THE QUAKER Condemned out of his own Mouth: OR, AN ANSWER TO WILL. PEN'S Book entitled REASON against RAILING, AND TRUTH against FICTION;  
Wherein he hath confessed, that if those things objected against the Quakers, in two former Dialogues be true, that then a Quaker is quiter another thing than a Christian; that those matters heretofore objected, were and are real truths and no fictions, is fully cleared and evinced in this third Dialogue between a Christian and a Quaker.  
By Thomas Hicks.  Tit. 1.16. They profess that they know God, but in works deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate. Tit. 3.10. A man that is an heretic, after the first and second Admonition, reject. 
London, Printed by R. W. for Peter Parker, and are to be sold at his Shop at the Golden-Leg and Star over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill. 1674.   

Reader,  
THou hadst long ere this had an Answer to W. Pen's Book, entitled, Reason against Railing, &c. but that I had intimations of another more considerable piece, wherein probably I might have found their full strength, but no such Book( though it might have been both written and Printed since I first heard of it) can yet be met with, which makes me to think, that either some more than ordinary difficulty hath occurred to hinder, or else they are unwilling of its publication; whereupon I disposed myself to consider the former. Albeit, to any discerning Reader it needs no answer, forasmuch as W. Pen( after his accustomend manner of easing himself by railing) doth avouch the greatest part of what I object against them; and hath rendered their opinions more obnoxious to censure, than as they were represented by me. In the ensuing Dialogue thou wilt find the strength of W. Pen's reasoning, in the defence of those opinions of the Quakers there under consideration: And that both W. Pen, and G. Whitehead( notwithstanding their pretences of being under the conduct of an infallible Spirit) do fearfully and openly prevaricate: For, whilst they knowingly lie, they brand their accuser for a Forger. Their own positions in Print( finding themselves pinched, and not able to defend them) they do with the highest confidence deny that ever they so writ, which is an iniquity not consistent with common honesty.  
From the whole Discourse thou mayst be assured that these particulars following are the opinions of the Quakers, ( 1.) That the Light in every man is God, Christ, and the Saviour of the World.( 2.) That the Soul of man is God.( 3.) That Jesus Christ is not a distinct person without us.( 4.) And though they pretend to aclowledge his appearance in the flesh, yet the end of that appearance( W. Pen affirms) was to redeem and deliver Gods holy Life( that is, himself) in man.( 5.) That the Scriptures are no rule of Faith and practise unto Christians, though I must confess( to give W. Pen his due) he doth aclowledge them to be an historical rule; and also a rule allowing them to give bad names to such as ask them questions.( 6.) That Ordinances are to be rejected: hence W. Pen renounceth the Appellation, Ordinances of Christ, as unscriptural, and inevangelical. And in his wonted confidence doth affirm, That Christ came to abolish and remove all shaddowy and perishing things; Instances, Water, Bread, and Wine ( that is, Baptism, and the Lords Supper) to be no mediums instituted by Jesus Christ: adding, He would nor have any so sottish as to think that Christ came to abolish Jewish shadows, and yet set up other elementary things in their room. Yet neverth less( as inpudently sottish, as W. Pen, and the Quakers are) they will be found( though but in an A●ish imitation) in the use of some external Ordinan●es: For the Devil( as great an enemy as he is to instituted Religion) will have an outward Ministry, knowing it to be a fit medium to propagate his lies, and to enlarge his Empire. If the Quakers shall object, That God doth make use of the Ministry of men; I grant it, For by the foolishness of Preaching, he saves them that believe; But why then may not other Ordinances be allowed as well as this, since the holy Spirit can speak and work as effectually by mediums of his own institution, as by the words and reasonings of men. ( 7.) Concerning Justification, they deny it to be by the righteousness of another imputed, affirming one while, That it is the work of the Spirit in us, making us just; and another while they will say( though in direct contradiction) that our personal obedience is the ground of our being accounted Just.( 8.) Touching the doctrine of Christs satisfaction, W. Pen repeats what he had said before in his Sandy Founda— ( viz.) That it is irreligious, irrational, Ridiculous, and Dangerous.( 9.) Concerning the Resurrection of this Body, you have W. Pen's belief in these particulars, ( 1.) That such a Resurrection is inconsistent with Scriptures, reason, and the belief of all men in their wits. Reas. against Rail. p. 133( 2.) That it is an absurdity beyond that of Transubstantiation, p. 134.( 3.) That what the Scripture speaks hereof, is not to be taken strictly, as translated, but it is to be understood with allowances, p. 135. Observe Reader, the disin●en●●●y of W. Pen, who at other times will upbraid us with ●●ying from the Text to an Interpretation. And now when the p●●●. Text doth pinch him, tells us The Scriptures must be understood with allowances.( 4.) That the change which shall be, is not of accidents, but of Bodies, p. 136.( 5.) 'tis a barbarous conceit, p. 138.— The two last general Heads, together with other matters, in W. Pen's Book, I may give you a more full account of hereafter, and am the rather induced to refer the debate of some things to another season: Because W. Pen signifies, being now engaged, he hopes to prosecute the controversy effectually. And I purpose( if the Lord will) to attend him, not doubting of a good issue: But if he approve not himself more honest for the future, than hitherto he hath done, he may wish he had never concerned himself in such a cause: For one of these two things he will be forced upon, ( 1.) Either to make a new Creed, or else ( 2.) to be desperate, and bid open defiance to the Christian Religion.  
But it may be W. Pen( according to his great folly, and little wit) will ask, as once he did( in his winding sheet, p. 7.) whether my book of 6 or 7, or his of 14 or 15 sheets, be most weighty and Argumentative: To which I now answer, That if Arguments be weighed by the number of sheets, there is no doubt but his will turn the Scales.  
And whereas the Quakers seem to take it ill, I should bint any thing touching those immoralities which are amongst them; I would have you to understand, that though I do not merely from such failings conclude the falseness of any way or principle men may pretend unto, knowing that great wickedness hath been committed under specious and religious pretences; yet nevertheless, I do believe a great difference ought to be put between the Quakers miscarriages, and the failings of other men, so much as doth give to theirs a greater, and sorer Aggravation. If therefore, they would not hear from me, nor others, any more of this subject, ( 1.) Let them, whilst they remain guilty of such crimes, disclaim their pretences to Infallibility and perfection. ( 2.) Let them not excuse some of their villainies, by pretences to the innocent life. ( 3.) And honestly confess that as Quakers, they have their infirmities as well as other men, whom they esteem no Christians. ( 4.) And also forbear to vilify Religion, and casting contempt upon the institutions of Jesus Christ, upon the account of the failings of any that pretend to them. And( lastly) let them submit to a just trial, in order to the clearing of themselves, not hiding or covering( as 'tis usual with them to do) each others iniquities. W. Pen is not ignorant that there are several evils, whereof sundry Quakers stand charged. He, and others of them are pleased to say, they are lies and slanders; If so, why do they not accept of this offer, ( viz.) That the Judgement of those things( respecting matters of fact) may be referred to twelve disinterested, judicious, and honest men, equally chosen: And if what hath been said, by way of detraction from them, cannot be proved, to give such satisfaction as those twelve men shall agree upon, provided the Quakers will engage to be subject to the like sentence, in case the faileur be in them. See Tyrr. detected p. 48, 49. Though this be an honest, and reasonable proposal; yet the Quakers are not free to comply with it. 'tis in vain therefore for them ●o cry out of wrong and injustice, so long as they refuse an equal trial Furthermore, though W. Pen hath such confidence in the Quakers innocency, as to proclaim, That many have desired to retain, and great trusts have been reposed in them; whereupon he seems to challenge any to instance, To whom were they false? Of whose service were they negligent? Reas. against Rail. p. 126. Herein I must say( as sometimes some of his own friends, in other cases have said of him) that he hath overshoot himself. For, he very well knows, to whom some of them have been basely false and unjust. That there was a a person esteemed by the Quakers as a friend, of whom W. Pen gave this character, That he might be entrusted with ones Life. Neverth less, that very man( notwithstanding W. Pen's infallible judgement) counterfeited( like an ungrateful and unworthy wretch) W. Pen's hand, took up a considerable sum of money in his name, pretending for his use, which W. Pen in a little time found( though to his cost) to be a mere cheat. He also cannot be ignorant what great trusts have been reposed in another eminent Quaker: But how false he proved to his trust, the City and Country rings of. 'twere easy to multiply instances of this kind, wherefore he was ●gregiously foolish to ask such a question, To whom were we false? Again, W. Pen himself hath been more than once accused for lying— And no other satisfaction doth he yet give, than by persisting in the same sin. I have in the following Discourse, detected him for denying his words in Print, and for excusing the errors of his friends by wilful lying. To those many instances of this his wickedness, let me here add one more, In his defence of Ed. Burroughs, about the point of perfect Sanctification in this life; he tells us, ( 1.) That the Priest( as he calls the Querist) did not so much strike at the work done in the Creature, as at the perfection of the principle, by which the work should be perfected; and that E. B. did not intend the work of Sanctification, but the Author, Reas. against Rail. p. 99— His Conscience must be scared, if he be not convinced, that herein he hath prevaricated, for the question was not whether the Author, but whether the work of Sanctification were in this life perfect. None denies the perfection of the Author, therefore 'tis great wickedness in W. Pen to say that the Querist did strike at this; if he be so silly as to imagine that if this were the question, he is a man altogether unfit to meddle with controversy— But to propose one thing, and speak to another altogether unconcerned in the question, in a way and manner of reasoning, peculiar to these infallible Quakers. These things( together with the following account) considered, is it not a sad and lamentable thing, that the common sort of Quakers should be so exceeding weak and credulous, as to take all for Oracles, and infallible dictates their Leaders( especially G. Fox, Ed. Burrough●, and G. Whitehead) do say, whilst 'tis noto ious, that for Ignorance, Impudence, Blasphemy, nonsense, Equivocation, and Deceit, they are scarce to be paralleled by any ancient, or modern writers? 'tis true, they have not the like veneration for the writings of others, who are but of later standing amongst them, I mean W. Pen, &c. of whom, when it hath been demonstrated to them wherein he hath erred, they will say, Why dost thou tell us of W. Pen, He is a heady, rash young man, we take no notice what he saith— Acquaint them with the like extravagancies in the writings of the former, they will either peremptorily deny they have so written; or else tell us, we understand not their meaning. Who would not pity the ignorance and wilful blindness of such a people that thus believe and disbelieve, according as they respect, or disrespect the person that speaks?  
Though I impose not upon the belief of any, yet this I do affirm in seriousness, that the account I have now, and heretofore given of the Quakers, is no other than the very truth, and though it should not prevail with any that are already entangled by them; yet I am not without hopes, but that it may be of use, to prevent others from the like entanglements. The Quakers I know, are too much like some melancholy people, who will refuse all means of relief, as supposing they need them not: Their ears being stopped through prejudice, and their eyes sealed up by a blind obedience to the insinuations of their Leaders, that they will neither see, nor hear the danger of that state and condition wherein they are; such I must leave to their imaginations, and to be imposed upon by their own rabbis. Others there are, that think quakerism ought not to be approved or received, yet see not clearly what it is in quakerism that renders it worthy of detestation. If such as these will but seriously consider what hath been, and now is offered to them, they will find, that 'tis not a petty error or two that is laid to the Quakers charge, but that quakerism is such a disease as endangers the overthrow of the Christian Religion; and that all their pretences, and self-applauding( as if they were the nonesuch of the world for virtue, and goodness) is but under a ma●k, to give Religion the greater wound. Moreover, I would entreat such to remember W. Pen's concession, That if that be true, that I have objected against them, That a Quaker is quiter another thing than a Christian. That it is true, they will find fully proved from his own mouth.  
To conclude, W. Pen tells me, That my head shall not go down to the Grave in peace: And by this I shall know, that not a lying or delusive, but a true, and infallible Spirit hath spoken by him; see his Book, p. 180, 181.— I must take these words either as a prediction, or as a menace, threatening me with some mischief, that either he himself, or some influenced by him, intend to perpetrate upon me. The former I fear not, having spoken nothing of them, but what I am certain to be true, therefore shall never see cause to repent thereof. The latter is most probable, wherefore I desire all, to whom these may come, that if at any time they hear of any violence offered to me, to remember W. Pen's words concerning me,  
Thomas Hicks.   

ERRATA.  
page. 37. line 7. for seed red end. p. 45. l. 3. for Rules r. Rule. p. 54. l. r. in. p. 70. l. 14. r. him. p. 72. l. r. us.   
Christian. 
I Perceive thou hast seen, and examined two former Dialogues between a Christian and a Quaker, what dost thou object against them?  Quaker. 
The chief things whereof those Dialogues consist, are forgeries and Railing: W. Pen. Title page. of his Book in answer to them.  Chr. 
I am not conscious to myself of either, having objected nothing against you therein, but what I am certainly persuaded to be true.  quake. 
If what thou hast charged upon us be true, we must needs be the worst and the most imprudent of men. W. Pen's Epist. before Reas. against rail.  Chr. 
I am so confident of the truth of those Allegations, that I doubt not to avouch them to all impartial men.  quake. 
If thy Quotations be true, I do freely aclowledge that a Quaker is quiter another thing than a Christian. Ibid. p. 2.  Chr. 
Art thou well advised in what thou sayest?  quake. 
Were we as thou represents us, the severest Plagues and Judgments of the eternal God we might justly expect to be our portion. Ibid. p. 4.  Chr. 
But dost thou indeed believe that those Quotations in the former Dialogues are forgeries?  quake. 
I do so.  Chr. 
If then I prove, that account given of you therein to be true, thou hast confessed that a Quaker is quiter another thing than a Christian. Now therefore, to evince what I have said to be no forgeries, I shall reduce the whole charge against you under these two general Heads,( 1.) Such as respect matters of Opinion.( 2.) Those things which relate to matters of fact.  
Those things respecting your Opinions are these:  
( 1.) That the Light in every man is God and Christ.  
( 2.) That the Soul is God.  
( 3.) That Jesus Christ is not a distinct person without us.  
( 4.) That Jesus Christ came to Redeem himself.  
( 5.) That the Scriptures are not a Rule of faith and practise unto Christians.  
( 6.) That the speaking of the Spirit in any is of greater Authority than the Scriptures.  
( 7.) That is no Command to me which God hath given by way of Command to another.  
( 8.) That the Spirit as a Rule both manifests the promises, and exerciseth faith.  
( 9.) That Justification, by that righteousness which Christ fulfilled for us, wholly without us, is a doctrine of Devils.  
( 10.) That Justification is by Works.  
( 11.) That the Doctrine of Christs satisfaction is irreligious, irrational, ridiculous, and dangerous.  
( 12.) That Christ fulfilled the Law, only as our example.  
( 13.) That this body which dies, shall not be raised again.  
Those things relating to matters of fact are these.  
( 1.) Your cursing and damning persons, instead of answering their serious and sober questions.  
( 2.) Your manner of Replying, when you do not curse, ( viz.) we are in the imagination, in the darkness, and you witness it.  
( 3.) Your preferring your Pamphlets before the Scriptures.  
( 4.) One of you saying, We may burn our Bible, and if we have a mind to have one, may make as good a one ourselves.  
( 5.) Your entitling God to sleeveless errands.  
Thou knowest these are some of the material things objected against you, what sayest thou to them?  quake. 
I have  told thee they are forgeries, gross perversions and stumblings. W. Pen.  Chr. 
One of us must necessary be very guilty, I am willing to put myself to the test, and if culpable, freely to aclowledge it, but if upon trial I prove innocent, the guilt must and will he at thy door— Let us examine the particulars.  

Concerning the Light within.  
I do say, that the Quakers affirm the Light in every man to be God, either this is a forgery, or 'tis indeed your very opinion.  quake. 
Who of us did ever say, that the Light within is the whole entire God? W. Pen. Ib. p. 7.  Chr. 
I no where express those words, but what dost thou mean by the whole entire God? Is God divisible? must we take him into parts, and pieces? Is one part in one man, and another part in another? Were weakness and folly only culpable in such replies, they might be slighted— But I must tell thee they are pernicious— And thou dost therein render thyself and opinions more detestable to judicious and discerning Readers. Speak honestly( if thou canst) whether what I object against you be a forgery or not, thou dost but bring an evil report upon thyself in accusing me for lying, when thou knowest in thy own Conscience( if it be not seared) that what I have said is true.  quake. 
