Truth further Defended, AND William Penn Vindicated;  
BEING A rejoinder TO A BOOK ENTITLED, A Brief and Modest Reply, to Mr. Penn 's Tedious, Scurrilous, and Unchristian Defence, against the Bishop of Cork.  
Wherein that Author's Unfairness is Detected, his Arguments and Objections are Answered.  
By T. W. and N. H.  They are of those that Rebel against the Light, they know not the ways thereof, nor abide in the Paths thereof. Job. 24. 13. — In the Net which they hide, is their own Foot taken. Psal. 9 15. 
Printed in the Year, 1700.   

THE PREFACE.  
FRIENDLY READER,  
WE Can assure thee, it is not agreeable to our inclinations to concern ourselves in matters of Controversy, more especially in Print: But the defence of Truth, the Vindication of our abused Principles and Friends in general, with our Absent Friend in particular, etc. prevailed upon us, to undertake the following rejoinder, in Answer to a Book wrote in this City, Entitled: A Brief and Modest Reply to Mr. Penn's Tedious, Scurrilous and Unchristian Defence against the Bp. of Cork, etc. To which Book, though the Author has not Subscribed his Name, yet we conceive him to be Edward Wettenhall Late Bp. of Cork. (1st.) Because we are certainly informed he ordered the Printing, and caused the same to be Published. (2ly.) It is not only called and allowed by all to be his, (so far as we have heard) but confirmed so to be, in Crying about the streets of Dublin, and Cork. (3ly.) The Book itself puts it out of Question to be his, or done by a person to whom he dictated, which is observable throughout the same, and so particularly to be noted, in the very Introduction. Likewise in (p. 3.) speaks of a Book of W. P's. then before him: These Reasons having induced us to conclude him the Author, we have therefore in our following Discourse Styled him so.  
We observe the Bp. in the Title of his Book Applies, Brevity and Modesty to his own account, but the blackening Epithets, of Tediousness, scurrility, and Unchristianity to W. P's. To which we Answer, (1st.) That the Bp's. Reply is brief we grant (as we have observed) and so Brief too, that we (shall not determine, but) leave it to the Reader to judge, whether it deserves the Name of a Reply. But if styling his Reply Brief, and W. P's. Defence Tedious, will plead Excuse for its being so short of an Answer, we allow the Bp. has made an advantage thereby. (2ly.) As to its Modesty, we will here give a few of the many Instances we could bring, and let the Reader judge, If charging the Quakers, with Sleight, Cunning, Craftiness, Lying in Wait to deceive, (a Character for the worst of men,) as in (p. 1st) If Calling the Testimony of our Friends, to the Light of Christ Jesus within Men, according to Holy Scriptures, The Poisonous Pill of their Light within, (Page 13.) Making W. P. a Diffuser of Poison, (Page 18.) Charging the Quakers, (most uncharitably) with being so intent upon minding worldly gain both Day and Night, as to pass most Days in the Week without a Prayer to God, either in Public Assembly or Family, (page 21.) Suggesting that W. P. is Popishly Affected, or has a Kindness for Atheism, because he is for a Free Gospel Ministry, and pleads against a Compelled or Forced Maintenance for them, (Page 25.) If these Expressions, with abundance more of the same kind, through his Reply, (too tedious to Mention here,) be either Modest upon W. P. in particular, or the Quakers in general, we are to learn what Modesty means. And if the Bp. (upon second consideration, shall still) think them so, we may take leave to tell him, we are no more obliged to him for his Modesty, then to his Charity, (3ly.) As to W. P's. being Scurrilous and Unchristian in his Defence; we say, If bare charges were to pass for Proofs, he might be thought guilty of both; but if demonstration be required for Proofs, as well as charges, we appeal to the Reader, and let him be judge, whether they will not rather fall upon the Bp. while we believe, he will find no such scurrilous and Unchristian Treatment, in W. P's. Defence as are in the Bp's. Reply.  
We also observe, That although the Bp's. Reply is Dated, Cork, March, 21. 1698/9. at which time, he was not removed hence, Yet we have no reason assigned wherefore it was not Printed, or made Public till October, 1699. What Reasons, the Bp. had for delaying its Publication, he best knows: But this we know, that W. P. sailed for Pensilvania in September, and soon after out came the Bp's. Reply. Had W. P. continued in England the delay had been no blame upon the Bp. but since the Bp. had made several personal Reflections and Charges against W. P. which none could Answer, so well as himself, we think he ought to have Published his Reply, before W. P's. departure for America, (since he had time enough for so doing) That so W. P. might have appeared in his own Vindication, and which he could easily have done, had the Bp's, Reply, come out in due time: But since the Bp. thought not fit so to do, whereby this rejoinder hath fallen into the Hands of Persons, less skilful in the Defence of Truth then W. P. (as we freely confess it hath,) and not so qualified to Treat the Bp. as W. P. nor perhaps, as the Bp. himself might expect. The Bp. may be pleased, or displeased with himself, as he finds occasion, for depriving W. P. of that service, and thereby (to be sure) himself of an Abler Opponent. But though the Bp. should dislike us for Opponents, yet we think he cannot (at least ought not) to blame us, (since Reason and Justice allows us the Privilege) to appear in our Just Vindication, when we find our Principles, as well as our Friends, so greatly Abused, Misrepresented, and Reflected upon, as we believe will plainly appear (to the Impartial Reader,) they are in the Bp's. Reply: However, notwithstanding his Treatment, though we may be plain, where the Nature of his Charges extorts it from us, yet we hope the Reader will find, that we have not only endeavoured to carry ourselves, with that Moderation towards him, which becomes us both as Men and Christians too: But likewise as fair Opponents, having designedly, neither Perverted his Words, nor Misrepresented his Sense, so far as we understood them; and whether we have thus done on our Parts, or the Bp. hath done the contrarry by W. P. is left to the Impartial Reader.  
To Conclude, The following rejoinder was Writ last Winter, according to its Date at the End, and as a Reason for its lying so long Unprinted, the Reader may please to understand, That being advised by a Friend from Dublin, above Eight Months past, he had sent One of the Bp's. replies, by way of Mary-Land to W. P. it gave us some hopes of an Answer thereto, from himself, which we greatly desired. But inasmuch, as some Letters, hath been very lately received from W. P. and that he makes no mention of that Reply, we now conclude it has Miscarried; Therefore to the end we may no longer remain Silent, under the Bp's. Charges and Reflections, etc. We have thought fit at last, (though late,) to make this Public, and the rather because we have heard, some have conceived an Opinion, That the Bp's. Reply was Unanswerable.  
Cork the 20th of the 7th Month, 1700. 

Thomas Wight.  
Nicholas Harris.     

Advertisement.  
REader, please to mind, that there are Two Impressions of W. P's. Defence Extant: The Citations in this Discourse, respects the Second, very few of the First being in Ireland. But the Bps. Citations, chief Respects the First.   

A rejoinder to a Book▪ Styled, A Brief and Modest Reply to Mr. Penn's, etc.  
THE Bishop seems pleased with William Penn for Printing Gospel Truths, together with his Testimony before his own Defence, and gins his Introduction thus, (P. 1) The Bp. of Cork being to vindicate the Truth and Himself, thanks Mr. P. for having Printed both his own Paper and the Bp's. Testimony against it at length before his Book; for the Bp. believes that all sober and Reasonable Christians who shall read those two over and consider them, will easily acquit the Bp. from the first of Mr. P's. Imputations in his Preface, that he is a man of a mind different from those, who would have strife among Christians abated, and for discouraging Controversies in Religion.  
Answ. Evident than it is, W. P. was careful to set the whole matter fairly before his Reader, that so he might be able to make the better Judgement, and we wish the Bp. had as well deserved thanks from W. P. for setting down the Defence (tho' not at length yet) in its due strength, without suppressing so considerable a part of it and perverting so much of the rest, as will be found he hath done. Next we are equally agreed to refer W. P's. Imputation to all sober and reasonable Christians, believing they will not so easily acquit the Bp. as he thinks, considering he was the only Person in Ireland, who broke out into a Public Testimony against that Inoffensive Paper called Gospel Truths, and therein greatly abused us, as W. P. hath plainly shown in many Instances from Page 22 to 26 of his Defence, but slipped over by the Bp. with saying, To Omit things less Material; as if so egregiously to abuse and vilify a People, as he is there charged by W. P. to have done, were a light matter with him. And farther to speak our Sentiments (after the Bp's. way) Let W. P's. Defence and the Bp's. Reply be read over and considered by all Sober and Impartial Christians, and we cannot but believe they will be of our mind, for the sakes of such only there was no need of this rejoinder; that Defence being (as we think) a sufficient Answer of itself to the most material parts of the Bp's. Reply.  
The Bp. proceeds thus. (ibid. 1) the Bp. says a peaceable Testimony against the slight of men, touching whom it is questionable, whether they be Christians or not, and against their cunning craftiness who lie in wait to deceive, is no moving strife or raising quarrels among Christians.  
Answ. As to the peaceableness of the Bp's. Testimony his management therein, doth evidently show it, and which we leave to the Impartial Reader: But if Misrepresenting, Abusing, and Calling us no Christians; if obtruding Principles upon us as ours which we utterly disown and abhor; if drawing Consequences from our Words & Writings, we never thought of, much less intended, and forcing them upon us, though we disclaim them; if curtailing our Writings, leaving out what explained our meaning, and wilfully overlooking our plain Sense, with much more too tedious to mention, would make it questionable, whether we are Christians or not, the Bp. is in the right: Nay we will go farther with him; it would not only be questionable, but we had without all peradventure been positively made no Christians; for it hath been the constant practice of our Adversaries (since we were a People) thus to deal by us, and amongst the rest, we cannot excuse the Bp. from having a share in some of these things, which shall be shown in their places. But blessed be God, 'tis not the Tongues or Pens of all our Adversaries in the World, can make us no Christians; for we have not only believed in the outward coming and appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Flesh with his Sufferings, Death, Resurrection, Ascension and Mediation, but in humility of Soul and to the praise of his Holy Name, we can say we have witnessed his second coming in Spirit, according to his promise, John 14. 17, 81. Chap. 15. 26. and 16. 13. to fit and prepare our Souls in order to obtain the benefit of his outward death and sufferings for us. And thus we are not only Christians by Notion and Tradition but such in reality, for which we have the evidence in ourselves according to 1 John 5. 10. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself. And Rom. 8. 16. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our Spirits, that we are the Children of God. Here then is the double and agreeing record of true Religion, the Illumination of the holy Ghost within, agreeing with the Testimony of the Scriptures of Truth without, which we shall have farther occasion to speak to. But here, that we may not be misunderstood, we do not mean so largely of all such as some may call Quakers, but of such whose Lives and Conversations influenced by the Holy Spirit bespeak them to be true Quakers and therefore true Christians.  
Next as to the Bp's. gross, (and to use his own Words) scurrilous and unchristian charge of slight, cunning, craftinness, lying in wait to deceive, which is brought as a confirming charge to his Testmony, in which he told us and tells again (P. 9) he did not judge us: We say as to this charge, we shall not at present say much, (reserving it to be considered with more of the same kind) only tell the Bp. That as we know not how he will reconcile this to modesty, so we hope he will not say again, he don't judge us, while if what he says were true (whether it respect our Principles or our Morals) we think 'tis plain he equally judges us to be the worst and basest of Men; the Bp. Proceeds, (P. 1.) Mr. P. adds he gave his Paper to the Bp. in a private way, at a friendly visit upon his own desire. This is what the Bp. Called writing in such a way that is hard to know what is meant. If Mr. P. means that either he gave the Paper to the Bp. upon the Bp's. Desire, or made that Visit upon the Bp's. Desire, in both Senses the saying is utterly false, for both the Visit and the Paper were a Surprise, and altogether unexpected by the Bp. Thus the Bp. (P. 1 and 2) Answ. 1st. As to the Paper, take the words as they lie in W. P's. Preface (P. 1) which runs thus (Given him by me in a Private way at a Friendly Visit upon his own desire.) Considering the Order of the words, we believe any Impartial Reader will conclude the Bp's. desire was relative to the Visit, not the Paper; but waving that, see but about ten lines farther and the matter will be past doubt, where W. P. Speaks thus, I did Indeed, perceiving him conversant in our Writings, & his Character moderation, casually present him with one of these Papers. Again, at the end of the Preface W. P. speaking of the Paper says given him. Now Reader judge in the matter, Can any thing be plainer, then that the Paper was W. P's. Present, and not given at the Bp's. Desire. From whence we conclude, that either the Bp's. over eager desire for an advantage against the Quakers, made him fall into this mistake, or he thought it might pass with his unwary Reader, as a Confirmation of his former Charge, about the Quakers way of Writing. But now since the Bp. is so Critical about Words, may not we with more reason and justice return the Charge upon himself, where he says, This is what the Bp. called Writing in such a way that is hard to know what is meant. Whereas what the Bp. said in his Testimony before, runs thus, You have such a way of Writing and Speaking that it is very hard, in many matters of Religion, to know what you mean; So that 'twas matters of Religion he then spoke of; but that which he now applies, this way of Writing and Speaking to, is not matter of Religion, but a mere circumstance of W. P's. visiting the Bp. upon the Bp's. Desire, or not; so to put the best construction upon this mistake, the Bp. forgot himself when he said, This is what the Bp. called Writing in such a way, etc. But (2dly) Supposing we should let it go, as the Bp. would have it, he will still be in no better a case, for the word [this,] the Bp. makes to intent W. P's. Words in his Defence relating to the Paper and Visit, and those words [what] and [called] respect the time past, and related to what the Bp. has charged the Quakers withal in his Testimony about their way of Writing, etc. How then, say we could any Words in the Bp's. Testimony be relative to W. P's. Defence, which was writ afterwards, and was an Answer to that Yestimony. Thus, Reader, see how the Bp. falls into the same fault, he would have charged upon W. P. and the Quakers. We had not thus troubled thee, Reader, about Words, but the Bp. gave the occasion, and we were willing to let thee see, how ready the Bp. is (amongst the rest of our Adversaries) to charge and condemn us without ground, while the fault is in themselves, and yet this is little to what will appear hereafter in the Bp. Next as to the Visit, the Bp. denies he desired it, and charges W. P. with an utter falsehood; but he would have done well to have Exhibited this, with others of his Personal Charges and Reflections, before W. P. went for America, that so he might have Answered for himself; However, as it happens, we can in this Case, say something in the defence of W. P. and must say, we believe the Bp. to be forgetful; for Amos Strettell of Dublin, being at Cork while W. P. was here, and happening to be in company with him and Joseph Pike, at the House of the said Pike, at a time, when G. R. came to visit W. P. they the said Strettell and Pike, heard G. R. say to W. P. That the Bp. had a great desire to see him, and desired him to bring him to his House, to which W. P. agreed, when a convenient season offered. Thus much the said Strettell and Pike remembers, and are ready to give under their Hands, if desired; and 'tis believed G. R. himself cannot forget it, whom we know, and is known to be a Person of that Character and Station, in the World, that would scorn to forge such a Story to W. P. However it accidentally happened G. R. did not accompany him, as designed, in that Visit occasioned by W. P's. dining at a House, which lay not far from the Bp's. He thence took the opportunity of Visiting the Bp. in company with two other Persons. We find the Bp. confesseth, He had a little Curiosity, which might pass for a Desire, to see W. P. (whom he jeeringly calls King of Pensilvania) as he would have been desirous to see the Pope, or the Great Turk, or any other great Man of Sin; This we find he remembers, and we may be so Charitable as to believe he forgot the other. To conclude this point about the Visit: If the Bp. hath conceived any dislike against W. P. for putting it in Print, either because it might be a Scandal to the Bp. in regard, W. P. is a Quaker, or that he thought W. P. might thereby raise his Credit with the World, (which the Bp. would have depressed) we say if either of these be the Case, we believe he may be very easy in the matter; for without lessening to the Bp. he may know many Persons of much greater note and station in the World than he (Ireland not excepted) have desired to see and converse with W. P. which as we don't believe he valued himself upon, less reason than had he to value himself upon the Bp's. desire, and no other reason can we suppose W. P. had for Printing it, then to demonstrate how unsuitable a return and course treatment the Bp. gave him for his friendly Visit. As to the Bp's. suspicion of a design in W. P's. giving him the Paper, as he tells us (tho' he leaves us in the dark as to what the design could be.) We Answer, 'Twas needless thus to tell us now, since W. P. has told the design in his Preface (which was to improve the Bp's. Temper in Moderation) which the Bp. should have disproved, or told us what other design W. P. could have in presenting him with the Paper.  
(Ibid. 2) As to the Bp's. Jeers upon W. P. Calling him King of Pensilvania, Reproaching him with a Spirit of Discerning, and slily Insinuating him among the number of Great Men of Sin, we shall say the less here, in regard we shall take notice thereof in another place; And as to his Margin Note, given him upon Information, that W. P. should say he had a Kingdom of his own, which was understod of Pensilvania. What if the Bp's. Informer misunderstood W. P; nay, what if the whole Information was false, let the Reader judge whether it became the gravity of a Person, in the Bp's. station thus to jeer upon Information. (Ibid. 2) Says the Bp. And thus much as to Mr. P's. Preface.  
Answ. But before we end we must take notice of the Bp's. shortness (not to say unfairness) in not taking notice or answering what followed in the Preface, which lies thus; Nor was it writ (namely Gospel Truths) for an exact and complete account of our Belief; but occasionaly to prevent the prejudices, that the attempts of a course and scurrilous Pen at Dublin just before might provoke in some against us. As to the points touched upon in the Gospel Truths. Thus W. P. Now Reader, we do not blame the Bp. barely for taking no notice of this part, but we think it became him, either to have disproved what W. P. here said, or not continued his Reflections now in his Reply, for the brevity of that Paper, while he had not only the above notice, but had also Robert Barclays Apology, and the Rise and Progress of the People called Quakers, which fully and clearly vindicates at large some of those Tenets, he (now again) censures as short expressed in that Paper, as we shall show in their places. But the Bp. proceeds thus,  
(Ibid. 2) The first charge in his Book against the Bp. is, that he did not prove such a Reader as he professed himself, Mr. P. would have had him such a Reader that had rather they should be in the right then in the wrong; the Bp. never professed himself such.  
Answ. How will the Bp. be able to Reconcile this, to the Words, in his Testimony, where he says in the beginning of it, Friends, I am such a Reader as in your Paper you desire. This in Answer to Gospel Truths, which desired a Sober Reader in these Words, If thou hadst rather we should be in the right then in the wrong, etc. Manifest Contradiction.  
But the Bp. to bring himself off, goes on thus,  
(Ibid. 2) Mr. P. desires a strange partial Reader, who should have more inclination and affection to the Quakers (that is his Adversaries) Opinion than his own, or who would rather be in an Error himself then that his Adversaries should be in any.  
Answ. Is there no difference between desiring a People were in the Right then in the Wrong, and between choosing rather that Himself were in the Wrong then his Adversaries should be so; certainly a great deal, and it looks as if the Bp. were hard put to it, when he thus argueth, Did W. P. intent or desire such a Reader as the Bp. stateth? No, but such an one that had rather we were in the Right then in the Wrong, and explains it thus; One that thought it but reasonable we should be Herd before Condemned, and that our Belief ought to be taken from our own Mouths and not at theirs, that hath prejudged our Cause. In short 'tis very plain, he only desired an Impartial Reader, such as the Bp. only pretended to be.  
(Ibid. 2) The Bp. tells us, He neither had nor has any personal quarrel with W. P. But, says the Bp. all he impleads him of (meaning W. P.) is his Doctrine, by spreading and defending such Principles which tend to the Subverting Christianity, at which no Bp. ought to connive.  
Answ. As this is only a general as well as a false charge, so needs no other Answer here but a positive denial, until we come to particulars, where we shall see how well the Bp. will prove his Charge. As to his not conniving, to be sure he's at his liberty to implead, but if he should do so again, we must desire him to approve himself a fairer Adversary, than he hath yet appeared, either in his Testimony or now in his Reply.  
(P. 2) Says the Bp. To omit things less material, (P. 24) He would insinuate the Bp. Guilty of Insincerity in saying it was the first time he ever heard the Quakers own the Necessity of Christ as a Propitiation in order to Remission of Sins, and justifying them as Sinners from the guilt, and tells the Bp. where possibly he might have read it. The Bp. makes Answer thus, Possibly the Bp. may have Read more then either he did or now does actually remember, he never had so much as many of the Quakers Books, much less has he them in his memory.  
Answ. Here is first an Instance of the brevity of the Bp's. Reply, while he takes a large stride from (P. 20) to (24) where W. P. Enumerates and Charges the Bp. with unfair dealing by us, which the Bp. passeth over without notice, with saying, to omit things less Material; next as W. P. said, so say we, that 'tis next to impossible it should be the first time, he so heard of the Quakers, since he had read R. Barclays Apology, which largely treats of this head: But the Bp. Confesseth he possibly may have Read more than he Remembers, which seems a tacit granting the matter. But suppose he did not actually remember this point, can it be possible he should forget that he had Read any of the Quakers Books since he told W. P. so very lately, he had Read Robert Barclay, and his Book called the Rise and Progress of the Quakers; the former largely, and the latter as fully as now in Gospel Truths, owning the Doctrine of Justification.— Whence it follows, if the Bp. had been an Impartial Reader, as he pretended, and one that was unwilling to represent us wrong, or render us defective in our Belief, he would certainly have first searched those two Books before he had made this point a new discovery; so to the Impartial Reader we refer the Bp's. sincerity or kindness to the Quakers herein, and Proceed,  
(Ibid. 3) The Bp. tells us, That he has a Book now before him, Entitled, The second Part of the serious Apology for the Principles and Practices of the People called Quakers, by W. P. Printed 1671. In which (P. 148.) are these Words; This [namely Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us in the Words before] We deny, and boldly affirm it to be the Doctrine of Devils, and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption, which does now deluge the whole World. (Then the Bp. adds) This the Bp. does not understand to be owning Justification by Christ, he therefore now was glad to find Mr. P. more Orthodox in 1698. Then he was in 1671.  
Answ. We would have been also glad to have found the Bp. more fair and ingenious, not to say worse (which it will bear), then to leave out the Explanatory Part of W. P's. Words, which is as far Remote from a fair Adversary as an Impartial Reader: Whereas had he been so just as to leave them in, tho' they would not have suited the Bp's. purpose, yet (together with W. P's. plain Sense in several following Arguments) would have made W. P. as Orthodox (to the Impartial Reader) in 1671. As the Bp. allows him to be 1698.— For next to the Words (i e) His own Person for us, follow these Words (wholly without us) which Words the Bp. hath wholly left out, and instead of them hath substituted these Words [in the Words before] and the Bp. hath not only thus done, but hath as we believe wilfully overlooked (since the place was before him) W. P' s. plain sense and meaning in his foregoing Words in the same Page, which are these, For in him [namely in Christ] We have Life, and by Faith Atonement in his Blood. And the like he hath done in what followed in the Apology, which we shall presently show; But. first we shall set down the entire Words as they lie in that Apology (which the Bp. pretends to cite, and by which the Reader will see the Bp's. great unfairness) which were at first the Words of an Adversary one Jenner, and cited by W. P. with other Articles, thus (Pag. 148.) 5th. That we deny Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us (wholly without us) and therefore deny the Lord that Bought us: To which W. P. gives his Adversary an Answer thus, And indeed this we deny, and boldly affirm it in the Name of the Lord to be the Doctrine of Devils, and an Arm of the Sea of corruption, which does now deluge the whole World. Upon this W. P. proceeds to vindicate his Negation; first saying, that his Friend and Partner G. W. in writing that Apology had already irrefutably considered the Doctrine of Justification, and therefore he will not insist so much upon this Point as he had upon others, and only adds some short Arguments by which he proves that Wicked and Ungodly Men (while so) are not in a state of Justification and Acceptance with God, by the imputed Righetousness of Christ, and confirms the same by several Scripture Arguments; and then on the other hand shows that such only are truly justified, who are obedient unto the Spirit of God, by which they become the Children of God, and bring forth fruits of Holiness; and in confirmation hereof gives us these Scripture Texts. Gal. 6. Ro. 8. Reve. 22. And after having shown, who are not, and who are in a state of Justification and Acceptance with God, he is so far from denying Justification by Christ, that he owns, ascribes, and asserts the same alone to him, which for the Readers satisfaction we shall cite his Words as they lie in that Apology following the above Arguments, p. 149. thus; We do believe in one holy God Almighty, who is an Eternal Spirit, the Creator of all things, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only Son and express Image, of his substance, who took upon him Flesh, and was in the World, and in Life, Doctrine, Miracles, Death, Resurrection, Ascention, & Mediation, perfectly did and does continue to do the will of God, to whose holy Life, Power, Mediation and Blood, we only ascribe our Sanctification, Justification, Redemption, and perfect Salvation.  
