gen. 21. 33. For thus saith the High and Losty One that inhabiteth Eternity, Isa. 57 15. whose go forth have been from of old, from everlasting, Micah. 5. 2. Lord thou hast been our dwelling-place in all Generations. Before the Mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst form the Earth, and the World, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God, Psal. 90. 1, 2. And God said unto Moses, I AM that I AM, Thus shalt thou say unto the Children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you: This is my name for ever; And this is my Memorial unto all Generations, Exod. 3. 14, 15. The Certainty, Perpetuity, and Eternity of Gods Being, assures Believers of the Certainty and Accomplishment of all his Promises; seeing they know he is faithful, and cannot lie, nor cease to be: For if he could do either, it would take away all the Foundation of our Faith and Hope in God, his Word and Promises.  
But there are some Objections urged by the Quakers in print against this Truth, in these words.  
W. P. Asks this Question, Was he the Christ of God before he was manifested in the flesh?  
Mr. Ives answers, He was the Son of God.  
Quest. W. P. But was he the Lords Christ? And turns this Answer to it himself.  
Answ. W. P. saith, I will prove him to have been the Lords Christ, as well before as after.  
1. From the Apostle Paul's words to the Corinthians, That Rock was Christ.  
2. Next, from Judas, where some Greek Copies have it thus, That Jesus brought the people of Israel out of Egypt. See The Quakers Account of the Barbican-Meeting, p. 24.  
Reply. I will answer to the last first, If W. P. have seen any such Greek Copies, he should have cited them, and told us what they are: Till which time, I shall account it as the effect of passion stirred up in the defence of a bad cause. But surely W. P. forgot himself to bring this Allegation; for if this be brought to prove any thing, it is, That he as Jesus was before he was manifested in the flesh: Which name was never given to him till he came in the flesh; And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and he called his name Jesus, Matth. 1. 21, 25. Besides, our English Translation doth very well agree with the Greek; for in Judas, v. 5. which is the place he refers to, the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in our Translation, Lord; which is the express signification of the word, and so rendered in multitudes of places in the New-Testament. And this can be brought by W. P. for no better purpose than to undervalue the Scripture, by quarrelling with the Translation, though there be no cause.  
Secondly, As for those words in 1 Cor. 10. 4. That Rock was Christ.  
I answer, It's meant, not really, but figuratively; as appears by the precedent words, vers. 3, 4. And did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock was Christ. For it's evident;  
1. That there was a Real and True Rock, which Moses smote with his Rod, and out of which the water gushed.  
2. That the people of Israel drunk of this Water to quench their thirst.  
3. That this was Real and True Water; because their  also drank thereof, Numb. 20. 11. He smote the Rock twice, and the Water came out abundantly, and the Congregation drank, and their Beasts also.  
4. That the Water which came out of that Rock became Rivers, and followed them in the Wilderness: He brought streams also out of the Rock, and caused waters to run down like Rivers, Psal. 78. 16. Behold he smote the Rock, that the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed, ver. 20. And they thirsted not when he led them through the Deserts: And in the next words you have an Account how they were supplied in this their journey through the Deserts; He caused the waters to flow out of the Rock for them: He clavae the Rock also, and the water gushed out, Isa. 48. 21. He opened the Rock, and the waters gushed out, they ran in the dry places like a River, Psal. 105. 41. And therefore it's said, The Rock followed them; Which by a Metonymy is meant the water that came out of the Rock.  
5. It's called, A spiritual Rock, because it was Typical of Christ; and that the Believers among them did as truly partake of Christ by Faith spiritually, as They, the rest of the Multitude, and their , did drink of the water of the Rock literally. And in the same sense that the MANNA is called Spiritual Meat, vers. 3. They did all eat the same spiritual Meat; so is the water of the Rock, called spiritual Drink. They did all drink the same spiritual Drink.  