'tis very disingenuous in thee, from G. Whitehead's asserting and proving the Divine nature of the Light within, to insinuate that every measure of the Light in man is whole God— Ibid. p. 7.  Chr. 
If G. Whitehead asserts and( as thou sayest) prove the Divine nature of the Light within ( viz. that it is God) doth this confession of the thing whereof I accuse you, prove me a forger? Or is it honest and ingenuous in thee to rail at me for speaking no more( as to this point) than what you assert and would prove to be so?  quake. 
Thou concludes from G. Whitehead's saying, Such as the cause is, such is the effect, therefore Beasts and Trees are God, because effects of his power: Whereas G. Whitehead did not intend of a mere potential but a natural effect, that is something resulting from the nature, and not the mere power of the Divine life. Men are the natural offspring and product of men, but so are not those other things which yet are the effects of their Art and Power, so that there needs no trembling at G. Whitehead's blasphemy but better information to thy ignorance, or rebuk of thy wilful blindness. Ibid. p. 7.  Chr. 
This acquits me from forgery. The Light within( thou sayest) is not a potential but a natural effect, which thou illustrates thus. Men are the natural Off-spring and product of men, &c. Though this be true yet a Son is a distinct person from his Father, hath another distinct existence. Is the Light within such an effect? Is it another God? Again, if the Light within be a natural effect, then 'tis a necessary effect, and cannot otherwise be and that from eternity; but were men from eternity, in whom God did thus naturally shine? if not, how is the Light within a natural effect? Further, if the Light within be God, how can it be an effect? Wilt thou say that God is a natural effect? 'tis in vain to pretend to infallibility whilst thou talkest thus idly. However this is obvious to the Reader, that the thing whereof I accuse you, is in truth your Opinion.  quake. 
Though every measure of Light distinctly is not that entire eternal being, yet we are bold to assert that it is no other than God, the fullness of all light, who searcheth the hearts, and trieth the reins, and telleth man his thoughts, that doth shine into the inward parts of man, and convince him of sin, reprove for it, and led out of it. Ibid. p. 9—  Chr. 
Though thou wilt not affirm every measure of the Light within to be the entire eternal being, yet thou dost not deny but that it is God. This clears me from forgery. But if every measure of the Light within be not the entire eternal being, then not any measure of it whatsoever is so. Unless thou wilt say, that a small measure is but a Creature, and a great measure of it is God. Canst thou imagine that thy measuring God at this rate, should pass for truth against fiction? If thou dost believe that herein thou wert directed by an infallible Spirit, I do pity thy folly: Either the Light within in the least measure is God, a Creature, or nothing. Thou wilt not say, 'tis the entire God— Thou darest not say, 'tis a Creature. It must then be nothing. Might not thy time and abilities have been better improved than in contending for that which is neither God nor a Creature?  
For the other part of thy Discourse, ( viz.) that God searcheth the heart, &c. who denies it? But what is this to the main point? Is this consequence good, that because God searcheth the heart, therefore the common Light in every man is God? Surely no man, except one under the power of delusion, would thus reason.  quake. 
Thy confident conclusions arise from these mistakes.( 1.) Thou infers from mans being ignorant of all, he ought to know, an inability in the Light to inform him.( 2.) From Christ being the Light that enlightens every man, every mans having the whole Christ in him.( 3.) From our asserting God and Christ to be one. Our denying of Christs outward person and bodily appearance at Jerusalem. See Dial. p. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 14. And Cont. p. 41. Either thou should understand better what thou writes against us, or leave off writing. Ibid. p. 9.  Chr. 
In these particulars thou dost either weakly or wilfully mistake me and my conclusions. This I did say, and do stand by, That the Light within knows not all things: therefore 'tis not God. When thou proves it doth know all things, I shall confess my mistake. Till then I must remain in my present belief of the contrary. Touching the second, thus I inferred, That if the Light in every man be the true and very Christ, then there is no other Christ, and every man hath the true Christ within him. If the first be true, the latter must be so also, how then am I mistaken?( 3.) From your asserting God and Christ to be one, thou sayest I infer your denying of Christs outward person or bodily appearance; referring me to several Pages in the Dialogues. Wherein thou hast bewrayed thy inadvertency, for there is no such thing in any of those places. Thus I did Quere, Whether Christ be not a distinct person without us? To which G. Whitehead had the confidence to Reply, Jesus Christ a person without us, is not Scripture language but the Anthropomorphites and Mugletonians. Whereupon I did ask again, If Christ were not a person without us? Who or what is Jesus Christ? Hereunto I had an Answer from thyself, that God is Christ. And also from J. Naylor, and R. Hubberthorne, That it is the Light in you. I did then( with good reason) Quere, Whether the Light in you were a person? Whether it was the very Son of God? And whether it did die at Jerusalem? To none of these things dost thou give any solid Answer: But whilst thou art accusing me of mistakes, dost forget mistakes, and then cry out, Can any thing be more injurious to a people—.  quake. 
In short, We are willing to let the controversy lye here,( viz.) That the Quakers promote and assert, that the Life of God, which is the Light of men, with which every man is enlightened, is sufficient to salvation. Ibid. p. 9, 10—  Chr. 
This is the controversy between us, Whether the mere common Light in every man be sufficient to led us to salvation. That every man hath a Light within him is not denied. That it ought to be obeied, is granted: But that it is God or Christ, or sufficient of itself to guide us to Salvation, I do deny, and expect thy proof.—  quake. 
This cuts the throat of thy whole design, for by the same Reason, that they who obey the lawful commands of Magistrates, Parents, or Masters, are reputed good Subjects, Children, and Servants: So those who obey the Light, are the good Subjects and Children of God. And as the one by obedience do escape punishment, and obtain good will, favour, and recompense: so those who obey the Light do obtain favour, love, and the recompense of the reward of righteousness. Ib. p. 10.—  Chr. 
This concludes not the question in controversy, therefore can be no prejudice to me. I confess the Light within ought to be obeied; and so ought the lawful commands of Magistrates, Parents, and Masters, from whence thou boldly ( like thyself) concludes to the sufficiency of the mere Light within.  
Such extravagancies as these do ordinarily attend thy peculiar Genius, where proof is defective thou begs the question, and triumphs in thy own confidence, which a modest man would not do.  
'tis true, that God approves of Children, Subjects, and Servants, that do sincerely obey the lawful commands of their superiors: For in so doing, they do his Will, and what he obligeth them unto. Will it follow therefore, that their mere commands are sufficient to guide us to Salvation. Tis a like in consequent that from mens obeying the Light within, and because in so doing they do well, that therefore this mere Light is sufficient to led us to Salvation— Thus thou makes a great noise to no purpose.—  quake. 
Thou confounds the Light( i.e. the Light within) and the Creature together, concluding imbecility, insufficiency, and ignoronce in the Light, which are the imperfections of the Creature. Is any thing more scoffing and profane than this? Might not the Gentiles have treated the Christians after this manner, that if they knew not all things, therefore the Christ they pretended to, was not God? Ibid. p. 11.  Chr. 
Here again thou bears witness to my innocency in charging you with this Opinion, that the Light in every man is God. For thou distinguishest it from the Creature, concluding there is neither imbecility, insufficiency, nor ignorance in the Light, consequently it must be God. Certainly thou forgot thy design signified in thy Title page.. For instead of proving my Allegations fictions, thou dost openly( though unhappily) avouch them. And whereas thou queries, whether the Gentiles might not have treated the Christians after this manner? I Answer, in no wise: for the Christians never asserted the Light within them to be God, as you do.  quake. 
'tis impious( in thee) to charge mens infirmities upon the Light, and repute that insufficient because they are rebellious; Education, prejudice, interest, self-righteousness, and evil living brings a veil over their understandings, that though the Light shine in darkness, yet they comprehend it not. Ibid. p. 12.  Chr. 
Whether you or I be guilty of this charge, I shall submit to the Readers Judgement. To deny the payment of just Debts, is, no doubt, an infirmity: But to pretend a revelation from the Light, to justify such a denial ( as I affirm, and am able to prove some of you have done) this I confess is impious. To take long Journeys to no purpose is an infirmity: But to entitle the Divine majesty thereunto, is impious. To warrant Cursing, Railing, and Lying to be from God( as thou W. Pen dost, p. 164.) is a great infirmity: But to add, as thou also dost, By the sense of the eternal Spirit, thou dost declare, That ( such Cursing, Railing, and Lying) was the only fit answer to be given to such trappanning questions. This is highly impious. For a man to say ( as one o● your chief Prophets hath) that such as take up a Command from the Scriptures, are in the Witchcraft, is certainly an infirmity: But to pretend Order and Authority from the Spirit of the living God, so to speak is impious with a witness. See Burrough's works, p. 96. comp. with p. 105.— For any to be guilty of Uncleanness, is an infirmity.— But thus to excuse it, ( as some of your friends have done) What if God will have it so, Or that this is the innocent life: This is horridly impious. Many instances of this kind I could produce.  
These may suffice to prove the Quakers eminently guilty of this crimination. However, though all this be true( as I am sure it is) yet thou tells me I may not therefore repute the Light insufficient, but conclude that you are rebellious. Education, prejudice, interest, self-righteousness, or evil living hath brought a veil over your understandings, that though the Light doth shine, yet you comprehend it not. If thou hast such a Light as thou pretends to, that immediately informs thee of thy words, thoughts, and actions, and that gives thee true directions what to do, and what to leave undone: Why then hast thou published so many wilful untruths, as will plainly appear in thy Book now under examination. Either 'tis not true that thou hast such a sufficient Light, directing thee as thou fancies, or else thou art rebellious; prejudice, interest, self-righteousness, or evil living hath brought a veil upon thy mind. Thou seest to what a Dilemma thou hast brought thyself— Either to confess the insufficiency of that which thou calls the Light in thee; or thy own rebellion, or( which is worse) to charge thy wickedness upon the Light. If the( 1.) thou wilt overthrow that which thou contends for. If the( 2.) thou wilt bring thy pretences to perfection into question. If the( 3.) that is confessedly impious.  quake. 
Is it not a gross contradiction in thee to say, The Light ought to be obeied, and yet to say, It lead Saul to persecute the Christians. Ib. p. 12.—  Chr. 
That the Light did led Saul to persecute the Christians, are none of my words. See Dial. p. 8, 9. My question there was this, Whether the Light in Saul did reprove him for persecuting the Church? Doth not he say, He verily thought he ought to do many things against the name of Jesus of Nazareth, &c. Further I there did and do now again demand an instance among the many thousands of mankind, that hath been convinced or reproved for not believing Jesus to be the Christ, by the mere common Light within.—  quake. 
I may well suppose that as many have been reproved for not believing Jesus to be the Christ by the Light within, as by the Scriptures, Ibid. p. 13.—  Chr. 
What signifies thy supposition? Canst thou produce one instance, or give me any convincing reason to prove it?  quake. 
Yea, my reasons are these,( 1.) Those who crucify him were admirers of the Scriptures, and pretended to prove out of their own Law that it was both lawful and necessary he should be put to death. Whereas had they brought that dead to the Light, the Light would have shown it not to have been wrought in God: Which the Scriptures without that Light could not effectually do. Ibid. p. 13.  Chr. 
This reason is not cogent, being not in the least serviceable to the design for which it is urged. The most that can be made of it, is this, That the Light within will convince a man that Murder is a Sin. Admit this, will it necessary follow that a man may be reproved by this common Light within, for not believing Jesus to be the Christ? But further, that the Reader may understand the venom and poison that is couched in this reason, let it be considered, Thou sayest they who Crucified Christ were admirers of the Scriptures, and pretended to prove out of their own Law, that it was both lawful and necessary Christ should be put to death. Intimating an insufficiency in the Scriptures to convince them that Murder was a Sin— And more than so. The Scriptures did rather countenance them in so doing: For, sayest thou, Had they brought that dead to the Light, it would have shown it not to have been wrought in God, which is as much as to say, the Scriptures did rather justify than condemn them in that fact. W. Pen. Is this reason against railing? Dost thou thus purge thyself and friends from having dishonourable thoughts of the Scriptures? to lay the sin of man at their door. O impious man, surely prejudice, interest, or evil living hath blinded thy mind, otherwise thou might easily see that the defect was not in the Scriptures, but in themselves, in not attending to what was therein delivered, wherein Murder is peremptorily forbidden— This reason therefore militates, against thyself, not me. What further canst thou say?  quake. 
They who by Scriptures came to any convincement, Originally received it from the revelation of the Light within— p. 13.—  Chr. 
If those who received any convincement of this sin ( in not believing Jesus to be the Christ) had it originally from the Light within, how came they to be convinced by the Scriptures? If by the Scriptures, how was it originally from the Light within? This reason wants a reason to prove itself to be true. That any were convinced by this common Light for not believing Jesus to be the Christ, I do deny, and require an instance of one person that was first convinced of this sin merely by this common Light within. Thy bold and confident Dictates will not pass with me nor others for a Reason; If thou hast any thing further to urge to conclude the point in question, let me hear it.  quake. 
Peter, Andrew, Nathaniel, the Centurion, &c. confessed him from the Illumination and operation of the Light within, p. 13.  Chr. 
That they did confess Jesus Christ from a peculiar discovery and revelation of the Doctrine concerning him, to their understandings, I do freely grant. But that they did this from the mere illumination of that common Light which all men have, I peremptorily deny: and it lies upon thee to prove it, if thou canst. Thou confounds Objective Light, or that which is revealed to men, and that Subjective common Light in them, together, as if they were one and the same.  
Again to conclude hence, because God doth by special revelation make known Jesus Christ to men: And because whatever makes manifest is Light, that therefore this peculiar revelation and Light, is the common Light in every man, is a consequence that I believe none but such who are infatuated, and are enemies to right reason would dare to infer. For thou might as well argue because the light of the Sun will manifest divers things, therefore it will every thing, even the things of another World. This common Light within will( I confess) manifest much, but will it merely of itself reveal this to any man, that Jesus is the Christ? If not, thy supposition is no more than a vain, presumptuous, and absurd imagination. If it will, why dost thou not give an instance of one that hath been convinced hereof only by this common Light?  quake. 
Thou saist, that the Light in us being much of it borrowed from the Scriptures, reproves for those sins which the common Light in all men will not. Which is great wickedness: For, 'tis to say the Light within will not reprove for all sin. Ibid. p. 14.  Chr. 
Thou takes it for granted that this common Light will reprove for all sin reprovable in the Scriptures: But thou offers no demonstration. Were it as true in itself( as it seems to be in thy vain imagination) it would not be difficult to produce one instance amongst the many thousands of mankind that hath been convinced, merely by this common Light, for not believing Jesus to be the Christ. You Quakers, since you have reprobated the Scripture from being your Rule ( the Light whereof would and doth reprove for this sin) and given up yourselves to the immediate Motions, Government, and conduct of the Light within, have arrived to this degree of wickedness, to deny Jesus Christ to be a distinct person without you; to contemn and bid defiance to his holy Institutions, and are to the discerning eye of Judicious Christians under the Rule and dominion of spiritual Pride, hypocrisy, and Unbelief, and all this without any inward checks. Either then these are no sins, or the Light you follow is not that perfect Light you talk of, or you are rebellious, prejudice, interest, or evil living hath blinded your minds; or else these defects must be charged ( as but too often you are ready to do) upon the Light in you, which you call God. And so render yourselves justly abhorrent to all sober Christians and men. But a further account of the insufficiency of this common Light to reprove for all sin, thou mayst meet with hereafter. Mean time let me hear what thou canst say to this Point.—  quake. 
Whatever is to be attained or enjoyed within, is, Originally and chiefly ascribeable to the discoveries, convictions, and leadings of the Light of Christ within through every Generation, how variously soever this principle hath been denominated. As the Word of God nigh, Wisdom, Light, and Spirit, under the Old: And Light, Grace, Truth, Christ, Spirit, and Anointing, under the New Testament. Ibid. 14.—  Chr. 
Thou dictates confidently, but proves nothing. I do deny that whatever is to be known and enjoyed of God and Christ in this and another World, is chiefly and originally ascribeable to this common Light within. If thou couldst demonstrate this, it would put an issue to a great part of the controversy between us.  