Now, Impartial Reader, judge between the Bp. and W. P. whether W. P. did deny Justification by Christ, as the Bp. would insinuate; and whether the Bp. was led by a Christian Spirit while he dealt so very unfairly, what if we say unjustly by W. P. in misrepresenting his Sense to make him so intent (as we have before noted.) Now as to the Doctrine of Justification we shall not be large thereon, in regard many of our Friends have treated upon that head, and particularly (besides W. P. in several Tracts of his) our deceased friend R. Barclay in his Apology hath writ excellently and fully thereof: As also that the Bp. hath allowed W. P. to be Orthodox in what is written in Gospel Truths upon that Point; for these Reasons we shall be brief: yet as W. P. said in 1671. so say we now, that we cannot believe it other than a Sin-pleasing Notion and a Doctrine of Devils (since all Men, as the Scriptures tell us, are to be rewarded according to their deeds) to assert, That Wicked and Ungodly Men (while they continue so) are in a state of Acceptance and Justification with God by the righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own person, wholly without them, which wholly excludes the Work of Sanctification wrought by the Spirit of Christ, which was the Notion W. P. did briefly, and Geo. Whitehead more largely, dispute against in that serious Apology, see (p. the 37 to 40) and (p. 148) and agreeable to the Quakers sense and belief in this point are these following Scriptures Mat. 7. 21, 22, 23. & so 1 John 3. 8, 10. Rom. 6. 16. 2 Cor. 5. 10. James 1. 15. Heb. 10. 35. In short, altho' we firmly believe, and which W. P. and G. W. hath asserted, that only Jesus Christ is our Justifier, yet we do not believe any are truly justified in the sight of God, but such who yield obedience to the Spirit of Christ in themselves, by which they come to do the will of God, and thereby come to obtain the benefit of what Christ fulfilled in his own person without us; in concurrence whereunto we have these Scriptures, 1 Cor. 6. 11. Titus 3. 5. Rom. 8. 1, 2, 11, 13, 14. Heb. 5. 9 and 12. 14. Gal. 6. 7. 8. Now to draw toward a conclusion upon this head; Having proved from that serious Apology in 1671. That W. P. did ascribe our Justification only to Christ, and our Reconciliation with God to faith in his blood; But grants the benefit of it only to such, who obey the Spirit of God in themselves: Let us now see whether he be not of the same mind and hath aserted the same Doctrine in 1698. which the Bp. commends as Orthodox; Thus, Gospel Truth. iv That as we are only justified from the guilt of Sin, by Christ the Propitiation, and not by works of Righteousness that we have done, so there is an absolute necessity, that we receive and obey, to unfeigned repentance and amendment of Life, the holy Light and Spirit of Jesus Christ, in order to obtain that Remission and Justification from Sin; since no Man can be justified by Christ, who walks not after the Spirit, but after the flesh, for whom he sanctifies, them he also justifies; and if we walk in the Light as he is Light, his precious Blood cleanseth us from all Sin, as well from the pollution, as guilt of Sin, Rom. 3. 22. to 26. Chap. 8. 1, 2, 3, 4. 1 John 1. 7. We will not spend farther time to comment upon the matter, to show how agreeable W. P's. Belief was in 1671. to what it was in 1698. being so very plain that it would be but time lost so to do, and therefore we leave it with the Impartial Reader. Again, the Bp,  
But says W. P. if the Bp. commends their believing in Christ as a propitiation for Sin, he ought not to have censured them as short in any fundamental Article of Christian Religion; for that all the rest follow from, or are comprehended in this; (p. 25. 26.) truly, says the Bp. he ought.  
Answ. Here again we must charge the Bp. with unfairness in laying down words directly as W. P's. in a Different Character, (the better to make them appear to be his) and foisting in several that are none of his; the Bp. Cites, p. 25. 26. First Impression, for these words, and therefore we will lay down W. P's. words in these two pages from whence the Bp. pretends to take them, and then let the Reader judge in the matter, Thus W. P. (p. 28.) the 2 d. Impression, Who ever believes in Christ as a Propitiation in order to remission of Sins and justification of Sinners from the guilt of Sin, can hardly disbelieve any fundamental Article of the Christian Religion. Then goes on to prove that such a Believer must necessarily believe in God, because it is with him alone Man is to be justified in Christ, because that is the very Proposition; and in the holy Ghost, because he is the Author of his Conviction, Repentance, and Belief etc. See that page, again. p. 28. Adds thus, So that acknowledging the necessity of Christ as a Propitiation, in order to the remission of Sin, comprehends the main Doctrine of Christian Religion, and as so many lines drawn from the Circumference to the Centre, they all meet and centre in Christ, and indeed it is as the Navel of Christianity and Characteristick of that Religion. I would entreat him (meaning the Bp.) again to reflect well upon his own acknowledgement and commendation of our Belief concerning the end and benefit of Christ to mankind, and he cannot think us so deficient, much less under such strong and dangerous delusions as he has been pleased to represent us. Thus W. P. in these two pages which we would have our Reader to compare with what the Bp. has laid down as his: And (1st.) see what just ground the Bp. could have had to raise such contradiction had he taken W. P's. own words. (2ly.) Whether the Bp. did well in Quoting these words directly as W. P's. without giving notice he drawn them consequentially, which in justice he ought to have done; But to be sure very unfair in him to add several words never spoke by W. P. for besides packing the whole together (without any break) as W. P's. which are none of his as they lie, he has added these [for all the rest follow from] But we now come to his Arguments deduced from the premises he has made for W. P. Says the Bp. (meaning himself) He does not find the Quakers to be so good at believing or drawing due consequences, or deducing and discovering all the particulars comprehended in generals. To which we answer in short that we do not wonder he should tell us so, who so strenuously endeavours to misrepresent us, not only in what's past, but in much that follows.  
(2) (Sesse the Bp.) It is not true that all the fundamentals of Christian Religion follow from, or are comprehended in this Doctrine, Christ is our Propitiation, some of them (particularly mentioned by Mr. P.) do not thence follow, as that there is a holy Ghost, that he convinceth Men of Sin, etc. Nay not that (p. 34.) That Christ is ascended, for he might have been a Propitiation and Sacrifice (as were those under the Law) and yet never have ascended no nor risen again. Mind Reader the words [all] and [follow from] nor the deduced words [does not thence follow] were not spoke by W. P. But leaving that with thee we will now attend to justify W. P's. words: Then say we by the same rule, That no Man can say Jesus is the Lord but by the holy Ghost, as saith the Scriptures, 1 Cor. 12. 3. Nor no Man understand or savingly believe or know the things of God but by the Spirit of God, according to 1 Cor. 2. 10, 11, 12. (tho' we confess they may and do pretend to both traditionally) so likewise no Man can truly and savingly believe Christ as a Propitiation in order to the remission of Sin, but by the same Spirit, and as such, a true Believer hath the holy Ghost for the author of his saving conviction and belief; so consequently he must believe there is a holy Ghost, as W. P. well observeth, and which convinceth for Sin, according to John 16 18. But that we may not be misunderstood, we do not here mean of such extraordinary Revelations, as of the knowledge of the outward History of Christ's death and sufferings, but as of the illumination of the holy Ghost in such agreeing with the holy Scriptures. But as to such, from whom God hath withheld the knowledge of the Scriptures, or outward History, we shall speak of that in its place; in the mean time we say he that believes as aforesaid, to give W. P's. own words, Can hardly disbelieve any fundamental Article of Christian Religion, and comprehends the main Doctrine of Christian Religion, and as so many lines drawn from the Circumference to the Centre, they all Centre in Christ.  
Then as to the Bp's. saying, Christ might have been a Propitiation and Sacrifice (as were those under the Law) and yet never have ascended, no nor risen again. To say nothing of the disproportion between the sacrifices under the Law, and the one Sacrifice of Christ for the remission of Sins, we ask how came the Bp. so greatly to ofrget himself, thus to assert both in contradiction to the holy Scriptures, as well as his friend Geo Keith, (whom he quotes as a close evidence against us) for to the owning of and belief in Christ as a Propitiation for the remission of Sins (as W. P. hath done)? It was no less necessary to that end, that Christ should rise again, as that he should suffer: See Rom. 4. 25. (besides other Scriptures which for brevity we omit) Where speaking of Christ, who was delivered for our Offences and raised again for our Justification, here the Apostle makes Christ's suffering and rising again necessary to his being a Propitiation, contrary to the Bp. Next, G. Keith in page. 26. of his first Narrative, says expressly thus, I say with them and all Christendom that if Christ had died and not risen again he could not have been an atonement for our Sins; this is so full and contrary to the Bp's. Assertion, that we think 'twill both puzzle the Bp. and his Advocate G. K. to reconcile the contradiction. But it may be hoped the Bp. will retract, rather than have G. K. and (if he can believe G. K. as readily against himself as he doth against us) all Christendom against him.  
Now to his third head, (saith the Bp.) thus, To tell Mr. P. thus much as to his Paper once for all, Implication of Faith is not a profession of Faith.  
Answ. We allow 'tis not so in all cases as we shall find it in the Bp. hereafter, particularly in pages 19, 20. of his Reply, and such strange sort of Implications too as that we think no such consequence can possibly be deduced from his premises, as he makes; but in our case it is otherwise, and had he been an Impartial Reader, as he pretended, and had had but a grain of Charity in him towards us, it would have saved all this work, while that Paper called Gospel Truths was but a brief account (as it tells us) and the Bp. had R. Barcla's Apology which states and vindicates most of our Principles largely, as also W. P's. Rise and Progress of the Quakers doth several of them briefly, which, we should think, would have satisfied most or all of his Objections if he were not resolved rather to represent us wrong than right, which we must needs say doth but too much appear in his management towards us. But farther, as to Implication of Faith: since the Bp. can produce no Confession of Faith extant so complete and full, that nothing is left to be made out by Implication he might have shown so much candour, as to have given an equal allowance (at least) to this short Declaration (which was not writ as W. P. told him in the Preface to his Defence for an exact and complete account of our Belief) as he would to any of those Creeds or Symbols of Faith, which himself or the Church he is of embraceth; which had he done, he could not have charged our Confession touching the Being of God with imperfection, because there is not in it a word of God's creating the present World, or supporting it by his Providence, or concerning Himself about the inanimate part thereof, with a multitude (he saith) of other particulars; for in which we pray of all the Creeds, which the Bp. holds Authentic, is this multitude of particulars expressed, in the first Article touching the Being of God without implication? If we look into that which bears the name of the Apostles Creed the first Article is delivered thus. I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth; what one word is here of supporting the present world by his providence, of concerning himself about the inanimate part of it, or of the Bp's. multitude of other particulars? Are not all those to be made out by implication, in this the most celebrated, and best Creed extent? Again, Is there one word in that Creed concerning the Intercession or Mediation of Christ for his People? It is said indeed, he ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and that from thence he shall come to judge the Quick and the Dead: But that, sitting at the Right Hand of his Father, he makes Intercession for his People (tho' it be certainly true Rom. 8. 34. Heb. 7. 25.) is not expressed in that Creed but left to be supplied by implication. Yet again, the Attributes due to God, even those which the Bp. says Christianity teacheth of him, where are they in words expressed in that Creed? Is there a word there, of his Omniscience, his Omnipresence, his infinite Goodness and Love to Mankind, his Justice, Mercy, etc. Will the Bp. allow these to be made out by implication, or would he have them left out and disbelieved altogether? By these Instances the Bp. we hope, will see how much his desire of a blow at W. P. and the Quakers made him mistake, when he said (p. 4, 5.) What an easy prevention of all this Imperfection and uncertainty had it been for W. P. and his party to have said, I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth; since that, without the help of Implication, falls very much short of delivering what he says Christianity teacheth of God; To which he adds, but this had been confessing an Article of Faith in a way beneath their Light, we say no more but that, this is a Scoff beneath the gravity which the Bp. pretends to, and was expected from him: But we must take leave to tell him, that by his rejecting that Paper called Gospel Truths, and unchristianing us for our shortness in not expressing in that Paper all that Christianity teacheth, and that is to be believed concerning God, Christ, the Holy Ghost, and other Articles of Christian Religion, he has given a deep wound to the common Creed (called the Apostles) and to all the Creeds in the Christian World, and struck a very bold stroke towards unchristianing all Christendom.  
But in this we think the Bp. the more to be blamed, in as much as when he writ this, he declares he had before him a Book of W. P's. Entitled, The second part of the serious Apology for the principles and practices of the People called Quakers, Printed in the Year 1671. in which he might, (and could scarce but) see a more full Confession of Faith, concerning the Essentials of Religion, God, Christ, and Holy Spirit: We say he could hardly miss seeing this, for he took (and that most falsely, as we have showed before,) a quotation out of that Book (in p. 148.) and this Confession which we now mention is in page, 149. and the pages lie open together, so that both are alike exposed to the eye at the same time. This Confession is in these words, We do believe in one only Holy God Almighty, who is an eternal Spirit, the Creator of all things; We would gladly know whether this be not as full, as express, as comprehensive, as the first Article in that which is called the Apostles Creed, which says only, I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth. It follows in that Book of W. P's. And in one Lord Jesus Christ his only Son and express Image of his substance, who took upon him flesh, and was in the World, and in Life, Doctrine, Miracles, Death, Resurrection, Ascension and Mediation; perfectly did and does continue to do the will of God; to whose Holy Life, Power, Mediation and Blood we only ascribe our Sanctification, Justification, Redemption and perfect Salvation: Here is a full Confession both to the Divinity and Manhood of Christ, his Birth, Life, Doctrine, Miracles, Death, Resurrection, Ascention, and (which the common Creed mentions not) his Mediation. Then for the Holy Spirit; whereas the Creed has only, I believe in the Holy Ghost, W. P's. Confession is more full in these words, And we believe in one Holy Spirit, that proceeds and breathes from the Father and the Son as the life and virtue of both the Father and the Son, a measure of which is given to all to profit with, and he that has one has all, for these three are one, who is the Alpha, and Omega, the first, and last God over all, blessed for ever, Amen. This we suppose the Bp. will acknowledge to be a more full and plain Confession then that which is in the Common Creed. (called the Apostles) with respect to the proceeding of the Holy Spirit, from the Father and the Son, not touched in that, besides what is said in this, concerning the great mystery of the Godhead, [one in three and three in one] commonly expressed by the word (Trinity) of which that Creed (called the Apostles) is wholly silent. Now since the Bp. acknowledges he had that Book of W. P's. then before him, out of which we have recited this Confession, which in many material parts is so much fuller and larger, then that the Bp. directs to, how unfair and how disingenuous; how uncharitable is the Bp. towards W. P. and us, to censure and unchristian us for a pretended shortness in the wording of some of our Principles; and that too after W. P. had told him in the Preface to his Defence, that that Paper, which he gave the Bp. was not writ for an exact and complete account of our Belief; and in the Defence. page. 25. to 28. had declared, that to believe in God is to believe him, Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent; and that in believing in Christ as a propitiation in order to remission of Sins and justification of Sinners from the guilt of Sin, was included not only believing in God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, but a belief of Heaven, Hell, Rewards and Punishments, and consequently the Resurrection of the Just and Unjust; this one would think had been enough to have satisfied the Bp. or any one else, that had not a mind to misrepresent or cavil, which it may be feared the Bp. has.  
As to what the Bp. saith (p. 4) A great Man has told us of the Gentile world and their belief in multiplicity of Gods, etc. It nothing concerns us, we are not accountable for their, but our own, belief, and had W. P. been to present some heathen Pontiff with our Confession of Faith concerning God and his Attributes, no doubt he would have been more explicit and large, than what is contained, not only in the Paper called Gospel Truths, but even in that Creed called the Apostles: But while he intended that Paper for professed Christians, he thought what was delivered therein concerning God, sufficient to satisfy any who had not a mind to cavil. But so earnest is the Bp. in pursuit of W. P. and the Quakers, that in seeking occasion against them, he plainly mistakes the Scriptures, which we now come to show. Thus the Bp. (p. 4.) Mr. P. saith that Heb. 11. 6. seems expressed for a declaration of faith in God. The Bp. takes the freedom to inform him, that it was not at all intended for a full confession of Christian Faith, as to that Article thereof, touching the Being, Nature, and Works of God, but only of such an initial or natural Faith which Men had or might have without Revelation; for of the Faith of such, viz. Abel and Enoch, and those who lived before the Flood without any Revelation that we read of, he there discourses. Thus the Bp.  
Answ. We answer for W. P. that he neither wants nor desires the Bp's. Information, unless it were more agreeable to Scripture, than we shall find this.— The Bp's. words here doth consist of two parts, the one, that the Faith of Abel, Enoch, and those who lived before the Flood was initial and natural, without any revelation that we read of: Next that Heb. 11. 6. was a discourse of such a natural Faith; now if we prove the first was divine Faith and the last was no discourse of natural Faith, it naturally follows the Bp. hath misrepresented the Scriptures; to which purpose we will begin with the first verse in the Chapter. Heb. 11. 1. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. And that this Faith was not natural but divine Faith according to Eph. 2. 8. appears very plainly from the context, by the effects it produced; Vers. 2. By it the Elders obtained a good report. Vers. 3. Through Faith we understand the worlds were made by the word of God. Vers. 4. By Faith Abel offered unto God a more acceptable Sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous. Vers. 5. By Faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see Death, for before his translation he had this Testimony that he pleased God. Now to the 6. Verse. Which the Bp. says was a discourse of natural and initial Faith. Vers. 6. But without Faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him, (mind, Reader, the last part of this Verse was a part of what was laid down in Gospel Truths for our belief in God) Vers. 7. By Faith Noah being warned of God of things not seen, as yet moved with fear, prepared an Ark to the saving of his house, by which he condemned the World, and became heir of righteousness by Faith. So the Apostle proceeds to the end of that Chapter (which is long) showing the great and extraordinary effects of this divine Faith. The Bp. seems to restrain the Text, Heb. 11. 6. Only to the Faith of those, who lived before the Flood: But the Apostle passes on from Abel, Enoch, Noah, to Abraham and the rest of the Patriarches who lived between the Flood and the Law; nor does the Apostle put any difference between the Faith of those before the Flood, between the Flood and the Law, or under the Law, which the Bp. may do well to consider: as also that Judas says expressly Enoch prophesied, see Vers. 14. Will he say he prophesied without Revelation? But to shorten upon the first head; Those Scriptures already cited do so plainly prove our point, that we need not trouble the Reader with any more to show that it was not natural but supernatural Faith (those holy Men were endued withal) by which (in particular) Enoch prophesied and was translated, and Noah was warned to build the Ark, which besides the rest are two such plain and extraordinary instances of supernatural Faith by Revelation from God, that we cannot but admire the Bp. should assert those who lived before the Flood had no Revelation that we read of, but what was natural and initial: We leave it with the Reader and proceed to the second part, in which the Bp. asserted that Heb. 11. 6. Was not at all intended for a full confession of Christian Faith, touching the Being, Nature, and Works of God, but of natural and initial Faith.  
To which we answer (as hath been already shown) they had divine Faith and Revelation before the Flood; so consequently the Bp's. Arguments do fall in course: However the Text itself, with the context very plainly intends spiritual and divine Faith, not only with respect to those extraordinary effects produced by true Faith, as well before as after the Flood, but also seems expressed, (as W. P. hath asserted) for Faith in God, (And) we say (Christian Faith too, because the Apostle speaks in the present tense) notwithstanding his Attributes be not there enumerated, no more than they were by Moses in the word [I am] Instanced by W. P. but passed over in silence by the Bp. Now to that Vers. 6. We take leave to ask the Bp. what Faith it was they were to come unto God by, and without which it was impossible to please him, whether was it Natural and initial, or Spiritual and supernatural Faith; if he answers (as he said before) Natural, we tell him that cannot be, since the Scripture tells us, all were by nature Children of wrath, and that Man naturally has nothing, nor can perform any thing acceptable to God; see these Texts John 15. 5. Eph. 2. 3. Pro. 20. 24. 1 Cor. 2. 14. Besides many other Scriptures; consequently then, that Faith mentioned Heb. 11. 6. intended not other then divine and supernatural Faith as doth most plainly appear, not only from the Text, but also from the context, as we have shown. Thus, Reader, see how the Bp. has mistaken plain Scripture, no wonder then if he mistake us, etc.— The Bp. proceeds,  
P. 5. Again saith the Bp. The acknowledging of future rewards and punishments, no more infers the resurrection from the Dead or eternity of Torments to the Damned, than any of the former points imply what W. P. would have comprehended in them.  
Answ. If they imply but as much we shall easily clear ourselves from the Bp's. suggestions of Heathenism or Sociniasm, for we think the other points are plainly comprehended, as we have above shown; so by this rule there needs no farther return to that, to an  Reader.— However we will attend the Bp's. Arguments who proceeds to tell us of one Synesius a Christian Philosopher (to say no more) who professed he could not believe the resurrection of the Body; and of Origen, and the merciful Doctors, who believed future rewards and punishments, yet believed not eternal torments, it had been necessary therefore saith the Bp. for him (i. e. W. P.) and his Brethren explicitly to have declared their belief of these main Articles, the Resurrection and eternal Torments even among the Truths, chief believed by them, that we might have known the Quakers to be neither Heathens nor Socinians in these points, which herein it is plain they may be notwithstanding their belief that God is a rewarder of them who seek him.  
Answ. Synesius was not only a Christian Philosopher but a Bishop too which we suppose the Bp. was willing to hid with his Parenthesis, (to say no more,) the story we have in Evagrius Ecclesiastic History Lib. 1. C. 15. The old Edition, tells us he could not believe the resurrection of the flesh, how stated to him we have no account, but if in so gross a manner as some have done it in our days we cannot wonder he did not receive it; However tho' he did not receive the vulgar opinion, (for so we have it in Vallesius his notes in the new Edition) Yet we find the Christians in those times (viz. about the Year, 412.) persuaded him not only to be Baptised but to take upon him the Office of a Bishop, and he did so; whence we observe that the vulgar opinion, or the Doctrine of the resurrection of the Flesh was not then held so Essential to the Christian Religion but that a Man might be both a Christian and a Bp. too, tho' he neither did nor would believe it. But to proceed, what ever opinion in reality he held, or others did or do believe, is nothing to us, we are not accountable for their Faith but our own. (1st. then) then. As to the Resurrection from the Dead, we have always believed and owned it by word and writing according to holy Scripture, and which was again fully owned by W. P. in his Defence. p. 47. 48. Where he also shows, 'twas sufficiently employed in Gospel Truths by future rewards and punishments: And so say we too, otherwise we must disbelieve the immortality of the Soul, and, believe that it dies with the body which we firmly deny. (2ly.) As to eternity of Torments to the Damned we have (likewise) also steadfastly believed it, and W. P. in his Defence. p. 43, 44. hath shown it is fully employed in Gospel Truths, which we will not farther enlarge upon here because we will cut short and tell the Bp. tho' we will not downright charge him with Insincerity (what ever it deserves) yet we think we may safely with great partiality (to charge us with shortness in this point) while he had in his possession (before his Testimony or Reply was writ) a Book called the Rise and progress of the Quakers, which in (page the. 38.) hath these words.— This leads us to the acknowledgement of Eternal Rewards and Punishments, for else of all People certainly they (i. e. the Quakers) must be most miserable, who for about forty years have been exceeding great sufferers for their profession, etc. Now for the Bp. after this to make this objection against us, looks indeed very strange, and to be sure like one that was willing, as W. P. says, to represent us wrong rather than we should be in the right.— But farther, as to Eternal Torments tho' what is said before is sufficient; yet we cannot but observe how unreasonable the Bp. is to Quarrel with us, for not expressing that as an Article of Faith, which is not expressed in his own Creed (if that called the Apostles be his); for what word in the Creed is there of Eternal Torments, 'tis indeed said therein, I believe the Life everlasting, but not a word of Punishments being everlasting: If the Bp. say, that the reward of Life to the Righteous, being everlasting, implies the punishment of the Damned shall be everlasting, may we not then with a great deal of reason return his own words, (p. 3.) and tell him, Thus much as to that point once for all, Implication of Faith is not a profession of Faith, at least ought not to be claimed by him, that will not allow it to others. Again, How hath the Bp. caught himself in his own Trap; for while his own Creed is silent in so main a point as Eternal Punishments (as he tells us that is) which way will the Bp. Extricate himself and his brethren (to give him his own phrase) from being suspected to be either Heathens or Socinians in that point: If he say that this which he calls a main Article is explicitly declared in some other Creeds or Declarations of Faith, the Answer is, So are they also in other Books and writings of ours; and if the Bp. would have given to others the same measure he takes himself, he might have forborn this unnecessary wrangle.  
The end of (p. 5. and most of p. 6.) is about the Trinity, in which point, we find the Bp. still resolves to have us short, and imperfect, tho' it be by telling of us again much of it word for word, as he did in his Testimony, Thus 1 John 5. 7. Is not (saith he) the sum of what the holy Scriptures teacheth, nor a sufficient confession of Faith, of the holy Trinity. Then adds, He [meaning W. P.] insinnuates (which is utterly false) that the Bp. slights that, as a by passage or of little credit, upon which the Bp. appeals to his own Paper; then tells us of the Nicene Creed, and Thirty Nine Articles; then to W. P's. demand from the Bp. of the occasion of the Apostles speaking as he did, 1 John 5. 7. the Bp. returns thus; The Bp. answers out of Vers. 1. 5. It was to prove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and after some more to the same purpose the Bp. concludes that paragraph, saying p. 6. This was his purpose (i. e. John) viz. to settle the Believers Faith in Christ) and not fully there to declare the Doctrine of the Trinity, which is not where done in any one text of Scripture, but is to be gathered out of many.  