Now we may not conclude from hence, That that Rock was really Christ; or that he was called Christ, with respect to what he was before he was manifested in the flesh: But on the contrary, it's to be understood of the Faith they had in the promised Messiah that was to come, whereof that Rock was a Type. So that this manner of speaking agrees with that saying of our Saviour, Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad, John 8. 56. which was not really by an Ocular view of his Person, as being then present, but by the Faith he had in the Promise that he should be revealed in the fullness of Time: for it is said of Abraham, and the rest of the Faithful, mentioned Heb. 11. 13. These all died in Faith, not having received the Promises; but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them: The principal of which was, The promise of the Messiah that was to come.  
Object. But it may be objected, That in Psal. 2. 2. in the Latin Bible, translated by Beza, it is said, Et contra Christum ejus; And against his Christ. And the like in Dan. 9 Therefore he is called Christ, before he was manifested in the flesh.  
I answer, 1. It's true, he is called Christ, Messiah, and the Anointed in those places: And if we will believe a very Learned Author of our time, he saith, The name of Messiah is but twice or thrice at most, used in the Old-Testament, directly and immediately to denote the promised Seed; namely, Dan. 9 25, 26. whereunto Psal. 2. 2. may be added. J. Owen D. D. Exercit. 9 on the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 95. So that these are all the places in the Old-Testament wherein he is so called.  
2. That it is also true, That the word in the Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mashiach, both in Psal. 2. and Dan. 9 which signifies, Anointed, and is applied to our Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ. So that I grant all that is in the Objection.  
But it doth not thence follow, That because he is is called so before, that it doth not respect what he was to be, when, and after he was manifested in the flesh; but the contrary is manifest by the scope of those Texts, to any considering person: For in Psal. 2. it is said, The Kings of the Earth have set themselves, and the Rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his Christ: Now in Acts 4. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. upon the Threaten they had from the Rulers, Chief Priests and Elders, etc. they apply these very words upon that occasion; Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, The Kings of the Earth stood up, and the Rulers were gathered together, against the Lord, and against his Christ; for of a truth, against thy Holy Child Jesus whom thou hast Anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the People of Israel were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. And, now Lord, behold their Threaten, and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy Word: By stretching forth thy hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done by the Name of thy Holy Child Jesus. So that you may see, that this opposition in the Kings against Christ, was upon the account of his being manifest in the flesh, and introducing a new Doctrine and Religion in the World; which set them in a rage against him and his Disciples. And this is the plain meaning of this Text.  
And in Dan. 9 it's said, Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the Commandment, to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks: And after threescore and two weeks, shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: And the People of the Prince that shall come, shall destroy the City, and the Sanctuary, and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the War, desolations are determined. All these things were yet to come when this was spoken, and not fulfilled till the days of his flesh: For here is his own death expressly prophesied of, the destruction of Jerusalem, and of the Temple, and the Desolation of that Nation.  
Object. But it is objected by Geo. Keith: But I prove, that he was Jesus Christ before he took flesh, Eph. 3. 9 Who created all things by Jesus Christ.  
Reply. 1. I grant, That God did Create all things by Jesus Christ: But it was, as he was God, and not as he is a man in the flesh: And yet as such, he was the Christ of God, being Anointed with the Spirit, as is showed above.  
2. If this be true that G. K. saith, That he was both Anointed, and a Saviour before the World was:  
3. I would then know:  
1. How he came to be in a capacity to receive that Anointing, seeing then he was only God?  
2. Who Anointed him? seeing you say, There is no distinction of Persons in the Divine Essence.  
3. What sinners were there for him to save, before any thing was created? For he is called Jesus, because he came to save his People from their sins, Matth. 1. 21.  