Again, thou art pleased to say ( and 'tis no more but thy saying) that this principle or Light within, hath been variously denominated, as the Word of God nigh, Wisdom, Light, Spirit, under the Old: And Light, Grace, Christ, Spirit, and Anointing, under the New Testament. Herein thou speakest that which is not true: For, where is this common Light, called Christ, Spirit, or Anointing? Art thou not ashamed to obtrude such falshoods upon the World? And albeit thou in the Pride of thy heart flatters thyself with an Opinion of Infallibility; yet men are not such idiots as to be concluded in their belief herein, upon thy presumptuous dictates. Is it not sufficiently erroneous to assert the Light in every man to be God; but wouldst thou thyself also be a God to men? For shane either prove what thou saist, or leave off writing.—  quake. 
This Argument springs in my mind for the Divinity and sufficiency of the Light. If God be Divine and sufficient to Salvation, and the Word be God, and the life of the Word, one with the Word; and the life of the Word, the Light of men; then the Light of men is Divine and sufficient to Salvation. But God is Divine, &c. Therefore I conclude, the Light of men, which is the life of the Word, is Divine and sufficient to Salvation. Ibid. p. 15.  Chr. 
O what profound Divinity, and exquisite logic is this! a mere form of reasoning by multip lied propositions and in ambiguous terms, more fit for a Rhetorical Harangue, than a solid Argument to prove the great Article of thy Faith and Religion. An Argument not to be cleared from being a sandy foundation. Wherein the principal Agent, Cause, Efficient, and Ordinary means are confounded and huddled together. In the Argument, thou hast respect to two things:( 1.) The End,( viz.) Salvation.( 2.) The means conducing thereunto, the Light within— Wilt thou dare to say, The End and Means are one and the same? If thou dost, thou talkest like one destitute of Reason. If they be distinct, I query, How can God himself the Divine Essence, be called a Means? Thy Argument therefore is both fallacious, and not conclusive of the Point in question. Fallacious, because that which is spoken in the first, should exactly be the subject of the second proposition, and so on to the end, Each proposition affirmative and necessary depending on the next foregoing. That what is spoken in the last, being joined to the subject of the first, should make the Conclusion.—( 2.) Not concludent, because if the whole propositions were right, yet thy conclusion itself doth not reach the plain terms of the question: Which it ought to do,& run thus; therefore the common light in every man is God, and sufficient to save every one of them. Than which nothing is more false and dangerous: Inasmuch, as God hath by Christ supper added the Light of Divine Revelation unto us; exacting and expecting our sincere belief and obedience thereof accordingly, and threatening the contrary with damnation. Therefore it concerns thee to review thy Argument and to put it ( if thou canst) into a better form, before thou urge it in a matter of so great importance to the Souls of men.  
'tis true, in him was life, that is, life was, and is originally and formally in him, as in the Fountain. Will it therefore follow, that the life he communicates to created beings, is the Divine Essence itself? If so, then every living Creature is God as well as the Light within. To conclude, all thy Discourse about the Divinity and sufficiency of the common Light in every man, effectually quits me from forgery in telling the World, The Quakers affirm the Light in every man to be God.   

Concerning the Soul of Man.  Chr. 
I do say, that G. Fox affirms that the Soul of man is part of Gods being, without beginning, and infinite. Which is as much as to say, the Soul is God. What saist thou to this?  quake. 
What so base and irreligious as this perversion? Men nor Devils could never study our wrong more than thou hast done. Christianity is absurd by such Traducers, and Gods Spirit grieved by such injustice. I would not use the worst of men nor Devils at this unequal rate. Thou both miscites our words and abusest the true meaning of what is truly cited. Ibid. 65.—  Chr. 
The mark thou aimest at( I presume) is to fix a reproach upon me; but I doubt not to make it evident that herein thou dost only foam out thy own shane. Wherein have I miscited your words, or abused the true meaning of what is truly cited?  quake. 
G. Fox saith thus, God breathed into man the breath of Life, and he became a living Soul, and is not this of God, and of his being? Is not this which came out from God, part of God? &c. Where nothing can well be clearer than that G. Fox intends the Divine Life, Power, and virtue, by which Adam in Soul came to live to God; canst thou say then that thou hast cited G. Fox aright, hardened man! p. 66.  Chr. 
Thy invention( I perceive) was stretched to the utmost, to help( at this dead lift) your great King and Prophet, G. Fox; though what thou hast said will not relieve him: Thou writest as if thou hadst forgotten to be both rational and honest at once. Could I imagine that thyself dost really believe the construction thou hast here given, to be the true and proper meaning of G. Fox's words; I should pity thee, as one whose affection hath baffled thy judgement. But to rectify thy mistake, at least preserve the Reader from that abuse thou wouldst put upon him, I shall quote G. Fox's words at length, together with the occasion of them, and submit it to impartial and judicious men, to judge whether I have either miscited his words, or abused his meaning. G. Fox( in his great mystery, p. 90) in answer to one that said, There is a kind of infiniteness in the Soul, yet it cannot be infiniteness in itself; speaks thus, Is not the Soul without beginning, coming from God, returning into God again, who hath it in his hand; and Christ the power of God, the Bishop of the Soul, which brings it up into God, which came out from him, hath this a beginning or ending? and is not this infinite in itself? Can any thing be more clear than, that the Soul is the subject of the Discourse, and not the Divine Power, Life, and virtue, as thou insinuates.—  
Again, G. Fox tells us( in the forecited book, p. 29.) that Magnus Byne saith, The Soul is not infinite in itself, but it is a Creature. And R. Baxter saith, 'tis a spiritual substance; whereunto G. Fox replies, consider what a condition these called Ministers are in, They say, that which is a spiritual substance is not infinite in itself, but a Creature. That which came out of the Creator, and is in the hand of the Creator, which brings it up to the Creator again, that is infinite in itself. What can be more evident than this, that the Soul is the very subject under consideration, and not the Divine Power, &c. But if every spiritual substance be infinite in itself( as Fox concludes) Then either there are no Angels, or Angels are no spiritual substances, or if they be spiritual substances, they are no Creatures, but infinite in themselves; and consequently as many Angels as there are, so many Gods there must be. Take one instance more( Great mystery, p. 100.) The Quakers are accused for saying, there is no Scripture that speaks of a human Soul, and for affirming, that the Soul is taken up into God. Hereunto G. Fox thus Answers, God breathed into man the breath of Life, and he became a living Soul, and is not this which cometh out from God, which is in Gods hand, part of God, from God, and to God again? Which Soul( observe) Christ the power of God is the Bishop of; Is not this of his Being? Can Fox here intend that Christ is the Bishop of the Divine Power, and life?— Yet is he as absurd in calling Christ the Bishop of the Soul: For if the Soul be part of Gods being( as he affirms it is) and if Christ be God, then one part of God must be Bishop over another.  
I suppose these instances are sufficient to clear me in the minds of unprejudiced men from that whereof thou accusest me. If thou hast any thing farther to say, that may convict me of perverting G. Fox's meaning, let me hear it.  quake. 
All that can be concluded from G. Fox's words is this, That God inspired man with something of his own substance, bestowed something of his own Divinity upon him. That God did inspire man with the Holy Ghost. This is as much as can be collected from what G. Fox hath said concerning man; yet thou like an ungodly person, infers that the Soul of man is of Gods Being and Substance. Ibid. 66.  Chr. 
These censures that drop so frequently from thy mouth, can be no other than the breathings of a distempered mind. Thou confessest, it may be concluded from G. Fox's words, that God did ●nspire man with something of his own Substance, bestow something of his own Divinity upon him. If G. Fox is to be understood to speak with reference to the Soul, of which the question is; then my Inference is natural and proper, ( viz.) that the Soul is of Gods substance, and part of Gods being. Since then thou hast miscarried in thy enterprise, let me hear what G. Whitehead can say to excuse this great Prophet G. Fox.  quake. 
G. Fox speaks of the original Life of mans Soul, when he said, is not that of God, which came out from God,( viz.) the breath of Life, his words are perverted and miscited by thee. G. Whitehead's Append. to Reas. against Rail. p. 14.—  Chr. 
Let the Reader judge that( he having G. Fox's words at length before him) the matter in question in every place is the Soul not the Divine Power. Should Fox intend the latter, then thou accusest him of deceit and falsehood ( thy own reigning sin) but this G. Fox could not mean. For, none denies the Creator to be God. This was not the Objection against you. Either then G. Fox Answers to the Objection, or speaks to another thing. If to another thing, then no Answer, but a mere piece of Legerdemain. If to the question, as is manifest he doth, then my accusation stands in force against you.  quake. 
But G. F. in another consideration and state, owns the infinite Being of God, and the Soul or Spirit of man to be distinct Beings: Where he speaks of the Soul being in death, in transgression, &c. This he could never intend or speak of the infinite, incorruptible Being of God, for that never sinned. G. Whitehead, Ib.—  Chr. 
This helps not G. Fox in the least, unless it must be supposed( which is not) that it's impossible for him to contradict himself. 'tis true, he speaks of the Souls being in Death, but thou betrayest him in saying, 'tis in another consideration and state: Implying that in some consideration he might affirm the Soul to be part of Gods being, and infinite— A man by the Spirit( saith Fox) may discern where the seed is in Death, and where 'tis not in Death. And where the Soul is living, and where it is in Death. Observe, he speaks the same of the Seed as he doth of the Soul. The Seed he elsewhere tells, is the hope Christ, and 'tis that which hath been laden as a Cart with Sheaves by the sinner, p. 324.— So that whilst you pretend to aclowledge Christ to be God, and therefore Incorruptible and Infinite, yet in another consideration and state, Christ the Seed may be said to be in Death: Even so is G. Fox to be understood when he speaks so differently of the Soul. Thus whilst you contradict yourselves, you openly proclaim your Equivocations. And may not that mental reservation you have to yourselves in thus speaking, be this? That when you are taxed for affirming the Soul to be part of God, you may evade, by saying, we cannot mean so; for elsewhere, and in another consideration and state we speak of the Souls being in Death. But if on the other hand any should accuse you for denying the Soul to be infinite and without beginning: For such you have an answer ready, we cannot intend so when we say the Soul is in Death: For in another consideration and state we affirm the Soul to be without beginning and ending, to be infinite in itself and part of Gods Being. Is not this obvious to any ordinary Reader? But are you so far infatuated as to believe such juggling as this should long stand you in stead? Or will you yet pretend to Infallibility and perfection, whilst you stand convict of such borrid deceit?— Hitherto I stand clear from thy crimination. Let us proceed to another Head.—   

Concerning the Person of Christ.  Chr. 
I accuse you for denying Jesus Christ to be a distinct Person without us: What saist thou to this?  quake. 
Herein thou hast shewed thy ignorance and malice, instead of giving the World a true measure of our belief. Pen. lb. 53, 54.  Chr. 
If you have any Faith, as to this Point, how shall it be known but by your Words and Writings, which are the ordinary means by which the belief of one man is known to another? Darest thou say, I have not given the world a true account of your words? Or wilt thou say that the Quakers speak and writ one thing, but believe another? The first cannot with honesty be denied: If thou confess the latter, then the world hath no reason to believe any thing you say; forasmuch, as you confessedly equivocate. What your words and positions are concerning Jesus Christ, I shall punctually relate and leave it to the impartial Reader to judge whether herein I have wronged you.  
G. Fox( in his great mystery, p. 16.) writes thus, Thou art deceived, who saith, Christ is distinct from the Saints. Can any man eat the flesh of Christ, if his flesh be not in them? Can you call him Christ in man, if the man be not there? Jesus Christ a person without us( saith G. Whitehead, Dip. Pl. p. 13.) is not Scripture language, but the Anthropomorphites and Mugletonians. The Socinian ( saith he) tells us of a personal Christ: And that the man Jesus our Lord hath in Heaven a place remote from earth, a human body: But doth he believe him to be the eternal God? I cannot think it( saith G. W.) whilst he imagines him to be a personal Christ or a human body, so limited and confined into a remoteness. Append. to Reas. against Rail. p. 21.— We cannot own your limitations and unscriptural notions concerning Christs being. Ib. p. 22. Where provest thou that Christs second coming without sin to Salvation, is a personal coming? Ib. p. 24.— These words are not Scripture language that Christ is a personal being at Gods right hand, remote and not in man— Ibid— 'tis a design of Satan( saith this G. Whitehead) to keep men in carnal imaginations and dark thoughts of a human personal Christ. Ibid. p. 27.—  
If these be your Words wherein is my ignorance, or malice manifested in giving the world an account of your belief. If you have a faith different from what your words do import, my ignorance thereof is excusable.  quake. 
I charge thee for ignorance and malice because thou arguest from our owning God to be Christ, and the Light within to be the Christ, that we deny him, as to his visible and bodily appearance in the world, as if he never was man, or that the word took not flesh— Pen. Ib. p. 57.—  Chr. 
This is mere trifling, I never charged you for denying that bodily appearance( as thou calls it) but frequently Quote you as so expressing yourselves— 'tis this I object against you, your denying Christ to be a distinct person without you: To which thou speakest nothing, signifying thereby that you are pinched.  quake. 
Let it suffice the sober Reader, that we do believe that Christ who is God over all blessed for ever, did come of Abraham's seed according to the flesh, that that body prepared of that Line was his body: And that the sufferings which befell it, were the sufferings of Christ. Just as that Body is called the Body of Christ. Let our adversaries deal so fairly with us as to distinguish between Christ, and the Body of Christ, and we shall not doubt of a good issue. Ib. p. 54, 55.—  Chr. 
Thou believest the sufferings which befell that Body which was prepared for our Lord Jesus, to be the sufferings of Christ, just as the Body is called the Body of Christ, and to help the matter desirest us to distinguish between Christ, and the Body of Christ; intimating Christ to be one thing, and the Body of Christ another. Hence his sufferings may not be called the sufferings of Christ, but only the sufferings of his bodily appearance. But whether this kind of reasoning be more for thy credit or discredit, concerns thee to consider. Is not that person who is called Emanuel, who conversed here in this world, suffered Death at Jerusalem, and rose again, every where in Scripture called Jesus Christ? Where readest thou, that the Body which was taken of the Virgin, is thus distinguished and differenced from Jesus Christ? It is said that Joseph begged the Body of Jesus; What then? Was that Body therefore no part of Jesus Christ? When thou diest, if we say, there lies the Body of W. Pen, can it thence be inferred, that thy Body was no part of W. Pen; or that W. Pen is one thing, and his Body another.  
Again, where is it written that the Light ( abstractedly) which shined in that bodily appearance ( as thou speakest) is the alone true and very Christ? The proper Name, by which his Person was distinguished from all others, was Jesus. If the reason of this Name was only from the Light that was in that bodily appearance: Then I ask whether you do not believe that the same Light is in a measure in all men, but more eminently in yourselves? If so, then whether W. Pen and G. Whitehead may not be as truly and properly called Jesus Christ, as well as that outward Person or bodily appearance? And why may not Divine Worship be given as well to you as to him? As sometimes some of your persuasion gave to James Naylor, and if any should be scandalised thereat, 'tis but desiring them to distinguish between Christ and the body of Christ, and then you need not doubt of their satisfaction. Thus thou mayst see what a height of error and blasphemy your opinion doth and will precipitate you into. Hence to such a degree of madness and folly have some of your Leaders arrived, as to entitle G. Fox, The Father of many Nations, whose being and habitation is in the power of the highest, in which he rules and governs in righteousness; and that his( viz. G. Fox's ) Kingdom is established in peace, and the increase thereof is without end.  
This was in a Letter from Josiah Coal, to G. Fox, dated 21. of the 12. month 1658.  
What further canst thou say to clear yourselves from my Allegations against you?  quake. 
Because we assert the true Light with which every man is enlightened to be in itself, The Christ of God, and, The Saviour of the World, thou inferrest, we deny the outward sufferings of Christ in his bodily appearance. Ib. 56.  Chr. 
Is it candid or ingenuous in thee professedly to assert that the Light, with which every man is enlightened, to be in itself, The Saviour of the World, and the Christ of God, and yet call me forger for accusing you hereof? I do deny the common Light in every man to be the Christ of God, and the Saviour of the world: If thou please let the controversy lye here. This was one of those questions sent to G. Whitehead to be discoursed, which he declined. If thou wilt be the man that will maintain the Affirmative, signify it.  quake. 
If Christ be God as well as man, then nothing befalls us from thy inference but what strikes thee equally. For if the Light wherewith men are enlightened be not Christ, because it cannot die; then Christ cannot be Christ as God, because God cannot die. But thou tellest us that Christ as God is also Christ; and that it was Christs Body only that died: Therefore I conclude, to own Christ to be that true Light which enlighteneth all men, or that true Light to be Christ, is no derogation from Christ or undervalue of his bodily sufferings. Ibid. 56.—  Chr. 