Answ. Is it not strange, Reader, that the Bp. who so strangely condemned that Paper (of Gospel Truths) as short and defective for not being more explicit, and full in others as well as in this point, should now a second time, be so very defective himself, as not to tell us, where those many Texts are, by which the Trinity was to be proved? No, that he has not done, for a good reason too, because in all the Scriptures a more full proof could not be found, than 1 John 5. 7. But the Bp. to help himself, tells us of the Thirty Nine Articles and Nicene Creed. To which we answer, their foundation in that point ought to be the Holy Scripture; if so, why had not the Bp. cited or referred us to those Scriptures, but in stead of confirming the Trinity, we think he has rather lessened the proof thereof, while he tells us the Apostles purpose was to prove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God: for altho' the Apostles could not prove the Trinity without proving Jesus Christ to be the Son of God; yet as the Bp. assigns that Text. (by the context) chief to prove Christ was the Son of God, we ask doth he not thereby lessen the proof of the Trinity? while (as we said above) we can no where find so full and plain a Text in all the Holy Scriptures to prove the Trinity; we are sure we design not to strain, or misrepresent the Bp's. sense, but what we have said, we think, naturally follows from his own words, and far less than we could have said on the matter. As to his appeal to his Paper, we agree in that point, provided W. P's. Defence be compared with it, and there the Impartial Reader will see whether W. P. hath wronged the Bp's Sense or not, and whether the Bp. hath not now confirmed W. P's. ask, How came the Bp. to render it a by passage, and the Text itself short, and otherwise intended by the Apostle, than an Article of Faith about the Trinity? see. p. 33. of W. P's. Defence (in two places): and thus we end as to what the Bp. has said about the Trinity.  
P. 6, 7. The Bp. tells us we must give a more explicit confession of our Faith if we expect to be accounted Christians, for other reasons than he has given; especially (says he) this for one, that a great Person among them who professes, as concerning their Principles, he was deceived by them, thinking they had held sincerely the Principles, which by a more diligent search he finds, they hold not.  
Answ. George Keith being the person he means (as appears in the Margin) we must take leave to say, the Bp. is greatly mistaken, for he is neither great among us, nor indeed of us at all, having been denied by us some Years past; and as to that Man, he must either have been a great Hypocrite formerly, or a foul Apostate now from us, The former, if for about thirty Years he walked among us, and defended our Principles by word and writing, and yet at the same time was not convinced of the verity of them; an Apostate to be sure if being convinced of our Principles, and from that persuasion defended them, while now he retracts, and condemns some of the very same Principles he then defended.  
The Bp. proceeds about G Keith (p. 7.) assures us (meaning G. K.) and has Printed Testimonies out of their Books to prove they deny.—  
Answ. As to G. Keith's confident assurance, we question not that, he having given us sufficient proof thereof already, by plainly perverting and misrepresenting our friends words and writings as well as contradicting, what he has before writ, in defence of us and our principles: and did we only refer back to our friends reitterated (as well as G. K's. own former writings) they would sufficiently prove us Orthodox, as to the four following points brought by the Bp. from G. K's. Third Narrative; however because the Bp. shall not have occasion to say, we pass them over, we will briefly consider them: (1st.) That they (i. e. the Quakers) deny Faith in Christ as he outwardly suffered at Jerusalem, as he risen again, ascended, and now sits at the right hand of God to be necessary to Salvation.  
Answ. If G. K. doth here mean that the Knowledge of the outward death and suffering of Jesus Christ, is so necessary to salvation, as without the knowledge of which all Men are damned and eternally lost; we answer, we dare not be so uncharitable as to conclude, that the many millions of Men, who are and have been in the World, and who never had, or heard of the outward history of the sufferings and death of Christ etc. are so damned, provided they yield obedience to the Spirit of God in themselves, and thereby from unholy become Holy Men.  
But if he mean with respect to the Quakers, and such who have had the knowledge of the outward history, as recorded in Holy Scriptures, we hold it absolutely necessary so to believe.  
(2ly.) That we deny Justification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed.  
Answ. To this head we have spoken before, and the Bp. himself hath allowed W. P. Orthodox in what is written in Gospel Truth, so we need say no more of this now.  
(3ly.) That we deny the Resurrection of the Body that dieth.  
If he mean the same Numerical Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, which we have here on Earth; we know not where he will find Scripture for that; But on the contrary, he may find the Apostle, 1 Cor. 15. 36. calling such curious Body Enquirers, Fools. Now as to us we fully own and truly believe the Resurrection of the Body, according to the Holy Scripture, but are not so nice and inquisitive as to inquire what sort of Body God will give us, leaving that to his Divine Will, who will give us such a Body as pleaseth him; and this is Scripture language and agreeable to, 1 Cor. 15. 36, 37, 38. and cited by W. P. in his Defence, against the Bp's. Testimony; in which Book he hath briefly, but fully asserted our Belief in this point, which we do not find the Bp. makes any return to in his Reply, (by which, as we take it, he tacitly allows him Orthodox therein) notwithstanding he now brings up this of G. K. against us.  
(4ly.) That we deny Christ's coming again without us in his glorified Body to judge the Quick and the Dead.  
Answ. This charge is false, because we own it in express words, and would G. K. with the rest of our Adversaries, let our plain words and Sense mean what they say, and import, there would be no room left for this malicious charge (as well as many others) for many of our Friends have very often, publicly in print asserted our Belief in this point, and W. P. in particular, whom I will cite on this occasion, (besides in other of his writings) hath fully owned the same in Primitive Christianity revived; which because we shall find his name presently mentioned in opposition to the Articles of the Creed, we will insert at large as it lies in that Book, P. 85. Jesus Christ took our nature upon him, and was like unto us in all things, sin excepted; that he was born of the Virgin Mary, and suffered under Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor, crucified, dead and buried, in the Sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea, risen again the third day, and ascended into Heaven, and fits on the right hand of God, in the power and Majesty of his Father, who will one day judge the World by him, Even that blessed Man Christ Jesus, according to their works.— We think we need not farther enlarge upon this point, then to say as we did before, the charge is wholly false.  
Ibid. (7.) The Bp. proceeds farther about G. K. thus; Nay the same person (i. e. G. K.) professes as the Bp. has seen under his hand, that he really thinks he can prove W. P. holds not one of the Articles of the Christian Creed sound and entirely, and that none ever more plainly oppugned the Doctrine of the Scriptures, than W. P. and his party, upon so close an evidence as this is; let the World judge, if the Bp. be unreasonable in demanding a better confession of Faith, then by mere Innuendo's as necessary to their being allowed Christians. Thus the Bp.  
Answ. That the Bp. has seen under G. K's. hand, we do believe, and it confirms what we heard, viz. That he had writ to the Bp. offering to supply the Bp. with some matters against W. P. and the Quakers, or at least against W. P. The use we make thereof is only to observe how restless and implacable that Man is, who will send over Sea and Land, where he does (tho' but vainly) hope to give a helping hand against the Quakers: But as to what G. K. really thinks he can prove against W. P. we must needs say, we think him very modest to what he used to be, in that he has not been more positive, in any charge against him or the Quakers, then really thinks, and it may be a certain indication to all impartial Men who have been acquainted with his unjust perverting and misrepresenting way of dealing by our Friends; that 'tis past his power by such his foul, way itself to prove W. P. denied any one of the Truths, contained in that Creed called the Apostles, much less that he did not hold one of them sound and entirely. And as to our oppugning the Doctrine of the Scriptures, as he says, what shall we say of such a Man as G. K's. thoughts of others, who (as it appears) knew not his own for so many Years; If he were to be measured by his now writing against those things he so many Years defended. In short a Malicious Adversary, and Apostate was never a good Evidence against the People he deserted, and such to be sure is G. K. against the Quakers. And should we ask the Bp. whether he will grant that a Deserter from, and an Enemy to, the Church of England is a good Evidence against that Church, we believe he would hardly allow it; with what reason then could the Bp. bring, G. K's. Evidence against the Quakers: And as to the Scriptures, we assert for the Quakers against either his really thinks, or other his more bold assertions, that no people in the World, doth more truly own the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures than they do: Now as to the Bp's. demanding a better Confession of Faith then by mere Innuendoes (by which we suppose he means Gospel Truths.) We answer him (as we did before) if he had been an impartial Reader as he pretended, and had esteemed that Paper too short expressed in some points, he would have searched R. B's. Apology, where he would have found most, if not all those Points, (besides others) largely and fully handled, before he would have so exposed us under a false disguise to the World, as he did in his Testimony.  
Ibid. (7.) (The Bp. tells us) Mr. Penn tells the World he and his Brethren receive all the Articles of the Creed (called the Apostles,) but this may be reckoned one of the good effects the Bp's. Paper has had to bring them to this acknowledgement.  
Answ. All things considered we think the Bp. has no reason to be highly conceited of his Paper; for what ever good opinion he has of it himself, we believe few, if any, impartial Men has the like; more especially such, who have read W. P's. Defence. If he could have told us and therewith proved W. P. and his Brethren had ever disbelieved the Truths contained in that Creed (which W. P. says we do believe) he might with more reason have told the World this, and we tell him, if he had read only some of the several Tracts of W. P's. in particular (not to mention many other of our Friends) he might have found him owning all the Truths contained in that Creed, called the Apostles, and in particular he cannot be ignorant of his owning the most essential, to wit, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (we think) as fully expressed in some parts, and more fully in others then in that Creed, even in that serious Apology. (p. 149.) before observed, which lay before him, if he had never read any other of his Works.  
Ibid. (7.) Now the Bp. gins to forsake the road and instead of regularly answering page by page, he fetches a large step (in his next charge) from (p. 30. to 104.) then backwards, other times forwards, then here, then there, and sometimes no page at all; for which let us hear the Bp's. reason, or rather his pretence he gives us for so doing. (p. 7.) It would be (says he) as endless as needless, and besides would swell this Paper to too great a Bulk to follow Mr. P. page by page to the end, replying to all his little Cavils and poor Evasions: A more compendious way, (saith the Bp.) therefore must be taken, which shall be (first) by reducing Mr. P's. Answers and Arguments to some common Heads or Figures of Speech, which he uses, so contemptible in themselves, as that the instances of them are answered by being shown. And (2ly) by singling out the more material points, wherein Mr. P. enlarges, and setting them in their true light. Thus the Bp.  
Answ. We confess the Bp. hath not only found out a more compendious, but also a new way to answer his Opponent; for in stead of answering W. P's. Answers and Arguments in order, as they lay in his Defence, (like a fair Disputant,) he undertakes to reduce them to some common heads or figures of Speech, and single out (as he says) the more material points, etc. No doubt the Bp. understood what he did, for by so doing he could the better drop the weight and force of W. P's. Arguments and pass over those points, which pinched him most, and what he found too hard for him to answer, under the Title of little Cavils and poor Evasions, contemptible in themselves; 'tis more than probable the Bp. will come under this Censure, and that this unusual way of dealing with an Opponent, will be accounted (by fair Disputants) but a poor Evasion in himself, especially if it be remembered, how the Bp. hath already given us an instance of the like kind, in passing over three or four pages of W. P's. Defence (in which W. P. enumerated several instances, and charged the Bp. with unfair and abusive dealing by us) with saying only, to omit things less material; See (. p. 9) Thus, Reader, having given thee this item we desire thy serious perusal of W. P's. Defence, with the Bp's. Reply, and thy Judgement is free, whether so great a part of that Book, which lies unanswered by the Bp's. taking such a compendious way, is so poor, little, and contemptible as the Bp. would make it. We now come to consider the several heads or figures of Speech, the Bp. in his way has reduced W. P's. Arguments to.  
Ibid. (7.) Manifest Impieties (saith the Bp.) are, 1st. His falsifying the Sense of Scripture, and then the words of it so plainly, that he cannot well seem insensible of it himself; thus, Whereas our Lord said, John 3. 20. Every one that doth evil hateth the Light, neither cometh to the Light, lest his Deeds should be reproved: (which passage to make look favourable to his purpose) he corrupts the 21. Verse. And reads it thus, He that Loves the Light, brings his deeds to the Light, to see if they are wrought in God: Whereas the plain meaning of the Text is no more, than they that do evil, seek to be hid (1 Thes. 5. 7. They that are drunken, are drunken in the Night) they who do well fear not to be seen; to which Sense every Nation hath Proverbs.— With us Truth seeks no corners, with many more like. Thus the Bp.  
Answ. To falsify the sense of Scripture knowingly and with design, is no doubt great Impiety; but for the Bp. to tax W. P. as he hath done in the present Case, is very Uncharitable, if not Worse.  
Now the Impiety, Falsifying, and Corrupting, (which the Bp. would Unjustly sasten upon W. P.) consists only in saying Loves the Light, in stead of doth Truth: Pray, Reader, turn to W. P'S s. Defence (p. 115.) and there thou wilt find W. P's. intent was to show, that the Light of Christ was to be judge of the deeds of Men, which these two Texts do plainly prove from Christ's own Words. Now let us see what W. P. could gain by this alteration, which must be his end, if true as the Bp. says (to make look favourable to his purpose) W. P. says, Loves the Light, and the Scriptures, doth Truth; Now Vers. 20. says, every one that doth evil hateth the Light, neither cometh to the Light, lest his deeds should be reproved: Surely then he that brings his deeds to the Light (as the doer of Truth did) must certainly be a lover of the Light; So than he that doth truth loves the Light, and he that loves the Light doth Truth, where then is the falsifying the sense of Scripture; Nay rather, if there be any difference, (we think) W. P. had the disadvantage, for tho' they do not differ in sense, yet, we think, the words [Doth Truth] would rather have been more Emphetical in that place then the words [Loves the Light;] Certainly had the Bp. been such a Reader, as he promised in his Testimony, he would not, for this difference, have made W. P. guilty of falsifying the sense of Scripture, and to aggravate the matter, adds impiety and corruption; but on the other hand rather have concluded, that either the Transcriber missed, or W. P's. mind ran with the sense, and consequence of the foregoing Verse, which we believe was the Bp's. own case, in his Reply, where in (p. 17.) he says Matt. 4. 11. which should be Matt. 3. 11. Again (p. 22.) he citys, 1 Cor. 11. and so proceeds upon several verses from that Chapter when we believe he intended 1 Cor. Chap. 2.  
But did the Bp. consider while he thus vilifyed W. P. for the variation of some words, which no way altered the sense, that his high charge of Impiety would extend farther and strike higher than he was ware of, or we believe would be willing it should; for not only Moses in writing the Decalogue in Deu. 5. varies from the express terms, wherein 'twas delivered in Exod. the 20. but the Apostles often, yea and our Lord himself in reciting places of Scriptures out of the old Testament vary in our common Translations from the verbal expressions of the Scriptures they recite, and give the Sense in other words. Numerous Instances could be given, which for brevity we omit, and will mention but one, and refer to a few more: (thus), Have ye never read (saith Christ in Matt. 21. 16.) Out of the mouth of Babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise; which words are referred in the Margin to Psal. 8. 2. Out of the mouth of Babes and Sucklings hast thou ordained strength. Then Matt. 11. compared with Mal. 3. 1. Again, Matt. 13. 14, 15. compared with Isa. 6. 9, 10. Again Rom. 10. vers. 11. compared with Isa. 28. 16. Not to spend more time we refer the Reader to the Scriptures, where he will find, a multitude of Texts which in our English Translation vary in express words, but agree in sense. If these Instances do not convince the Bp. they may a more equal Reader, that in taxing W. P. with manifest Impiety for giving some words of that Text John 3. 21. in other words then the Translation has it, while the Sense was no way altered; he hath therein manifested his great uncharitablness and disingenuity. But before we end we must tell the Bp. if W. P. was guilty of falsifying the sense of Scripture (which we do not allow) he is much more in putting such gross and carnal meanings upon the words of Jesus Christ, John 3. 20, 21. for whereas Christ doth there make the Light the judge and tryer of good and bad deeds, in manifesting the good and reproving the bad, which no other Light can do but the light of his own Spirit; and which appears plainly from the Context, see the foregoing 16, 17, 18, 19 Verses Which light lighteth every Man and shines in the heart, according to John 1. 4. 9 2 Cor. 4. 6. Contrarily the Bp. will have the meaning of these two Texts like unto proverbial say and therewith compares, 1 Thes. 5. 7. But what if this Text were allowed a proverbial Speech, what would this do for the Bp. as it would not be a parallel to John 3. 20, 21. so neither do we think 'twill answer the Bp's. turn, while 'tis plain the 5. Vers. compared with Thes. Verse 7. makes it a Spiritual Night, and the Bp. opposes, John 3. 20, 21. to a Spiritual Light, if we understand his meaning, by comparing those Texts to proverbial say. But the Bp. has made a great noise of W. P's. falsifying the sense of the Scripture about those two Texts (when we think 'tis plain, it lies at his own door) and yet at the same time passeth over several Scripture Texts advanced by W. P. in that same place, to prove that this divine Light or Illumination of the holy Spirit is a rule to believing Christians, and that it, with the holy Scriptures, is the double and agreeing Record of true Religion, and particularly citys John 14. 15, 16. Chap. Gal. 6. 15. 16. 1 John 2. 20, 27. Rom. Chap. 8. all which Scriptures the Bp. passeth over in silence as he doth W. P. telling him those words, John 3. 20, 21. were spoken by Christ before the New Testament was in being, and therefore a rule and judge of the Life and Deeds of Men. And tho' W. P. by way of Interrogation doth thereupon ask, What says the Bp. to this? Yet no answer from the Bp. about their being so spoken, but at the same time taxes W. P. with falsifying the sense of Eph. 5. 11, 12, 13. a Text not there mentioned by W. P. nor doth the Bp. refer us to any other place where we shall find it. Thus, Reader, see the Bp's continued unfair dealing, and to this we may add another instance of like nature out of W. P's. Defence (p. 52.) where he tells us the Bp. (did to himself in Cork) read, John 1. 9 otherwise then it is rendered in our versions, and that all the Translators, Critics and Comentators render that verse about the Light as we do, except the followers of Socinus: Yet the Bp. passeth it over in Silence.— But no more of this now; we proceed to the Bp's. second head of Impiety.  
(P. 8.) Says the Bp. his (meaning W. P's.) reproaching the holy Spirit in the Apostles as to what they taught.— Thus when he had no other way to answer the Bp's. Arguments for the Divine Authority of Baptism by water, taken from Acts 10. 47, 48. he says plainly, in all which Peter seems more concerned to save his own Credit, then to recommend or establish Water Baptism.  
Answ. Reader, (1st.) We refer thee to W. P's. Defence, and there see in 17. pages from 75. to 92. whether he hath no other way to answer the Bp. about the Divine Authority of Water Baptism; and whether on the other hand the Bp. hath not said very little to all the Arguments W. P. hath there advanced against it. And (2ly.) see where W. P. doth reproach the holy Spirit in the Apostles, for we deny it and say it is a false charge as well as a very uncharitable suggestion: for by the same rule the Bp. may as well say, the Apostle Paul reproached the holy Spirit in Peter, because he blamed him thus, Gal. 2. 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Nay in the 13. Vers. terms it dissimulation. Paul here only blames Peter and not the holy Spirit, in a case where 'twas plain he was willing to save his Credit, we mean his Christian Credit, and Reputation as an Apostle. And as to W. P. he is so far from reproaching the holy Spirit, or blaming of Peter, that he only saith, Peter seems more concerned to save his own Credit, etc. then to recommend or establish Water Baptism. W. P. by the words [own credit] intended Peter's Christian Reputation and Credit as an Apostle and Minister of Christ, which he behoved to save as much as in him lay, without offending the Jewish Zealots on the one hand, or the Converted Gentiles, on the other: And thus we find Paul himself did, Acts. 21. while he underwent legal (but abolished) Purifications by persuasion of others; and because the Jewish Zealot's might not take offence at him and his Doctrine, and so slight or reject his Ministry. Thus W. P. in. (p. 90.) discourses about Peter, showing that the reason of Peter's saying, Acts 10. 47, 48. can any Man forbidden water, was the narrowness of his Country men's Spirits, lest his latitude to the Gentiles might distaste them; But the Bp. according to his usual way of leaving and taking what he pleased in his compendious way, has picked out what he hoped to make some advantage of against W. P. Therefore, kind Reader, be pleased to see that page at large, where it will very plainly appear, W. P. intended no other, then that Peter seemed more concerned to save his Credit as an Apostle and Minister of Jesus Christ, then to recommend or establish Water Baptism (as people do in our days); while 'tis plain from Peter's own words afterwards, that he excludes it from having any part in Man's Salvation, by saying this, 1 Pet. 3. 21. The like figure whereunto even Baptism doth now also save us, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, [which Elementary Water only doth] But the answer of a good Conscience towards God, etc. Now, Reader, judge whether Peter, or the holy Spirit in him, doth hereby teach, recommend or establish, a divine Authority for Water Baptism, as the Bp. suggests. The Bp. ends this Paragraph thus; These for a taste, single instances under each head must suffice: And say we they are a taste, but 'tis of the Bp's. great unfairness to represent W. P. wrong (rather than of W P's. impiety) of which we have had many tastes before, besides more that follows.  
The Bp. goes on, P. 8. thus, Manifold arts of uncharitableness and disingenuity, the Bp. accounts these that follow; (1st.) Calumnious and Spiteful Insinuations, that he, the Bp. believes not the Thirty nine Arlicles.  
Answ. A high charge for an imaginary crime, and whether W. P. be guilty or not let the Reader judge by what follows: W. P. in his Defence (p. 33.) there asserts, That no Text in all the Scripture is so full and plain to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity as 1 John 4. 7. which the Bp. had faulted with shortness; in answer to which W. P. says conditionaly thus. [I think is a bold attempt if he believes the Thirty Nine Articles.] This, Reader, is the ground of that high Charge of Spite and Calumny.  
Again the Bp's False Imputations; he downright charges the Bp. with Levity and Scorn, as to the Language, Thee and Thou.  
Answ. The Bp's. Testimony as to the point runs thus. Would it not make a man's stomach turn, etc. We ask what is this less than Levity and Scorn thus to treat a People (especially without distinction) that are conscientious in using the Scripture language of Thee and Thou to a single person, and for which many of them have been great sufferers; but as to the use of that Language W. P. hath defended it by Arguments, which are unanswered by the Bp. in his Reply, tho' he has again made reflections, which in their place we shall take notice of.  
P. 9 The Bp. spends mostly to vindicate himself, and charging W. P. with false Imputations, etc. For W. P's. saying the Bp. in his Testimony, judged and censured the Quakers, which tho' the Bp. still denies, yet that he so did, and that W. P's. charge was true. Observe Reader what follows: Thus in his Testimony, he tells us, We are short and defective in that Confession, viz. (Gospel Truths) to denominate us Christians, makes us deluded, by judging of us under strong delusions; then with relation to our belief of the Light of Christ within (so often repeated in holy Scripture) he saith thus, For any persons to yield themselves to such conduct, (besides or against holy Scripture) is plainly to abandon themselves to the delusions of the Devil. Again saith the Bp. As you will answer all your secret arts and high pretensions, etc. Again, I will not (says the Bp. here interpose making gain your godliness. These with more, as to Spiritual matters in that Testimony; Now as to Temporals, which he would insinuate we make Religion a cloak for, (which we affirm as W. P. hath said to be the worst construction, the most irreligious could make) Is it not (saith the Bp.) your main end and study by Pretended Mortifications, and Renouncing the World, while there are no sort of Men alive, that more eagerly pursue it, nor have more effectual wily and secret ways of getting wealth than yourselves, etc. Mind, Reader, our Mortifications pretended, and his positive assertion of us, There are no sort of Men, etc. These with much more from the Bp. in that Paper; and after all tells us, He does neither judge nor censure us, and charges W. P. at a great rate for telling him he does, nay prays for him upon it thus, God give Mr. Penn more charity and reason, etc. — He does not know, or will not attend, what judging as it means censoriousness is, etc. And at the same time as a confirmation of his Testimony adds a new: Now in his Reply. (p. 1.) Our slight, cunning craftiness, lying in wait to deceive, etc. And likewise (p. 9) we are now upon, charges us again as above with wily and secret ways of getting wealth, etc. Again (p. 21.) thus. If minding worldly gain, and being so intent upon it day and night, as to pass most days in the week without prayer to God, either in public Assemblies or private Families; if the slyest ways both to get money and to keep it, be worldlyness, he knows no sort of people more given to these vices than the Quakers.  