But I take this to be the genuine sense of that Text, Ephes. 3. 9 That he being then best known by the names of Jesus and Christ, and known to be a real and true Man, the Apostle would let them know, that he was also truly God; seeing he did Create all things: But was so far from being Jesus Christ then, that he saith, the knowledge of his Revelation according to the Gospel, was so great a Mystery, and so little known, that from the beginning of the World it hath been hid in God, and was now revealed, according to the Eternal purpose of God, which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: Which in other Ages was not made known to the Sons of Men, as it is now revealed unto his holy Apostles and Prophets by the Spirit; as you may see at large in this Chapter.  
So that he intends not by these words, that he was then the Saviour Anointed, any more than the Scripture doth intent he was really slain from the Foundation of the World; and yet it is said so, Rev. 13. 8. by him who calls things that are not, as though they were, because he hath decreed it, and his Decrees shall be accomplished.  
But by the same Rule G. K. might as well have said, that Christ was Born, Dead, and Buried in the Prophet Isaiah's time; because it's said, Isa. 9 6. Unto us a Child is Born; and Chap. 53. 11. he hath poured out his Soul unto Death; vers. 9 and he made his Grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death. All this being spoken in the present and preterperfect tense. But if the Light within them can interpret Scripture no better, I will not consult it as my Oracle.  
By this time I hope, not only these Objections are removed, but all others of the like import, may easily be answered by these Distinctions; which I should have particularly spoken to, only the Paper allotted me will not permit of it.  
Fourthly, That it doth properly and really belong to that sacred Person, who was Conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary, and called by the name of Jesus of Nazareth.  
To make this good, I shall use this method:  
1. Show you what this Sacred Person is.  
2. That that very Person who is called Jesus of Nazareth, is also called Christ.  
3. That the Name Christ doth properly and really belong to him.  
1. To show you what this Sacred Person is: I do affirm, That he is both God and Man, and that the Hypostatical Union of his Divine and Humane Nature, doth so constitute this Sacred Person, that both of them, as united, are the Christ of God: And that when the Scripture speaks of acts done by him as Christ, they are to be understood as performed by that Person so considered.  
To make this good, I shall prove three things:  
1. That this Sacred Person is God. And because the Quakers own him whom they call Christ to be God, I shall only cite that known place, Rom. 9 5. Whose are the Fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came; who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.  
2. That he is also truly Man. 1. Tim. 2. 5. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and Men, the MAN Christ Jesus. Acts 2. 22, 23. Ye men of Israel, hear these words, Jesus of Nazareth, a MAN approved among you, by Miracles, Wonders, and Signs which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. But if he had not been truly Man, he could not have been put to death by the hands of men; for, as I have proved before, it is impossible for the Deity to become Mortal. But I shall say no more to this here, having proved Christ to be a real and true Man, p. 18, 19 to which I refer you.  
3. That those acts done by him as Christ, are to be understood as performed by that Person, considered as God and Man.  
For the better understanding of this, consider;  
1. That some acts done by him, cannot be performed as he is God, taken Abstractively; for as such, he cannot be made flesh, he cannot die, and be made a Sacrifice for sin.  
2. That some acts also are done by him, which cannot be performed by his Humane Nature, taken Abstractively; for as such, he cannot know all things, he cannot be  present, neither could he have given plenary Satisfaction to the Justice of God for the sins of men, had not his Humanity been supported by his Divine Nature, and united to it.  
3. And yet that these things are ascribed to him, as he is a Person consisting both of the Divine and Humane Nature: And that this is so, I will give you some few instances;  
1. That in Acts 20. 28. Feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Here the Person spoken of, is said to be God absolutely; the Church of God. And this God is said to have blood of his own; the blood of Jesus Christ, being the blood of him that was God, though not the blood of him as God; for God is a Spirit, and a Spirit hath no blood to shed: But it was Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom the Jews Crucified, Acts 4. 10. it is his Blood that cleanseth us from all sin, 1 John 1. 7. And this being considered, it undeniably testifies to the Unity of his Person as God and Man.  
