A serious appeal to all the more sober, impartial & judicious people in New-England to whose hands this may come, whether Cotton Mather in his late address, &c. hath not extreamly failed in proving the people call'd Quakers guilty of manifold heresies, blasphemies and strong delusions, and whether he hath not much rather proved himself extreamly ignorant and greatly possessed with a spirit of perversion, error, prejudice and envious zeal against them in general, and G.K. in particular, in his most uncharitable and rash judgment against him. : Together with a vindication of our Christian faith in those things sincerely believed by us, especially respecting the fundamental doctrines and principles of Christian religion. / By George Keith.

CHAP. III.

IN his first A••gument he accuseth me to be guilty of a Lye, in mat|ter of Fact, and that I pretend to an assurance for it from the Spirit of God; and the Lye he alledgeth in matter of Fact, is, That I charge their Confession of Faith for holding, that the Scriptures ought to be belie|ved for their own outward Evidence and Testimony, and not for the in|ward Evidence and Testimony of the holy Spirit in mens Hearts. And to prove this to be a Lye, he citeth some words of that Confession, which saith, Our full perswasion and assurance of the infallible Truth, and divine Authority of the holy Scriptures, is from the Inward Work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our Hearts. And for a further Confirmation he alledgeth Iohn Owen, saying, That the Scrip|ture be received as the Word of God, there is a twofold Efficacy of the Spirit, &c. withal affirming, That I cover Lye with Lye. To which I Answer; Cotton Mather, and not I, is guilty of two gross Lyes or Falshoods in this Charge: first, That I pretend to an assurance from the Spirit, in matter of Fact, concerning what they hold, is a manifest Perversion; for I bring my assurance, in matter of Fact, not from the Spirit, but from their Confession of Faith, which I have diligently examined; but the knowledge I have that their Doctrine, in that par|ticular, is false, I bring from the Spirit of God, that hath given me the understanding thereof, and is Truth and no Lye. 2dly, That he saith, Their Confession doth grant, that the Scriptures are to be believed for the inward Evidence and Testimony of the holy Spirit in mens hearts; but this it doth not say, nor can it be gathered by any just consequence, to be their sence, seeing they deny, with C. M. and his Brethren, all inward objective immediate Testimony and Revelation of the Spirit. And whereas the Confession mentioneth the inward Work of the holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word (viz. the Scripture) in our Hearts. This doth sufficiently prove, That their Confession

doth not mean or intend any inward Testimony of the Spirit, really and properly so called, as having a standing Evidence of its own, but only borrowed from the Scripture, and therefore is no true and pro|per Evidence at all, but only and altogether improper, yea, as im|proper as if I should say, when I hear but one man give Evidence to the Truth of a thing, and that I read it also in writ from his hand, that three Evidences or Witnesses have given their Evidence to that Truth, as 1st, the Ma••, 2dly, my Ear that heard him, 3dly, my Eye that hath read his writ: But what sober Man will say, these are three Witnesses or Evidences? And would it not be a great Cheat to say, That whereas the Law requireth two Witnesses, and there is but one man that giveth witness to Cotton Mathers hearing, that C. M. should alledge, his Ears are other two Witness••s, because they have heard him, and so they are three in a••: And as great a Cheat and Fallacy is it, to call the witness of the Scripture the inward Witness of the Spirit, when they confess, the in••ard Work of the Spirit, is only Effective, to open the Ear to hear the outward Witness of the Scrip|ture, but not to speak by any distinct Witness, to the inward Ear: And it is like that other Fallacy, as if Iames being required to give his Witness, he giveth it not by himself, but by Iohn, and Iohn being required to give his Witness, he giveth it by Iames, but neither of them by himself, or at least the one not, by himself; for when they are asked, By what do they know the Scriptures to be the Word of God? they answer, By the Spirit: And again, By what do they know the Spirit? they answer, By the Scripture. And thus the Fallacy and Falshood both of the Confession and of C. M. is detected, and G. K. is cleared from being no wise guilty of any Lye in the case. And what I said of Iohn Owen is true, for the Title and design of his Book is concerning The Self-Evidencing Authority of the holy Scriptures, only he confesseth the Spirits inward Work is necessary to let men see or know it; but that is no proper Witness, more than a mans hearing is one Witness, and the thing heard is another. I do therefore Appeal to all sober, impartial and judicious Readers, Whether not I, but Cotton Mather, be not convicted of gross Lying or Falshood, and whether the Society he belongs unto, ought not to bring him to Repentance for such Crimes, to use some of his own wo••ds.