Answ. Candid Reader, we now refer it to thee in what we have above cited, out of the Bp's. Testimony, whether the Bp. did judge and censure us or not; And while he tells W. P. he doth not know, what Judging and Censoriousness means, we would said know, what sort of Language it is, he would give the Quakers, that he will allow to be Censuring of us.— He has charged us in his Testimony at a great rate about our secret and wily ways of getting wealth, and has endeavoured to confirm the same now in his Reply, as above cited, which we brought together to the end we might not be troubled with answering in several places to one and the same Charge: Now to this (to use the Bp's. own Phrase) Scurrilous, Unchristian, and general charge without proof. We answer, As it is far from modesty, (which he applies to the title of his Reply) so it is also a contradiction to himself in his Testimony where he told us thus, I look upon many of you as an honest and well meaning people. Now to be sure such secret and wily ways of getting, etc. as he hath charged upon us in his Testimony, and now again in his Reply, with minding it to such a degree as to neglect prayer to God, etc. is inconsistent with harmlessness, well meaning, and honesty: To be short upon this point; we appeal from the Bp. our partial Judge, to our impartial Neighbours, who know and are better acquainted with out way of dealing than he; And now may we not with much more reason, return his charge of worldliness upon himself, and that not without proof, as he has done by us: what else made him leave his old Bishopric and Friends of Cork for a new one, and strangers in the North of Ireland, was it not because the latter was worth some hundreds per annum more than the former? and could he have assigned so plain a proof as this (of our making Gain Godliness, as he suggests of us in his Testimony) he might with more reason, and greater justice, have reiterated his charge of worldliness upon us as he has done. But to proceed,  
Ibid. (P. 9) Says the Bp. against W. P's. Sly Jeers, I would have my Reader reflect on this, tho' he were as big as a Bp.  
Answ. Reader, look W. P's. Defence: p. 33. second Impression, from whence the Bp. took this; there see W. P. requests any Reader (though in as great a Quality as a Bp.) to reflect upon that great and Essential Truth of Regeneration; but with what Candour could the Bp. make this a fault in W. P, and at the same time be guilty of much greater himself, viz. plain and open Jeering, such as calling W. P. King of Pensilvania, insinuating him in the number of great men of Sin, reproaching and jeering him with a spirit of discerning in a case that related to matter of fact, and provable as we have before observed: But the Bp. adds, No Bp. in these three kingdoms has the big and Scornful look and deportment of Mr. P. especially when he is in the humour of it.  
Answ. Is this to suspend Censure, here is a harsh charge, and as he has not, so he will never be able to prove it: As, 1st. we question whether the Bp. was ever in W. P's. company above two or three times, and if his prejudice to him made him think he had so big and scornful a look and deportment, (which those who have conversed frequently with him never saw) Yet (2ly.) it is very improbable he ever saw all the Bp's. in these three Kingdoms: But supposing he did, we are sure 'tis as impossible as unlikely he could be sure none of them had so big a look, etc. as W. P. since he could not be always with them, and consequently not know, how big, etc. they looked at absent times, especially when they were in the Humour of it.— But to go on to more Jeers, (as the Bp. terms them of W. P.) says the Bp. of W. P. the Bp's hell.— He keeps the true hell to himself (God deliver Mr. P. from it?) So say we of the Bp. and to be sure W. P. too? But with what reason could the Bp. make this a Jeer look, Reader, in W. P's. Defence? p. 44. where W. P. enumerateth after the Bp's. Testimony what Gospel Truths could mean of Hell, viz. whether the Grave, a place of Temporal Punishment after this life, or a state of total Destruction, etc.— whereupon W. P. argues thus, What if we mean none of these, may we not be in the right for all that? for what if none of these are the ancient common and Scripture belief, what will the Bp. do then? one would think one of them is the Bp's Hell, and either one of these is an Article of his Belief, or else he keeps the true hell to himself, and was not so just as to include that in the question with the rest, etc.  
We have been the larger in this quotation to show how ready the Bp. is to take an advantage against W. P. when he had really none. 'Tis plain W. P. meant (By the Bp's hell,) that Notion which he received and holds of it; and by the words (keeps the true Hell to himself,) he withholds and keeps back his own Notion and Opinion of the True hell, and does not express it among the other Notions he gave of it, so keeps it to himself, not for himself.— But the Bp. goes on:  
P: 10:) How could the Bp. more clearly have expressed Hell, then by the eternity of Torments, the Term there used by the Bp. and declined by Mr: P. and his brethren.  
Answ. Remember, Reader, the Bp. would not allow W. P's. implication of Faith for a profession of Faith, tho' he'll take it himself; 'tis true he mentions everlasting punishment of wicked men, but 'tis by way of Objection against Gospel Truths, and not laid down by the Bp. as an Article of Faith; But how has W. P. and his Brethren declined that term, while they acknowledge Everlasting Rewards to those who fear God, and that those who feared him not should be turned into Hell? which doth imply Eternity of Torments, according to the common acceptation, and received opinion of most Christians, as well as ourselves: But we must needs say, we could much easier pass by this Objection in another, then in the Bp. because W. P. has owned Eternal Rewards and Punishments in express words in the Rise and Progress of the Quakers. (P. 38.) as we have before observed (which Book the Bp. had so lately in his pocket:) But we think the reason is plain, for want of occasion he will rather make then want one against the Quakers.  
Ibid. (P: 10) The Bp. charges W. P. with wilfully false constructions of and overlooking the Bp's. Sense, Tergiversations, shifting, pitiful Evasions; for instance, the Bp. had said they do not in their Paper own the Son of God to be so much as Jesus (the great Saviour who delivereth from the wrath to come) or the Christ, etc. (But says the Bp.) Mr. P. answers, they several times call him Christ and admires at the Bp's. palpable mistake; (and goes on) does W. P. then know no difference between Christ, and the Christ, betwixt calling a Person by his Name, and acknowledging his Authority, Office and Benefits? Thus the Bp.  
Answ. Suppose W. P. had only named him Christ, the Bp. may know, if he doth not already, that Christ is not strictly a proper name, but an apellative; it denotes the Anointed, the Messiah, and applicable to none besides Christ, a name not given him by his kindred or the Jews, read Mat. 2. 4. Chap. 16. 16. Mark 12. 35. Luke 4. 41. Chap. 24. 26. 46. Joh. 4. 25. Chap. 7. 26. 27, 31, 41, 42. Chap. 9 22. Chap. 12. 34. In these with many other places of Scripture, 'twil plainly appear, that it would be incongruous to understand the name Christ otherwise then as an apellative, deciphering his Office and Qualification, viz. the promised Messiah; and not a proper name, which Jesus was, and common to him with others, but none was Christ but himself, so that the very naming the Word Christ implies the anointed Saviour and Redeemer, the Messiah that was promised and came from God. But farther, What can be more unfair and trifling then this of the Bp. thus to charge W. P. For first Gospel Truths, besides calling him Christ no less than Nine times, doth own several of Christ's Offices proper only to the Christ. (If there were any room, as there is not for the Bp. to suggest W. P. could possibly mean any other than the Christ of God) and particularly, besides others, that he is the Propitiation for the remission of Sins, and Justifyer from the guilt of Sin: and besides, that Paper hath several references to Scriptures concerning the Christ. And now as to W. P's. Defence, pray, Reader, see from (p. 34. to. 39) where W. P. fully again owns the Christ, and Jesus Christ, the Word made Flesh, the beloved Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, etc. And yet for all this the Bp. is so unfair, as to continue this Objection, and pick out words from W. P's. Defence to suit his turn, leaving out what explains them, but thereby his charge upon W. P. must fall upon himself, viz. pitiful shifting Evasions, with wilfully overlooking his Sense; certainly if this be fair dealing, we are to learn what it means. But to the next,  
(P. 10.) The Bp. goes on thus, Again the Bp. requires them to embrace & profess the entire Christian Faith in the points wherein he has shown them defective, that is, as he proved in above two thirds of the Creed. W. P. (says the Bp.) Answers it would have become the Bp. to have told them what he would have them believe, could the Bp. have spoke plainer than he does when he names the Articles of the Creed, which Mr. P. says he holds, therefore knows. Thus the Bp.  
Answ. The Bp. who cried out against shortness and imperfection ought not to have been guilty thereof himself, for we can find no such words in his Testimony, as Creed or Articles of the Creed; but perhaps he'll say they are implied (a thing he will not allow in W. P.) when he says thus in his Testimony, There is not One Article of our common Twelve you have owned entirely, and Eight if not more of them you have totally suppressed or waved.  
If this be not what the Bp. means by the Creed, we cannot find another like it to his purpose in all his Paper. But W. P. says he holds the Creed, therefore knows it, does he so? and the Bp's. Conscience, (we think) must know W. P. and the Quakers owned Articles of Faith more largely worded then in that brief Paper, since he had R. B's. Apology, and the Rise and Progress of the Quakers: And therefore why should the Bp. censure, and raise objections to such Articles. But now suppose W. P. should guests at what the Bp. meant by the common Twelve; we suppose the Bp. will not say that Testimony was calculated only for W. P. but the Quakers in general, (as well as others); why then might not W. P. with a great deal of reason tell the Bp. it became him to be more explicit, since no doubt, many thousands of People besides the Quakers did not understand what the Bp. meant by the common Twelve, and therefore the Bp. who would almost unchristian the Quakers, for not being more expressive, upon the Articles of the Creed, ought not to have been so short himself, but according to his Censuring the Quakers, instead of saying common Twelve, he should have made the Creed into distinct Articles, and laid them down for us. But leaving this we proceed to the next.  
(Ibid. 10.) Inconsequent and trifling inferences, (says the Bp. of W. P.) such are p. 31. we call him the beloved Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, therefore conceived of the holy Ghost; Mr. P. knows Solomon was named Jedediah [the Lords beloved.] David said to be his begotten Son, Psal. 2. his first born. Psal. 89. 27. Yet neither conceived of the holy Ghost, nor born of a Virgin. Thus the Bp.  
Answ. Certainly we believe hardly ever came more trifling 〈◊〉 matters (to speak in his way) from a Man in the station of a Bp. Be pleased, Reader, to read W. Ps '. Defence (from, p. 35. to 39) where he answers the Bp. fully upon this point of the manifestation of Christ Jesus in the flesh, and shows plainly, that altho' the words [conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin] be not expressed in that brief Paper Gospel Truths, yet they are very fully implied; and take but the above words, which the Bp. has picked out of the Defence, and they imply no less; for who was the beloved Son of God and only begotten of the Father, according to John 1. 14. Chap. 3. 16. but Jesus Christ that was born of the Virgin: But says the Bp. Solomon was named Jedediah the Lords beloved, what then, so was Daniel a Man greatly beloved of the Lord, and many other servants of God too. But where was any of them called the Word made Flesh, the only begotten of the Father, full of Grace and Truth, his beloved Son, in whom he was well pleased, who tasted death for every Man, his office of Justification, a Propitiation, named Jesus Christ, with all this and more of the same kind, in Gospel Truths, and again repeated by W. P. in his Defence. And now for the Bp. a second time to suggest such trifling 〈◊〉 things we should tell him it looks like trifling for trifle's sake, did we not find some of it worse; and indeed it looks as if the Bp. would falsify the sense of Scripture, rather than want proof to make W. P. guilty of trifling and inconsequent Inferences; thus he has cited Psal. 2. and Psal. 89. 27. to make the Scripture serve his turn against W. P. whereas 'tis undeniable, what is said in the second Psal. is spoken of Christ himself, which is fully confirmed in the New Testament in these words, Acts 13: 33. God hath raised up Jesus again, as it is written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee: Then as to Psal. 89. 27. is it not very plain David doth there personate Christ; it runs thus, Also I will make him my first born higher than the Kings of the Earth. We will not enlarge on the matter, only add, that if the Bp. could have proved such gross falsifying the plain sense of Scripture as this, we should (no doubt) have heard of it very loudly, while the Bp. made so much ado about two words which altered not the sense, as we have before shown. But no more of this now.  
Ibid. 10. The Bp. quotes W. P. for another trifling instance. — He that confesseth him made flesh, confesseth him made flesh by God, and therefore made holy flesh; does not all the World know (says the Bp.) that all flesh is made by God, and do we hence conclude all flesh is holy, or conceived by the holy Ghost, many more may be instanced.  
Answ. Here's Instances enough already and more than are consistant with the Bp's. Credit, (as we have shown) and truly (we think) as little to the purpose as most Men ever wrote, and indeed, we do begrudg the time we spend in answering such trifling (if some of it be not unjust) matter, were it not for the sake of Truth, and for those who may think there is more in the Bp's. Arguments, then really there is; and had we at first only referred the Reader to W. P's. Defence for answer to all these trifling Instances, it would have fully answered them, and so fully too, that we must take W. P's. own words to answer the Bp. again, because the Bp. hath so unfairly picked out such as he hoped to make some advantage of; and not only so, but in this instance hath put in a word of his own, and left out three of W. P's. without which he could not have made good his charge against W. P. And to show that he hath so done, we here give W. P's. own words, as they lie in his Defence. p. 34. Thus. W. P. He that confesses the word was made flesh, confesses him made flesh by God, and therefore made holy flesh, which is found Doctrine, and agrees with John 1. 14. The word was made flesh and dwelled among us, etc. Now instead of these words [the Word was] the Bp. has only put in the Word [him] Again had not the Bp. so unfairly left out three of W. P's. words, the distinction between Christ's flesh and all other flesh, was plainly and fully employed by saying the Word was made flesh; for who was the word made flesh, but Christ the beloved Son of God, and only begotten of the Father, and so W. P. called him, but four lines before; surely one would think, here was distinction enough, between Christ's flesh, which was conceived by the holy Ghost, and all other sinful flesh, to satisfy any, who had not a mind to Cavil or trifle for triflings sake. Now, Reader, judge in the matter; Did the Bp. deal justly with W. P. in thus doing by him, to answer his unfair purposes? but 'tis no news for the Quakers to be thus abused and misrepresented by their Adversaries, as we noted in the beginning. And now to the Bp. What is become of his trifling, and inconsequent inferences? where is wilfully false overlooking the plain Sense? where is manifold arts of uncharitabelness and disingenuity? where is the falsifying and perverting plain sense of Scripture, and consequently impiety, and corruption, we leave it with the candid Reader, who they are fallen upon, whether the Bp. or W. P. And so we proceed.  
Ibid. 10. Saith the Bp. of W. P. Contemptious and scornful Language such is that reflection a weak head— Which, Reader, observe W. P. alluded to himself, in relation to the Bp's. Arguments, in case his instances were no better to the purpose then the Bp's. upon that expression of the Bp's. stomach turning, we will not call the Bp. a weak head, but we are sure, we should think our Arguments weak, were they no more to the purpose, than the Bp's. are, in what's past; but in regard the Bp. did not answer W. P's. Arguments about the Language Thee and Thou to a single person, they remain yet in force against the Bp. And as to his Reflections on our conscientious using that Language, calling it a wicked kind of weakness, together with an abuse of Religion, not to be endured, expressions (highly savouring of scorn and contempt) we pass by as the effect of too much warmth.  
P. 11. The Bp. tells us, that W. P's. Censures of him savours of nothing but the height of Spiritual pride and uncharitableness, as that the Bp. feels no share in Christ the glorious light of Men, that he wants acquaintance with the Spirit of God in his Worship.  
Answ. This Reflection of Spiritual pride and uncharitableness upon W. P. we will pass by here, and refer the Reader to what follows; to judge whether it will not thence appear true what W. P. hath said of him. And (1st.) we begin with what the Bp. says of the Light within, being one of the main points (as he tells us) that threatens doing hurt in W. P's. whole Defence. And thus the Bp. gins.  
Ibid. 11. The Bp. did say, and stands to it, he knows not what to make of the Quakers Light within.  
Then say we, W. P's. opinion of the Bp's. feeling no share therein must be true; nor will his calling of it the Quakers Light serve his turn, since the Quakers never called it their Light, nor owned any Other Light then the Light of Christ for their guide, and which the Scriptures so abundantly testify unto, and W. P. hath very plainly and fully shown. But the Bp. goes on,  
But as to the True Divine Light or the holy Ghost convincing people, by the holy Scripture applied to Conscience, of Sin, of Righteousness and of Judgement to come, the Bp. acknowledges it and blesseth God for his share thereof.  
Answ. As we said before we never meant any other, than the true Divine Light or holy Ghost, which we say, doth inwardly convince of Sin, reproves for it and by the discovery of which we savingly come to know the things of God, and is the principal agent and foundation of our conviction, and by which the holy Scriptures are made beneficial unto us: If the Bp. mean thus by the above words we agree, but if he mean (as his words seem to us to import) that the Scripture is the first Agent, and by which, as the cause we are convinced by the Light or Spirit, we must descent from the Bp. herein, and that the Bp's. meaning is such, we are the more confirmed therein, by what he saith in. (p. 23.) viz. that people are now made holy by the use of outward means. That this Doctrine is repugnanr to Scripture we shall plainly show in its place; we only brought it here to compare and explain what the Bp. means by the convictions of the Light and Spirit. Now to the above Argument; the Quakers do say, and the Scriptures do abundantly prove, that it is by the holy Light and Spirit of Christ within, by which as the first principal Cause and Agent we come savingly to believe, and know the things of God; to which purpose we could cite a multitude of Scriptures, but for brevity let these few suffice; Rom. 1. 19 That which may be known of God is manifest in them, God hath showed it unto them. 2 Cor. 4. 6. God who commanded light to shine out of darkness hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the Glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. John 1. 4. In him (viz. Christ) was life and that life was the light of Men. Vers. 9 He (viz. Christ) was the true Light, which lighteth every Man that cometh into the World. Again, 1 Cor. 2. 10, 11, 12. But God hath revealed them, (viz. the things of God) unto us by his Spirit, for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God, even so the things of God knoweth no Man but the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the Spirit of the World, but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given us of God. Again, 1 John 2. 27. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any Man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things. Again even to the wicked Pharisees, the worst of Christ's Enemies, he said, Luke 17. 21. Behold the Kingdom of heaven is within you. Then Rom. 8. 2, 11, 14, 16. 1 Cor. 3. 16. Eph. 4. 6. 1 John 5. 10 These Texts (besides many more we could cite) do sufficiently prove our point that it is by the Light and Spirit of God inwardly manifested, by which as the first and principal means we come to have a sight of Sin and be convinced of it, and while the Bp. says 'tis by the use of outward means people are made holy as in (p. 23.) we are (we think) by the same rule to understand he means they are to be convinced of Sin, Righteousness and of Judgement; If he thus intends 'tis worthy his consideration how contrary his Assertion is to the Scriptures we have cited, and whether he has that share in the Divine Light and Spirit of Christ as he pretends to: But that we may not be misunderstood, as if we went about to undervalue the Holy Scriptures, far be it from us, for we do declare for ourselves, and the People called Quakers in general, that we Love, Honour, and Esteem them above and beyond all the Books and Writings in the whole World, and are thankful to the Lord for their preservation, as having found great comfort and benefit by them, through the illumination of the holy Spirit, and believe them to be, whatsoever they say of themselves according to these or any other Scriptures, Rom. 15. 4. 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16, 17. We shall not be altogether so full as to the Scriptures here as we might, in regard we shall have farther occasion hereafter, where we shall be more full upon this head; Yet here may be a fit place, to answer the Bp's. demand (p. 13.) viz. What is become of Mr. P's. Double Record. We answer, here it is, the Light, Grace, and Spirit of God, by its illumination giving us the experimental knowledge of the things of God within (as we have shown) is one; agreeing with and opening to us the Mysteries of the Holy Scriptures (without) which is the other: And thus the Apostles made the Scriptures of the Old Testament an agreeing Record with the openings and the illuminations of the holy Ghost in them, while they cited numerous Texts and portions of Scripture out of the Old Testament as an agreeing record, to what they immediately delivered by the Revelation of the Spirit; this (we think) is sufficient to make good W. P's. assertion, that the Light and holy Spirit within, and the Scriptures without, are the Double and agreeing Record of true Religion.  
(Ibid. 11.) The Bp. goes on vilifying W. P. about the Light within, (to pass by his twitting of him about his Learning) saying thus, He (i. e. the Bp. himself) had made four the most rational constructions and conjectures he could devise of what they (the Quakers) should mean thereby (p. 12.) Mr. P. rejects all with scorn and vile insinuations.  
Answ. Reader, be pleased to see W. P's. Defence from p. 52. to 65. and whether what the Bp. saith be true or not. And since the Bp. hath not answered W. P's. Arguments, but with reproachful words, breaking through and overlooking most of the many Scripture proofs brought by W. P. to demonstrate what he and the Quakers meant by the Light and Spirit of Christ within. We say since the Bp. hath so done, both W. P's. Arguments and such Scripture proofs lie at his door, together with those we have added as a farther proof and demonstration of what we mean by the Light and Spirit of Christ within, (not here to mention our own experience of the virtue and efficacy thereof with the Blessed Effects which to the Glory and Praise of God, we have found thereby) so that if after all that has been said, the Bp. shall still declare his ignorance of what the Quakers mean, by the Light within, 'tis but too evident a proof of the little share he has in or acquaintance with it.  
(P. 12. 13.) The Bp. brings in R. Barclay for a share, reproaching him also with Banter and Cant about the Light within; in reading which we could not without noted observation remember how ignorant the Bp. made himself in his Testimony concerning the Quakers Principles, and how ready he was to charge, and almost unchristian them for the brevity of Gospel Truths, notwithstanding he had R. B's. Apology which fully handled some of those very points, he pretended to make a new discovery of, and condemned in that Paper, as being short expressed: Yet now from the same Book, he can nicely pick words here and there, some of them many pages distant and put them together, in expectation (by abusing R. B's. sense and making false constructions) to serve his turn against the Quakers.  
He tells us p. 12. No rational Man alive can make sense of what he [R. B.] has writ thereon (i. e. Light within.)  
Answ. The Bp. is here a great undertaker whilst (1st.) 'tis impossible for him to be sure, all the rational Men alive, who have (or may read) R. B's. Apology on that subject, are of the same mind with him. (2ly.) We tell him, another Man's affirmative may be as good as his negative; and not to mention the most rational Men, there are as rational Men as the Bp. (not to lessen him) who can make sense of what R. B. has writ. But we the less wonder the Bp. should not understand what R. B. and others have said of the Light within, since he appears, so unexperienced about Spiritual matters, as to Revile R. B. with being unintelligible, and guilty of Banter, not only concerning the Light, but about Spiritual senses plainly provable by Scripture, as we shall anon evince; and in the mean time we shall consider the Bp's. next and greatest charge in this page against R. B. which is as he says for perverting Scripture and adding a new term (as he calls it) namely the word [Light [to the Text, John. 3. 16. that he may (says the Bp.) prove Christ as a Light given to all. And yet at the same time, he picks out this word, he takes no notice of the Multitude of Scriptures, which R. B. has cited to prove the sufficiency and universality of the Light; only he tells us he (R. B.) misapplies two or three Texts to prove this Light universal, but not a word how or wherein. But to the word [Light] 'tis so plain on R. B's. side, as having no such perverting intention, that we cannot believe but the Bp's. Conscience must know he wronged R. B. in this case as well as in what follows hereafter, which we shall show; only in the first place let us take the Bp. in his own way about the Light; Then say we, if that Text might have proved Christ, a Light given to all, had the word Light been there, then certainly he's proved such, if we bring several Scriptures as full to the point; thus, John 1. 4. In him was life, and the Life was the Light of Men. Vers. 9 He was (viz. Christ) the true Light which lighteth every Man that cometh into the World. What can be more plain as to the universality of the Light of Christ. Again Chap. 8. 12. I am (saith Christ) the Light of the World, he that followeth me, shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the Light of Life; which Texts sufficiently prove that Christ is a Light to all. And certainly the Bp. sought for an occasion while he picked out that Word, to Accuse R. B. tho' at the same time does not confute those Scriptures with several others brought both by R. B. and W. P. to prove the Light of Christ within, unless by falsifying the sense of those Texts noted before (p. 29.) Now to the perversion and addition charged by the Bp. upon R. B. with much noise, observe, Reader, the word [Light] is in the Thesis of R. B's. fifth Proposition in his Apology, where he has no less than five Scripture Texts, and there is not any one of all the five laid down in the exact and full words of Scripture, some of them very short, as well as differing in words; and in particular this very Text, John 3. 16. cited by the Bp. are neither the full, nor yet all of them the exact words of that Text; Besides the word Light, and indeed the five Texts, he there gave, were only a kind of References to Scriptures, which proved the Argument he was upon, namely the universality of the love of God through Christ Jesus, who was the Light of the World and Light of Men: Now we'll grant, if R. B. had laid down all these Texts as the entire words of Scripture, and that he could not plainly prove Christ the Light of Men, than had he been in the wrong and the Bp. in the right; but since the first are not so, and that he as well as we have shown by plain Scripture Christ to be the Light of Men, we think 'tis but too plain the Bp. wanted an occasion, while he made this one, for in reading R. B's. Explanation and Defence of this Proposition, where in, p. 81. We find the full and entire words of that Text laid down thus, John 3. 16. God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son, that who so ever believed in him, should not perish but have everlasting Life. Now, candid Reader, judge in the matter, which is most obvious, the Bp's. partiality by endeavouring to misrepresent R. B. or R. B's. intention to pervert and add a new term to Scripture, when he had not the least need of it, and had several other plain Scriptures to prove the point.  
The rest of p. 12. and part of 13. is mostly a recital of picked words here and there taken out of R. B's. Apology, and as we said before, some far distant added together, upon some of which, the Bp. puts his own false constructions, and yet in conclusion, we do not find he pretends to confute them by any other Arguments then by his own Assertion, as p. 12. he tells us by the way he does not think this Scripture Language; and p. 13. avers 'tis unintelligible, that is Banter; so that we need take no further notice then only refer the Reader to R. B's. Apology, where (if he be impartial) he will find full satisfaction: However in regard the Bp. doth greatly abuse R. Bp's. sense, we will take notice and answer, such his recitals.  