2. That in John 3. 13. And no man hath ascended up into Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, even the Son of man which is in Heaven. And that in John 17. 5. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the World was. Now these things cannot be applied to the Humane Nature, taken Abstractively; for that had no Being, and so could have no Glory with the Father before the World was; neither did he, as such, come down from Heaven, nor could he be in Heaven and on Earth with his Humane Nature at one and the same time: And yet as he was both God and Man in one Person, by the Figure Synecdoche, all this is truly spoken of him. But why the Quakers should pretend to relieve themselves by this Figure, and say, That the Body is sometimes called Christ, unless they did own the Humane Nature to be a part of Christ, I cannot understand; because it always signifies a part of that whole of which it is predicated.  
2. I shall prove, That that very Person who is called Jesus of Nazareth, is also called Christ. Joh. 1. 41. We have found the Messiah, which is being interpreted, the Christ. John 4. 25, 26. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh, which is called Christ, when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am HERALD And many moe believed, because of his own word; and said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying, for we have heard him ourselves: And know, that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the World, vers. 41, 42. And this doth not only prove him to be the Christ, but such a Person that the People saw with their eyes, and heard with their ears; notwithstanding the Quakers have the confidence to say, Christ was never seen with Carnal eyes, nor heard with Carnal ears.  
3. That the name Christ doth properly and really belong to him, is evident.  
1. Because he hath that Name given him in the holy Scriptures: And the Quakers say, They are a true Declaration of the mind of God; and therefore he must be what the Scripture calls him.  
2. Because he was Anointed with the Holy Spirit, so as never any was but he; for God gave not the Spirit by measure unto him, John 3. 34. and therefore he is properly and really the only Christ and Saviour of the World: Neither is there Salvation in any other; for there is none other Name under Heaven given among men whereby we must be saved, but by the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom the Jews crucified, Acts 4. 10, 11, 12.  
I shall conclude this point in the words of the Learned Leigh, as it is by him applied to that Sacred Person before defined: His words are these, Messiah doth solely and singularly betoken Christ, as it is interpreted, John 1. 41. and 4. 25. For though the word Mashiach in Hebrew, in the Scripture, signifieth any Anointed one whatsoever; yet in this Greek form, Messiah, it never signifieth but only Christ: Nor is the Hebrew word used in Hebrew Authors, but in the same sense; and so it is used infinitely among them: Sometimes set single, without any other addition, and very often with this addition, Melech Hamashiach, the King Messiah. In this propriety the word is used, Dan. 9 25, 26. Psal. 2. 2. and so it was confessed by the ancient Jews. Mr. Lightfoots 2 d Part of his Harmony, Critica Sacra, p. 136.  
Now seeing Christ is thus exalted at the Father's Right-hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give us Grace here to enable us to do his will, and Glory hereafter far surpassing all our Obedience: let us therefore believe in him for the pardon of our sins, as he is a Priest; receive his Doctrine, as he is a Prophet; and submit to his Laws, as he is a King: For whosoever shall be found so doing, and continue therein faithful unto death, they shall certainly receive that Crown of Life and Glory, which God hath promised to them that love him. I shall conclude in the words of the Apostle, Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen.   

Quakerism is Popery Revived: OR, Some of their Old Opinions put into a New Dress, and Asserted by the Quakers to be New Discoveries of the Light within them.  
THere are two General Principles must be received by every one that will be either a Quaker or Papist.  
1. That the Scriptures of the Old and New-Testament, are not the Rule of Faith and Practice.  
2. That there is some other Rule of Faith which is Infallible.  
To prove this I shall quote their own say, that you may know I do not wrong them.  
The Quaker saith thus,  
Will. Penn, in Reas. ag. Rail. p. 48. We deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Practice, in honour to that Divine Light that was the Author of them.  
Edw. Burrough's Works, p. 62. He that persuades people to let the Scripture be the Rule of Faith and Practice, would keep people in darkness.  