His Second Argument is, That I am guilty of having committed most

horrible Blasphemy against the holy Spirit of God, which is the unpardon|able Sin; And thoug•• he doth charge this one while positively, yet 〈◊〉〈◊〉 while If I have not the certain, yet ••earful Marks of it; and my Sin is very like that Sin; and yet ••g••in ch••••ging it positively on me, That I ••ave t••ken part 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the ••har••s••e 〈…〉〈…〉 impardonable Injury to the Eternal Spirit of God ••ut how doth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 prove any thing of this to have the lest show o•• shadow of truth? Why, because, as he alledg|eth, I called his and ••is ••ret••rens Prayers, more than once, a Conjuring of t••e Dev••l, and do put on them the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Charms and Spells; by which Prayers, he alledgeth, he and his Brethren did cast o••t the Devil, that did Bodily possess some ••oung People, and that therefore their Prayers were the special Operations o•• the holy ••••ost, which I blaspheme, and that there|fore I have committed the Vnpardonable Sin▪ but I Answer; 1st, As I said in my Book called, A Re••••tation, &c. I am little concerned whe|ther or not th••se Young People were bewitched, or had a Diabolical Possess••on on, further than to take notice, That C. M. will have it to be ••o, to make the simple believe, that his and his Brethrens Prayers did conjure the Devil, and cast him out; by which it is most clearly apparent, to every one of common se••ce, th••t I did not mean that his or his Brethrens Prayers were done by any Diabolical Art or Craft of Conju••••tion, for I do not think them to be Conjurers, but that they would have People believe, that by some divine Power of Exor|cism, as was frequent in the primitive Church, they did conjure the Devil, which is as widely different from his Perversion, as East from West. Now I cannot believe that they had this divine Gi••t of Ex|orcism, which was a Miraculous Gift in those primitive Times (that Popish Priests do also pretend to h••ve, and many stro••gly affirm, they have cured many by their Prayers) becaus•• the commonly say, That Immediate Revelation, with the Gifts o•• Miracles, are ceased: How then can they have th••m? And I appeal to all sober Readers, Whe|ther Cotton Mather h••th not g••osly pervert••d my words, that because I did not own them to have •• divine Power of Exorcism, whereby to conjure the Devil, as if I did affi••m their Prayers were a Conjuring of t••e Devil, which instead of affirming. I stro••gly d••nyed, as the R••a••er may see in my Book called A Reputation, &c. and by this, and his other many Pervertions of my word, I may take measure, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he is too like to have perverted grosly the words of my Friends, in his alledged Citations, that I have not seen in their Books, when

he doth so palpably pervert my words to a plain contrary sence, that is obvious to them of the weakest Capacity. Nor did I call his and his Brethrens Prayers Charms and Spells, as he alledgeth; see my Book p. 71, 72. only I said, T••at seeing they generally mock at any, at this day laying claim to divine Inspiration and Revelation, I cannot own their Prayers to be true, th••y are l••ker to Charms and Spells of superstitious Per|sons, &c. But this will not infer that I did really call or judge them, Charms or Spells; for I think they are not Witches, except in that sense used by Pa••l, Gal. 3.1. because they bewitch (not the Bodies, but) the Souls of People from believing and obeying the Truth; for I may say one thing is liker to another thing, and yet not say, it is that very thing; As if I should say, C. M. is liker to a Pharisee or Mass-Priest, than to a true Minister of Christ, doth it therefore follow, that I judge he is really a Pharisee or Mass-Priest? or, to use his Phrase, were the Transmigration of Souls a Truth, if I should say, Cotton M••ther is liker Demetrius the Silver-Smith (who accused Paul, because his and his Brethren's Craft was in danger to be set at naught, Acts 19.27.) than to a true Minister of Christ, Doth it therefore follow, that I judge that C.M. is Demetrius risen again from the dead? By no means And for his comparing me to Alex|ander the Copper-Smith, it is foolish and envious; I honour and esteem highly both Paul's Doctrine and himself, and all the Prophets and Apostles of the Lord; and therefore I do nothi••g resemble Alex|ander the Copper-Smith; but C. M. and his Brethren do too much resemble, not only Alexander the Copper-Smith, who opposed Paul, but Demetrius the Silver-Smith, that they are in such fear their Craft be set at nought by the People call'd Quakers, else why do they make such a stir about their Wages and Hi••e? Whereas if they were true Ministers of Christ, they should preach his Gospel freely, as the Apostles and others do, and as true Ministers of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 now do. And His accusing me of having committed the Vnpardon•••••••• Sin upon a meer Forgery of his own, hatched in his Brains by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Father of Lyes) puts me in mind of what I have read in the Church History, writ by Lucas Osiander, How when two o•• the Patri••i••o•• Rome, that were Christians, whom Pope Sixtus had Excommunicate, for t••eir accu|sing him to have been t••o ••••miliar wit•• some o•• the consecrated Virgins, had begged of him to be Relaxed, professing their Repentance, and urging Christs Doctrine, If thy Brother Trespass against thee, and return,