The Point in question, I perceive, doth pinch thee, otherwise thou wouldst not multiply such impertinencies. Let me entreat thee to be so far ingenuous as either to avouch your opinion ( that Jesus Christ is not a distinct person without us) or honestly to confess your error. 'tis no shane for a man that hath been too lavish with his Tongue or Pen to retract.  
I do say that Christ is God as well as man: But I did never say( as thou suggests) that merely as God, is the Christ; canst thou intend my conviction, and yet commit the fault thyself of which thou supposest me guilty? The God-head of the Son, and the man-hood conjunct is the Christ. Though both Natures cannot, yet if one die, Christ is said to die. 
Though whole W. Pen do not die, yet when his Body dies, we truly say that W. Pen is dead, his Body being one part of him; but if we must distinguish between W. Pen, and his bodily appearance, then 'tis not W. Pen that dies, but only his bodily appearance: then I would know what is truly and properly W. Pen, distinct from that appearance. If it be said, 'tis his Soul, that the Quakers say is part of Gods being.— If the Seed that dwelled in that Body, that they say is Christ. If either of these, then 'tis all one whether we call God and Christ by the name of W. Pen, or call him God and Christ. Who will not be astonished at this blasphemous absurdity?  And if the Death of that bodily appearance ( which thou tellest us, must be distinguished from Christ) be truly and properly called the Death of Christ; Why may it not be said when W. Pen dies, that then Christ dies? Forasmuch as W. Pen would have us believe that the true Christ is as really and truly in him as in that bodily appearance which died at Jerusalem? Thus the more thou strivest to excuse and defend the Quakers error, the more thou dost entangle and bewilder thyself, and render your opinions detestable.  quake. 
Because one of us spoken of a two-fold appearance of Christ in the Soul,( 1.) As a Seed of Light,( 2.) As perfect day; Therefore thou saist a personal coming is denied by us in any respect. Which conclusion is horribly unjust. That no impartial man needs an Answer to it. Ibid. p. 56.  Chr. 
If the Light shining in the heart be the first appearance, and if the second be as a perfect day in its full grown state: How then can his coming in the flesh be called either first or second? G. Whitehead asks, where will it be proved that Christs second coming without sin will be a personal coming? If then my Inference be unjust, what must you be that put it into my mouth? Wilt thou thus express the first and second appearance of Jesus Christ, Neither of which are personal, and yet cry out of horrid injustice? But thou hast enured thy tongue so much to reviling, that thou scarce knowest when to speak soberly. My Inference is so natural from the premises, that I presume every impartial man expects more to be said than yet thou hast spoken to render it otherwise.  quake. 
We have confessed to his bodily appearance, thy baseness and self contradiction is notorious enough as to this Point.— Ibid.—  Chr. 
You have confessed to his bodily appearance; but do you confess, that Jesus Christ is a distinct person without you? This is the question thou oughtest to speak unto, but thou seemest to be afraid on't. 'tis such questions as those thou calls the language of a white Devil, and trappanning questions, to entangle and ensnare the innocent. 'tis no wonder therefore thou keepest thy distance from them. But assure thyself that till thou dost come nearer to the Point, and be more direct in thy Answer, thy clamour of baseness and contradiction will be of little service to thee. Be not angry if again I ask thee, If Christ signify Anointed? and God be Christ,( as thou affirms) whether God himself be Anointed?  quake. 
This is no difficulty at all. Christ was not Anointed by halves but entirely. Who is understood in that passage, God even thy God hath anointed thee. If Christ be meant there, then whether the Divine Nature of Christ be unconcerned in the anointing. Ibid. p. 57.  Chr. 
The difficulty still remains, for thou saist, God is Christ, and the Body in which he appeared must be distinguished from Christ: Which is as much as to say, that the mere God-head is the Christ. If so, I ask, who anointed it? What was the Anointing? And to what end? To this thou speakest nothing directly. And whereas thou saist Christ was not anointed by halves but entirely: Herein thou contradicts thyself and overthrows thy own distinction between Christ and the Body of Christ; intimating that the Divine nature alone is not the whole and entire Christ. If it be, then the God-head alone was that which was anointed. If so, the question returns upon thee, whether God did Anoint himself? and with what? and to what end? The Text which thou refers to, will help thee if thou dost understand what the Anointing there spoken of is: If it mean the fullness of the Spirit which dwelled in the human Nature, whereupon 'tis said, God gave not the Spirit to him by measure, Joh. 3.34. and that the fullness of the God-head dwelled in him, Col. 2.9. whereby he was and is distinguished from all other persons, whether Kings, Priests, Prophets, or private believers; who are there called his fellows. Hence is called the Christ, by way of eminency, and in a sense peculiar to himself. But if by Christ thou intends nothing but the mere God-head, then I ask thee, Who are his fellows? And whether the God-head was anointed with the Spirit?— Again, Christ is a name relating to office: Was then the mere Divine nature anointed to any office? If so? by whom? and what is that office?  quake. 
Thou tellest me that I affirmed God is Christ, and thereupon Queries, Did God die? Here thou art basely unjust, thou ought to give me my due. But instead hereof thou leavest out some of my words, and horribly perverts the rest. For I did confess to Christs bodily appearance: and that he was born of a Virgin: I do not remember that I so expressed myself, that God is Christ; but whether I did or no, to insinuate a denial of his manifestation in the flesh, is most perversely wicked and ungodly. Ibid. p. 58, 59.—  Chr. 
Let the Reader judge whether such a question from such a position was basely unjust. I no where accuse you for denying Christs bodily appearance: Therefore these are but idle and impertinent repetitions, and no ways proper to the matter in question. That which I blame you for, is, for affirming God alone to be the Christ; and for denying Christ to be a distinct person without you; whereof thou takest no notice. Thou tellest me thou dost not remember that thou saidst God is Christ. Dost thou not? This will not excuse thee, who pretends to Infallibility. Hadst thou not thy Book by thee to help thy memory? Or didst thou not think it most convenient at this time to indulge forgetfulness? However, be better advised hereafter, and Print no more than what thou hast a mind to remember, at least what thou needest not so frivolously excuse. In short, This is all we can gain from thee at present, That Christ was once manifested in the flesh: But whether he be a distinct person without you; or whether that flesh he took of the Virgin, be still in being, herein thou art mute. Therefore be not so weak as to imagine, that whilst I object one thing, and thou speakest to another; That this will be accounted Reason against Railing, or truth against fiction. But on the contrary, men will have just reason to conclude you guilty of that whereof I accuse you.   

Concerning the Redemption of the Seed.  Chr. 
Forasmuch as you do confess that Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost, I did query, Who, or what is that which was lost?  quake. 
Unto this Question thou dost wickedly and with an Aggravation like the enmity of thy Spirit, make G. Keith to answer, That which is lost is still in man. That Christ came to seek and to save a lost God, a lost Christ, &c. Upon which thou Queries, Whether Jesus Christ came to seek and to save a lost God? Which is sordid and base dealing in thee. For G. Keith means that Christ came to seek and save, by turning people to inquire after a lost God, a lost Christ, the Groat within: Therefore thy sense of G. K. is a horrible perversion. Ibid. p. 60.—  Chr. 
These are G. Keith's words, Jesus Christ came to seek and to save the lost. All his Ministers preached people to this, the lost in them. If by lost, we must not understand mans lost condition, as thou in thy following distinction intimatest, what less then can be understood, but that Jesus came to seek and to save a lost God? 'tis true, G. K. speaks of people finding a lost God, whom they had lost: But still, if lost be meant only God and Christ, How can Christ be said to seek and save a lost God?  quake. 
Lost as taken by thee is meant of mans lost condition, but as meant by G. K. is understood of God and Christ, whom man had and hath lost the knowledge of, and fellowship with. Ib.— 61.—  Chr. 
If either G. Keith or thee by lost, intend any thing different from what I mean, then thou frets to no purpose; and instead of excusing G. K. renders him guilty of what I infer. But if by Lost, Mans lost condition is understood, then thy distinction between my meaning and his, is insignificant. For I understand by mans lost condition, his loss of the Image of God, and Communion with him. But it seems my meaning and G. K's are different. Wilt thou thus distinguish and yet accuse me of perverting. Either understand distinctions better, or else make none.  
But to put the Reader out of doubt, that what I infer, is indeed your very opinion— G. Fox, and James Naylor, tell us that the Seed wants Redemption, and the Seed is Christ. Either then there must be more Christs than one: Or else Christ came to Redeem himself.—  quake. 
This is a stumble and a gross perversion of our words. Ibid. p. 62.—  Chr. 
Then thou deniest not ( as with honesty I am sure thou canst not) but that these are your words, ( viz.) That the Seed wants Redemption, and the Seed is Christ. Then the Inference will easily occur to any ordinary understanding, That Christ came to Redeem himself.  quake. 
We do assert the Redemption of the Seed. For the Light and Life which hath been sown as a Seed in the hearts of mankind, has been laden with sin, pressed down with iniquity, &c. Which words are not properly, but metaphorically to be taken. 'tis said, Out of egypt have I called my Son, a place of Bondage, grievous weights and burdens. From all which the Seed was to be Redeemed. And Christ came, or God was manifested in the flesh, that the Seed of Light might break through and arise over all corruption by which it hath been pressed down. Ibid. p. 63.  Chr. 
Wilt thou assert the very thing which I infer from your words; and yet say, I stumble at, and pervert them? Can this look like Truth against Fiction? May we not justly esteem ( as some of thy own friends have spoken) of thee as a heady, rash, and inconfiderate young man? But is it not absurd, yea blasphemous to talk of Gods Redeeming the Seed of Light? that is to say, himself in man?  quake. 
It is no ways absurd, that we affirm that the end of Gods manifesting himself in the flesh, was for the Redemption and deliverance of his holy Life, that was in man but as a small Seed that hath been vexed, grieved, and pressed down by Iniquity. 'tis no contradiction to say, that God did rid himself of the enemies that oppressed his own righteous Life, or that he brought Salvation to himself. See Isa. 59.16. and 63.4.— Ibid. p. 63.—  Chr. 
I infer from your words this horrid absurdity, that Christ came to Redeem himself; and thou saist, 'tis no absurdity that you affirm, that the Seed of Gods manifesting himself in the flesh, was the redemption and deliverance of his holy Life, that was in man as a small Seed, Which Seed was and is pure for ever. Can any thing be more evident and plain in these words than this, That God Redeems himself? This is thy Truth against Fiction. But W. Pen, is thy bold affirming the error which I draw from your Words an apt Medium to convict me of perverting? Hast thou no more respect to thy credit than thus to proclaim thy rashness and folly to all men?  
The Scriptures speak of Christs Redeeming sinners, and thou talkest of the Redemption of a Seed, which was and is pure for ever. Which thou callest Gods holy Life. 'tis this that is redeemed from the weight of sin and iniquity. Ibid. 64.  
If then the Object of Redemption be not Persons but a Seed, which thou callest Gods holy Life, What is this, but to say( what I infer) That God Redeems himself? Sometimes you call the Light within, The Seed, Saviour, Mediator, and the second Adam, thus G. Fox. And now thou saist, That the end of Gods manifesting himself in the flesh, was to Redeem this Seed, this holy Life of God. Thus do you distinguish, yea divide Christ into parts: One part ( viz.) that in the Flesh, which was taken of the Virgin, Redeeming that part which is in every man. Thus Christ is at one and the same time at liberty and in bondage, Redeeming, and Redeemed, conquering and yet pressed down. And though this kind of language be justly esteemed folly and madness, yet thou tellest us, you are content to use it. But if this Seed( as before expressed) be the only object of Redemption, what necessity was there for Gods appearance in the Flesh? Could he not Redeem himself without taking upon him human nature? Was a price laid down for the ransom of this only? If there were, to whom was it paid? Surely thou wilt not say, to God. Was it then to the Devil, and the Flesh; that they might let this Seed go free, which they had kept so long in captivity and bondage? O ignorant and foolish man, in this particular I stand clear from Forgery and perverting. Let us proceed to another.   

Concerning the Scriptures.  Chr. 
I accuse the Quakers for denying the Scriptures to be the rule of Faith and practise unto Christians. What saist thou, is this true or false?  quake. 
That which is more ancient, more universal, and more able to inform, rule, and guide, that must eminently be the Rule; but that hath been and is the Light within, therefore that hath been and ought to be the rule of faith and practise. Pen. Ibid. 55.  
He that persuades people to let the Scriptures be the rule of faith and practise, would keep people in darkness. For, whoever walks by the rule without them, and teaches men so to do, would make voided the Covenant of Life and Peace. Burrough's works, p. 62.  Chr. 
Then herein I have not misrepresented your belief. But forasmuch as oftentimes you say, you own the Scriptures and the holy rules therein contained, in what sense do you aclowledge them to be a rule?  quake. 
As there is an historical and saving Faith; so there is an historical and saving rule. As the Faiths, so the Rules differ. Ib. 32.—  
The Scripture is the Rule of historical Faith: But the Light and Spirit of God can only be the Rule of saving Faith. p. 40.—  Chr. 
If the Light within be more able to inform, rule, and guide, and therefore most eminently the rule; What need is there of an historical rule? If the common Light in every man be sufficient to inform of those things that are written in the Scriptures, then thy distinction is vain and idle. If it be not able to inform of those things, how is it most eminently the Rule?  quake. 
I have  told thee, The Scriptures are an historical rule, but the Light within hath been, and ought to be the Rule of Faith and Practive.  Chr. 
If the Light within hath been, and ought to be the Rule, why dost thou not tell us to whom it is so? Whether to itself, or to man; the first cannot be maintained. If to man, Doth it not suppose another Light in him, distinct from that which is the Rule? If not, how is man capable of understanding it, so as to yield obedience. If it do, then every man hath two Lights within him, ( viz.) An objective Light, or a Light ruling, and a subjective Light, a Light ruled. If thou canst evince this, it might be of some service and advantage to thy opinion. If not, thou dost but beat the Air to no purpose. Yet since thou dost say, The Light within ought to be the Rule of practise, pray tell me by what Rule do you walk when you call men( without any just cause) Sorcerers, Witches, Serpents, Vipers, Reprobates, Sots, Sottish Beasts, Dark Beasts and Conjurers, Children of the Devil, &c.  quake. 
Let it suffice that we give no harder names than the Scripture by Rule allows. W. Pen, Ibid. p. 165.—  Chr. 
Thus far then you aknowledge the Scripture to be a Rule,( 1.) Historical,( 2.) A Rule to guide and allow you in Cursing, Railing, and Lying. Art thou not ashamed thus to dictate? Wilt thou deny the Scriptures to be a rule of Faith and practise? and yet say, as a rule it allows you to give such Names? What is this but to say, they are no Rule for a holy, yet they are for a wicked practise? Is this your respect to the Scriptures? which sometimes for fashion sake you are pleased to style holy. O ye miserable creatures! thus to profane the Scriptures, in alleging their Authority to countenance and allow you in your wickedness.  
But if the Light within be more able to inform, how is it, that it cannot give a distinct and clear account how sin came to be?  quake. 
Herein thou contradicts thyself, abusest the Philosophers, and blasphemest the Light. Thou grants, the Heathens knew there was sin. If so, how could they be ignorant of sins coming into the World. Ibid. p. 29.  Chr. 
This is to beg the Question instead of speaking to it, or a taking that for granted which cannot be proved. Therefore to please thyself, as if I had therein contradicted myself, &c. is to dote upon a mere shadow. For 'tis no contradiction to confess that the Philosophers did see, that sin and misery did overflow, and yet to deny that merely by this common Light they could find out how sin came to be, that is, understand the time when, and the manner how man was at first made; What that Law was, by whom, and when it was first transgressed. Consequently how sin entred into the world. If then thou canst prove that this common Light can give a clear and distinct account hereof, let me hear it.  quake. 
If thou meanest a clear and distinct account, that Adam and Eve were beguiled by the Serpent, who tempted them, 'tis no ways to thy purpose. Ibid. 29.  Chr. 
If it be to no purpose to know that there was a first man, Who he was, What that Law was under which he stood, how he broken it; And whether that Law that was first given, was given to him as a private and individual person, or as to the common head of mankind: Wilt thou dare to say, The knowledge of this is to no purpose? Why then did the sacred Pen-men give such a full and distinct account hereof in the Scriptures? If then this common Light never did nor could reveal this to any, either it must be, because this Light merely in itself is insufficient, or the nowledge hereof is to no purpose. This last thou seems to incline to, but how thou wilt prove it, I yet know not.  quake. 