Thus (p. 12.) the Bp. citys some words out of R. B's. Discourse on the sixth Proposition of his Apology, where R. B. was proving that the seed, Light, or Grace of God is no accident, but a real Spiritual substance. Then says the Bp. of their feeling it, yea anon Tasting, Smelling, seeing it, and handling by virtue of it the things of God, which yet (says the Bp.) are certainly all Spiritual things. Again the Bp. goes on (p. 13.) that people should be able to smell, and feel, and handle things, which being intellectual and immaterial can no ways be incident to these Senses, nor are so much as ever Metaphorically said to be smelled, or handled; the Bp. avers unintelligible, that is Banter: Then he tells us he expects our Reply, that he is a carnally minded Man, to whom all this seems strange, which he will answer anon.  
Answ. First, the Bp. in this case, might as well have expected to be taxed with great unfairness in wilfully abusing R. B's. sense, as that he is a carnally minded Man, and that he is guilty of the first, and such a Man in the last, we think nothing can well be plainer; while in the first he makes R. B. to alsude to outward senses, whereas the Scope of his Arguments, as well as his plain Words do prove the contrary: thus, p. 95. R. B's. Apology, (and the same Section cited by the Bp. (which he makes, 16. but it should be Sect. 14.) We come to have those Spiritual Senses raised, by which we are made capable of Tasting, Smelling Seeing and Handling the things of God. And in plain opposition to outward Senses, which the Bp. would insinuate, he intended, says in the next words, for a Man cannot reach unto those things, by his natural Spirit and Senses as is above declared: Pray, Reader, judge in the matter, can there be a plainer abuse put upon a Man, while the Bp. opposes intellectual and immaterial things, and Spiritual Senses, to what R. B. intended, when R. B's. plain words intends Spiritual, in opposition to Natural Senses.  
Next as to the Seed, Light, and Grace of God, which the Bp. citys. p. 12. and which R. B. says is a real Spiritual Substance, which the Soul is able to feel and apprehend, from which that real inward Spiritual birth in Believers arises, called the New Creature, and New Man in the heart. Now for confirming R. B's. expressions to be sound and Spiritual. both in this Citation, as also in relation to Spiritual Senses, we ask the Bp. what New Creature the Apostle meant. 2 Cor. 5. 17. Gal. 6. 15. And what that hidden Man of the heart was the Apostle spoke of, 1 Pet. 3. 4. And what those Senses were, 1 John 1. 12. by which the Apostle saw, felt, and handled the word of Life; Then what taste that was Ps. 34. 8. O taste and see that the Lord is good; And what that sweet savour was, 2 Cor. 2. 15. Sweet Smell, Cant. 4. 9, 11. Chap. 7. 13. Now, Reader, judge in the matter, might not the Bp. with much reason, if he had considered rightly, have expected to be termed a Carnaly minded Man by us, while he rendered R. B. guilty of unintelligible Banter. P. 12. the Bp. tells us R. B. will have this Light or Grace the purchase of Christ's Death for every Man, lightning the hearts of all in a day, and subsists in the hearts of wicked Men, even whilst they are in their wickedness, which the Bp. tells us he thinks not Scripture Language.  
Answ. That R. B. hath fully and undeniably owned and asserted the Atonement and Sacrifice of Jesus Christ in (p. 96.) of his Apology; as also in the seventh Proposition about Justification, we suppose the Bp. will not deny, and in the first doth make an especial exception against being misunderstod in that point, while he was treating of the necessity of obeying the Light and Grace of Christ, in order to receive the benefits of his death and sufferings for us: why then might not he say this Seed, Light Grace or Spirit of Christ, was the purchase of his death, since it came by him; see John 1. 17. The Law came by Moses but Grace and Truth by Jesus Christ. Again John 1. 4, 9 Rom. 8. 9 John 16. 7. 13. And that it subsists in the Wicked, tho' in a far different manner then in the Righteous (as R. B. excellently shows), see Luke 17. 21. The Kingdom of Heaven within: The wicked Pharisees, Mat. 25. 25. The wicked servant had a Talon tho' he did not improve it: Now is it not strange the Bp. should overlook many more Scriptures than these, while he was so trifling with R. B.  
Ibid. 12. The Bp. tells us that R. B. says That the knowledge of Christ's death and sufferings, as declared in the Scripture, is not absolutely necessary for making people partakers of this Light. Again P. 13. The knowledge of the Scripture, tho' comfortable and profitable, is not needful.  
Answ. We have already, in Answer to the four points laid down by the Bp. as, G. K's. (p. 45. 46.) spoken to this point and therefore need say the less here, nor do we find the Bp. pretends to confute it; Nay tells us, as to that part, which lies in (p. 12.) that R. B. proves it after his way: And as to that part in (p. 13.) the Bp. has neither fairly cited it, nor told the occasion, for R. B. spoke in reference to such, from whom the knowledge of the Death and sufferings of Christ hath been withheld; to such says R. B. it is not absolutely needful, so as they may be saved, notwithstanding, they have not the outward History, provided they obey the Light and Spirit of God, (which he plainly proves, is given universally to all) And thereby, from unholy become holy Men: We desire thee, Reader, to peruse R. B's. fifth and sixth Propositions for full satisfaction to all the Bp's. Objections.  
P. 13. The Bp. proceeds thus; By what has been produced out of R. B. in his own words, it appears Mr. Penn's double and agreeing Testimony of the Light within and the Scriptures of Truth without, is but a New bubble upon the World, a thin Leaf of Gold, to make the poisonous Pill of their Light within go down with the less reluctancy or even suspicion.  
Answ. As to the Bp's. picking out, and putting false constructions upon R. B's. and W. P's. words, we have observed to the Reader already; Next as to the agreeing Testimony, we have spoken to that before, to which we refer.  
Lastly as to his Calling the Light within a Poisonous Pill, we hope he will not blame W. P. or any other for saying he has no share in it, while he thus reviles it, and how far the Expression may Affect the Bp. in the sight of the Lord we Love: But to be plain, had we (who believe in the Light of Christ) uttered such words, we should have concluded ourselves guilty of little less than Blasphemy; Nor do we see how his salvo of calling it the Quakers Light will excuse him, since we have always declared it to be the Light of Jesus Christ, and universally given to all Men, often testified unto in the holy Scriptures.  
The latter end of (p. 13. and 14.) The Bp. exclaims against W. P. for mentioning many Reformers and Martyrs in concurrence with us as to the double and agreeing testimony of the Spirit of God within, and the Scriptures of Truth without; but says the Bp. without producing one word out of them or referring to any Treatise or Page.  
Answ. If the Bp. had first confuted the Scripture Testimonies, W. P. laid down directly proving the sufficiency of the Light, Grace, and Spirit of God within, he would have had the better pretence to have harrangued upon W. P. about these Authors; but that he did not, for a good reason indeed, because he could not. And as to those Authors, if the Bp. had published his Answer while W. P. was in England, he might have received a fuller answer from himself than we can give, he being a Person (to be sure) better read than we are. However, we question not in the least, but W. P. had good ground for what he asserted, tho' at the same time we think 'tis plain, he laid no such great stress upon their Authority, seeing he referred not to particular Treatise or Page; and what need for it, since he quoted Chapter and Verse, of an undeniable authority, viz. the Scriptures. But why is the Bp. so loud against W. P. for what he is so guilty of himself, he tells us, That Luther, Melancthon, Zuinglius, and Calvin, as well as other Reformers, and Reform, generally hold among other points Three, that are expressly contrary to what the Quakers teach of the Light within; And so goes on to tell us, what those Three points are, and after all not one word in what Book, Treatise, or Page, we should find any one of them: Now is it not strange the Bp. should so inconsiderately fall into the same Error, he but just before charged upon W. P. or must it be a Fault in W. P. and none in the Bp.  
But the Bp. tells us he fairly avers it and takes upon him to prove it if Mr. P. or his Abetters shall deny it, etc.  
Answ. If he does it no better, than somethings we have noted him, not only short but unfair in before, we have but too much cause to believe his proofs will be very lame: But to end this Dispute and come nearer home, let the Bp. but fairly refute the many Scripture Testimonies quoted by R. B. W. P. and some by us to prove the sufficiency of the Light, Grace, and Spirit of God within Man, given as a sure Guide and Director, etc. to him, and he will do the work fully without either troubling the Reformers or Martyrs.  
(P. 15.) The Bp. goes on thus; If they (i. e. the Quakers) shall say, the Bp. wrongs them in saying, they make their Light within the rule of their actions at any time, without or against holy Scripture, besides what may be produced out of their Books, by way of Doctrine, and particularly W. P. (p. 105.) let them answer among others to these two matters of fact.— One Knight on a certain Lords day, in the time of Divine worship, came into the Congregation.— And stood there stark naked.— Crying out, behold here the naked Truth.— Again one Workman in the town of Ross. — Gave out for a miracle he would fast— Forty days; But tho' he gave off, before the Forty Days were near at an end, Yet it was discovered, that in a Rick of Beans near his Chamber, he had made a great hole, and devoured a suitable quantity of them.  
Answ. (1st.) As to W. P's. Doctrine (p. 105.) If false Doctrine, why does not the Bp. confute it, he tells us in (p. 2.) he ought not to connive, but why then doth he do it here, and not only here but before, for this is the place we complained of before, wherein he made a great Outcry against W. P. for falsifying the Sense of the Scripture. John 3. 21. about the Light, And at the same time was wholly silent to the many other Scriptures which followed, and which W. P. brought to prove the Light and Spirit of God within Men: Doth the Bp. think to come off thus by calling it false Doctrine, without proving it such, we think 'twill hardly pass, unless with very credulous Readers. Surely if the Bp. had well considered what he said or well observed what the holy Scripture saith, he would scarce have quoted that page for false Doctrine above any other in that Book, great part of it being Texts of Scripture, so full to the point he had in hand that hardly any thing can be more plain: Reader see 105. first, and 115, 116, page's second Impression. (2ly.) As to the Story of Knight the Instance of which looks as if the Bp. would go far, rather than want matter to defame the Quakers withal (it being about 26 Years Old) we hardly suppose the Bp. gives this story of Knights nor yet Workman's from his own certain knowledge; if from report, (as we understand he doth) would it look well in a Quaker to take a story out of the Cobbler of Gloster concerning a Priest or Bp. and spread it as the Bp. hath done, let him consider of it. As to the Story it is not true in all its parts (as laid down by the Bp.) according to our best Information, for we have made full enquiry into the matter, and do find, that altho' he did go, and stand naked before the Congregation, yet that he never said these words (behold here the naked Truth) for the Bp. may assure himself, had Knight spoke such words, the Quakers would have been as ready to disown him with abhorrance of such Expressions, as the Bp. is to Asperse the Quakers with the Story; and how ready he is at that, we leave the Reader to judge: But as to John Knight (for so was his name) the Man is dead, and cannot answer for himself, but his Widow gives the relation of the words he spoke, as he gave them to her, which are these: [As odious as I seem in your eyes, so odious are your actions in the sight of the lord] And how odious the Actions of that Congregation was in the sight of the Lord, the Lord best knows; And as to Knights call to that service, we shall leave it to the Lord; But this we can say, we never knew or heard otherwise, but that he was a very sober, honest, and Religious Man, and so continued to his end, which Character we believe, all who knew him will give of him.  
Thirdly, As to the story of John Workman; according to our best information that story, is not true as related by the Bp. the Man being also dead, his Widow has given a Narrative of the whole under her hand, too long to be inserted here, but to give it in short; She says, He never gave out at all (much less as a Miracle) neither pretended to fast any certain time, for when he was asked the Question, by herself and others, he answered, he could not tell how long he was to fast, that was hid from him, the time was until he had freedom from the Lord to eat: She farther says, She is fully assured he did really fast Thirty days, in which time he eat nothing, only at sometimes, washed his Mouth with small beer or water, and at times drank a little water.— Then as to the Bean Stack being near the Chamber where he lay, and that he made a great hole, and devoured a suitable quantity of them, she says it is utterly false, for there was no such thing near his Chamber, and that his Haggard of Corn lay at some distance from the House; But this she remembers, that such a Lie was forged by a Light frolicsome Fellow at Ross, who kept an Alehouse, and to make his Tippling Guests merry, raised this lying Story, upon that honest Man, for so we call him, and so he was reputed by his neighbours, and one that abhorred deceit, and lying, and therefore his reality in this thing is the less to be questioned, and if the Bp. can disprove him to be such, by credible witnesses, or the Story otherwise, then as we have told, he may do it if he can. And so we proceed to the Bp's. demand.  
Ibid. (15.) The Bp'● demands of Mr. P. ●, Whether every strong impulse of mind is to be followed, as being the Light within, if not, what have we to try the Light within by, if it be said Scripture, agreed; but can Mr. P. produce, a double and agreeing record for these, and the like actions?  
Answ. As to the Bp's. demand, Is every strong impulse of the mind to be followed as being the Light within? We answer no, nor doth it therefore follow, because some hath falsely pretended to the Spirit of God, that therefore the true motions of the Spirit, are to be rejected; No more then because false Prophets and Teachers pretended to be sent of God, that therefore the Spirit in the true Prophets and Teachers ought not to be regarded; Nor more than because some, who have preferred the Scriptures to be their rule of faith and practice, mistaking and perverting the Sense of the Scripture, have held or practised wrong things, therefore the holy Scripture should be wholly rejected, and nothing believed or done that is therein declared or recommended; And as to our Doctrines and Practices, we do not refuse in matters of controversy with our Adversaries to have both tried by the holy Scriptures, and here may be a fit place, to answer a Charge or Reflection of the Bp's. in this Paragraph, viz. There is no project so wild, that their pretended Light within may not lead them into.  
Answ. We utterly deny the consequence, and say the Light of Christ which we profess to be led by, did never lead any either into wildness or immorality; but on the contrary, such as follow it, are led by it into godliness and sobriety, according to the agreeing record, Titus 2. 11, 12. Eph. 5. 9, 10. 1 John 2. 27. And if any coming among us, and pretending to be of us, are guilty of Immoral practices, we have Church Discipline, by which we deal with and disown such as the nature of the Case may require. Then as to Doctrines and Practices upon a religious account, if any should under pretence of the Light within broach any evil Doctrine, or act any thing repugnant to or against the Testimony of the holy Scriptures, we disown such Doctrines or practices; knowing, that as every evil thing, contradicts the Scriptures, so it really doth the Spirit from whence the holy Scriptures came, and consequently in reality, they cannot oppose one another. Now as to those two Instances brought by the Bp. which he demands a double record for, if he means going Naked, or Fasting, without his other untrue Circumstances,  
We answer, tho' we neither say nor allow such extraordinary things, as appearing naked aught to be done by imitation, or because some of the Lords servants did so of Old: Yet he may remember we have examples in holy Scripture for both. Did not the Prophet Isaiah walk naked and bare footed, three Years as a sign? Isaiah 20. 2, 3. And how was he and the Prophet Ezekiel as Signs and Wonders to the wicked, in what the Lord required of them? many Instances of which we could produce, but for brevity sake we omit them. And as to Fasting, we have so many examples of that kind in both Old and New Testaments, that we think it needless to bring any proof for that practice. Thus having replied to the Bp's. demand we proceed,  
Ibid. P. 15. The Bp. ends this Paragraph, with telling us he could have assigned more immoral instances, but has forborn: And to end this Paragraph, we must tell him our thoughts, which are, that if he could have gotten either more, or such as he thought would have rendered the Quakers more odious, we are doubtful whether his good inclinations to the Quakers, would have been so prevalent on him, as to have forborn on that account.  
(P. 16.) Notice should be given (says the Bp. of W. P.) of his repeated cunning, as well as unfaithfulness in citing another particular Writer, against the Bp. his cunning (and Mr. P. aught to have remembered, who lately Printed that amongst his Maxims, that Cunning borders upon Knavery.) In that he never produces his Author's words, and his unfaithfulness in representing the sense widely different, if not contrary to what it is; Ouzelius in his notes on Minutius Felix tells us the primitive Christians forbore the Heathenish customs, and particularly therefore, they rejected the Custom of Crowning their Dead with Garlands, this Mr. P. refers to, (if he refer,) to any thing to be found in that Author. Thus the Bp.  
Answ. 'Tis no news for the Bp. to make much of a little, as well as much ado to no very great purpose against W. P. pray Reader see W. P's. Defence, p. 71. and there thou wilt find, he doth mention some of his Author's words, contrary to what the Bp. hath asserted; Thus W. P. I beseech him (i. e. the Bp.) to converse with Ouzelius upon Minutius Felix, and he will tell him, that the first Christians were taxed, and despised for ill bred in Manners, unpolished in Speech, unfashionable in Behaviour; in fine, Rustics and Clowns, as the Christians ironicaly returned their Scorners the stile of well bred and Eloquent; this and much more he citys out of Lactantius, Theodoret and Arnobius, etc.  
This is what W. P. has in that page, exactly as it lies there; Now judge in the matter, Candid Reader, who is most guilty of cunning, and unfaithfulness, W. P. in citing his Author's words as above, or the Bp. in saying he did not, and taking no notice or giving any answer, to that large Quotation. And besides, if we mistake not, the Bp. hath given his own Church a great wound, by the above citation out of that Author, who, as the Bp. says, forbore heathenish customs, and particularly they rejected, Crowning the Dead with Garlands; upon which the Bp. asks thus; Is there no difference betwixt Idolatrous Rites and the innocent Fashions of Christians ordinary apparel? So that we think he makes Crowning the Dead with Garlands an Idolatrous Rite, as well as a heathenish custom; upon which we ask, what sort of Rite or Custom that is in a certain Church which makes fine Garlands for the Dead, hanging them up in their Worship Houses, with long streaming Escutcheons? to say nothing of covering the Dead with them. Let the Bp. consider the matter. But notwithstanding, what we have said, we have not yet done with the Bp. upon this head of cunning and unfaithfulness; we observe, the Bp. has made a great ado and spent good part of a page about Ouzelius, etc. to fix this charge upon W. P. without reason. Now we ask the Bp. whether he had not something like cunning, in this to amuse his Reader, while at the same time he skipped over several other Authors, some of whose Treatises were cited by W. P. concerning the Care and Zeal, which some of the ancients had to suppress Heathenish customs in Manners and Behaviour from getting in upon Christians; see W. P. Defence, p. 71, 72. But that which is more observable is, that altho' W. P. brought several Scriptures, Chap. and Verse. against conforming to the World, in their Fashions, Dresses and Apparel, and particularly Rom. 12. 1, 2. 1 Peter 1. 13, 14. Chap. 3. 3. yet the Bp. takes no notice of all those Scriptures (tho' they were brought by W. P. in Answer to the Bp's. Testimony, in which he put W. P. upon the Proof to show the primitive Christians differed from others of their Nation, and Quality in such things) Now what imaginable reason can be given, why the Bp. should make so much ado, (and without cause too) about Minutius Felix, etc. while he was silent to all the rest of W. P's. proofs: But to conclude about that of Apparel and Dresses we shall only say, It is much to be lamented, that so great an Overseer as the Bp. should (by not more publicly appearing against) tacitly plead for and countenance such abominable pride (in Apparel and Dresses by calling them innocent fashions) as is found reigning amongst the generality of those called Christians in our day: As to what the Bp. tells us of Octavius that the Christians knew one another only by their Innocence and Humility and not by any bodily mark.  
We Answer, the Bp. may know not only Innocence and Humility was a sign that Peter belonged to Jesus, but his Speech also, Matt. 26. 43. Again the boldness of unlearned and ignorant Men was another mark, Acts 4. 13. But to the next.  
Ibid. 16. The Bp. goes on, and as to their language, after all artifices Mr. P. has not been able to produce (which was a pressing point of his business) one precedent or shadow of a Testimony that the primitive Christians used not the ordinary Civilities in their common Discourse, and Salutations, but affected a different Style or way by themselves; contrarily he might have remembered that the beloved Disciple, being to write to a Christian Sister of Quality salutes her by an inscription, To the Elect Lady.  
Answ. We must needs say we cannot but greatly admire at the Bp. thus with an artificial flourish to assert against his own knowledge, while he wilfully overlookt W. P's. Arguments relating to this particular case of Salutations; see his Defence. p. 73, 74. there thou wilt find he plainly proves, Matt. 23. 6, 7, 8. Luke 10. 4. from Christ's own words, both his condemnation upon the Pharisees for loving honour, and salutary greetings, and particularly in affecting to be called Rabbi; as also his positive command to his Disciples, against such practices of being called Masters. Again, W. P. Quotes Christ's Question to the Jews, viz. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only, John 5. 44. And after all this, with more, to tell us W. P. has not been able to produce one precedent or shadow of a Testimony, that the primitive Christians used not the ordinary Civilities in their common discourse and Salutations, is, we think as much as to tell us, that they obeyed not the command of Christ, or if they did, that the Sun doth not shine when it appears in its greatest Lustre. Then as to Language.  
If the Bp. means Thee and Thou to a single person, we find in holy Writ all sorts used it then, which if all did now, there would be no difference in that point between us and any other sort of people: We could say much upon the fullsome and flattering Titles and Compliments of the times, which, to be sure, no precedent is to be found in the Scriptures for, and particularly those Titles given to the Bp's. far beyond, and above, what ever was given to Timothy, or any others that we read of in holy Scripture, who yet were endued with the Spirit and power of God beyond what any of our Bishops will pretend to: But we study brevity and will therefore be short upon this Head, only before we end we must answer to the Title of the Elect Lady, who, the Bp. tells us, was a Christian Sister of Quality, but Dr. Hammond a person of great note in the Church of England in his Annotations on the New Testament tells us, that direction 2 John 1. to the Elect Lady, will be best rendered, to the Elect Church or Congregation, see wilson's Christian Dictionary more largely: Verbum Lady: and if so as Hammond says, the Bp. is mistaken in that Inscription, to be sure at least, that he and the Bp. differ in their Opinions therein. But as to the word Lady, as it signifies a particular person, it is our practice sometimes to call a Lady, the Lady such an one: or a Lord, the Lord such an one; which is no more then to say such a Lord, or such a Lady, so called; not my Lord, nor my Lady, and so we end this Paragraph.  
The Bp's. next head p. 16, 17. is about Water Baptism, in which he does, as in other cases (as we take it, for want of better Arguments) endeavour to misrepresent W. P's. sense, as we shall plainly demonstrate in what follows; he gins thus,  
The Bp. sincerely professes he mourns to see Men so hardened as it appears by Mr. P's. wresting Scripture to elude the Truth. Mr. P. first in a manner confesseth himself put to his shifts; I am sensible of the disadvantage I am under, etc. saith he; Yet proceeds he to shift on.  
Answ. We have little cause to believe the Bp's. mourning is real, while he continues to abuse, as well as misrepresent us, as he doth; however let his mourning be of what sort it will, 'twas needless here, because 'tis without ground, for we deny W. P. doth either wrest Scripture or elude the Truth; But on the other hand 'tis very plain, the Bp. doth here wrest W. P's. words to suit his own turn, not only in not laying down his following words but wrongly applying those he has laid down. Now W. P's. words are these, viz. I am sensible of the disadvantage I lie under, and that I touch a tender place, and what I say upon this Head, & also anon upon the Supper, will be against wind and tide with the generality.  
Now, Reader, judge, doth W. P. in a manner confess himself put to his shifts, or doth he not rather express himself thus, with respect to the people who are generally in the practice of Water Baptism, and the outward Supper, and consequently therefore did believe, the harder to be prevailed upon by his Arguments, and this we take to be no more, then if the Bp. were writing against the Papists in a received Tenet of the Church of Rome; Suppose Transubstantiation; might not the Bp. with a great deal of reason say (with respect to them) I am sensible of the disadvantage I lie under, etc. would this be in a manner confessing he was put to his shifts? but we have more of the same kind, nay worse in what follows: The Bp. proceeds to vindicate his allegation in his Testimony, viz.  
P. 17. The Bp. had avouched those words of our Lord, Matt. 28. 19 was an Institution and command of Baptism with Water, and gave two substantial reasons, which he holds to, Baptising with the holy Ghost was not in the Apostles power, therefore it could not be the thing commanded them. (2ly.) Baptising with Water was the Apostles and primitive practice and has been ever since the practice of the Church. To the first of these Mr. P. answereth; it is not true; and to make that good alleges, Acts 10. 44. while Peter yet spoke these words the holy Ghost fell on all those that heard the word. Hence he infers, that Peter Baptised Cornelius with the holy Ghost: Now was there ever any thing more impertinent and inconsequent? while Peter spoke, etc. the holy Ghost fell on them, etc. therefore (which was the point to be proved) was it Peter's act and in his power to Baptise with the holy Ghost? no the Spirit breatheth where it listeth, John 5. 8. But God (says Mr. P.) by the Apostles did Baptise Believers with the holy Ghost, (to which the Bp. answers, as we take it tacitly granting the matter, Did he so?) Then 'twas God Baptised them with the holy Ghost, and not the Apostles; they were only instruments at pleasure, as long as the act was not principally theirs, it cannot be concluded hence to have been in their power. Thus the Bp.  