not only Seven Times, &c. thou shalt forgive him; The proud Pope re••used to Relax t••em, affirming, They had committed that Vnpardonable Sin, because they had offended him. And like to this the English Hobbs, who is no good Philosopher, and a worse Divine, saith, in one of his Boo••s, by way of a smart Satyr ag••inst the Clergy, That i•• any offend a Clergy-man (alias, a black Coa••) ••e will tell them, they have commit|ted that Vnpardonable Sin o•• Blasphemy against the holy Ghost, as Cotton Mather hath he••e se••v••d m••, but without all just cause, I bless God; a••d therefore the sober People of New-Englad have cause to consider better, what 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of men th••se are, who make Lyes their R••f••ge, and th••ir Weapons where••y they fight against us. Nor do I yet find the ••east cause to incline me to believe, ••hat C. M's Prayers did cast out the Devil out of these Children, as he alledgeth, seeing they say, Miracles are ceased, and Divine Exorcisme was one of these Miracu|lous Gifts of Gods Spirit; and C. M. himself helpeth us to under|stand (if these Children were really bewitched) how they were cu••ed by some other means, that his and his Brethrens Prayers, to wit, as he plainly conf••sseth, pag. 44. (compared with pag. 12.) That one thing in the Childrens deliverance, was the strange Death of an horrible Old Woman, who was presumed to have a great hand in their affliction: And pag. 12. he telleth, W••en the Witch was going to her Excution, she said, the Children sho••ld not be relieved by her Death, for others had a hand in it as well as she. And thus from C. M. we have found other means of the Childrens cure▪ th••n his and h••s Brethrens Prayers, the which, seeing he calleth them Dirt and Dung in his Book, were not likely to be means of dispossessing the Devil out of those Children; indeed, we read that Christ wrough•• a mi••acl•• with ••lay and Spittle, but no where that I remember, that ever ••e wrought a Miracle with Dirt and Dung; be••ide, he seemeth to b•• more guilty of Blasphemy, that calleth their Prayers, whi••h he ••aith▪ are the speci••l Operations of the holy Spirit,) Dirt and D••ng, a•• he plainly doth. And with as little su••cess doth C. M. see•• to defend his fa••se Gloss on Christs words, as if Christ had ta••ght, That Sathan is not divided against Sathan: Whereas I said, Sathan is divided against Sathan, the••e being no true unity in his Kingdom; and therefo••e it must fa••l, and not be perpetual; nor in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 do 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he least wrest from ••h••ists Argument against the Iews, because I did ••cknowle••ge, that ••h••ist argued most strongly against them ad hominem. And supposing that Sathan at

times, did cast out Sathan, yet that is but that Sathan may enter ag••in some more dangerous way, or fully as dangerous; but whom Christ cu••eth, he so cureth, that Sathan by his means doth not again enter, but the holy Spirit of God, as was fullfilled in Mary Magd••len. And whereas he saith, He is mistaken, if he hath not the generality of Interpreters on his side; he hath not showed who this ge|nerality is, and he showeth h••w little he is versed in Antiquity, other|wise he might have remembred how O••igine, above thirteen hundred Years ago, doth contradict him, and say the same with me; for thus he w••iteth expresly, in his Comment on Iohn, pag. 424. of his 2d Tom. printed at Basil, 1557. C••m enim admis••ss••t ••sse quendam Beel|zebub, et 〈◊〉〈◊〉 illi 〈◊〉〈◊〉 p••••••idio 〈…〉〈…〉, dissida•• veluti quo•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Satane; ope••a••i eo q••od secum ipse 〈◊〉〈◊〉 et hec in quit; i. e. When Christ had 〈◊〉〈◊〉, t••at there was a certain Belz••b••b, and that ••e who did cast o••t Devil by his Power, did wo•••• as it were a stri••e again•••• Sathan, beca••se he did 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against hims••l••, he said t••ese t••ings. As for his fal••e Insinuation, of my ca••••ing Prayers, Charms and Sp••l••s, it is easily discovered, I own 〈◊〉〈◊〉 true Prayer, bo••h Vocal and Mental, that co••eth in the e••••t degree from the inb••e••thing, i. e. I••spiration of Gods Spirit, and have, through Mercy, foun•• the unspeakable advan|tag•• of it to my Soul, and do earnestly recommend true Prayer in the Spirit of God to all, and so do all true Quakers, so called.