That which is sufficient to that Faith which concerns Salvation, is to know that God is, and that he hath given man the knowledge of himself, and his Will concerning him, by some inward Law. Ib. 29.  Chr. 
Then to know how sin came to be, concerns not that Faith which respects Salvation. If this were as easily proved as said, it might contribute something to thy purpose. But that this common Light only is sufficient to give men the knowledge of God, and of his whole Will concerning him, is another doubt. For I ask whether this mere Light within, can give any account of that remedy which God in his infinite Wisdom, and Goodness provided for the saving of sinners? The Faith of which concerns our Salvation most certainly, &c.  quake. 
The Prophets saw him by this Light, unless thou wilt say, they saw him without Light. Those that believed in him when he came, could not have received him, had they not seen him by an inward eye. Ib. 31.  Chr. 
That the Prophets saw him by the Light of Divine Revelation, I grant: but that this Light is the common Light in every man, that thou must prove.( 2.) None can believe in him that do not know him, is true. But that this inward eye by which he is seen and known, is merely this Light which every man in common hath, requires better demonstration than yet thou hast given. Thou saist the Jews had the Scriptures, and according to their understandings of them, they reputed him a blasphemer, p. 32. The defect then lay in their understandings, not in the Scriptures. How canst thou then infer with such confidence, that the Light within is the highest Rule, and judge of thoughts?  quake. 
Who or what was Christ in that manifestation itself, but that Divine Word, Light, and Life manifested in Flesh?— Will not then a measure of the same in man, led him of course to aclowledge the fullness? Ib. 32, 33.—  Chr. 
If the Divine Word, Light, and Life which was once manifested in the flesh, and which is in a measure in every man, be the Christ; this confirms what before I have said, That you deny Christ to be a distinct person without you; and also that W. Pen, or any other man, may be as truly and properly called Jesus Christ, as that person who conversed here in the World, died at Jerusalem, and rose again from the Dead. Wilt thou dare to stand by this consequence? which yet is no other than what naturally issues from the premises.  
The Question thou oughtest to speak unto was this, Whether the common Light in every man,( before Christs coming into the World) could inform him that the Word should be made flesh, and that that flesh should die for sinners? Whereunto thou returnest no other Answer but thy confident presumptions— As, Will not a measure of the same Divine Word, Light, and Life which is in man, led him of course to aclowledge the fullness?— Wherein thou takest for granted, that the common Light in every man is the same Divine Word that was made flesh; If so, then this common Light in man is God.— But this is denied, and consequently thy reason is of no force, to conclude the thing in Question.  quake. 
Didst thou converse either with Sibylls or Heathen Philosophers, thou mightest in good part have informed thyself herein; yet this, I say, as to Christs outward manifestation, so far as it is Historical, the Scripture is that which furnisheth me with a belief. Ib. 32, 33.  Chr. 
Neither Sibylls, nor Heathen Philosophers do inform me, that this common Light in every man could reveal this, That the Word should be made flesh, &c. thyself dost contradict it in saying, That as to Christs outward appearance, so far as it is Historical, the Scripture is that which furnisheth thee with the belief of: Which is as if thou shouldst say, God manifested in the flesh could not have been known by thee, were it not revealed in the Scriptures. If then the Scriptures be the Rule of our belief concerning things that have been, or are yet to be, an Historical Rule as thou speakest— and yet the Light within is and must be the saving Rule, because it gives,( as thou Dreamest) a more deep discovery and knowledge of those things: Herein thou militates against thyself and overthrows thy grand design. For, if the Light within cannot discover the lesser, ( viz.) the History, how can it the greater?— Not the lesser, for thou confessest as to Christs outward manifestation, so far as it is Historical, the Scripture is that which furnisheth thee with a belief. If then this common Light cannot furnish thee with a belief of that which is Historical, much less with that which is intended in that History. If it can, then the Light within is both the Historical and saving Rules, and consequently thy distinction of Rules is ridiculous and foolish.  quake. 
The Scripture tells us of such prophecies, Histories, and Epistles, and of such men as Moses, Job, David, Matthew, &c. But what is it that gives me to believe the things they writ of to be true? Ibid. p. 33.—  Chr. 
If the Scripture tells thee there were such men as Moses, David, and Matthew, &c. without which thou couldst not have known any such thing, so the Scripture tells thee what they spoken, and wrote of, therefore the Scriptures must be the Rule of thy belief, both concerning those men and their sayings. For how canst thou believe that thus Moses wrote, till first thou believest there was such a man as Moses? The same that reveals the one, doth also the other. And whereas thou talkest of the Spirits giving Faith, this is not to the purpose: For the Spirit of God, and the common Light in every man are distinct, though thou confounded them.—  quake. 
The Light must be given in order to understand the Rule. Now suppose the Scriptures are the Rule, that which informs of it, and teacheth men how to use it must be greater, in that it teacheth me to know and do that which my Rule cannot do of itself. Ib. 39.  Chr. 
'tis apparent thou talkest more from imagination and humour than sound judgement: For, thou contradicts thyself, overthrowest that opinion which all along thou contendest for. If the Light be given to understand the Rule, then itself is not the Rule, much less greater than the Rule! The Rule is the Will of God revealed. Is the Light within greater than the Will of God? Again, to say the Rule( that is, the Will of God revealed) cannot teach men what to know and do, is so far from being truth against fiction, that it discovers thee to be a rash, heady, ignorant, and confident young man. One that neither knows, nor cares what thou saist or affirms.—  quake. 
The Scriptures at most are but a kind of declaratory and secondary Rule. The Apostles and Primitive Christians took not their measures by it. The Light is superior to the Scriptures. Historical Faith, Scripture is the Rule of: But doctrinal and saving Faith, the Light and Spirit can only be the Rule of. b. 40.  Chr. 
The Primitive Christians took not their measures from the Light within, but from the Will of God revealed to them. This Light is so far from being the Standard and Rule of that Worship which God requires of us, that itself ought to subscribe to that which he makes known to us concerning this Worship. Therefore 'tis not superior, but inferior to the Scriptures, that is, the Will of God therein revealed. If the Light within be the chief Rule why dost thou not tell us to whom it is so? And whereas thou saist, The Scriptures are but a kind of declaratory, and secondary Rule; but the Light is both a doctrinal and saving Rule; Why dost thou not prove this as well as say it?  
Again, is this Light within sufficient of itself to direct men the right way of Worshipping the true God? If it be, then what need was there of any Revelation about it? If it be not, how is it superior to the Scriptures. That it is not, I will seek no farther for instances than yourselves, who are the greatest pretenders to the Light, and yet the greatest enemies to Gods instituted Worship this age hath produced. For whilst others are endeavouring to corrupt, you would destory it. If thus you do, that have the help of the Scriptures to rectify your minds; What extravagancy may we not suppose you would run into, had you not the Scriptures? Either then the Light you pretend to walk by, is corrupt and defective, nothing but your own deluded imaginations: Or else that you are rebellious, prejudice, interest, self-righteousness, or evil living, hath brought a veil upon your minds: being given up to the power of delusion to believe lies, &c.  quake. 
They that Worship God according to the Light, Worship God in Spirit. To say God doth make more known of himself than is or can be known by the Light, is false and contradictious. Ib. 43.  Chr. 
If by Light thou mean the common Light in every man( of which the Question is) then thou saist more than thou canst prove. Neither is it for want of ignorance or impudence that thou deniest, God doth make any thing more known of himself than is or can be known by this Light within. Wherefore did God reveal to Adam deliverance from his fallen condition, by the Seed of the Woman?( a way unthought of by Adam.) Or why was not he left to the mere conduct of the Light within him? And why did God condescend( as thou confessest) to go into outward things to teach men, that is, give such positive rules concerning that worship he required of man? And also to teach man by the Ministry of men? They being otherwise incapable of being instructed. And wherefore dost thou call the Scriptures an Historical Rule? Intimating that thou couldst never have known by the mere Light in thee, whether ever there was such persons in the world as the first or second Adam. Again, if this Light within can make known the whole Will of God to, and concerning man, why do you contend so much for the necessity of immediate Revelation? If thou canst reconcile those things, thou wilt deservedly be reputed the Quakers Champion: But till then, no judicious person can otherwise esteem thee, than a bold and imperious dictatory.  quake. 
We dare boldly affirm that the greatest reason of our belief concerning the prophecies and promises recorded in the Scriptures, is not from any outward thing but that inward testimony that we have received from the holy Light within us, to the truth and faithfulness of those sayings. Ib. p. 47.—  Chr. 
Thy bold affirming adds no weight or Authority to any thing thou saist. This not being the first time by many, that thou hast confidently affirmed a falsity. However, thus much I do collect from what thou dost say, that the veracity of God is no reason, or but the least reason with you why you believe the truth of those prophecies and Promises recorded in the Scriptures; your greatest reason is from the Light within. Hence it is that those prophecies and Promises are believed and interpnted by you, more according to your fancies and imaginations than the naked truth and import thereof in themselves. For this cause it is those prophecies which relate to persons, times, or things without you, you can boldly affirm, mean nothing less. If the testimony of God were of any Authority with you, you would certainly believe otherwise than you do.—  quake. 
Because we deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and practise in honour to that Divine Light that gave them forth; That we should therefore deny those holy Precepts, Commands, and Rules relating to Life and godliness therein contained, is a consequence so foul, that God forbid any of us should ever give any just occasion for it. For we believe men ought to live up to them. Ib. p. 48.  Chr. 
Then you do professedly deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and practise, and the reason, ( such as it is) why you do so, Is in honour to that Divine Light that gave them forth. There is nothing in this Reason that gives the least countenance to your denial of the Scriptures to be the Rule. Should it be supposed( which yet is not granted nor believed by me) That the Light within were the Author of the Scriptures, can any respect you bear to that, justify your denial and rejecting of this, as the Rule of Faith and practise? Since no man can truly honour God, who at the same time rejects his revealed Will to be his Rule. For any then to say, that in honour to God himself, they deny his revealed Will as their Rule, is such a way of reasoning as is proper to none but them who are enemies both to truth and reason.  
Further, though you deny the Scriptures to be the Rule, yet ( thou saist) for any to infer thence that you deny those holy Precepts and Rules, relating to Life and godliness therein contained, is a foul consequence. Though this consequence is so natural and proper that thou dost greatly bewray thy own folly to deny it: For( 1.) You do in express terms deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and practise; and then( 2.) tell us you do not deny those holy Precepts and Rules relating to Life and Godliness therein contained. If you be true to yourselves in the former, you must necessary equivocate in the latter. What credit then can be given to that man that peremptorily denies, and yet saith he doth not deny the same thing. 'tis a vain wish therefore, that none of you may give any just occasion for such an Inference, since thou thyself hast here done it. How canst thou imagine that men should be persuaded by thee to live up to those holy Rules laid down in the Scriptures, whilst at the same time thou tellest them 'tis no Rule of Faith and practise? and dost also live in open defiance to many of those Rules? 'tis true, thou callest the Scripture an Historical Rule. Are then the things relating to Life and Godliness, only Historical things? Wilt thou render thyself thus ridiculous, and yet pretend to Infallibility?  quake. 
Though we do say, Men ought to live up to those holy Rules contained in the Scriptures, yet the reason why, is that conviction they meet with from the Light in their own Consciences: Therefore the Light within is both our warrant for faith in, and obedience to them. The Waldenses, Albigenses, Lutherans, and Calvinists, made the Testimony of God in their Consciences the chief ground of their belief of the Scriptures. Ib. 48.—  Chr. 
Then the Reason why men ought to live up to those holy Rules laid down in the Scriptures, is not, from that Divine Authority that is impressed upon them. Men are no further obliged either to Faith or obedience than the Light within moves them thereunto. For this cause ( probably it is) that you cast off many of the Scripture Precepts ( which yet are obligatory and in full force.) And pretend Authority for so doing, from the Light within. But how can that Light be ( as you fond imagine) the Author of the Scriptures, which leads you to such an undervaluing of them? Will you walk Antipodes to those holy Precepts contained therein, and yet pretend to honour the Light which gave them forth? Surely then the Light you walk by, is only your own fancies and imaginations, or otherwise you are guilty of evil living, prejudice, or interest prevails to the blinding of your minds, that though such a Light( as you talk of) do shine, yet you comprehend it not.  
That the Waldenses, &c. made the Testimony of their Consciences ( that is, the Light within) the chief ground of their belief of the Scriptures, is confidently said: But more than ever W. Pen is able to prove. Thus whilst thou multiplyest so many words about the Divinity and sufficiency of the Light within, thou producest no Authority either from Scripture or Reason, to determine our belief in this Point. For hitherto thou hast offered me no more but thy own impertinent and self-contradictory dictates.  quake. 
This Argument springs in my mind for the Divinity and sufficiency of the Light( viz.) That which in all Ages hath been the just mans path, and there where the Blood of cleansing is known, and by which fellowship is enjoyed and the Light of eternal Life obtained, is, ever was, and ever will be a Divine, sufficient, and saving way. But such a way is the Light. Ib. 15, 16.—  Chr. 
I perceive thy mind abounds with ignorance by the Arguments that spring thence. If I must suppose thee to speak directly to the Question ( viz.) That the common Light in every man is a Divine, sufficient and saving Rule. And that it is, ever was, and ever will be so. Then I deny thy Argument and require proof, that merely this common Light is, and ever was the just mans path, &c.  quake. 
These Scriptures testify to it, Prov. 4.18. The path of the just, is as the shining Light. Joh. 8.12. I am the Light of the World, he that follows me shall not walk in darkness, Joh. 11.9, 10. 1 Joh. 1.2, 3, 4, &c. Ibid.—  Chr. 
Though thou deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and practise, yet I see thou art forced to have recourse to them, to determine this Point of Faith touching the Rule. But whether thou urge the Scripture for fashion sake, or to stop our mouths that require proof from them, or with a resolution in thyself to be concluded by them, I shall not now examine. But since thou hast called them in, let us hear what evidence they do give to the Point in controversy. Prov. 4.18. The path of the just, that is, the just mans life and conversation is compared to a shining Light. Here is not a word in the Text that bears witness to thy assertion, That the Light within, is, ever was, and ever will be a Divine, sufficient, and saving Rule, or that merely by it the blood of cleansing is known. Unless thou wilt force this Text to bear false witness, thy Argument must fall: There being nothing in it that will or doth administer the least support to it. Joh. 8.12. This Text speaks not of the common Light in every man, but of Jesus Christ being the Light of the World in his doctrine and life. Which who so follows, shall not walk in darkness. Because Jesus Christ, in his doctrine and life, is the Light of the World, will it therefore follow, that the Light in every man, is, ever was, and ever will be a Divine and sufficient Rule, &c. The Disciples are called the Light of the World, can it therefore be inferred, That the Disciples is the Light within? Or that the Light within is the Disciples? Surely none but persons infatuated will thus conclude. In a word, to walk in the Light, is to walk in conformity to the Will of God, revealed in those holy Rules and Precepts he hath given unto men: And not a mere walking according to the movings, and dictates of that which men call the Light in themselves.—  
Again, If this common Light, is, and ever was a Divine and sufficient Rule, why were not all mankind left to the mere conduct of it? And wherefore did God give written Laws, and make use of the Ministry of men for the instruction of mankind in those things which respect instituted Religion?  quake. 
The Lord in wisdom to the weakness of man and darkness of his carnal state, did accommodate both his discoveries to men, and that worship he required of man, according to his capacity to receive the one and perform the other. If God went into outward things to meet with mans mind to the end that gradually it might return home, shall we infer weakness in the Light? Man in that state was incapable, he must have been new moulded, and as another Creation to have received that testimony in all its plainness. Ib. 18.—  Chr. 
The time hath been ( it seems) wherein God did accommodate his discoveries to man according to his capacity, that is, gave a written Law, and taught man by the Ministry of his Prophets: And all this because man was otherwise incapable. What agreement hath this with what thou hast all along so confidently asserted? viz. That the Light is, and ever was a Divine and sufficient Rule. How could it be so to them, who must be new moulded, and be as another Creation, before they could be capable of receiving its Testimony? Importing, that unless mans mind were enlightened with a farther Light than what common men have, he could not receive, that is, believe and obey those Revelations of Gods Will, to or concerning him: And therefore this Light within neither is, nor always was, a Divine and sufficient Rule. Though it should be granted that all the means God hath vouchsafed to man, were and are sufficient to that end for which they are given, yet that this common Light in every man was given by God to be in all Ages the only and alone sufficient and saving Rule, is a point too difficult for thee to prove, for whilst thou attempts its demonstration, thyself contradicts it. If then the illumination of mans mind be necessary to make him capable to understand and improve such means as God should reveal and prescribe, then that mere illumination itself cannot be the Rule. To conclude, thy bold adventures to prove the Divinity and sufficiency of the Light within, as superior to the Scriptures, is a plain confession that the Quakers do assert ( though they cannot prove) that the Light in every man is God, and that the Scriptures are no Rule of Faith and practise unto Christians.  