Geo. Whitehead, Dip. pl. p. 13. It's Idolatry to call the Bible the means of our knowing God. And in his Book, entitled, Christ Ascended, p. 11. You are walking by your fancies and imaginations, who set the Scriptures in the place of Christ, as your only absolute Rule and Ground of your Faith and Knowledge.  
G. W. in Enthusiasm above Atheism, p. 20. saith, As for W. Penn's saying, That our Belief concerning the Scriptures, is that inward Testimony that we have received from the Holy Light within us, to the truth of those say: He concludes thus, Wherefore the Scriptures are so far from being the great Rule of Faith and Practice, that the Light of Christ within, is both our Warrant and Rule for Faith in, and Obedience to them: And in p. 27. he blames his Antagonist for saying, The Doctrine contained in the Scriptures, is the Rule of Faith and Practice; telling him, He should rather have said, A Rule subordinate to the great Rule of Faith and Practice; to wit, That Divine Light. And yet saith, p. 49. But if he pretend the Spirit to be his Rule, than the Scriptures are not.  
Having heard what the Chief Men in the Quakers Ministry have said, be pleased to hear what some eminent Popish Priests have said, and you will see that this is no new Doctrine.  
The Papist saith thus,  
Eckius, Luther's Antagonist, in his Book of Faith and Justification: The end that moved the Evangelists to write, was not because they would have their Writings to rule over Religion and Faith, but rather that they should be subject unto it.  
Coster saith the same in his Enchiridion of Controversies. And in Chap. 71. The Scriptures are as a Nose of Wax, that suffers itself to be turned this way, and that way.  
Turrianus, p. 250. If Christ had left no other Rule of our Faith than the Scriptures, we should have had nothing else but a Delphian Sword.  
Bellarm. de verbo Dei non Scripto, Lib. 2. saith, The way to keep men sound and undeceived about Religion, is to forbid to the Laity, or worldly men, the reading of the holy Scripture, as being the occasion of many Heresies. Lib. 4. For although the Scriptures is God's Word, nevertheless it can have no Authority without the Church's Approbation, being an imperfect, broken, and lame Rule; for there is not comprehended in it all things that are necessary for God's Honour and our Salvation, but what is wanting, must be supplied by unwritten Tradition. Lib. 4. cap. 12. The proper and principal end of the Scripture was not, that it should be a Rule of Faith, but a profitable Admonition to make men entertain the Doctrine of Preaching.  
Secondly, There is some other Rule of Faith which (they both say) is Infallible.  
1. The Quaker saith, It's the Light in the Body (immediate Inspiration, or Enthusiasm by the Light within them) which is the Infallible Rule.  
George Keith saith, That Will. Penn hath immediate Inspiration, as the primary Rule of his Faith and Practice. See the Quakers own Account of the Wheeler-street-Meeting, p. 56, 57 And in answer to Mr. Ives 's Demand, To give one evidence that they had Divine Inspiration for the Rule of their Faith and Practice, he saith, p. 62. It is sufficient that we have the witness in ourselves. Page 65. We profess and experience Immediate and Divine Revelation, as the Ground of our Faith and Testimony. And in his Looking-Glass for Protestants, p. 29. he saith, And this is our Faith in all these particulars, who witness unto the Immediate Teachings of God by his Spirit in our hearts.  
Geo. Whitehead, Enthus. above Atheis. saith, p. 19 But Enthusiasm taken simply, as a Divine Inspiration, or breathing into by a Deity, we do assert and contend for in the best Acceptation. I never thought the Quakers would have owned themselves to be Enthusiasts in Print: But what may they not come to in time? Page 22, 23. he saith, We do therefore assert the sufficiency of this Divine Illumination, as being of itself able to show and reveal to us, what we ought to believe and do in all things. And p. 24. he saith, By their Preaching and Writing they proclaim the sufficiency thereof. And p. 52. to show that they are free from Error and Incongruity, he saith, It is true, that we affirm the light of Christ within to be an Absolute Rule, teaching men that follow it, what they ought to know, believe, and do. And in the same page, he saith, That he, viz. his Antagonist, falsely supposeth a defect in the Light, and in our Ministry directing thereto. Then they must be both of them sufficient and infallible, if there be no defect in either.  