In his Third A••gument, p. 34. wherein he giveth many supposed Contradictions, that I give to myse••f in my 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Books, and upon th•••• fa••se Supposition, as on a false Foundation, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his Argument against me▪ I think not to spend Time nor Paper to answer them all in particular; for let but the Reader see my own words in my print|ed Books, a••d well consider them, and if h•• have but a little sound Judgment, he will easily find, I have not contrad••cted my self in any 〈◊〉〈◊〉, though I could easily discover many Contradictions of C. M. to himsel••. But to make me seem to contradict my self he has no bette•• way but to w••est and pervert my words, as in the very first in••••ance he alledgeth, he perverteth my words grosly as if by their 〈◊〉〈◊〉, whom I did acknowledge to have had some mea••••re o•• Tender|n••ss, So••riety and Simplicity (in a printed Paper of mine) some time a go, I did mean th••se, who near forty Years a go did p••t our Friends to Death at Boston: Which is a manifest Perversion, enough to Discredit

all he saith, having as lit••le Truth, against me. Whereas by their Fathers I did not mean the present Ge••eration, that taketh in forty Years commonly, at lea••t in vulgar sense, but th••se th••t lived sixty, or near seventy Years past, that had some measure of Tenderness and Sincerity, and were no•• of a persecuting Spirit, as the••e who put 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Friends to Death; nor had the generality of the People in New-E••••l••••d a hand in our F••iends Death; for many of them disliked it, as I have been credibly informed, and some have acknowledged the Land of God against the Land ever since, for those M••rder, and I wish many might see it, and repent of it, that they might be forgiven, and Gods anger quenched towards them, that hath been (and re|maineth to be) kindled against them. And he is as impertinent in labouring to reconcile his own Contradiction that Iohn Delava•••• charged upon him, as if it were no Contradiction, either because the Assertions are thirty pages distant, or because he did query, and not affirm; whereas the manner of his Querying showeth a plain Affirma|tion, in calling or bringing in their deceased Fathers to expostulate with them for their Degeneration. And this is all the Answer he giveth to Iohn Delavall's so••l••d and weighty Appendix, with a scoffing airy Spirit, as his manner is, he compareth to a Dutch Womans unin|te••igible Babbling. And no less doth he bely me, to accuse me, as it I said or suggested in my ••ook, called, The Presbyterian & Indepen|dent Churches brought to the Test, &c. That these Churches o•• Presbyte|rians and Independents were false upon all accounts, beyond that of Rome it self: Than which there can be no greater Perversion, and Belying of a mans words. I said no such thing▪ nor do I think any such thing I have alwayes judgded, and do still judge, that all these Churches called Protestant Churches, whether Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independent or Baptists, in many, yea, very many things, hold better Doctrine than the Church of Rome, and in many things are nearer to the Letter of the Scriptu••e, and to the Truth, and I have Charity, that some may belong to Christ, as his Members, among the•• all, even the Church of Rome not exc••pted; yet all this will not prove, that any one o•• them all is the true vi••ble Church, restored to that purity of Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government, as was in the Apostles dayes, and was before the Church fled into the Wilder|ness, and as will be at her full Return, which is approaching. He is as weak and impertinent to charge it on me as a Contradiction to