But before I close this Chapter, let me have thy Answer to these Objections,( 1.) Why you speak so contemptibly of the Scriptures, comparatively with what you speak of your own Pamphlets. That, you call Dead Letter; some of your own you Entitle the voice of Wisdom, a message from God, Breathings of true Love, &c. Wherein you manifestly prefer your own Writings before the holy Scriptures.  quake. 
If at any time we call the Scriptures Letter, 'tis not that we mean, our Books are the Spirit, or that we irreverently set them below our Writings, but upon a comparison only between the Scriptures and the Spirit that gave them forth: Which I hope may be done without the least disparagement. Though such whose Religion stands in Letter and time, and not in Spirit and power be angry at it— Ib.— p. 48, 49.—  Chr. 
This is to aggravate, not to excuse, your Error. You call the Scripture Letter only comparatively; Why have you not respect to this Comparison when you entitle your own Books? But that you would have us to believe that your Writings are more eminently from the Spirit than the Scriptures? Hence it is when both stand in competition, you thus distinguish them, Letter, yea Dead Letter, as the term proper for the one, but Voice of Wisdom, &c. to the other. Art thou not ashamed of this baseness and profaneness?  quake. 
Are not our Books written in a plain Scripture style? Do we not endeavour to confirm what we writ by Scripture? Ib. 49.  Chr. 
Your Books are not written in a plain Scripture style,— and though you use many Scripture words in them, yet so wretchedly applied, and with such an evil design, that thereby you bring a greater guilt upon yourselves. Every error being so much the more dangerous, by how much 'tis insinuated in a better language. 'tis not enough that you use Scripture words, unless you use them in their proper sense and intendment. 'tis not unusual for heretical persons to suggest their Heresies under the covert of Scripture expressions. thyself confessest, 'tis an old fetch of the Devil to be-saint his own off-spring, that he may beguile the simple-hearted. If therefore you do instil your errors by Scripture words, this renders your Books so much the more perilous. But if it be dangerous to red the Scriptures, as some of your rabbis have affirmed, then why do you quote them? Is it not to follow the directions of your great Prophet and King G. Fox, to fight us with our own Weapons? to beat us with our own rule? or else to signify that it is not safe to red the Scriptures, without your gloss and Comment upon them?  quake. 
Let this forgery ring through the Streets and Towns wheresoever thy Book or Name is known; For G. Fox, and R. Hubberthorne in Answer to this query, Whether the Scriptures being carnal and a killing Letter, may be red without danger? spake thus, The Letter killeth, is dangerous, and the Ministers of the Letter are Ministers of Death, and here you red with danger, who speak of them and speak a lie, because you speak of yourselves, and to you it is dangerous to red or speak of them. Ib. p. 49, 50.  Chr. 
All this dust wherewith thou wouldst blind the Readers eyes, is easily blown off. The Question respects the whole Scriptures, which you say is dangerous and killing; and that the Ministers of the Letter( that is, the Scriptures) are Ministers of Death, and 'tis dangerous for such to red them. What a shameless man art thou thus to confess what I accuse you of, and yet condemn me as a forger? But is it dangerous to red your Books? which you call, A voice of Wisdom, and a message from God to several Sects and sorts of men? If it be, how is it a message to them? If it be not, then 'tis so far from being dangerous, that they are concerned and obliged to red them. This then is apparent, whilst you endeavour to affright men from the Scriptures, you give them encouragement by your Titles to red your Pamphlets, wherein you give the pference unto them. What other meaning than this, can be put upon G. Whiteheads words ( viz.) That the speaking of the Spirit in any is of greater Authority than the Scriptures.  quake. 
This I still affirm, that the inward speaking or living ministration of the Spirit of Truth, is of greater Authority than the Scriptures, in the abstract. G. White. Append. p. 13.  Chr. 
Thou hast accustomend thyself so much to equivocal Answers, that thou scarce knowest how to speak directly to any question propounded. If by abstract thou dost mean, the mere Characters, Ink, and Paper separated from the sense and meaning, then what thou hast said is not to the question: For that intended not the Scriptures in such an abstract. It becomes a man of thy profession, either to Answer plain questions according to the true import and intent of them, or else to say nothing. But if thou wilt affirm, that the inward speaking of the Spirit in any, is of greater Authority than the Scriptures in their true and proper sense, then I expect thy proof. In the mean time, what dost thou say to this assertion of Ed. Burrough's, That is no Command to me which is a Command to another, neither did any of the Saints act by a Command that was given to another. See his works.— p. 47.—  quake. 
Thou hast abused and belied us in this very particular. Pen. Ib. 102.  Chr. 
Thou hast a strange confidence; if thou hast examined the place my quotation refers to, thou must needs know I have not belied you. If thou hast not, how darest thou thus charge me?  quake. 
Those Commands must relate to extraordinary Commands, such as Moses his going to Pharaoh, Isaiah's going naked, Jeremiah's making yokes, Amos his going into the Kings chapel: In this sense I affirm with that faithful young man of God, that the Command which came to them was not a Command to another. Ib. 103.  Chr. 
Such Commands as these were neither mentioned by E. B. nor could he intend them; as the place by me quoted will show. For the Objection against the Quakers was this, that we are not to do duties by or from a Command without. And that the word Command in Scripture was not a Command to them: To which he Answered as before; adding, that such who go to duty by imitation from the Letter, which was Commands to others, their sacrifice is an abomination to the Lord. Hence he elsewhere tells us, that they who take up a Command from the Scriptures are in the Witchcraft. Burroughs works, 105.  quake. 
Ed. burrow only pleads against such performances under the name of Ordinances as were but shaddowy, elementary, and perishing things. Such elementary Types, shadows, and Figures appointed for a season, and to pass off: That such are not Commands to us, unless required by the same Spirit anew. Ib. 105, 150, 151.—  Chr. 
If thus E. B. did pled, wherefore didst thou say I belied him? And why didst thou so interpret his words before, as if he respected only extraordinary Commands? Dost thou consult thy credit, in multiplying such instances of thy inadvertency and folly? What reason hath any man to believe thee either in what thou affirmest or deniest? that dost so apparently contradict thyself in both? But forasmuch as thou confessest that E. B. did pled against such Ordinances as were but shadows appointed only for a season and to pass off, that such are no Commands to us, how wilt thou prove this? &c.  quake. 
Let it be observed that there is not the least mention in all the Epistles of that beloved Disciple, of any of those Ordinances which stood in visible and corruptible Elements. But the scope and tendency of them is the most inward and spiritual of any of the Apostolical writings. So that to bring in things of a shaddowy and temporary nature amongst the Commands of Christ, is to abuse the Apostle.— Ib. 106.—  Chr. 
Let it be observed what an arrogant, abusive, profane, and impertinent man this W. Pen is, who makes the Apostle to patronise and avouch the Quakers wickedness, and also sets the Apostles and their Writings at variance. Suppose none of the positive Institutions of Christ be expressly mentioned in his Epistles, did he therefore deny them? Or teach men so to do? And are his Writings ( on this single account) more spiritual than the Writings of the other Apostles? Because God is not name in the Book of Esther, can any Atheist thence conclude there is no God? and that therefore that Book is the best of all the Books in the holy Scriptures? Because Cicumcision, the Passover, and offering Sacrifices, are not name in several Books of the Old Testament, could any Jew therefore infer that those Pen-men denied them? Or that their Writings were more spiritual than those that did take notice of them? The Apostle John doth not expressly mention Adam to be the first man, and that Death came in by him; doth he therefore deny it? 'tis sufficient that these Commands are elsewhere expressed in the Writings of those who wrote from the same Spirit John did.  
Moreover, though he do not mention such Ordinances, yet he hath respect to them, in saying, He that knoweth God, and keepeth not his Commandments, is a liar, 1 Ep. 2 Cap. 4. This is the Love of God, that we keep his Commandments, Cap. 5.3.— He that abideth in Christ ought to walk as he walked, Cap. 2.6.— Now we are certain that our Lord did walk in the observance of positive Institutions— What Commandments can these be that the Apostle so often mentions, but such as then were observed by all true Christians at that time? Hence E. B. his affirming that such who take up a Command from the Scripture are in the Witchcraft, is so far from being countenanced by the Apostle, that it is a profane and impious position.  quake. 
Thy opposing this, plainly tells us, that thou hast no Command in thyself for doing what thou dost. That the bare Authority of the Scriptures is all that induceth thee. Ib. p. 106.—  Chr. 
The wise man tells us that a prudent man dealeth with knowledge, but a fool layeth open his folly: therefore though thou mayst probably solace thyself, as if what thou hast now said were pertinent to the purpose, 'twill be but ( according to the Proverb) a fool laughing at his folly. Is not the Authority of God sufficient to induce any man to obedience? Can any inward motion be of greater Authority than the revealed will of him who is absolute sovereign? Is this to talk like a Christian, or a sober Heathen? to prefer private motions to the positive and known Laws of God? Canst thou imagine this will be a sufficient excuse in the great Day, when God shall put it to thy Conscience, Why didst thou not obey my Will in this and that Commandment? for thee to Answer, because I had nothing but thy bare Authority for it: I had no command in myself to do it. But though the leading Quakers will venture thus to dispute the Authority of God in his Word, yet will they not endure their own sovereignty to be questioned under any pretext of the want of inward motions. Suppose thou shouldst command any of thy Servants to do this or the other thing ( that may be lawful in itself) And they reply, Till they have a Command in themselves, thy bare Authority is no sufficient inducement to them. I greatly question whether thy Pride could bear this. And yet this affront is nothing to what thou thyself wouldst put upon God.  quake. 
We deny the necessity of Water, Bread, and Wine; for we know they were used as figures and shadows no longer to endure than till the substance. Now the time of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is long since come, consequently the other ought to cease.— 107.  Chr. 
'tis a very sad thing when men do not only err, but will pretend reason why they should so do, having imbibed such principles as necessary do led them to persist therein. This will be a bitter aggravation both of their sin and misery in the end. You tell us these Ordinances were used as figures; no longer to endure than till the substance come,( viz.) The Baptism of the Holy Ghost. The reason can be no other than the vain conceit of a deluded mind. For Water, Baptism, and Breaking Bread were no figures of the Baptism of the Spirit: Therefore this can be no reason for the abolishing of them. Christ commands his Apostles and Ministers to teach and Baptize, &c. promising to be with them to the end of the World. Is this entire Commission no longer in force than till the Baptism of the Spirit?—  quake. 
True, Christ bade his Apostles teach and Baptize, but no water is mentioned, Act. 1. saith, Christ would Baptize them with the Holy Ghost, and then was the Commission in force, Go teach all Nations, Baptizing; how? With the Holy Ghost: By turning people from darkness to light, from the Power of Satan to God. Ib. 107, 108.  Chr. 
If the Baptism of the Holy Ghost do put ( as thou saist) this Commission in force, then the Obligation to those duties signified in the Commission cannot be taken off: but do and must remain in full force, notwithstanding this Baptism. If so, thy Argument falls.—  quake. 
Not so, For water is not here mentioned. 'tis to Baptize with the Holy Ghost, by turning people from darkness to light, &c. Ib.  Chr. 
If Baptism with Water be not, then no Baptism can be here intended. Not the Baptism of Afflictions: For the Apostles were not commanded to persecute Christians to Death. Not the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, for that was a Promise not a Commission given to them. To Baptize with the Holy Ghost was none of their duty, it being properly Christs work, I will Baptize you, &c. The Baptism in the Text is such as is to be administered in or into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Is it proper to say, I Baptize you with the Spirit into the Name of the Spirit. Again, turning men from darkness to light, is not the Baptism of the Spirit; if it were, then when Christ made this promise to the Apostles ( of Baptizing them with the Spirit) they must be in an unconverted state, not turned from the power of Satan to God. The godly in all Ages before that, were turned from darkness to light; yet that is no where called the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. If thou shalt object, I fly from the Text to an Interpretation, because Water is not expressed: The like I say to thee. Thou runnest from the Text to an Interpretation: Forasmuch as the Baptism of the holy Ghost neither is expressed, nor can be deduced from the Text.—  
But since thou art pleased to insist so much upon this Text, let me ask thee, who gave this Commission? And to whom was it given? Was it given from the Light within, or by the person of Christ without us? If from the Light within, then whether it gives this Commission to every individual man in whom it is?— or but to some men only? If to all, then every man is an Apostle and Minister, which is not true. If but to a few, then the Light within, doth not give alike Rules to all men.— But if this Commission was not given from the Light within, but by the person of our Lord Christ without us, then his words are of greater Authority, and do give more perfect directions than the mere Light within.  quake. 
I would not have any so sottish as to think that Christ came to abolish the shadows of the Jews, and institute others in their room. He came to remove, change, and abolish the very nature such Ordinances. Ib. 108.  Chr. 
I would not have thee nor any man be so sottish as to conclude that Christ came to abolish and destroy instituted Religion.  quake. 
I do affirm that Circumcision is as much in force as Water, Baptism; and the Paschal Lamb as Bread and Wine. For a continuance of them would have been a Judaizing of the Evangelical Worship. To assert their continuance would be as much as in such lies, to pluck up the Gospel or spiritual worship by the roots. Hence that Appellation, Ordinances of Christ, I do renounce as unscriptural, and inevangelical; and can testify from the same spirit by which Paul renounced Circumcision, that they are to be rejected. Ib. 108, 109.  Chr. 
If thou hadst only said, they are to be rejected, it had been more than enough; too much for thee to warrant. But 'tis impious in thee to testify this, from the same Spirit by which Paul renounced Circumcision. Must the holy Spirit at every turn, be produced to avouch and patronise thy lies? But what will not an arrogant and daring young man venture to affirm! Did ever such language as this drop from the Tongue or Pen of any serious Christian? May we not from such reasoning conclude, That a Quaker is quiter another thing than a Christian? For how can they be Christians that not only neglect, but reprobate the path that such have, and do walk in; Whatever therefore your pretences be to the sufficiency of inward speakings, 'tis but too apparent, your understandings are vitiated, and the tendency of all your reasonings about Instituted Religion is to debauch mankind, to teach them how to live in rebellion against God, to despise and contemn all the goodness and grace of God in his condescensions to them; for if no submission to these Ordinances be sinful, how much more wicked and perilous must it be to reject them, and likewise teach men so to do? Herein the great enemy to Religion, and the Souls of men is practising his mischievous and destructive designs both by and upon you.  quake. 
We deny these Ordinances because the Spirit of Whoredom, apostasy, and all manner of wickedness hath got them, and covered itself with them. Ib. 109.—  Chr. 
Is this good reasoning, because evil men profane the holy Ordinances of Christ, therefore Christians must reject them. If some men abuse meat and drink, to excess and drunkenness, must not sober persons for that reason eat and drink? Though many of your own Ministry have acted villainy under that cover, is Preaching to be rejected? And if many have been guilty of great follies and wickedness, under pretence of following the Light within ( as instances might easily be enumerated) will you therefore reprobate the Light within? Though( thou W. Pen) hast covered many a notorious lie under the pretence of being guided by an infallible spirit, Is there therefore no such thing as an infallible spirit to be acknowledged? If thou wilt not admit of this consequence, why dost thou improve it? In a word, the sins of men cannot weaken the Authority of God: Though they be wicked, his Laws have still the same obligation upon us; let not then the errings of men, be rules of error to us.   

Of Justification.  Chr. 
Thou hast boldly, and in the name of the Lord, affirmed, that Justification by that righteousness which Christ fulfilled for us, wholly without us, to be a Doctrine of Devils. Apol. p. 148. what saist thou hereunto?  quake. 
This Apology cited, was written against a malicious Priest in Ireland, to whom I made this answer related by thee. Pen, Reas. against Rail. p. 68.—  Chr. 
If thy position cannot be proved, 'twill be no excuse to say, it was given in answer to a malicious Priest; yea, thy folly and rashness is the more aggravated from thy manner of asserting it.  quake. 