But to proceed: In p 69. he saith, The Apostles Doctrine contains Rules, but the Light within that gave it forth, was the Rule, the chief or highest Rule, for Guidance and Power, and that wherein was the Power of Rule and Government to all true Christians. And in p. 58. he is displeased much, because his Antagonist doth not believe, that their Light is sufficient to direct men to believe in Jesus Christ. But is it not manifestly insufficient? for that the Quakers who pretend to be guided by that Light, do not believe in him, as I have made appear. Now when G. W. hath thus asserted the sufficiency and infallibility of the Light; at the close of his Introduction, p. 16. Dictator-like, he comes forth like a Pope and General Council, with a most dreadful Sentence against all that will not believe him in these words: To deny the true God, who is Light, is Atheism; But to deny his immediate Light in man, is to deny the true God. Surely this is a higher piece ofVncharitableness than Mr. Ives can be supposed to be guilty of, in saying, The Quakers are no Christians. I could have alleged many more Testimonies, but these are sufficient.  
Now to prove that this is no new Doctrine, let us hear what the Popish Priests say to this point.  
The Papist saith, It is that Body called the Church (or Divine Revelation) which is the Infallible Rule.  
A Book, entitled. A Manual of Contr. written by a Pomish Priest, lays this down for an Article of Faith, That the Church of Rome is Infallible in all her Propositions and Definitions of Faith, and is so to be received under pain of Damnation: And this is known to be their professed Principle.  
Bellar. de verb. Dei Interp. Those that speak against the Pope's Decrees and Humane Institutions, are false Teachers: For the Pope hath Power and Authority to judge in all Controversies in Doctrine, and to give forth the right meaning of the holy Scripture; and no man may appeal from his judgement.  
Charon's Third Truth, chap. 2. having said, That the Church and the Scripture are Judges together: He adds, But the Church is primarily, and principally, and with great pre-eminence; and a little after, The Scripture is not, nor cannot be the last Rule, and Soveveign Judge of Doctrine And chap. 3. p. 2. Faith that is necessary to Salvation, comes from the Churches speaking, and not from the Reading of the Scripture: Without knowing of which, after a sort, yea, and without believing or obeying it expressly, a thousand millions are saved. And to be short, a man may be a Christian, and a good Christian, and be saved, without the Scripture; but not without the Church: for the Scripture hath no Authority, Weight, or Power over us, but only so much as the Church doth allow and assign unto it.  
In a book, entitled, Reason against Raillery, etc. p. 7. are these words, It may be asked when one pitches upon a determinate sense of any place beyond what the Letter enforces, by what light he guides himself in that Determination? And then answers, That that Light, whatever it is, and not the Letter, is indeed the formal Revealer, or Rule of Faith. 〈◊〉 in the next Paragraph, The Letter-Rule secluded, I advanced (saith he) to prove, That Tradition, or that Body called the Church, taken as delivering her thoughts, by a constant Tenor of living Voice and Practice, visible to the whole World, is the absolute certain way of conveying down the Doctrine taught at first.  
In 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stillingfleeton, etc. Part 2. p. 19 it's said, That Divine Revelation is firmer and more Authentic, than either Scripture, or our seeing; and again, It is the sole standing, unextinguishable general Light, set up for the assured Guidance of all men. And p. 27. They are certain, and know themselves certain, and declare so much before the face of the Sun, and all the eyes of Heaven, by their stability, fixedness, and immovability in Faith.  
In another Popish Book, entitled, A Rational Compendious way, etc. p. 31. The Roman Catholic Religion doth not teach any thing as an Article of Faith, which is either an Error, or a Corruption. And p. 30. The Roman Church is infallible and perpetual.  