Answ. Reader, we must desire thy excuse for this long citation, we could not well avoid it for the following reasons; (1st.) Let a Man act ever so warily 'tis much if his words be not perverted, as the Bp. hath done by W. P. on this point. (2ly.) It will in part appear, from the Bp's. own words, (tho' to be sure not designedly) how unfair he has been unto W. P. in representing him, as if W. P. had said, 'twas in the Apostles power of themselves to Baptise with the holy Ghost, tho' at the same time in a kind of contradiction to himself, as a Salvo, adds; But God, says Mr. P. by the Apostles, did Baptise Believers with the holy Ghost; But then with a short turn, Queries (as if W. P. had been of another mind before) Did he so? Then 'twas God Baptised, etc. Now, Sober Reader, we must desire thy farther patience, in citing W. P's. own words, as they lie in one entire Paragraph of his Defence (p. 76.) which will not only discover the Bp's. false representation of W. P. but fully clear up the matter, that W. P. never intended or meant, 'twas barely in the Apostles power to Baptise with the holy Ghost: Thus W. P. viz. I say then the Bp's. first reason is not true, for God by the Apostles did Baptise Believers with the holy Ghost, it fell upon them by the powerful preaching of the word; thus act. 10. 44. while Peter yet spoke these words, the holy Ghost fell on them that heard: By which it is evident, that Peter in that Sermon was the Minister of the Spiritual Baptism, to Cornelius and his company. Now, Impartial Reader, judge in the matter, was it possible for a Man to speak more plain, then W. P. doth here, that 'twas God by the Apostles, they as his Ministers, were made able by him to Baptise Believers with the holy Ghost, and which was W. P's. point to prove, and which he did by others, as well as this Argument, tho' the Bp. has overlookt them; and what can be said or who can be safe? tho' ever so plain, while it hath been the common practice of our Adversaries to misrepresent us, as the Bp. hath now done by W. P. as if he should intent 'twas in the Apostles power to Baptise with the holy Ghost, (see the Bp's. own words) But if we mistake him not, the Bp. himself seems to allow, that God did instrumentally Baptise Believers, with the holy Ghost, (we are sure we intent not to wrong his Sense, but his words to us seems to import no less,) while he saith, Did he so? Then 'twas God Baptised with the holy Ghost and not the Apostles, they were only instruments at pleasure, as long as the act was not principally theirs it cannot be concluded hence to have been in their power. Nor did W. P. ever intent 'twas in the Apostles power, only as Instruments in God's hand, and by his power and at his pleasure, they Baptised Believers with the holy Ghost; but whether this was the Bp's. Intention or not we will not determine, and so leave it, and return to the Argument, That it is plain not only from this Instance cited by the Bp. but by other Arguments advanced by W. P. (which the Bp. passed over in silence) that God did Baptise Believers instrumentally through the Apostles, and therefore the Bp's. first reason falls, and W. P's. takes place. Farther, whatsoever the Apostles did in the discharge of their Ministerial Office, whether as to Preaching, Healing, or Baptising, they were but Instruments, it was all done by God through them, God spoke through them, yet they said to speak; he healed through them, yet they said to heal; so to Baptise through them, and they said to Baptise; And they were to do none of these things, till they were endued with power from on high, Luke 24. 49. Acts 1. 4.  
Ibid. (17.) The Bp. proceeds as one put to his shifts indeed, (to give his own Term to W. P. when the Bp. told him, he proceeds to shift on) [Thus] Baptising with the holy Ghost and with Fire, the words that Mr. P. alleges, p. 69. and runs upon was a special Prerogative of our Lord Jesus Christ's predicted only of him, Matt. 4. 11. (which should be 3. 11.) and fulfilled only by him, Acts 2. not by any Man ever Living. The Bp's. first reason than is true. (says he)  
Answ. If saying were proving the Bp. has done it, nor will this Argument avail him any more than the former, notwithstanding it seems as if he would divide fire from the Baptism of the holy Ghost, and only allow it to be fulfilled, Acts 2. Indeed if he had said the Cloven Tongues of fire, it had been more tolerable, but that fire (i. e. the Spiritual fire) was to accompany the Baptism of the holy Ghost, when they were Baptised with the Spirit, is very plainly provable from Scripture, as well from that Text which the Bp. has brought (to prove 'twas only fulfilled, Acts. 2.) as from others. Thus, Matt. 3. 11. John Tolls many of the wicked Pharisees and Saducees which came to his Baptism and whom he called a generation of Vipers, I indeed Baptise you with Water, etc. but He (Christ) shall Baptise you with the holy Ghost and with fire: As if he had said, you, or who ever are Baptised with the Baptism of Christ shall be Baptised with the holy Ghost, and with fire. Now we suppose the Bp. will hardly plead that all those John than did speak unto, were of that number, Acts. 2. consequently then Fire accompanied with the holy Ghost, was to extend to others as well as it did to those Disciples, Acts. 2. which we shall farther prove: In the mean time with respect to the Bp's. opinion in the matter, as we cannot wonder at it, so neither do we think him a competent Judge, whether Fire accompanies the Baptism of the Spirit or not; because we do not find he pretends to the holy Ghost, unless to be obtained by outward means; however let the Bp's. opinion be what it will, we cannot but admire he should affirm so contrary to plain Scripture (not only in the above but in what follows) as that the Baptism predicted Matt. 3, 11. was only fulfilled Acts 2. whereas if we credit the Apostle we shall find it otherwise; thus Acts. 11. 15, 16. And as I began to speak the holy Ghost fell on them as on us in the beginning, then remembered I the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed Baptised with Water, but ye shall be Baptised with the holy Ghost: Here Peter refers to the pouring forth of the holy Ghost, at the time of Pentecost, and the marginal note in the Bible, refers to Chap. 2. 4. which shows that Babtizing with the holy Ghost was not fulfilled by Christ at that time mentioned Acts. 2. 4. but that it continued in the Church, and was dispensed through the Apostles ministry afterwards; so not fulfilled only by Christ as the Bp. saith. How then came the Bp. to fall into this mistake, he will do well to consider whether it be not for want of inward acquaintance with the Spirit, by which he would experimentally have witnessed, that Spiritual fire doth accompany the holy Ghost. As to what he saith of the prerogative of Christ we ascribe to it, as much as he can do; but then we say, he that had and hath all power in Heaven and Earth, Matt. 28. 18. could and did enable the Apostles instrumentally to Baptise Believers with the holy Ghost, as has been shown by W. P. Now as to the Bp's. Second Reason,  
Ibid. 17. That Water was the thing commanded, Matt. 28. 19 and that the Apostles practice in Baptising with Water, was in obedience to that command; which assertion of his depending upon that commission, we now come to consider the same, by which if it appears that Water was not there commanded, it thence follows, what the Apostles did in that of Water was practice and not Institution; thus the Text Matt. 28. 19 Go ye therefore and teach all nations Baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. Now that we are not to understand Water was intended by this commission appears (1st.) Because here is not a word of Water mentioned. (2ly.) Because the Baptism of Christ was the Baptism of the Spirit, spoken to in short by us and more largely proved by W. P. (3ly.) Because we find the Apostles as instruments did by the power of God (not of themselves) Baptise Believers with the holy Ghost, as proved also by W. P. Lastly because we no where read, when the Apostles used Water in outward Baptism, they followed the terms of that Commission (as they ought to have done had they understood it Water) by doing it in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost; But did it in the name of the Lord, or Lord Jesus, in which last form, practisers of Water Baptism in our day would (we suppose) not think it rightly performed. Now for these reasons (with others, which for brevity we omit) we have no ground at all to believe that Water was commanded by that commission; but on the contrary that the Baptism of Christ by his Spirit, was intended thereby; consequently than what the Apostles did in use of Water must be practice and not Institution, as were the many legal Rites, Circumcision, Purifications, Vows, Shave, etc. which we find they also practised as well as Water Baptism, even after they had received the holy Ghost. Farther we do not find any of the Apostles mentioning Water Baptism, to be any part of their mission, nor yet recommending the practice of it, in their Epistles to any of the gathered Churches in the first settlement, tho' they do far lesser things then (some in our day account of) Water Baptism, and since they are silent therein, we may well conclude, that their practice in that of Water was not from that command, Matt. 28. 19 but on the same foot they did those other Legal things before mentioned: Nay we find that great Apostle Paul was so far from believing Water Baptism to be any part of his commission, that he not only thanks God he Baptised not more of the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 1. 14. but adds in the. 17. Verse. He was not sent to Baptise. Again altho' he writ an Epistle to the Ephesians, and in Acts 20 tells them, he had not shuned to declare unto them all the counsel of God, Yet not a word of a Command for Water Baptism. But on the other hand speaks of, and recommends in several Epistles the one Baptism of the Spirit, see, Eph. 4. 5. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 27. Thus than the Bp's. second reason, that Water was commanded by that commission falls with his first. Reader, be pleased to mind, that in what we have said upon this head about Baptism, and shall say next upon the Supper, is not at all intended for a full discussion of these two points, only as direct Answers to the Bp's. Objections, Not seeing any need at present for such a Treatise, in regard great part of W. P's. Arguments upon those two heads (in thirty Pages of his Defence) lie unanswered by the Bp. and in particular that of Infant Baptism, which was a main and pressing point for the Bp. to have cleared, tho' we do not find he has taken the least notice of it in his Reply: and after all the Bp's. great talk of a divine authority for Water Baptism, 'twill be hard for him, nay beyond his power, either to find Command or Example from Scripture for what he calls Baptism. When Water was used in primitive times they Repent, Believed, and were Baptised (that is dipped or plunged.) Now Infants, neither capable of good or evil are sprinkled on the Face with a little Water, a mere humane Invention; and as we find no command or Example in Scripture for such a practice, so neither do we know how it can be called Baptism at all; and as this is the Bp's. Case, till he had proved, or at least vindicated his own practice by Scripture, from whence he pretends to judge the Quakers, we think he ought to have been more sparing in his charges against them. Reader, if any Objections remain in thy mind, with respect to these heads of Baptism and the Supper, we refer thee to W. P's. Defence and R. B's. Apology who largely treat on these Subjects.— And to draw towards a conclusion upon the Bp's. two Reasons, since it hath appeared by W. P's. Defence (notwithstanding any thing the Bp. has urged to the contrary) that the Apostles did by the power of God, and as instruments in his hand, Baptise Believers with the holy Ghost, and since it doth not appear (nor can be proved) Water was intended by that commission, Matt. 28. 19 It therefore follows, that the Bp's. two substantial Reasons (as he calls them) falls to the ground. A little more we have from the Bp. about Baptism, and then for the present shall have done with this head.  
(P. 18.) The Bp. tells us W. P. full well knows the Church of England Men no more allow Water Baptism to be sufficient to the Salvation of Adult Persons, without the New Creature, or Baptism of the Spirit, than he does.  
Answ. (1st.) If not to Adult Persons, we Query whether the Bp. thinks Water Baptism is sufficient to the Salvation of Infants. (2ly.) Since the Baptism of the Spirit is an inward work, and the means there, how doth this agree with what the Bp. says (p. 23.) That people are now made holy by the use of outward means, etc. Let the Bp. reconcile these if he can.  
The Next is about the outward Supper in the use of Bread and Wine, and the Bp. gins with citing no Page, as well as stepping over five Pages at once of W. P's. Defence, tho' afterwards he looks back to carp at the words [Wine from Heaven] Reader see the Defence. p. 92. to 107. and compare with the Bp's. Reply, how little of fifteen Pages the Bp. has answered, as well as the former about Baptism; but perhaps the greatest part, which lies unanswered, are little Cavils and poor Evasions with him, tho' we don't believe, they will be so to the Impartial Reader, This is, we confess, a compendious way as the Bp. told us.  
P. 18. It stands, (saith the Bp.) (viz. the Supper) upon the same  foundation with the Baptism, etc.  
Answ. 'Twill then follow if the Bp's. Foundation for Water Baptism be not sound, as hath been shown above, it is not, this of the Supper must be the same. But the Bp. proceeds with a heavy charge and exclamation against W. P. as if he were not only guilty of a mistake, but in all appearance, (as he says) of wilful prevarication in misreporting his words, that he might have something to except against; for says the Bp. of W. P. the Bp. will have this Supper four times repeated in the New Testament.— Whereas the Bp. tells us his words respected the command for the Supper, and not the Supper itself: and in conclusion of his Paragraph ends with a Question thus, Is there not a vast difference betwixt these two assertions, This Supper was four times repeated, and the command for the Supper is four times repeated, which last was most evidently the Bp's. sense? Thus the Bp.  
Answ. 'Tis certainly a great lessening to the Bp. to make so great a noise, to so little purpose, from whence we conclude, that either the Bp. hoped to amuse his Reader by being so Critical about a word, or else he was very short sighted in his Argument in rendering W. P. guilty of wilful prevarication, while the Bp. overlookt his plain words, as well as sense, in what followed. 'Tis true W. P. mentions the Supper, as the Bp. saith, four times repeated, but nothing can be plainer then that he intended the command for the Supper, while immediately after he has the word command several times over, in relation to the Supper: pray Reader, see his Defence (p. 97.) Now let us see, what something W. P. could get against the Bp. by his (supposed) wilful prevarication, (had he intended the Supper and not the command for the Supper) surely say we nothing; nay so far from getting, that had he insisted thereon, he would have lost his Argument thereby; for ' tho the Supper may be four times mentioned, the Command for the Supper is not four times mentioned; so than if W. P. had argued, that the Supper was not four times repeated, he had argued against himself. Now, Reader, judge in the matter, what could the Bp's. end be in spending a large Paragraph on this occasion to fasten (as the Bp. says, in all appearance) wilful prevarication upon W. P.  
Having cleared W. P. from the Bp's. Charge, which was without ground, let us now see, whether W. P's. charge of a mistake, will not fall upon him doubled, with good ground. The Bp. hath asserted in his Testimony, the command for the Supper was four times repeated in the New Testament, which in that Paper runs thus, Can any command be more express than This Do in remembrance of me; four times repeated in the New Testament.  
Answ. We must tell the Bp. (as W. P. did) it must be his mistake thus to assert, while we cannot find the command so repeated, (as the Bp. saith) in all the New Testament, for, as W. P. said, we must say over again, that which looks most like a command is in Luke. 22. 19 (to the present Disciples) where he has those words, Do this in remembrance of me? the other Evangelists, Matthew and Mark, give only a relation of the Supper, without those words, and John says nothing of it at all. Then as to Paul he comes, 1 Cor. 11. and gives the Corinthians a rehearsal thereof, upon their great abuse of that practice, in such words as do not import a command, but as often as they used it, they shown forth the Lords Death till he came; his words cannot be called a command: But supposing (not allowing) they could, yet the Bp. must still be at a loss, to find the command for the Supper four times repeated in these words, Do this in remembrance of me? Because we do not find them but three times expressly mentioned in all the Scriptures; and but one of those times, can reasonably be called a command at all; if so it was not repeated at all: nor will the Bp's. Argument that the command was four times repeated hold good, unless he prove it five times mentioned, and so we leave it upon the Bp. and proceed.  
Ibid. 18. Says the Bp. of W. P. he proceeds to what is more dangerous (meaning then the prevarication) plainly to diffuse his Poison, this coming of Christ was Spiritual.  
Answ. We must needs say 'tis a very uncharitable expression without cause, and if it were such Poisonous Doctrine, why did not the Bp. confute the substantial Scripture Arguments, by which W. P. proved his Assertion, which he ought to have done, before he used such an expression; But that the Bp. has not done, unless carping at words and reviling him be doing it, as will appear in what follows. And first he gins with reproaching W. P. for paraphrasing upon these Texts, Matt. 26. 29. Mark. 14. 25. Luke 22. 18. where Christ told his Disciples, He would drink no more of the fruit of the Vine, till he drank it new with them in the Kingdom of Heaven; upon which W. P. paraphrased and called Christ bread and Wine from Heaven. See his Defence (p. 98.) whereupon the Bp. reviles (according to his usual way) and tells him, that he and his Brethren uses to make, and wrest Scripture, etc. By Mr. P's. favour (says the Bp.) the Scripture no where styleth Christ Wine from Heaven.  
Answ. If we had dealt thus with the Bp. for downright perversions and wresting Scripture (as we have before proved) as he hath done W. P. without reason or ground, we must tell the Bp. we should have treated him at another rate than we have done. But to the matter. Where did W. P. say the Scripture so said? he only drew a natural consequence from the words of Christ, and the Text itself is so plain, that it needs no comment to prove W. P's. paraphrase thereon: for what drink or Wine was that which was to be drank in the Kingdom of Heaven, but Wine from Heaven? and who was Wine from Heaven? but Christ? who as he promised to drink with them, so he promised, Revelations, 3. 20. to Sup with those that opened their hearts unto him: Now who but a Man that wanted matter and was willing to take occasion to revile would Carp, etc. as the Bp. did, more especially, while Christ is called a Vine, Bread from Heaven, Water, etc. with a multitude of other Metaphorical Appellations in Scripture, and had the Bp. been so well acquainted with the comfortable presence of Christ, as a truly Spiritual Man (which he pretends to be) Really is, etc. he would never have reviled W. P. as he did on that account.  
P. 19 The Bp. goes on telling us the Apostles continued the use of Bread and Wine after Christ was Spiritually come; therefore says he, this showing forth his Death till he came, was not by them understood of his inward and Spiritual appearance, but of his second coming to Judgement; for in that Case feeling so fully, his being come in their hearts, they would have desisted.  
Answ. Although the Apostles did feel Christ Spiritually come into their hearts, and might also see no real Necessity for keeping up this practice; yet it doth not therefore follow, they would have presently desisted for these or the Like Reasons. 1st. Because they might think it needful to indulge the weak and carnal minded Christians among them, who wanted such a sign to keep up their minds in remembrance of Christ's Blood, which was shed for them; and that such weak and carnal believers were among them appears plainly by the sharp and reprehensive expressions in the Epistles writ by the Apostles to some of them; likewise it plainly appears by Scripture, that although Christ was come in Spirit to some, he was not so come in Spirit to others, who yet waited for his coming, see James 5. 7, 8. 1 Cor. 1. 7. Secondly, this practice might be continued among them, were it only that we find it contributed to keep up a Brotherly Fellowship and Communion in the Infancy of the Church, which appears from, Acts 2. 46. and they continuing daily with one accord in the Temple, and breaking Bread from House to House, did eat their meat with gladness, and singleness of Heart. And here we may a little compare the present practice of those, who use this Ceremony, with those in the primitive times (because the Bp. has something of it) Their Breaking Bread was joined with Eating their Meat, quite contrary to the practice now adays, and not only in that, but other respects they disagree, as W. P. hath noted. Again how widely do they differ in their opinions of the thing itself, 'tis now called and believed by the Papists to be the very Body and Blood of Christ, and the Protestants in the use of outward Bread and Wine, say that the Body and Blood of Christ is in a Spiritual manner partaken of under that sign, whereas in the primitive times, the use and extent thereof, as Paul tells us, 1 Cor. 11. was in remembrance of and showing forth Christ's Death till he came, which we believe was Spiritual, in relation to that sign. (3ly.) Why might not the Apostles as well continue in the practice of this sign (after Christ was Spiritually come in their Hearts) as in the practice of Circumcision, Purifications, Vows, Shave and other legal rites; many Instances of which appear plain in Scripture, which we might Instance but shall be brief and tell the Reader, that what we have and shall write on this head is not intended for a Treatise thereof, only as in Answer to the Bp's. Objections, referring the Reader as before to W. P's. Defence and R. B's. Apology, who largely treats of this Subject. The Bp. proceeds,  
Ibid. 19 To invalidate W. P's. allegation that Baptism and the Supper were not made an Article of any of the Ancient Creeds, and thereupon tells W. P. thus, he has forgot or was never Catechised as he ought to have been, or forgotten what he was taught to be the meaning of that Article, I believe the holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints; that is in short (says the Bp.) I believe all the faithful are made one body by communion in the same Faith, Covenant and Ordinances of Worship, especially Baptism and the Lords Supper.  
Answ. Is it not very strange that the Bp. who in p. 3. tells Mr. P. (as he called him) as to his Paper once for all, implication of Faith is not a profession of Faith, and not only so, but would almost unchristian us, for not being more explicit in that Paper (Gospel Truths) should now tell us by believing the holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, that the points in Question namely Baptism and the Supper, etc. are employed: We must needs tell him, and all may see that either he assumes a Latitude to himself by a strange sort of implication, far beyond what he will allow W. P. and the Quakers, or it must be confessed that Water Baptism and the outward Supper (and which we think is undeniable) are not made an Article in that Confession, and consequently his Proof falls to the ground with his Assertion. But as to the true Catholic Church, and the Communion of Saints, we can readily subscribe to the Article, and do truly own the Communion of Saints but deny it consists in eating outward Bread and drinking outward Wine, while we suppose, the Bp. himself will not deny, that very Wicked and Ungodly Men have partaken of the outward sign, whereas we say none can truly partake of the Communion of Saints, but those who are truly such, and which consists in Spiritual participation of the Body and Blood of Christ, according to John 6. 35. 1 Cor. 10. 16. 2 Cor. 13. 14.  
P. 20. The Bp's. next Instance is no more to the purpose then the last he tells us in the Constantinopolitan Creed (compiled about the Year 379. or 380. when rebaptising Heretics had turmoiled the Church) 'tis expressed, I believe one Catholic Church, I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of Sins, that is (says the Bp.) persons being once Baptised, and thereby engrafted into the Church ought not to be Baptised again, which is the true sense of one Baptism, and not what Mr. P. suggests.  
Answ. The Bp. who so much faulted W. P. p. 14. for not citing Treatise or Page, doth as before take the same liberty again in this Citation. But suppose we should allow what he hath here cited, which we do not, how will the acknowledging one Baptism, the occasion mentioned by the Bp. prove his point? he brought this for an Ancient Creed, and as such we might expect his proof, that Water Baptism and the Supper were made an Article therein; whereas there is no word of the Supper expressed, nor yet implied that we can perceive. In short then this Instance falls with the first. Then as to his saying Persons once Baptised, etc. is the true sense of the one Baptism and not what Mr. P. suggests. Please, Reader, to view W. P's. Defence, p. 85, 86. and see whether what W. P. says be his own Suggestions: On the contrary W. P. citys Ephes. 4. 5. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism; which one Baptism he plainly proves by several Scripture Arguments, to be the one saving Baptism of Christ by the holy Ghost: The Bp. is out if he thinks his bare Assertion against W. P. will pass for proof, while he is silent to all the Arguments advanced by W. P. The Bp. should have remembered he told us, p. 18. that Water Baptism without the New Creature or Baptism of the Spirit was not sufficient to the Salvation of adult Persons (or words to the same effect) which bespeak two Baptisms, when the Apostle tells us Eph. 4. 5. but of one Baptism, and if but one, that not in … as Water is, but the saving Baptism of the Spirit as was plainly proudly W. P. This considered, how could the Bp. now affirm that Persons once Baptised (i. e. with Water) is the true sense of one Baptism, since himself confesseth Water Baptism is not sufficient to Salvation, etc. We suppose he will hardly say, being once Baptised with Water produceth the Baptism of the Spirit, and so maketh the one Baptism, if not 'tis worth his Consideration how to reconcile his Assertions in these two places with the Apostles one Baptism, Ephes. 4. 5.  
Now to the Bp's. third and last proof about the Ancient Creeds, in which the Bp. Cites not only Treatise and Page but part of the Articles too, but omits the main part of all, namely the Year; we must tell the Bp. this will make no more to his purpose then the former proofs; for tho' we should allow the Citations true, and that they are from the poor Waldenses (whom W. P. commends for the good Qualifications he found in them,) Yet this Creed is too late to be accounted ancient, as in the time of Vladislaus King of Hungary, the first King of that name, according to Heylen's Cosmogr: which was in the Year 1440. and the second in 1491. but whether we are right in the time or not, yet 'tis so late that 'tis rank Popery to assert, as the Bp. has laid it down. viz. No Man is saved who eats not the body of Christ, which body is not consecrated but in the Church and by a Priest. Again, that none are saved unless Baptised, and that Infants are saved by Baptism.  
The Bp. was much in the right to question what authority W. P. would allow the Waldenses in this Creed, (supposing it theirs) To be sure say we none; Nor will he allow it to be ancient any more than those made in the dark time of Popery, and therefore this proof also falls with the rest; and if we should ask the Bp. himself what authority he would allow the Waldenses in this Creed, will he undertake to vindicate it from point blank Popery? we suppose nay.— As to what the Bp. saith of Tradition, and consent of all Nations, that will come under consideration in what follows.  
Ibid. (20.) The Bp. frames an Argument upon those two heads, viz. Baptism and the Supper, to prove us outwardly no Christians, tho' in so doing he must bring himself under like circumstances in a parallel case.  
Ibid. (20.) The Bp. says to renounce or cast off the outward badges of the profession of Christianity, which our Lord Christ instituted, and his Apostles delivered, and which the Apostolical Churches received, and constantly practised, which all Christian Churches ever since has held to, is to renounce or to cast off the outward profession of Christianity, but Mr. P. and his party renounce or cast off those outward badges of the profession of Christianity, which Christ Jesus appointed and his Apostles delivered, which the Apostolical Churches received, and constantly practised, which all Christian Churches have ever since held to, therefore Mr. P. and his party have renounced or cast off the outward profession of Christianity, that is outwardly are not Christians; as to their hearts the Bp. leaves them to God and judges not.  