If herein I have crossed the express testimony of the Scripture, show me; but if I have only thwarted a most sin-pleasing and dangerous notion, let such as hold it look to that. Ib. 68.  Chr. 
Thou supposest the Doctrine of Justification by that righteousness which Christ fulfilled, wholly without us, to be a sin-pleasing and dangerous notion, but what reason hast thou so to esteem it?  quake. 
My reasons are these,( 1.) No man is justified without Faith, no man hath Faith without works; therefore the works of righteousness by the Spirit are necessary to our Justification. Ib. p. 69.  Chr. 
Whether a sincere Faith be necessary to our Justification, is one thing; but whether such a Faith be itself our sole righteousness, for which we are justified, is another: Justification by that righteousness which Christ fulfilled without us, will very well consist with the first: But if thou intend the latter, 'tis false Doctrine.  quake. 
If men are justified whilst impure, then God acquits the guilty, which is contrary to plain Scripture, which cannot be, I mean whilst in a rebellious state. Ib.  Chr. 
If by impure and rebellious, thou intendest only such as have not arrived to perfection, then none are justified in this life, and you yourselves ( whatever your presumptions may be) are yet in an unjustified state: But if by impure, you mean such as are impenitent, this toucheth not the question, for the common Doctrine ( which thou opposest) saith, that no man is actually justified till he believe. Unless then, thou canst prove that the Justification of such as believe, is a justifying persons in a rebellious state, thy reason is of no force; 'tis not the common Doctrine but thy own imagination thou contendest with. Admit, that Justification is of them that believe; yet to infer, either that believing itself, or believing with good works is our sole righteousness, for which we are justified; or that Justification by that righteousness which Christ fulfilled for us, without us, is a doctrine of Devils, is utterly inconsequent.  quake. 
Death came in by actual sin, not imputative, therefore Justification comes by actual righteousness, not imputative. Ib.  Chr. 
This actual sin, by which death entred into the world was the sin of Adam; Death reigned over all that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, that is, had not sinned actually, Rom. 5.14. So Justification comes by actual righteousness, that is, by that righteousness which Jesus Christ fulfilled for us, wholly without us, as the same Chapter at large shows— As then Adam by his sin brought Death into the world, so Jesus Christ did by his obedience bring in a righteousness sufficient to justify all that by Faith lay hold of it. This reason then ( across to its design and intendment) proves that to be a truth, which thou impudently callest a doctrine of Devils.  quake. 
This speaks peace to the wicked, whilst wicked, but there is no peace to the wicked. Ib.  Chr. 
Though the doctrine of what Christ hath done and suffered ( without us) for sinners, be an encouragement to such as are sensible of their perishing and sinful condition to believe and repent; yet it is horribly wicked, to conclude, that what Christ hath done and suffered without us, is to speak peace to the wicked whilst such. What though many do flatter themselves, and misimprove this doctrine ( to their peril be it) must the doctrine itself be damned for their fault?  quake. 
By this doctrine men are dead and alive at the same time, that is dead in sin, but alive in anothers righteousness, not inherent; consequently men may be damned actually; yet saved imputatively. Ib.  Chr. 
I perceive thou hast an art ( though it be no other than that we call Legerdemain) to draw such consequences from a doctrine as naturally do not arise thence. And thus whilst thou pretendest to confute the common doctrine, thou contendest only with the idle and impertinent fancies of thy own brain: For, the common doctrine saith, that Justification is by, and for the righteousness of Christ which he fulfilled without us, but yet so, as that no man is actually justified, or benefited by that righteousness but he that believes. Can any man from these premises rationally infer, that a believer is imputatively saved, and at the very same instant dead in sin, and actually damned? certainly Pride, Passion, or Prejudice hath blinded thy eyes.—  quake. 
Men are to reap what they do sow, every man shall be rewarded according to his works, none are justified but the Children of God. None are the Children of God but they who are lead by the Spirit. 'tis not the oil in anothers Lamp, but in our own that will serve our turns. The rejoicing must be in ourselves, not in another; though to Christs holy power alone we do ascribe it. Ib. 69, 70.—  Chr. 
Though every man shall be rewarded according to his works, and none are justified but the Children of God, yet it will not follow that every man is justified for his works, as the meritorious, procuring, and deserving cause, or that Justification by that righteousness which Christ fulfilled without us is ( as thou wickedly termest it) a doctrine of Devils. These reasons are therefore of no force to establish what thou hast asserted. Either then thou must quit it, or think of other mediums to maintain it. Mean while, this is plainly deducible from thy present reasonings, that the doctrine of Christ dying for sinners( wholly without them) his giving his life for a ransom hath nothing in it as a ground of our rejoicing, for our rejoicing must( as thou affirmest) be in ourselves, not in another. The whole glory of your Salvation ( if ever you be saved) is to be ascribed to Christs power, that is, the Light in you. But canst thou imagine this should pass for Truth against Fiction?  quake. 
'tis wicked and erroneous in them who not from Scripture evidences, but their dark conjectures and interpretations would frame a doctrine inconsistent with Gods pure and equal nature, making to condemn the righteous to death, and justify the wicked to life, from the imputation of anothers righteousness. Ib. 71.—  Chr. 
Thou pretendest to argue against the common doctrine, yet quotest neither man, nor men that ever spoken or wrote thus, ( viz.) That from the imputation of anothers righteousness, God doth condemn the righteous to Death, and justify the wicked to Life. This is a forgery of your own, a common lie the Quakers have made, and published, therefore no confutation of the common doctrine, but of your own lying imaginations. Let me advice thee to be honest, and not to suffer thy pride and prejudice thus to hurry thee, first, to assert one error, and then to defend it by another. In short, this is your opinion ( according as I have formerly quoted from thy sandy foundation, p. 25.) That Justification is not, from the imputation of anothers righteousness, but from the actual performing and keeping Gods righteous Statutes.  quake. 
This is a base and disingenuous citation. Ib. 70.  Chr. 
This censure would certainly have been spared, hadst thou had but the least respect to thy own credit: For thou knowest the quotation is true, and also that it is the very point thou endeavourest to maintain.  quake. 
Let the Reader hear my Argument as it is laid down in my own Book, and then let him give judgement of thee, from Ezek. 18.20, 26, 27, 28. I draw this Argument, That the Justification of persons is not from the imputation of anothers righteousness, but the actual performing or keeping Gods righteous Statutes, otherwise Gods ways were not equal. Ib. 70, 71.  Chr. 
This repetition of thy own Argument in the words, cited by me, proves me honest, and not base and disingenuous in my citation; from hence the Reader may give judgement, that thy tongue is no slander; but forasmuch as thou dost persist in this opinion, what saist thou to Rom. 5.19. As by the obedience of one, many were made sinners: so by the obedience of one, many are made righteous.  quake. 
This Chapter considered is no more than this, That as Adam, representative of mankind, was he by whom sin entred into the World: So Christ was he by whose coming and obedience righteousness had an entrance to the Justification of many. Ib. 71, 72.  Chr. 
Here thou dost oppose Adam and Christ as two representatives. I presume by Christ in this place, thou dost not mean the Light within every man: For, how can that be a representative? Since then, contradictions are the common infirmities attending your writings, methinks you should not be so immodest as to pretend to Infallibility— But wherein is this thou hast offered to the point in question?  quake. 
Christs work was twofold,( 1.) To remit, forgive, or justify from the imputation of sins past, such as truly repent and believe( 2.) By his power and spirit working in the hearts of such, to destroy and remove the very nature of sin, to make an end of it, to finish transgression, present, and to come; the first removes the guilt, the second the cause of it. Ib. 72.  Chr. 
This distinction of the work of Christ proves not what thou hast asserted, viz. That Justification is not by the imputation of anothers righteousness, much less, that such a Justification is a doctrine of Devils: For, if one part of Christs work be to remit and justify from the imputation of sins past, which thou callest a removing of the guilt, that is, taking off the obligation to punishment; then I query, upon what account this is so? Is repentance and believing the meritorious and deserving cause of this remission? Or is it with respect to what Christ hath done and suffered for u●, without us? If the first, then thou must prove that repentance and believing is the meritorious cause of forgiveness: But if thou wilt say the latter, it overthrows thy Argument, and justifies that to be true, which thou hast boldly affirmed to be a doctrine of Devils.  quake. 
I grant that Christs obedience to death was in order to make men righteous, because it was in the nature of a Sacrifice: In which sense, the just suffered for the unjust, and whilst we were sinners, Christ died for us. And he justified the ungodly, that is, upon repentance; still repentance brought home the general pardon promulgated in and by that holy offering; thus by the obedience of one, even to the Death, many come to be made righteous, that is, justified from many offences. Ib. 72, 73.—  Chr. 
If Christs Death was in the nature of a Sacrifice, and therefore in order to make men righteous; if he suffered ( that is, without us) for the unjust, whilst we were sinners, he died for us, How then can Justification, by that righteousness which he fulfilled for us, without us, be esteemed( as 'tis by thee) a doctrine of Devils? Was his Death a Sacrifice? and was it for sinners, and yet not to be imputed or accounted to them? was there neither satisfaction, nor merit in those sufferings? And whereas thou dost say, that repentance brought home the general pardon promulgated in and by that holy offering: Then repentance ( in thy own sense) can be no more but the condition of the application of the righteousness of Christ to us( viz.) The righteousness of the obedience of that one man, even to the death of the across( which was without us) But, how it is possible for thee to reconcile this with thy former assertion, or with the sole sufficiency of the Light in every man to justify and save, is very well worthy of thy second thoughts.  quake. 
Though Christ died for the ungodly, yet they are not thereby justified whilst unrepentant. Peter saith Repent, and receive the remission of sins. How is this repentance wrought, by which as a condition any come to be interested in that great pardon? Is the Spirit unconcerned in this? Are we not by nature children of wrath? Is not this confessed by the professors of Religion in our times, and the most affencted piece of their righteousness too? If then repentance be a condition, and this cannot be without the Spirit of Christ work it, then something must be done within of the nature of inward righteousness, before any benefit can be received from Christs death and sufferings; this is close to the point. Ib. 74.  Chr. 
Though this be more close to the point, than any thing thou hast yet spoken, yet 'tis not so close, as to prove thy position; for if repentance be but a condition, then 'tis not the sole righteousness for which we are justified; If it be the very righteousness itself, how is it a condition? If but a condition wrought and performed in order to receive benefit from Christs death and sufferings ( without us) then Justification by that righteousness which Christ fulfilled without us, is no doctrine of Devils.  
But why art thou so inconsiderate as to upbraid professors for confessing that of themselves, they cannot think a good thought, and that they are by nature the children of wraeth, as if this were an affencted piece of their righteousness? is it because you aclowledge no such thing, but are above such a confession? or is it, that it is a lie in itself?— If the former, then you are proudly forgetful, not remembering the pit from whence you were digged; If the latter, why dost thou instance it as an Argument for the necessity of the Spirit to work this repentance in us? which though granted, yet to infer that repentance itself is that sole righteousness in which we must stand before God, is inconsequent; for, thyself callest it a condition to bring home the general pardon. I ask thee, and 'tis close to the point, upon what account is that general pardon promulgated, if repentance cannot be the ground of the promulgation of such a pardon? Is it then upon the account of what Jesus Christ hath done and suffered without us? If thou say this, thou wilt contradict thy former assertion, and prove thyself impudently wicked in affirming it in the name of the Lord to be a doctrine of Devils. But forasmuch as thou seemest to grant that Christs death was in the nature of a Sacrifice, how will this agree with what thou hast formerly asserted. ( viz.) That Christ fulfilled the Law only as our pattern or example? Sand. Found. p. 26.—  quake. 
In this quotation thou hast done exactly like thyself, for if thou canst find the word only there, or such an answer to such a question, thou hast not wronged me; but sure I am, there is no such question, and as sure the fulfilling of the Law was not the subject treated on, and very certain the word Only was not there, therefore thou art a forger. That which I said with the Scripture on which it was grounded was this, If ye keep my Commandments, ye shall abide in my Love, &c. Reas. against Rail. p. 78.— Sand. found. 26.—  Chr. 
Here 'tis hard to say ( to use thy own words) whether thy dishonesty or impudence be the greater: For in this answer, thou art guilty of no less than three notorious untruths.( 1.) Thou insinuates as if the Text above name were the only Text from whence thou didst argue, in thy Sand. found.— p. 26.— This is one untruth.( 2.) Thou art sure the fulfilling of the Law was not the subject treated on there, thou knowest that herein thou hast spoken falsely. And( 3.) Thou art very certain the word Only is not there. Thus hast thou aggravated thy wickedness in adding lie unto lie, and all this knowingly: neither hast thou the least excuse left thee to extenuate thy sin: For thou hadst thy sandy foundation by thee when thou wrote this Book against me, wherein thou hast transcribed a great part of that. Amongst the rest ( that all men may be acquainted with thy folly and madness) this very Argument I referred to, which here thou deniest. Let the Reader compare Sand. found. p. 26. and Reas. against Rail. p. 94. and he shall find that from Rom. 2.13. Not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law shall be justified; thou thus arguest, Unless we become doers of the Law, which Christ came not to destroy, but as our example to fulfil, we can never be justified before God. Let not any fancy that Christ hath so fulfilled it for them, as to exclude their obedience from being requisite to their acceptance, but Only as their pattern. W. Pen, is this consistent with common honesty to Print three such palpable falshoods at once? Neither is this the first time, by many, thou hast been accused for speaking falsely, which makes some to conclude, that Lying is thy reigning Sin. Hence as the testimony of that man who is once convict of Perjury is not to be received: so neither ought thine, whilst thou standest convicted of such wilful Lying: But what saith G. Whitehead to this word Only?  quake. 
I say this word Only is added. Append. p. 31.  Chr. 
Certainly you are desperate men, care not what you say or deny, may it but serve your present purpose. It is not for nothing, that you warn your Proselytes against reading your Adversaries Books, lest your wickedness should be detected; but is it probable such practices should convince me, or any man of your truth and honesty? If the word Only is not to be justified, it would more become you to confess your error, than to excuse it by wilful Lying. But since you deny Justification by an imputed righteousness, let me know what that righteousness is, for, and upon the account of which only we are to be justified?  quake. 
It is to be understood of a righteousness wrought by Christs power within, when I speak of being justified, or being made just by it. Ib. 71.— Marg.—  Chr. 
This confounds Justification and Sanctification together, yea it makes Sanctification the sole righteousness, by and for which we are justified, and consequently that Justification ought rather to be attributed to the Spirit than to the obedience of Christ. That the inward work of the Spirit doth accompany Justification is not denied, but that it is the alone righteousness for which we are justified, remains for thee to prove.  quake. 
Was not Abraham justified by works? we must not conceive that his offering personally was not a justifying righteousness, but that God was pleased to account it so; nor was there any imputation of anothers righteousness to Abraham, but on the contrary, his personal obedience was the ground of that just imputation; therefore that any should be justified from the imputation of anothers righteousness, not inherent, in him, is both ridiculous and dangerous. Ib. p. 80.  Chr. 
'tis thy unhappiness to militate both against the truth and thyself. Thou dost rarely express thy mind in any point, without self-contradiction; instances hereof are plentiful in the foregoing discourse, which is an undoubted evidence of thy fallibility and weakness. Thou saidst before, we are made just by a righteousness wrought by Christs power within. And now thou affirmest, That Abraham's offering personally was his justifying righteousness. If the inward work of the Spirit be our alone righteousness; how can works performed by us be so too? if thou wilt say they are a condition, I ask of what? if of our being made just by the Spirit, this, according to thy own reasoning, would be ridiculous to imagine: For the works thou talkest of are such as presuppose an inward work of the Spirit. Are then effects conditions of their causes? Can acts flowing from principles be conditions of those principles? Can speaking and moving, which suppose Life, be a condition of Life?  
But if Abraham's personal obedience was the ground of his being accounted righteous, then his obedience was his sole righteousness in which and for which he stood accepted with God, and by consequence every mans personal obedience must be so likewise. If so, then we are not made just, merely by a righteousness wrought by Christs power within, but by a righteousness performed by ourselves. But then what wilt thou say to these Texts, 1 Cor. 4.4. I know nothing by myself, yet I am not hereby justified. Paul did not conclude himself justified by his innocency. Rom. 4.2. If Abraham were justified by works, then he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. Ver. 16. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works. Gal. 2.16. We are justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law. Phil. 3.9. Paul would be found in that righteousness which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God through faith. 2 Cor. 5.21. He was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Jer. 23.16. This is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our righteousness. Rom. 10.4. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 1 Cor. 1.31. Christ is made of God to us righteousness. See Rom. 3.24, 25, 26, 27, 28. In all these Texts( with many more that might be instanced) the righteousness of Christ, and the righteousness of works are opposed, and this opposition is not between one kind of works, and another kind of works, but between all kind of works, and the righteousness of Christ. Faith is opposed to works, not merely in itself, for so it is a work, but with respect to that righteousness it apprehends.  quake. 