Now from what hath been said, we may draw this Conclusion:  
1. That if W. L. say true, That he is no Christian who denies the Divinity of Christ: If he means in the common sense, viz. as he is the Second Person in the Divine Essence; then the Quakers are no Christians, for in that sense they deny the Divinity of Christ, in denying the Trinity of Persons.  
2. That they do really deny the Humane Nature to be a part of Christ; and that Sacred Person whom God hath Anointed with the Holy Spirit, who is both God and Man, The man Christ Jesus, to be the Christ, the Saviour of the World: And so fulfil that Prophecy, Even denying the Lord that bought them.  
3. From hence it follows, That the Quakers have no Christ at all, but one of their own setting up and adoring: For the name Christ cannot be properly applied to the Divine Nature, taken Abstractively; as I have fully proved. And they confess they own no other Christ, but the Light within them; which they say is only God, though in truth, it is but a created Light, and they Idolaters, in worshipping a Creature, instead of the Creator.  
4. If he be no Christian that hath no Rule for his Faith and Practice, than the Quakers are no Christians; for they have no Rule for their Faith and Practice. For,  
1. They confess the holy Scriptures are not their Rule.  
2. It's apparent (notwithstanding their high pretences) they have not Divine and Immediate Revelation for their Rule; for they cannot demonstrate it by Scripture, right Reason, nor any other way.  
Thus I have used my endeavour, according to the Exhortation of the Apostle, 2 Tim. 2. 25, 26. In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them Repentance, to the acknowledging of the Truth. And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the Devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. The Lord open the eyes of their understanding, and bless this Treatise to all those good ends and purposes for which it is intended: To whom be glory in the Churches by Christ Jesus throughout all Ages, World without end. Amen.  
William Russel.   

Here followeth a Letter from the Baptized-Congregation in Reading, concerning William Luddington.  
Brother Ives,  
I Received yours, and advised with the Brethren, about it, and the Answer; which is, That we do not own William Luddington in any such Relation as Communion with us, neither do we know any Principle of Religion that he is steadfast to. But about ten or twelve years since he was here in Prison, and blamed much, for refusing to give God thanks for any of his Mercies, or to join with them that did, with many other strange Humours, (as Mr. Mason can tell you) not suiting with Christian Religion: But was looked upon by all to be a Quaker, and sometimes a supposed Behmenist; which uncertain Fictions best suited his wand'ring Fancy. Sometimes he is for universal Communion with all sorts (as he calls it:) And sometimes speaking against Forms, and says, He never preached for Baptism, nor never would: For that Text, Mat. 28. 19, 20. To the end of the World, he says, was to the end of that Age. And he had wrote a Book two years since to that purpose, and going to print it: But Mr. Maynard persuaded him to the contrary. So that for this Ten years past, we have been so far from any Communion, that we have had little Religious Converse; neither did we ever find he desired any with us. And as for his writing on the behalf of the Quakers, he hath done them so little service here, that he hath only discovered his folly, and made his best Friends ashamed of him; and many others say, they were deceived in him. So that we may say, He hath here met with the just reward of his folly, and is discerned by all sober, rational Christians; and left only to be supported (if by any) by such giddy Brains, that will lay hold on any rotten Post, to support a Tottering Building. But at last yours came, and was so acceptable, that your Enemies say, you have gained great Credit by your discrcet managing that Business: And you have morae raised the hearts of all your (and the Lord's) truly loving Friends towards you. And as it is common for men that want Wisdom, or good Argument for what they would have, to supply it with Railing, and abundance of words, so your Adversaries have done. But God hath furnished you better, as appears by your managing this business. To whose guidance we leave you, with our prayers, that you may be kept to the end: And rest,  
Your Brethren in Christ. Signed by consent, By Daniel Roberts. Reading, this 6th of Decemb. 1674.