Answ. The Bp. in this Argument takes that for granted which we do not own, namely that outward Baptism and the Supper, were to be continued down in the Churches, as Institutions of Christ, as also that they are the outward badges of the profession of Christianity, which we do not allow, the contrary having been proved by W. P. in his Defence, and others of our Friends who have writ on that subject: We observe although ' the Bp. continues to clal them outward Badges, yet he omits to call them Seals, as he did in his Testimony, which to us seems to be the effect of W. P's. Defence, and with more reason it may be attributed thereto, than the effect attributed by the Bp. to his own Paper upon W. P. as before noted.  
But to this faulty and long Argument, may not we by a parallel Argument make the Bp. and his party outwardly not Christians, while they difuse other things no less (if not more) positively commanded in holy Scripture: Thus our Lord Jesus Christ the very same night he eat the Supper, John 13. 4. to 15. rose from Supper and with more Ceremony washed his Disciples feet saying, Vers. 14. If I then you Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another's feet. Vers. 15. For I have given you an Example, that ye should do as I have done unto you. This seems to us as plain a command for this practice, as that for Bread and Wine, and more plain than for Water Baptism, because Water is not mentioned in the Commission, (and this command we find was put in practice: See 1 Tim. 5. 10. and recommended as a virtue in a Widow) nor was this only an Example of Humility and Love (true Badges of Christianity) but had a signification of an inward cleansing as appears from the words of Christ upon Peter's refusal, John 13. 8. If I wash thee not thou hast no part in me. Again, Acts 15. 29. The Churches were expressly commanded, as the mind of the holy Ghost, to abstain from blood and things strangled. Again the Believers were enjoined, Jam. 5. 14. that the sick should be anointed with Oil in the name of the Lord. Now from these instances, we form a parallel argument thus, To renounce, disuse, or cast off the positive Institutions and Commands which our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles delivered, and no doubt the primitive Christians in obedience thereunto practised, is to renounce and cast off the outward profession of Christianity; But the late Bp. of Cork and his party have renounced, cast off or disused the washing of feet, the abstaining from blood and things strangled, and the anointing the Sick with Oil in the name of the Lord, which things our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles instituted and commanded.— Therefore the late Bp. of Cork and his party are outwardly no Christians, etc.  
We take this to be a plain parallel argument and by which the Bp. and his party are as much unchristianed as he Renders the Quakers by his, while he can find no express repeal in Scripture for these things.— And yet at the same time we neither believe, he or they for the disuse of these things, nor we for the other, aught or can be unchristianed, for we believe they are all ceased alike. If the Bp. say, those were temporary things (with as good ground) we say the like of the other; If they say the repeal of blood and things strangled are implied, where the Apostle tells us Coll. 2. 16. we are not to be judged in Meat or Drink, etc. And that the Kingdom of God consists not in Meat and Drink, Rom. 14. 17. We say the same of outward Bread and Wine, being Meat and Drink; In our argument, we have not included the constant practice of all Churches as the Bp. doth in his, because we do not depend upon the verity of Tradition, (as the Bp. seems to do) altho' we understand that two of those instances we have given, are still practised after a manner by the Church of Rome, from whence we suppose, he'll not deny he derives the continued practice of Bread and Wine, tho' he declines the other: But as to the practice of Christian Churches (instanced by the Bp.) how greatly do they differ in their use as well as in their belief of the thing itself, while there is none of all sorts (nay not the Bp. himself) that follows the primitive practice, in the use of the outward Supper, as we have hinted before, and W. P's. Defence hath more fully shown; how then can we depend upon tradition? and thus we end about the Supper.  
P. 21. The last point of moment (says the Bp.) in Mr. P's. Book yet remaining untouched, is the great Difference or ground of dissent betwixt the Quakers and Established Church, and this Mr. P. tells us, is the great carnality and emptiness both of Ministers and People. Upon which the Bp. in return upon the Quakers goes on thus.  
Ibid. (21.) — The Bp. hereby enforced speak out, he says then that if eating the fat and drinking the choicest be carnality.— There is nothing to be eaten that is better than ordinary, that comes in to our markets here, which the People observe not presently bought up by the Quakers, they are still the earliest and best chapmen every Market day, for such commodities, and much good may they do them.— And so concludes this as under the Title of carnality and in the number of Scandalous Instances.  
Answ. If the Bp. in speaking out had spoke more to the purpose we think he had come off with more credit, for certainly it is mean stuff for a Bp. to help to stuff his Book with all, and in an Instance too, that if there be Scandal in it perhaps he may be concerned beyond any Quaker in Ireland, (or for what we know in England) while 'tis believed his Table is supplied with varieties beyond any of theirs (tho' perhaps his eager pursuit after the Quakers made him forget that part, or else thinks he ought to have a dispensation beyond them) But does the Bp. go to Market himself, or doth he write upon reports? if upon report, doth it become him to write to the Defamation of any people upon bare report, which for aught he knows may be false, and we know is false as he states it? for the Quakers of Cork, whom as we take it he means, by the word here, deny they are still the earliest Chapmen; yet that some of them go with others at the common market time no doubt is true, and where is the Scandal or Carnality of it? if there be any the Bp. must be concerned in it, since (if it be true as we are informed) his Caterer has been observed to be generally one of the first there, tho' we will not say as the Bp. doth, still the earliest, because some extraordinary thing might occasion his coming later than usual, and by that means perhaps miss a piece of meat for his Lord, (as he styled him) which perhaps a Quaker (or some other) had bought before, which we will not say was the occasion of this reflection, but probable enough it was so— Well, but the Bp. says we are the best Chapmen, and comes off with much good may they do them. Then say we to the first, the Butchers have no reason to complain of us, and to the last, what ever good he would have the meat do us 'tis plain he did not intent the story in kindness, while he makes it a Scandalous Instance. Now as to our eating and drinking, we hope we do it in the fear of God, and in moderation, let the Bp. say what he will; and if the Bp's. aptness to vilify the Quakers had not been uppermost and most prevalent with him he might with a great deal more ease, have found those nearer to him then the Quakers, who are guilty of great Excesses, as riotous Feasting, Drunkeness, Sporting, Games, Plays, Pride, Wantonness, with many such like things that appear (but too plain) to be gross carnality, and which behoved the Bp. to see his own Flock more clear of, before he had brought this Instance to prove the Quakers guilty of Carnality.  
We would have the Reader observe that the Bp. in this page. 21. (which we are now upon) had made a mixture of Interwoven charges, which we could not so regularly answer without bringing the parts of each charge together (which lay distant) as we did in the foregoing instance of carnality, so we do now in that of his Charging us with worldliness. Thus,  
If minding worldly gain (says the Bp.) and being so intent on it Day and Night; as to pass most days in the week without a Prayer to God, either in public Assembly or private Family; if the sliest ways, both to get Money and to keep it be worldliness, he knows no sort of People according to the degree of each given to those vices more than the Quakers: (and again at the end of that page goes on thus.) — And indeed how they should be a heavenly minded People who so much restrain Prayer, that is lay aside, forbear or neglect it as to common practice, (at least have done so) till of very late Years.  
Answ. If charges were proofs in these and other Instances, the Bp. had no doubt made us some of the worst of People, but to be reviled and abused without cause has fallen to our lot, which we may not strange at since it was the lot of the Apostles and primitive Christians from the Men of that age, and more especially from the chief Priests. Now as to that gross and uncharitable reflection upon our getting Money, we have already spoken to it before, so it needs no farther answer here; But that we appeal to the Searcher of Hearts, who best knows whether we have preferred, or regarded worldly things above the things of God.  
But as to Prayer, we say it is a false charge, that we ever did, either for worldly gain, or upon any other account Restrain, Neglect, or lay aside Prayer, either of late Years or from the beginning. Indeed if the Bp. means the many set forms of Prayer made ready to our hands by Men, he's in the right, in saying we neglect them, (tho' not to get worldly gain) and hope we shall do so to the end, and we tell him, if such formal Prayers would make Men better Christians, and more acceptable to God, there is a Church that perhaps far exceeds his for multitude of Prayers, namely that of Rome. But as to the Quakers, they firmly believe no Prayer is acceptable to God unless performed by and through the assistance of his holy Spirit, which doth not only consist in Vocal but Mental Prayer, according to Rom. 8. 26. We know not what we should Pray for, as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groan which cannot be uttered. Again 1 Cor. 14. 15. I will Pray with the Spirit, etc.— This sort of Prayer we dearly own, and to God's praise without boasting we can say, we have had and still have it frequently among us, not only in our public Meetings, but also in private Families, both Vocally and Internally, and not only so, but we are taught by the help of the Spirit to Pray in Spirit every where, according to 1 Tim. 2. 8. as well in our Business and Callings as in our public Assemblies.  
Ibid. (21.) The Bp. says he could mention more Scandalous Particulars or Instances, both of carnality and worldliness among them, but it is not agreeable to his Temper. For a Man to say the worst he can, (which we suppose the Bp. has done, and more than is true, and then pretends he could say more, is, we think, a ●ye way of slander and bespeaks no good temper.  
Again, (the Bp. p. 22.) Let Mr. P. then know, whatsoever men's attainments may be, it's not good so much to boast of their being Spiritual.  
Answ. God he knows we boast not, (nor have we any thing whereof to boast) as of ourselves, but may we not without boasting as David did, Psal. 66. 17. Tell others what God hath done for our Souls. And having by good experience witnessed the good and blessed effects of the Light, Grace and Spirit of God upon our Souls; shall we not in the love of God call and invite others thereunto? surely we may, and if for these things we are accounted boasters, we must and shall be content to bear this reproach with the rest.  
Ibid. (22.) To speak, says the Bp. to the true Notion of Spirituality, such Spiritual Persons as Mr. P. pretends to be, and as the Apostle speaks of, 1 Cor. 11. (but we suppose he intended) 1 Cor. 2. the place so much insisted, on by Mr. P. and ever and anon alluded to by him and his followers: Neither Mr. P. is, nor any Person that we know now living; Namely they can none of them Preach in demonstration of the Spirit and Power. Vers. 4. They have not (says the Bp.) those extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit to speak with tongues, and Prophesy, heal the Diseased; And so the Bp. goes on to other miraculous Gifts and Revelations of the Spirit, which the Apostles had.— And in p. 23. adds, this kind of Spiritual Men are ceased.  
Answ. It would take up much time and Paper to be so large upon these Objections of the Bp's. as we could be, to show how that through the coming in of the Apostasy Men became outside and nominal Christians, by forsaking and neglecting the inward guidance of the Grace and Spirit of God, and instead thereof set up outward Forms, and Prescriptions of Men: But we shall be brief, and only and this, that God in his infinite goodness is bringing his Church out of the Wilderness, and from the teachings of Man, to the teachings of his good Spirit. But to proceed.  
First. As to such extraordinary and Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit, as of healing the Diseased, and speaking with tongues which the Apostles had, we shall at present only return the Bp. the same answer, which the first Protestants usually gave the Papists, who demanded a confirmation of their New Doctrine (as they termed it) by Miracles; to which the Protestants replied that they Preached no New Gospel, but the same which was confirmed before by Miracles, and therefore needed no new ones to confirm it; and also that John the Baptist with many of the Prophets, tho' immediately and extraordinarily called, yet did no Miracles that we read of; and the same answer may serve for us, while we have always been ready to confirm our Doctrine by holy Scripture: but altho' such extraordinary Gifts of Tongues, etc. are ceased, yet it doth not therefore follow, we ought to neglect the inward teachings and dictates of the holy Spirit of God, which is given to Christians, as a standing perpetual rule, and more immediate guide under the New Covenant to walk by, and without which they cannot rightly perform their duty to God, as we have shown before. (p. 54.) As to that Text, 1 Cor. 13. 8. brought by the Bp. 'Tis plain those Gifts there mentioned were to cease, by giving way to what was more excellent, more perfect; see p. 10. 11, 12. following vers. and not by being succeeded by what is more carnal, and destitute of the Spirit; but leaving this at present we shall attend the Bp's. Objection, which relates to the Ministry, viz. that none can now Preach in the Demonstration of the Spirit and power.  
To which we answer, If that were so, then none can preach as the Oracles of God, nor in preaching be beneficial to the People, since the holy Scripture tells us, that the Spirit is a necessary and essential qualification to constitute a Minister of Christ which we shall prove, (1st.) from Jesus Christ himself, when he gave the Apostles that commission Matt. 28. 19 to Preach, he tells them thus, Vers. 20. Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo I am with you always, even to the end of the World. We hope none will be so trifling as to say, this Command extended only to the Apostles, if any so weak (to think so) than the foregoing Vers. 19 about Baptising (which they suppose Water) must likewise extend no farther; but supposing none so weak, thus to object, yet some m●y Query how was Christ to be with his Ministers to the end of the world? Was it not by the holy Scripture, the outward means now left to Christians? To this we answer, 'twas by his Spirit, which we prove from Christ's ●wn words, John 14. 16. I will pray the Father and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. Vers. 17. Even the Spirit of truth, he dwelleth with you and shall be in you. Ver. 26. The comforter, the holy Ghost he shall teach you all things (saith Christ) John 15. 5. Without me (saith Christ) ye can do nothing: from these with more Texts of Scripture, 'tis plain that Christ by his Spirit was to be with his truly constituted Ministers to the end of the World, by whom they were taught all things, and without whom they could do nothing, and pursuant to that commission and promise of Christ, the Apostles were called, commissionated, and did Preach by the Spirit, according to 2 Cor. 3. 6. Gall. 1. 11, 12. 1 Cor. 2. 4. and we do not find the Apostles did confine the Spirit to themselves only, but did recommend the same Gift of the Spirit as the necessary qualification to the constituting a Minister of the Gospel. (thus) 1 Peter 4. 10, 11. As every Man hath received the Gift, even so minister the same one to another as good stewards of the manifold Grace of God. If any Man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God; If any Man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth, that God in all things may be Glorified. Which we take to be as much as if he had said none ought to speak or minister about the things of God, but by the Gift of his holy Spirit, and who ever doth not so speak or minister cannot in so doing do it to the Glory of God. We could cite more Scriptures to the same purpose, which for brevity sake we omit: these may suffice to show that whoever pretends to be a Minister of Christ, cannot be truly such without the Qualification of and being Commissionated by the holy Ghost: And as to the Bp's. saying, that W. P. nor none can now Preach in demonstration of the Spirit and Power, 'tis but his bare assertion, and more than he can prove.— But as to the Bp's. part, we may be sure he cannot so Preach since he denies it to all, and while he thus asserts, he will do well to consider, how he came by his Ministry, since Christ promised to be with his Ministers to the end of the World, and that his Spirit was to continue with and in them for ever; from which Gift of his Spirit, they were to speak (according to the Apostle) as the Oracles of God, which to be sure cannot be but in demonstration of the Spirit and Power.— Having thus Proved the Spirit to be a necessary Qualification to the constituting a Minister of Christ, we now come to consider the Bp's. outward way to Holiness and spirituality, in which we shall find him as much out of the way as in the last. The Bp. Proceeds.  
P. (23.) People are now made holy by the use of outward means and grow up in Grace by degrees, yet in both cases, as to Gifts as well as Holiness, there are those, who by Analogy and Proportion, may still be termed Spiritual, that is, there are persons, who by study and industry attain to speak with tongues, etc. Others who having from the holy Scriptures, which were indicted by the Spirit of God, learned the mind of the Spirit, and being in their hearts persuaded of the Truths and Duties they have thence learned, and felt their Soul strongly moved by the Power of the Spirit under the Ministry of the Word, to the performance of such Duties, have yielded themselves and submitted to the Conduct of the holy Ghost leading them by Scripture into all truth, as well as Holiness. Thus, Reader, we have given thee this long Citation of the Bp's. that his own words may fully speak his mind.  
Answ. The Bp. hath here asserted upon his own authority and without proof, that People are now made holy by the use of outward means, and that there are those, who by Study and industry attain to speak with tongues, may be termed Spiritual: But contrary hereunto the holy Scriptures do abundantly prove, viz. That People are made holy and Spiritual by inward means, as we shall plainly show, only before we proceed we will here again give the holy Scriptures their due place, and allow them to be whatsoever they say of themselves, according to these or any other Texts, Rom. 15, 4. 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16, 17. believing them to be the best Writings extant in the World, and we love honour and esteem them beyond all others, and are so far from laying them aside as useless, that we say they are instrumental, a furtherance and help to Believers in the work of the Lord; but then we say 'tis through Faith which is the fruit of the Spirit, Gal. 5. 22. And thus they furnished the Man of God, 2 Tim. 3. 17. for so he was to be, that received those benefits by them; and we are so far from excluding the holy Scriptures from being helpful and beneficial to us, that we exclude not other outward and instrumental means, as Preaching, etc. But still we say it is by the Gift of the holy Spirit, by the illumination of which (and as the foundation) all outward means become beneficial and serviceable to us; and thus, Acts 16. 14. — Lydia— Whose heart the Lord opened that she attended unto the things which were spoken by Paul. Here 'twas the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, by which means as the efficient cause Paul's preaching became effectual to her; thus much briefly as to the holy Scriptures. Now to the Bp's. words before Cited, wherein he has asserted, that People are now made holy by the use of outward means, and from the Scriptures learned the mind of the Spirit. Whereas we say the principal agent and by which People are made holy, is the Grace and Spirit of God, which we now come to prove by Scripture. Thus, 1 John 2. 27. But the anointing ye have received, abideth in you, and ye need not that any Man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, Rom. 1. 19 But that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath showed it unto them. Again, 2 Cor. 4. 6, 7. 1 Cor. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 6. 19 Rom. 8. 9 And wicked Men also hath this Gift and means in themselves, tho' they will not make use of it nor regard it: Thus the Slothful Servant, Matt. 25. 18. had a Talon tho' he made no use of it, and the Pharisees, the worst of Christ's enemies, Luk. 17. 21. had the Kingdom of Heaven within them. Thus having shown (by a few of the many Texts we could produce) the means to be inward; we now come to prove People are made holy by this inward means, viz. the Gift of the holy Spirit.— Rom. 8. 13. If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the Body, ye shall live; but if ye live after the Flesh ye shall die, 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10, 11. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.— Neither Fornicators, Idolators, Adulterers,— Thiefs, Covetous, Drunkards, Revilers, Extortioners,— and such were some of you, but ye are washed, Sanctified, Justified in the name of our Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God, Eph. 4. 7. Unto every one is given Grace, according to the measure of the Gift of Christ, Titus 2. 11. The Grace of God that bringeth Salvation hath appeared unto all Men, teaching us that denying ungodliness and Worldly Lusts we should live soberly, righteously, and godlily in this present World. Eph. 5. 9, 10. The fruit of the Spirit is all Goodness, Righteousness, and Truth. Again John 16. 13. the Spirit was to guide into all truth; then the Children of God were to be led by his Spirit, and none were his, but such as was guided thereby, Rom. 8. 9, 14. In short 'tis needless to bring more of the numerous Scripture Testimonies which might be cited to prove this point, but these may suffice to show that People are made holy by the Grace and Spirit of God within Men and not by outward means, as the Bp. hath asserted, and the same way they are made holy, they are likewise made Spiritual, it being impossible to be a holy Man without being Spiritual, see Rom. 8. 6. To be Spiritually minded is life and peace.— And the way whereby Men become Spiritual is by the Spirit of God according to 1 Cor. 2. 10. to 15. But contrary hereunto the Bp tells us, There are those who by Analogy and Proportion may be still termed Spiritual; that is there are persons who by study and industry attain to speak with tongues, etc. We ask then, whether wicked Men who have attained to speak with tongues, are not of the number of the B'ps. Spiritual Men? and whether his definition of Spiritual Men is not such as natural Men may attain unto? As to the Bp's. telling us of the power of the Spirit, and again, the conduct of the holy Ghost leading them by Scripture into all Truth, as well as holiness, He must not be displeased if we tell him, that we know no such language in holy Scripture, as leading by Scripture into all Truth: On the contrary, the Scriptures themselves do ascribe Holiness and Truth to the Spirit directly, as we have shown, to which purpose, we'll add one Text here, John 16. 13. when he, (the Spirit of Truth) is come he will guide you into all Truth; but upon what ground or with what reason can the Bp. speak of the Spirit and the holy Ghost? when he first told us, People are now made holy by the use of outward means, And from the Scriptures have learned the mind of the Spirit, whereas the work of the Spirit is within, as we have already proved. If he shall retract, and tell us, as the holy Scripture doth, that People are led into all Truth and Holiness by the Spirit, we shall then agree in that point.  
Ibid. (23.) The Bp. goes on, telling us the several effects producible in his way of Spirituality and Holiness, and p. 24. says thus, Let such Persons as these be allowed to be Spiritual; and if so, the Bp. says he doubts not but there will be found more such who are no Quakers, than who really are; and particularly the Bp. claims to be such an one himself, and challenges Mr. P. to prove the Contrary.  
Answ. We will not differ with him about the numbers of his sort of Spiritually made Men, and that they do exceed the Quakers, believing it true; But we have already proved the Bp's. outward way, and the Scriptures inward way to Holiness and spirituality do widely differ, and as they so do, the effects in reality must do the same, and therefore we shall be very brief with the Bp. as to his challenge, and tell him, tho' we allow him also to be a Spiritual Man, according to his outward way of making them, yet W. P. nor we need not go about to prove that he is no Spiritual Man, according to Scripture Definition, since he has so effectually done it himself. Thus much as to Spirituality and Holiness.  
Ibid (24.) The Bp. proceeds, as to emptiness the Bp. craves pardon if he be at a loss what Mr. P. means thereby.  
Answ. Why the Bp. at a loss, since W. P. spoke so very plain as to the emptiness of the Clergy, while in p. 107, 108. he tells him 'tis preaching without the Spirit in a lifeless and humane ministry, and such as were made Ministers by humane Learning and Authority, whereas the Ministers of Christ became such by the Qualifications an Gifts of the Spirit, as he had proved, and which is further confirmed by us.  
Ibid. (24.) If emptiness (says the Bp.) signifies the Minister's Sermons being barren, with little substance or solid matter in them, the Quakers are much more guilty, as far as ever the Bp's experience could reach; witness the first things they published, if compared to the Printed Sermons of the conformable Clergy, since Mr. P's. accession to them, it must be confessed, he has much improved them, and brought them to write what looks like sense and Coherence.  
Answ. We cannot wonder the Bp. should speak in the behalf of that Clergy being one of the number himself, and against the Quakers, whom he hath endeavoured to reproach, and therefore, to be sure, no competent Judge of either our Preaching or Writings, for which reason we shall appeal from him to more competent and impartial Judges, in relation to both; but this we will say, that altho' the Quakers were never against, but for true sense and coherence in Preaching and Writing, yet we lay no such stress or necessity upon the Learning, Arts, Parts, and Wisdom of Men in doing either, as perhaps the Bp. doth; and he may remember the greatest Truths, namely the holy Scriptures, are delivered in a Style suited to the meanest capacities. Again that Learned Apostle Paul was so far from recommending the Learning and wisdom of Men, and excellency of Speech in preaching, etc. that he both opposes as well as disesteems and undervalues them from being either a means or furtherance to the work of the Lord. On the Contrary he exalts the weak, foolish and despised things of the World as more acceptable to God, see 1 Cor. 1. 17. to 29. and has this same up again, Chap. 2. 13. thus, Which things we also speak not in the words which Man's wisdom teacheth. But which the holy Ghost teacheth, comparing Spiritual things with Spiritual. Here the Apostle point blank opposes spirituality, and the teachings of the holy Ghost, to the wisdom and teachings of Men, contrary whereunto (as we have before observed) the Bp. hath asserted, that Men may still be termed Spiritual by outward Study and Learning.  
But as to the Quakers, they are of the same mind with the Apostle, and are so far from valuing the most excellent Preaching proceeding from the Arts, Parts, Wisdom, and Learning of this World without the Spirits Teaching, that they prefer far above and beyond it, a few plain mean words either from Man or Woman, as proceeding from the Motion of the Divine Spirit, and although such speech or words may seem very contemptible in the eyes of the wise and learned Men of this World, in their natural State, yet such Preaching carries an evidence with it to the enlightened understanding, far excelling the other, not only to illiterate persons but to such also, who have had the Arts and Literature of this World, whose understandings have been opened by the Divine Spirit.— And as to W. P. tho' we esteem and Love him yet 'tis not barely either for his Parts or Learning, but for his Christian sincerity towards God and his Truth.  
Again the Bp. (p. 24.) But the Bp. would willingly know of Mr. P. what there was in B. Wheddons holding Forth.— after Mr. P. at Cork when he put his hat before his face and laughed, and whether she be the only person from whom in their Assemblies he has often heard such stuff.  