Was not Abraham's faith and obedience accounted or imputed to him for righteousness? G. W. Apol. p. 37.—  Chr. 
If Faith and Works be our sole righteousness, then by these only we are freed from the curse of the Law, and to these only we must flee, when under any accusation, these having in them that which the Law requires. But if Faith be only a condition, by which Christ becometh our righteousness; then Faith itself cannot be our sole righteousness. As it was not the mere act of looking that could heal them that were bitten by the fiery Serpents, but a looking ( according to the institution of God) to the Serpent upon the pole. Hence when Faith is said to be imputed; it signifies only to whom, and on what terms the righteousness of Christ is imputed: Therefore not Faith simply in itself, but as it is relative to the righteousness of Christ, is to be understood; otherwise the mere act of believing would be our alone righteousness, and not the righteousness of Christ apprehended by it. Again, if Faith and Works be our only sole righteousness; then the righteousness of Christ is cashiered. But if you will say, that Faith and Works, together with Christs righteousness, is our sole righteousness: This is to say, that Christs righteousness is not a full and complete, but only a partial righteousness. If both be imputed together, then either it must be in the same kind of causality, or in a different sense. If the first, then I query whether both may not be said to be meritorious? If in a different sense, then I would know what that is, or whether it will not issue in this, That Christs righteousness is that for which we are justified, and Faith is the means by which we come to have title thereunto?  
There are several other Heads which I intended to have insisted upon, but because I would not exceed five or six Sheets, do reserve them to another opportunity. Of that which hitherto hath been discoursed, this is the sum, first, You maintain the Light in every man to be God: And that the Soul of man is God. That Christ is not a distinct person without you: And though you pretend to own his outward appearance in the flesh, yet you affirm the end of that appearance was only to redeem and deliver Gods holy Life( that is to say, himself) in man. That the Scriptures are no rule of Faith and practise unto Christians. That Ordinances are to be rejected as shaddowy and perishing things. For the like reason Jesus Christ in what he did and suffered without us, is disesteemed by you, as being but figurative of something you fancy to be more spiritual in yourselves. That Justification is not by the righteousness of another imputed: But our own personal obedience is the ground of our being accounted just, &c.  
How such a people, who are left to such a height of impudence, and obstinacy in their errors, discovering themselves to be no other than the spawn of that wicked brood the Ranters, having in these many instances so apparently licked up their vomit; I say, how such as these may be reputed amongst the number of Christians, I shall leave to the judgement of others.  
But before I close, I would willingly hear what thou hast to say to those things, which respect the second general Head, wherein I have accused you ( Quakers) for Cursing, Railing, and Lying, instead of giving a solid and distinct answer to such questions as have been propounded to you. To prove this, I instanced Ed. Burroughs one of your chief Prophets, in his answers to twenty questions; see Contin. of the Dial. p. 16, 17, 18, &c.  quake. 
Should this be admitted for proof so far as it extends, 'tis not sufficient proof. W. Pen, Reas. against Rail. p. 163.—  Chr. 
But tell me seriously, what thou thinkest of those answers which E. B. gave?  quake. 
I warrant them from God. Ib.—  Chr. 
I know thou wantest not confidence to affirm any thing, but prithee what reason hast thou so to warrant them?—  quake. 
God raised him up by his eternal power, to check, and strike dumb that unclean and Serpentine Spirit which was predominant under the show of worship, &c. Therefore by the sense of the eternal Spirit, I do declare, that was the portion( viz. that Railing, Cursing, and Lying) and only fit answer to be given to those trappanning questions. Ib. 164.—  Chr. 
Should it be supposed( which I know no reason to grant) that the Querist was as vile and wicked, as thou dost represent him, was Cursing, Railing, and Lying, a proper and fit means to convince him? If not, how darest thou be so impudently wicked, as to declare, and that by the sense of the eternal Spirit ( O impious man) that such was the portion, and only fit answer to be given? What canst thou say to justify thyself in thus speaking?  quake. 
Had E.B. gone into a familiar opening, to his vultrous, unclean, and serpentine eye, the deep things of the Spirit of God, and the mysteries of his holy Kingdom, He had brought the wrath of the eternal God upon himself instead of the Priest. Ib.—  Chr. 
The reason then, why you do not speak familiarly, ( that is, distinctly, and intelligibly) to such questions as are propounded to you, is for fear lest you bring the wrath of God upon yourselves, which is to say, That the dread of Judgement deters you from being honest. W. Pen, dost thou not herein talk like a mad man? Thou confessest the questions were deep and weighty, and also seems to grant, that the answers were not pertinent and familiar. What thou saist therefore, by way of Apology for E. B. cannot be excused by any thing, but that thou wrote in a frenzy: And thy words are not likely to take with the reason of any man.  quake. 
Those questions were the language of a white Devil, propounded in the subtlety of unclean, wisdom, only to carp, cavil, and to ensnare the innocent. Though the Priest queried smoothly, yet it was nevertheless serpentine. Ib. 164, 165.—  Chr. 
Then such questions as these( viz. Whether the word was made flesh, more or oftener than once? And whether the man Christ did really and indeed suffer death, as upon the across at Jerusalem more, or oftener than once? &c.) are by you accounted the language of a white Devil, to ensnare the innocent, And why so? but because either you cannot, or dare not answer him distinctly and familiarly. Yet that you may say something to tell the world you have answered, you will call the Querist Reprobate, Child of the Devil, Conjurer Sot, and sottish Beast, querying with conjured words, and that they are in the Sorcery, and witchcraft, &c. But canst thou believe that any man in his wits should take this for a solid answer?  quake. 
Let it suffice that E. B. gave no harder names, than the Scripture by rule allows, and the same Spirit that gave them forth, hath now used them to the same end and purpose. Ib. 165.—  Chr. 
I have heard of some mad people, who at certain times, and about some particular things, will seem to discourse very rationally; but when they come to that which was at first the cause of their distraction, there they will rave and discover their madness: Even so 'tis with thee. Wilt thou deny the Scriptures to be the rule of practise, and now pretend its Authority for Cursing and Lying? Is it a rule only to countenance you in your wickedness? What man, that hath not lost his reason, but will conclude that herein W.P. doth manifestly rave? And whereas thou art pleased to say ( to put us beyond doubt, that thy understanding is cracked) That the same Spirit that gave such names, hath now used them to the same end and purpose. If thou dost mean the Spirit of God, thou presumest without warrant, for that never( as we red) gave such names as Sot, and sottish Beast, to sober inquirers after the truth. By Spirit, therefore we must understand the unclean, filthy, and wicked spirit: And then you have no reason to glory in the usage of such opprobrious language, as either hath been used, or given forth by such a Spirit.  quake. 
It was not the man that E. B. spake to, as to the determining his eternal state, but that accursed seed that was transformed in him. 'twas an answer of love to the Priest, though a sharp and heavy answer of Judgement upon that mind in him: That never did, never will, nor can please God. Ib. 165, 166.—  Chr. 
Hast thou no more respect for thy own credit, than thus to expose thyself to laughter and contempt? Thou  told us before, that if E. B. had spoken familiarly, he had brought the wrath of God upon himself instead of the Priest. And now thou distinguishest the Priest from that accursed seed that was in him, saying, it was an answer of love to the Priest but of Judgement upon that mind that was in him. Then this accursed seed that was in the querist, thou confessest was not the Priest: If then this term Priest be used by you ( as 'tis common with you to do) by way of reproach, I would know who, or what was the Priest distinct from that accursed seed? Either it must be the mere body of the man, or the Light within him; if thou say the first, thou wilt render thyself ridiculous; if the second, then to affix such a reproachful name ( as according to your Dialect it is) upon that which you call Christ in man, must be by thy own opinion impious— From the whole; this is observable, That as mad as thou art, yet thou dost not deny the matter of fact, ( viz.) that the replies given by E. B. to those twenty questions were no other than cursing, railing, and lying answers.  quake. 
Thou art wicked with a witness to run away with or three leaves of a large folio book, about 900. pages. Ib. 166.  Chr. 
Those leaves I refer to, was an entire book of itself, though now Printed together with E. B. his works. If the answers which E. B. gave to these weighty questions, are not to be allowed, or if they be inconsistent with the Spirit, and design of the whole book, why were they permitted to be Printed together, was it not ( as your Notary in his Epistle signifies) to fit and help your young Proselytes for dispute, that is, when they meet with questions too knotty for them to answer, then to curse and damn the querist; and if any be scandalized thereat, 'tis but to say ( as thou dost) that should you speak familiarly, ( that is, plainly and honestly) the wrath of God would fall upon you instead of the querist.  quake. 
Though this instance of E. B. might be admitted, yet 'tis not sufficient proof; for thy first question and answer( in Contin.) is a down-right forgery in G. W. his name, and that with no quotation, though thou promised it, at once proving thyself a liar, and a forger too. Ib. 163.—  Chr. 
I promised not a Quotation to every instance, though I could have done it with safety, but did on purpose conceal some to try you. Albeit, I gave you sufficient warning to take heed of being too peremptory in your denials, telling you, I had such undoubted evidences of the truth of those things whereof accuse you, as may satisfy any man, which to wise men would have been a caution. But just as I expected ( and long before spoken to some) so it is happened, you do deny them, and thereby your shane will more manifestly appear: But what saith G. Whitehead hereunto?  quake. 
I testify against this as a fiction, this was not my answer, neither hast thou referred me to any quotation, but hast counterfeited my name. Append. 13.  Chr. 
Though I did not refer thee to any quotation, yet thou couldst not be ignorant to whom thou thus spake; but if thou hast forgotten, I will refer thee and the Reader to this following Quotation.  
Whereas G. W. denies that he said the Plagues and Judgements of God would follow Tho. Hicks: These may certify, that G. W. and myself being in discourse about the Dialogue between a Christian and a Quaker, he said, the Plagues and Judgements of God would follow T. Hicks, and all that had a hand in that Dialogue, or that dispersed it. The substance hereof he repeated twice or thrice over. This I testify, 〈◇〉 John Gladman.  
I hope now I have given thee a Quotation, thou wilt rest satisfied, let us proceed to the next ( viz.) That when you do not curse, you put us off with your witnessings, and tell us, we are in the Imagination, &c.  quake. 
Doth it become a man pretending to Religion, to give our serious language in a Jeer? W. P. Ib. 4, 5.  Chr. 
If you thus speak, and if this be indeed your serious language, why art thou offended?  quake. 
It was the way of the true Prophets, Apostles, and Churches of Christ to declare what they had known experimentally of God and his work experiences have been very excellent things. Ib. 176, 177.  Chr. 
Why art thou so impertinent? The experiences of Christians, and the witnessings of the Quakers are quiter different things, have no more agreement than light and darkness. Thou art therefore but in the mere Imagination, if thou thinkest that whilst I upbraid you with your witnessings, I do deny true experiences. You say, you witness a more perfect rule than the Scriptures. And you witness the Resurrection of the dead, and perfection. You witness the man Christ, and the Word made flesh. You witness an equality with God. Again, you witness innocent and sober inquirers after your faith and Religion to be Beasts, Sots, in the Sorcery, and Witchcraft. I am sure, these are no real experiences, but mere canting gibberish peculiar to distracted and deceived men.  
The next instance I shall take notice of, is that saying of Nicholas Lucas, That if the Bible were burnt, as good a one might be writ, &c. what saist thou to this?  quake. 
This is a lie, for he disowns it. Ib. 155.—  Chr. 
'tis never the more a lie, because he denies it, N L. knows who are his accusers, and also that they are persons of credit, and thou mayst know that they have testified ( before several witnesses) to N. L. the truth of that which he in Print denies; one of the same persons can also testify that Solomon Eccles did say, that he made use of the Scriptures only to satisfy him. But the Reader may be satisfied that no credit ought to be given to your denials, for you make no scruple to deny your own words in Print, as both thyself, and G.W. have done. Several instances hereof have already occurred, and 'twere easy to multiply them. I shall give the Reader one instance more of thy wilful Lying. Thou dost in thy Book, p. 184. tell the world of my base cowardice, you having offered me a free meeting with my Books in your hands, proffering to refute them viva voice, before the world, but instead thereof or any other way, as several hath been tendered, I disingenuously slink, and put you off with mere evasions, &c.  
I desire the Reader to consider these following particulars, and then judge whether W. P. had any reason thus to speak.( 1.) I did( long before his Book was published) desire to meet with W. P. himself, which he refused. And( 2.) did also sand six questions to G. W. signifying, that if he were free to debate them, I would upon notice, consider of a more convenient time and place to attend him, or any he should bring; the Questions were these,( 1.) Whether the Light in every man was the Divine essence?( 2.) Whether this Light be the true and very Christ the Scriptures speak of?( 3.) Whether Christ hath not a personal being without men?( 4.) Whether the Soul be part of Gods being without beginning, and infinite?( 5.) Whether none of those things, God hath given by way of command to others, be a command to me?( 6.) Whether the speaking of the Spirit in any, be of greater Authority than the Scriptures? Whereunto G. W. was pleased to answer, that few of these questions ( as stated by me) were to be found in their Books; whereupon I signified to him, what ground I had for each of them, The( 1.) I grounded upon his denying the Light within to be a creature. The( 2.) upon G. Fox, and E. B. affirming, the Light within to be Christ. The( 3.) upon G. W's saying, that that Jesus Christ, a person without us, is not Scripture language, but the Anthropomorphites, and Mugletonians. The( 4.) upon these words of G. F. that the Soul is part of Gods being, without beginning, and infinite. The( 5.) upon E. B. his saying, That is no command from God to me which he commands to another. The last was grounded on this assertion of G. W. That the speaking of the Spirit in any, is of greater Authority than the Scriptures. From hence any ordinary capacity may understand that G. W. was unadvised, yea that he did but shuffle and lie, in saying, that few of my questions were to be found in their Books.  
Farther, the conditions on which I offered to meet him, to discourse these questions, were only these,( 1.) That I might have liberty to produce their own Books, and to have them red openly( so far as concerned in my Dialogues) in order to the clearing myself, with respect to the quotations from them.( 2.) That we might agree upon a rule, by which our discourse might be determined.( 3.) That but one at a time might speak.( 4.) That he would promise to speak directly, and plainly to each question.( 5.) That any man, that would, might writ after us, promising him, that when we had debated these questions, to proceed to any other the Dialogues would afford. But G. W. was not free to comply herewith. Let all men judge who is guilty of the evasion. 'tis true, he sent me several questions, none of which( except one) were directly concerned in my Books; some of them being about Baptism, some about Election, &c. Therefore I sent those before mentioned, as more proper for our discourse, being some of the principal things in controversy betwixt us.  
Of late some overtures have been made to them, in order to a public meeting, to debate the chief things in difference betwixt them and others, which the Quakers refuse, under pretence of being cautious not to run themselves voluntarily into Jeopardys on slight invitations, understanding the Magistrates may be offended, and therefore they tell us, that unless they be dared to it, they will not meet: But what should be the reason the Quakers are grown so politic on a sudden; either they suspect their opinions, or their own abilities to defend them; or else fear to lose some of their own people, many of whom being now staggered: And therefore think it their best way to rail at their Adversaries, and to persuade their friends, that all that is said or written against them, is nothing but lies and forgeries( though they themselves know the contrary) But their cheats and impostures begin to be manifest, and I doubt not but many well meaning people, that now are baffled by their plausible pretences, will see that there was reason to distinguish the Christian from the Quaker. Mean time, I take this for granted from W. P's own mouth( having proved these things which formerly I have objected against them) That a Quaker is quiter another thing than a Christian.  
And whereas W. Pen boldly tells me, That my head shall not go down to the Grave in peace, and by that I shall know that an infallible Spirit hath spoken by him, p. 180, 181. I desire all persons, into whose hands this Book may come, That if at any time they hear I be assassinated, they would remember these words of W. Pen concerning me, ( viz.) That my head shall not go down to the Grave in peace.   
The End.