Answ. In this story as well as other things, relating personally to W. P. the Bp. took care to let W. P. be gone out of Europe before he published his Book: we suppose the Bp. done't pretend to give this story from his own knowledge, how well then doth it become the Bp. to write such stories upon report, and is not that word holding Forth used in derision or scorn? but what stuff? why did not the Bp. tell us the stuff? if he knew, and if he did not, he might with more credit have been silent to the story, while in thus doing he only demonstrates his willing mind to bring any story (tho' it be a lame one) in hopes to vilify the Quakers. But as to the story of W. P's. laughing 'tis as improbable as frivolous, and which we no more believe, then that the late Bp. of Cork is now in China. (1st.) because W. P. is a Man of a solid carriage and grave Deportment, and in his common conversation seldom if ever given to laughter, and not very often to smile.— But that he should laugh at what was spoken in a meeting by a Woman of his own communion, and in a place too, where perhaps there were many scores if not hundreds of Auditors besides Quakers.  
We say that he should laugh under all those circumstances is so ridiculously improbable, that we should think none will believe it, but such as will not disbelieve any story what ever against the Quakers. (2ly.) We let the Bp. know whatever the Custom of laughing be in his congregation we have no such in ours; and whosoever the Bp's. Spy or Informer was, we suppose him one who used to laugh in his own Church or else (to be sure) he would not have imagined W. P. to laugh in our Meeting. But that W. P. might pull his hat before his eyes (while she was speaking) may be probable, it being very usual for him so to do in our Meetings, which perhaps this Informer observing, might imagine he laughed, while it was only the effects of a strong prepossession of mind, as knowing it was common to laugh in his own Church; this is the most charitable construction we can put upon that improbable story: But if this were not the case, we then conclude it to be a wilful forgery to make a story to the Bp. whom the Informer might know was ready enough to receive one against him and the Quakers.  
Ibid. (25.) And part of 26. is about the maintenance for the Ministry; and indeed we find W. P. touched a tender place, while he treated upon this head, which is apparent by the Bp's. being greatly displeased, if we may conclude reviling and abusing W. P. be an indication thereof. viz. p. 25. saith the Bp. A Man will be strongly tempted to an unluckily guests where that person (meaning W. P.) has taken in his Principles (alluding as we take it to Popery.) Again, the Bp. p. 26. If Mr. P. be not popishly affected, which hath been long feared of him, and that on very likely grounds, it may be suspected hence that he has a greater kindness for Atheism then is consistant with his profession.  
Answ. The Bp's. fear and Suspicion that W. P. is either popishly or Atheisticaly affected proceeds from the same ground, and are alike true, as that he died a Papist about sixteen years ago in Pensilvania, and this was put in Print too by some of his Enemies: But we must tell the Bp. W. P's. Credit in those two points are above the reach of his Censorious pen, not only with the Quakers, but with many Men of note and Character in the World even of the Bp's. own Church. Well, but why must W. P. be affected to Popery or have a kindness for Atheism with the Bp? why? 'tis because he is for a free Gospel Ministry, and observes the Ministry is become too much a temporal preferment, and few to be found among them, who court not stations of greatest profit and Honour; see W. P's. Defence 109. which indeed falls so very pat, and touches the Bp. so to the Quick (upon his late remove) (tho' no doubt was then unknown to W. P.) that 'tis not so much to be wondered at, why he should be so uneasy under it. But had the Bp. rightly considered, he could not have supposed that W. P's. dislike of Tithes or other forced Maintenance proceeded from his being popishly affected, because Tithes as a settled maintenance were introduced in time of Popery.  
Ibid. (25.) The Bp. tells us, meaning W. P. would have so great a body as the Ministry in these Kingdoms all become somewhat like mendicant Friars. No Rents or Deuce must be allowed them, but Alms and Gifts, with what then (says the Bp.) are they likely to be more sincere in their Doctrine by being put to please Men that they may give them Alms.  
Answ. No, W. P. nor the Quakers would not have the Ministry Beggars, nor yet somewhat like Mendicant Friars, their begging way being nothing like the Apostles way of maintenance, and yet we would have such as have occasion, to be satisfied with Christ's free allowance, which was no other than free Gifts, and from the hands of such too, as did receive them and their ministry; see Matt. 10. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. And this maintenance we find the Apostles excepted of, and were satisfied with, tho' it seems so far from pleasing the Bp. that he makes it a temptation to please Men: Surely we hope the Bp. will allow, that our Lord knew better than he, and that his command and way of a free maintenance, was not what would lead his Ministers into a temptation to be Men-pleasers, and we think it was not reverend, and what became a Bp. to draw such a consequence, whereby he implicitly reflected on the Christian Lawgiver, tho' intended. directly against W. P. and the Quakers.  
Again, Ibid. 25. Says the Bp. miraculous supports and ceased with Miracles themselves. What miraculous supports? we find none required, they (viz. the Apostles) were manifest to men's Consciences, (is that ceased now?) and received what was set before them, and from those who would not receive them, nor their doctrine, they departed, and shook off the dust of their feet.  
The Bp. tells us Ibid. 25. Mr. P. no where moves, that those laws which forbidden Ministers to exercise Merchandizing, Mechanics or Secular Employments, may be abrogated or taken away.  
We ask whether those Laws are Civil or Canon? and upon what occasion these Laws were made? and whether it was not because of the great covetousness of the Clergy, who not being content with the excessive gain of Tithes, were so greedy of gain, that they would be getting other ways too? (and perhaps by wily and sly ways as the Bp. slanders the Quakers.) We farther ask the Bp. if W. P. or the Quakers should move, as he speaks, will he promise for himself and engage or endeavour with the rest of the Clergy, they will be content without Tithes, provided those Laws be Repealed, when we know his mind he may hear farther; in the mean time, without he had let us know his mind in that case, we think his Objection was to little purpose. But says the Bp.  
Ibid. (25.) If Lands and Tithes be denied them, and they are forbid other ways of getting a livelihood, there remains nothing but going a begging.  
Answ. If they are Ministers of Christ and sent by him, there is no danger of that, for David under the Law, Psa. 37. 25. Saw not the righteous forsaken nor his Seed begging Bread: And Christ exhorts his Disciples to trust providence for Clothing, Meat, and Drink, etc. see Matt. 6. 21, 32, 33. and tells them Chap. 10. 29, 30. as an encouragement to depend upon God's providence, that the very hairs of their heads were numbered, and not a Sparrow fell to the ground without God: And again promised to be with his Ministers to the end of the World, Matt. 28. 20. And shall the Ministers of Christ in our day distrust his providence for such necessaries as they stand in need of? surely no. They have faith in him that he will open the hearts of some to administer to their necessities, and will not fear their going a begging, tho' they have no Tithes. But we confess it may be otherwise with those who are made Ministers by outward means, as by Man and Money, and indeed it's no wonder if such want the true faith, which is inward and the fruit of the Spirit, Gall. 5. 22. The Bp's., chief and indeed the only Scripture argument he has brought in spite (as he says) of all such, ill consequences, to prove their maintenance to be jure divino is 1 Cor. 9 13, 14. where provision is made for those who wait at the Altar, etc.— And they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.  
Answ. (1st.) This Scripture, tho' the chief the Bp. could bring, will make very little for his purpose to prove Tithes and other forced maintenance, due under the Gospel dispensation, which was the point the Bp. ought to prove if he could, and which to be sure he never can do by Scripture.  
(2ly.) The Quakers never denied or disallowed such a living as we are to understand Paul doth here mean, to wit the Ministers of Christ who preached the Gospel should be supplied with such necessaries of Food and Raiment as they stood in need of; but as then so now, it's to come free and voluntary and from the hands of such too who had partaken of their ministry, or believed them to be Ministers of Christ, and to this agrees Rom. 15. 27. If the Gentiles have been partakers of their Spiritual things their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.  
(3ly.) This sort of living and this way of maintenance for Ministers of Christ (who stand in need of and want necessaries) we are for, and with which agrees the very command of our Lord Jesus Christ when he sent forth his Disciples, Matt. 10. 8, 9 freely ye have received, freely give; But at the same time bids them neither provide Gold, Silver, or Brass in their purses, neither two coats, nor shoes, and gives the reason against such provision. Vers. 10. for the workman is worthy of his meat; as much as to say, tho' you are to preach freely, as neither to command or demand any thing for Preaching, yet you may receive such necessaries as you want or stand in need of. Now who are they to receive this from, but from such who received them, for he bids them shake off the dust of their feet, as a testimony against such who would neither receive them, nor hear their words. Vers. 14.  
(4ly.) Beyond the extent of Christ's allowance and the persons from whom to receive, we are not to understand that Text, 1 Cor. 9 14. nor indeed are we to understand it otherwise from the context itself, (1st.) Because 'twas to the Believers he then wrote, therefore from the Believers only the Ministers of Christ were to take what was given. (2ly.) That Paul was far from intending a great and lordly allowance or living; hear what he saith, Vers. 18. What is my reward then (says he) verily that when I preach the Gospel, I may make the Gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the Gospel. From whence two things are observable. (1st.) That he makes it rewardable to preach without charge, consequently then the more chargeable the less rewardable. (2ly.) That there was a danger of abusing the Gospel Power (which must be only understood in taking necessaries according to Christ's allowance,) therefore being so nice a point, and having regard to his reward, and fearing he might abuse his power, he chose rather to work with his own hands, then take any thing at all, which he did to the supply of his own, and the necessities of them that were with him, in which he became a good pattern and Example to others.  
Thus he tells the Church of Ephesus, Acts 20. 33, 34, 35. I have coveted no Man's Silver, Gold, or Apparel, these hands have administered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me: we think it can remain no longer a doubt, what sort of living and maintenance Paul allowed the Ministry, by 1 Cor. 9 14. viz. to receive at the hands of Believers for to answer their necessities.  
(5ly.) Now, Impartial Reader, compare the Gospel allowance from Christ Jesus our Lord and what we are to understand from Paul, 1 Cor. 9 13, 14. (the place cited by the Bp.) and see what proportion or equality it holds with Tithes and other forced maintenance in our day, and whether they, who pretend to be Ministers of Christ, and get so many hundreds, if not some of them some thousands by the Year for preaching, do not unreasonably exceed as well as abuse the Gospel power and maintenance which Paul allowed the ministry.  
Ibid. (25.) The Bp. proceeds thus, The Bp. doubts not to affirm, that take away the Established Ministry (which in moral speaking cannot subsist without a maintenance) and let our Parish Churches be left destitute of learned Preachers, and not only Popery in some places, but Irreligion and Barbarity more generally would soon ensue.  
Answ. The first part of the Bp's. words are not hard to be understood, and are as plain, as we believe them true, which we take to be that if the Ministers settled Maintenance be taken away, the Ministry will fall and the Churches be left destitute of them.— Then say we if maintenance uphold and supports them we think it's plain that maintenance is their foundation, since they fall without it: We ask then whose Ministers they are? since Christ Jesus was the foundation of his truly constituted Ministers, with whom he promised to be to the end of the World, Matt. 28. 20. and upon whom a necessity was laid to preach the Gospel, and who were so far from forbearing to preach for want of a settled maintenance, that cruel Sufferings, as Whipping, Stoning, Imprisonment, nay death itself could not deter or hinder them therefrom, the hands of these we find administered to their necessities, whereas the Bp's. ministry, morally speaking (as he tells us) cannot subsist, and that the Churches will be left destitute of them in case they are not upheld by settled maintenance: We could say much more upon this head, but forbear and refer, to the Impartial Reader upon a serious consideration, whether such be true Gospel Ministers, as the Bp. has stated them, or Ministers for Money and maintenance.  
As to the Bp's. consequence that Popery and Barbarity would ensue, in case the Established Ministry were taken away, (by forbearing of the maintenance.)  
We answer the consequence is not true; for when the Clergy's maintenance was greater in these Nations, before Impropriations were taken from them, there was more Popery, Irreligion, and Barbarity then now, and perhaps would be less if Tithes were wholly down, and all preachers left to a free maintenance. Now as to Popery, there would be little danger of that, because if the Papists were sure before hand to miss of the sweet gain of Tithes, etc. they would no more trouble the Churches or People then the Bp's. Ministry, since they never fail, wherever they get footing to promote Tithes, and are as much for upholding them, as the Bp. or his Ministry can be; consequently then the Churches would be as destitute of them as of the Bp's. Ministry, and therefore no danger of Popery. Next as to Irreligion and Barbarity soon ensuing.  
Answ. There would be as little danger thence, as of Popery, since instead of Men made Ministers, and such whose prop and foundation is Tithes and forced maintenance, we might not doubt the good providence of God in sending us Ministers of his own making, who would preach freely as they had received the same, and in so doing would come with less suspicion of worldly and sinister ends, while gain and advantage was no motive to their undertaking of that Office and the effects of such ministers preaching as these, no doubt would be far from introducing Popery, Barbarity, or Irreligion, that in all probability People would generally and sooner become better Christians under such a Ministry, than they now are under the Established one's.  
P. 26. In Mr. P's. Judgement (says the Bp.) they must be all hirelings and Hypocrites, and the Bp. himself need not look far for such — he is too sensibly instructed in this affair (says Mr. P.) for a parting blow.— (And in a few lines after the Bp. adds thus) the Bp. meanwhile for himself hereby Summon's W. P. to appear before God shortly at his Tribunal to answer for his Censuring him as a mercenary, an hireling, and an Hypocrite.  
Answ. We might with much more reason return the like Summons to the Bp. for his great abuse of W. P. in particular, and the Quakers in general, as we have shown, and by this Instance we find he resolves to hold out unfair to W. P. to the end, in laying down words in a different character as W. P's. tho' they are none of his directly, and not only so, but adding with a break between some words Eight pages distant to answer his purpose, without giving any notice thereof, therefore we shall Cite W. P's. Words in both places as they lie in his Defence. Thus (p. 122.) If he (i. e. the Bp.) Hath any shot left against mercenary Religionist he may not miss the mark next time, but make it his main aim, end, and study to expose Hirelings and Hypocrites in their proper colours; and some are of opinion, he need not go far to find too many of them. Again, p. 130. I cannot pretend to tell the Bp. what tribe of Men in Christendom it is, that have long made gain their godliness, and the pretence thereof their worldly inheritance, since he has been, so much more sensibly instructed in this affair than myself.  
Pray Reader compare these Citations with what the Bp. has laid down as W. P's. and see if they do not differ, but since the Bp. by falsifying W. P's. words, p. 122. and by so doing applied them directly to himself, which is plain W. P. did not unless the Bp. be included in the number [too many] and since 'tis very plain as W. P. hath told him, p. 130. he is more sensibly instructed in getting worldly inheritance for a Spiritual consideration then W. P. is. We say since the case is thus it will lie upon the Bp. to rectify and give satisfaction for his unfairness (in this as well as other Citations, etc.) as well as to clear himself of W. P's. last assertion (by way of comparison) in getting, etc. As to making Gain Godliness, they were in return to the Bp's. suggesting the Quakers such a People in his Testimony.  
Ibid. (26.) The Bp. proceeds thus, he (i. e. the Bp.) is further bold to tell the World that both he and divers of his brethren with him in a certain City laboured in the Ministry both day and night, when they had neither Lands nor Tithes, nor other Revenues to support them— And did feed their Flock. — That the very persons or others of their party, who now call that spoiling, which is but making some of their party pay a small pittance of Legal Deuce, were at that time in power at Court or otherwise; and instead of Preaching, were Directors of public Councils for no good or much mischief.  
Answ. If the Bp. could have boldly told us, that he and his brethren fed their Flock freely, and at such a time when they could have compelled People to pay Tithes and other maintenance, but would not do it, because 'twas no Gospel maintenance, we say if he could have thus told us it would indeed have been not only bold but well told too; but to tell the world he fed his Flock without Tithes, etc. in a time of War, when 'twas not in his power to get them, we think by such his boldness, he will merit no great Commendations; and as to staying with his Flock in a time of danger, 'twas but his reasonable duty so to do, if it were only for his being largely paid (by them) before. We will not say he would have left them if he could, but he knows that unless he had gone off in the beginning of the troubles, 'twas almost next to impossible to get away afterwards; and certain it is many who did stay would gladly have gone afterwards if they could, whether he was one of that number he best knows. Next as to our not paying a small pittance of Legal Dues (as he calls them.) We answer 'tis for conscience sake we deny such payments, as not believing Tithes, etc. due to a Gospel Ministry, and as to the Legality of them, we dispute not the point, but say since he demands and takes them for a Spiritual consideration, he ought to prove his right to Tithes, etc. by a divine Sanction, as well as insist upon the Legality of them.  
Now to the last part of his charge, where he insinuates that some Preachers amongst us were great at Court or otherwise, and instead of Preaching, were Directors of public Councils for no good or much mischief.  
Answ. This charge (as a parting blow to speak in the Bp's. words) as it is untrue so it is equally unfair, not only in his being silent as to the person or persons that were such, no good or much mischief Directors, (if he knew them) but also in not telling the World what that no good or much mischief was, such did, that hereby the matter being known, the World might judge, whether it was criminal or not, and if particular Persons were guilty they might bear their own blame, and the Innocent be cleared, but neither of these the Bp. has done, for a good reason (no doubt) because he could not do it. But the Bp. perhaps thought this general and hidden way best to serve his end, which we cannot believe was any other then thereby to calumniate the Quakers in general; all the pretence that we can suppose for this charge is, that some few (perhaps not above a dozen at most in all the Nation, if so many) of our Friends were (very much against their minds) nominated Common Counsel-men, and some of them Aldermen in particular incorporale Towns, as likewise at the same time were far greater numbers of other Protestants (which tho' a crime in us yet none in them with the Bp.) And as to preachers, we do not believe there was at most above two or three in the Nation of that number itself, nay we know but of one. But that either preachers or hearers were great at Court at all, or Directors of public Councils, as the Bp. saith, we utterly deny, unless he will call: W. B. one, who yet was no Preacher, nor indeed was he in unity with us. On the contrary we are bold to tell the World (as the Bp. did,) we think with less reason) and which we should not have done but that it is extorted from us on this occasion, that the Quakers in most parts of the Nation did contribute large Sums to the relief of distressed Protestants and never failed to do them good on all occasions as it lay in their power.  
But why's the Bp. so loud and hiddenly smiting the Quakers, we think he might have been silent in such a charge above many others, since no Quaker in Ireland was so high a Director (to give his own words) as a Parliament Man, which the Bp. was in those times, which we do not reflect upon him for, yet he that was such, he that writ the Specimen of Loyalty and so largely asserted the Right of that Government, to be undoubted; and he that publicly reprehended or silenced a Clergy Man in Cork for a Certain shortness in his Office, the better to express his great Loyalty, might have forborn this undue as well as untrue charge against the Quakers. We do not aggravate the matter, otherwise we could be more particular, as to the two last, nor indeed had we mentioned any of them but that we were led to it by his hidden reflection.  
Ibid. 26. He (i. e. the Bp.) never persecuted Quakers, etc.— to which we answer, as we are plain where he injures us, so we will not be unjust where he deserves praise; we do confess we never heard he did, and tho' persecution be disagreeable to the very nature of Christianity, yet the contrary is commendable in the Bp. since some, while in their power, have been greatly guilty of persecution, and altho' this controversy has happened with the Bp. yet we may justly say, 'twas neither desired nor sought for by us, and had the Bp. continued to be as easy with his Pen as he was in not persecuting the Quakers otherways, there had been no occasion for all this public controversy: the Bp. tells us, p. 26. he hindered a certain person from publishing Memoirs of Mr. P's. Life, of his turning Quaker, and of his business at saint Omers, etc.  
Answ. So far as the Bp. really did so in tenderness to the good name of W. P. it is to be commended in him (tho' such Memoirs were ever so untrue) However we tell the Bp. whatever his mind was heretofore, yet the giving such a slant of being at St. Omers don't now look very kind: We farther tell the Bp. that W. P. is no stranger to malicious lies and forgeries, both upon himself in particular as well as upon the Quakers in general; and as to the true reason of W. P's. turning Quaker, whatever Malice may frame or suggest, yet we think no considerate and Impartial Man can possibly believe, he had any other motive or consideration to his turning Quaker, but the good of his Soul, while the way to Quakerism (so called) is so very contrary to the greatness, Honour, and preferment with other such like worldly considerations (which are most commonly the motives to great Changes) and that at the same time W. P. turned Quaker, he turned his back upon all these things.  
Next as to the business of St. Omers: This Instance shows what sort of Memoirs these were like to be. This Story is as old and thread bare as it is false, and if lying charges and stories were proofs W. P. was not only at St. Omers but had received Orders at Rome, and had died a Papist many years' past: But why do not all his false Accusers prove his being there, by assigning a credible witness or witnesses, who saw him there, or some way or other demonstrate he was there? No that was never done, and indeed for a good reason, because it could not in truth be done. Now this blind story, we confront by a public Print, written by W. P. in answer to a friend of his, who importunately desired him for satisfaction to the credulous, and such who knew not W. P. that he would in a Public manner answer that among other lying stories; the Letter is Dated — October, 1688. wherein W. P. makes return to those lying Aspersions, p. 11. and Solemnly declares that he was not only not Jesuit or Papist, but that he never was at St. Omers in all his Life, nor did he so much as know, or ever correspond with any one there. Here W. P. put it upon the test, his lying Enemies had then a fair opportunity (if they could) to prove him a Liar, and in so doing would have had good ground to suspect him a Papist too.  
Ibid. p. 26. and 27. The Bp. concludes his Book, first, telling of W. P's. vile Treatment, and calls his Defence an unhandsome piece; then proceeds with a Prayer that God will forgive all to Mr. P. and his brethren, and bestow upon them a Spirit of true Faith, meekness and peace, of heavenly mindedness, Charity, Mortification, and all the Graces they pretend to; and that their hearts may be one day found as void of Error, Pride, Scorn, and peevish rancour, as Mr. P's. Book is full of the expressions of them all. Thus ends the Bp.  
Answ. As to the vile Treatment and the Expressions of Error, Pride, Scorn, peevish rancour, etc. the Bp. tells us is in W. P's. unhandsome piece; we say they are hard words, and sooner said then proved, and the Reader may remember, the Bp. throughout his Reply has been readier at charges than proofs, most of which (we think) has in the end fallen upon himself instead of W. P. as we have shown; and in this case we do deny what the Bp. hath asserted, and for Umpirage (i● the matter) refer ourselves to the Impartial Reader, who have been most guilty of these and such like expressions, W. P. in his Defence, or the Bp. in his Reply.  
Next as to the Bp's. Prayer. If the Bp. had been more sparing to misrepresent, vilify, and abuse W. P. and the Quakers; then he hath been, it might have come with less suspicion of its reality; but we think its next to impossible that any Man who endeavours to abuse and misrepresent another, can at the same time Pray truly and hearty for him: And as to those Graces the Bp. mentions, tho' on the one hand we will not boast of them, yet through the mercy and goodness of God, some of us can in humility of Soul say, we have in measure witnessed the work of Mortification in our Souls, through the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ.  
And now to conclude; We can in sincerity say we have not, according to the best of our understandings, either misrepresented the Bp. or wilfully overlookt his sense, but so far as we understood the Import of his words, and where the force of his Arguments lay, we have as truly stated them, and thereupon answered with uprightness; and whether we have thus done by the Bp. and he hath done so by W. P. or not, is left to the Impartial Reader, and so we conclude this rejoinder.  
Cork, the 15. of the 11. Month, 1699. 

T. W.  
N. H.     
The END.  

THE Author's Absence from the Press hath occasioned several Errors in the Printing, the most Material whereof are here Corrected, and those of lesser Note which have escaped, the Reader is desired to Correct with his Pen, or overlook.  

ERRATA.  
PAge 1. line 6. for himself, thanks. Read, himself—, thanks. l. 15. abated, and r. abated—, and. p. 13. l. 2. Doctrine, by r. Doctrine,— by. p. 14. l. 1. r. First Impression. p. 19 l. 13. blot out. Heb. 10. 35. p. 24. l. 21. deny. r. deny, etc. p. 39 l. 1▪ blot out then. p. 53. l. 1. p. 9 r. (p. 14.) p. 61. l. this. r. thus. p. 62. l. 11. Bp's. r. Bp. p. 66. l. 9 W. P's. r. W. P. p. 83. l. 11. blot out and. p. 86. l. 25. (p 29.) r. (p. 57) p. 90. l. 23. 1 John. 1. 12. r. 1 John 1. 1. p. 93. l. 23. love. r. leave. p. 100 l. 2. what have. r. what Rule have. p. 106. l. 7. Matt. 43. r. Matt. 73. p. 110. John 5. 8. r. John 3. 8. p. 126. l. ult. blot out appearance. Ibid. second coming. r. second outward coming. p. 131. l. 2 and 3. blot out (which we do not.) l. 4. the occasion. r. on the occasion. p. 133. l. 2. viz. no. r. viz. that no. p. 143 l. 8. Psal. 66. 17. r. Psal. 66. 16. p. 145. l. 14. (p, 54.) r. (p. 80.) l. 18. blot. p. l. 19 verse. r. verses. p. 148. l. 29 being. r. been. p. 151. l. 2. blot out. 1 Cor. 6. 19 p. 159. l. 18. strongly. r. strangely. p. 161. l. 15. excepted. r. accepted. p. 163. l. 11. Matt. 6. 21. r. Matt. 6. 31. p. 170. l. 7. as a Mercenary. r. as Mercenary.