my self, to say, That in some things in speaking or writing, we may 〈…〉〈…〉 be not duely watchful: And yet, That in many things we have been ta••ght in••al••ib••y by t••e Infal••ible Spirit of God, to believe them, as to believe That God is, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 given his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Son for us, and many 〈◊〉〈◊〉 precious Truths; and if he hath no infallible belief and Know••••••ge of th••se things, a••d other Fundamental Truths, he is neither Minister of Christ, ••or a true Christian, but a meer Sceptick. Any ••olledge School Boy knoweth, that Contradictions lie not betwixt two Particulars, nor two Universals, but one Particular and another Universal; as if one should say, T••at he is in all things taught infal••ibly, and y••t again say, T••at in some things at mig•••• or did err, it would be a Contradiction; but this I have not said. Nor is a Contradiction betwixt two Positives, but the one Positive, the other Negative; and therefore it is no ••on|tradiction to say, So•••• are Elected in Christ Iesus before the Foundation o•• the World, to be Holy, &c. and yet to deny, That others are eternally or absolutely Reprobated; for Elected and Reprobated are both Positives, and therefore not ••ontradictory, no more than White and Black; as it is no Contradiction to say, Some Colours are White, and there••ore all o••••er Colours, (••hat are not White) are Black. It seemeth that Cotton Mather, whom some, as he telleth us, have called, The Colledge Boy o•• New-England, hath not well learned his Logick, or at lea••t doth not well remember it, since he was a Colledge-••oy; for he be|wrayeth shameful Ignorance (in the way of right Dispute) that Colledge Boyes might be ashamed of. Nor is it any Contradiction to say, ••••at t••e Lord Iesus Christ is the alone and s••re Fo••ndation and Gro••nd o•• Iustification, and yet to assert, That Fai••h, R••pentance, and sincere Obedience are necessary Conditions and I••struments thereunto re|quired; and if he will not believe me, let him a••k his admired and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Baxter, as he calleth him, who will tell him the same. But whereas he alledgeth I say, A true Believer may be only in the first Covenant, citing my Book, pag. 147. But this is no Contradiction, when by Believers, I mean such as may have a true Belief that God is, from s••me true and real inward Conviction and Sense, and yet not have the true Faith in Christ Jesus, as he dyed and rose ag••in; for such a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Cornelius had, before Peter preached Christ to him, also according to Christs Doctrine in the Parable of the four Grounds, some may believe in Christ for a time, and yet fa••l away, and that Faith is not a ••al••e Faith, but true, in some so••t. Thus I ha••e given a short

hint to demonstrate how groundlesly he would charge Contradictions on me, the other being more obvious to the weakest Capacities, I shall let pass, only minding the Reader, That the nature of a Con|tradiction is difficult many times to understand, even in Natural things, so that it is reckoned the subtilest part in Logick or Metaphy|••icks, to understand throughly what are alwayes Contradictions, and what not; and therefore much more hard it is, to understand in spi|ritual things, that contain many seeming Contradictions; for tho' the holy Scripture containeth no real Contradiction, coming from one holy Spirit of Truth, yet it containeth many seeming, which Atheists and Scoffers use to object. His comparing me to Iulian the Apostate, savoureth of the like Spirit of Envy, as formerly, when with no more ground, he accused me of being guilty of t••e Vnpar|donable Sin: It is a part of my Blessing, that being reviled and falsly accused, I can pat••ently bear it, by the Grace of Christ in whom I believe, and to whom I confess, even to the Crucified Iesus that was nailed to the Cross for my Sins, whom my Soul loveth, and whom Iulian openly denyed. But Cotton Mather will gain no credit nor esteem, either to himself or his Cause by such Inhumane and Ex|traordinary Revilings, rarely to be parallelled among the greatest Railers.

His Fourth Argument hath as weak and sandy Foundation as any of the rest, as namely (as he saith) That I renounce both the Religion and the Saviour which the Saints have hitherto ventured their Souls upon, &c. to wit, Christ Iesus. And this he undertaketh to prove, Sathan-like, by wresting my words, and omitting some of them, in the very Sen|tence he citeth, that were altogether essential to make up the intire period and sence; for I said in my Book, Your Visible Churches are no true Churches of Christ; for the Religion ye pro••ess is not the true Religion of Christ Iesus, yea, in Fundamentals, and in the very Foundation it self, which is Christ Iesus, on which the true Church is built, and every Member thereof; but ye who say, (note my following words, p. 137.) all inward divine Revelation is ceased, ye (to wit, your visible Church) build not on Christ, but on a meer Hear-say and Historical Report of him; for how can ye build on him, when ye have no belief, that Christ is nearer unto you, than in some remote place beyond the Skyes. Where the Impartial Reader may see, first, That my words expresly

mention their visible Church, that doth not build really on Christ, but on a Pro••e••••ion of him, even by Cotton Mather's Confession, That nothing is required to make up the Members of a visible Church, but a Pro••••ssion of him, and o•• the true Religion: ••ut every judicious Person wi••l ••ay, it is one thing to profess Christ in words or show, and ano|ther thing really to build on Christ, that everl••sting Rock; for by Christs Doctrine, none buildeth on the Rock, which is Christ, but he that heareth Christ's Sayings, and doth them, and that is much more than barely to profess him. But ••et I did not question, nor do, but that (according to my Christian C••arity, moving me so to believe) divers among 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sorts & Societies call'd Christians in Christendom, that hold the Fundamentals, as many do, do 〈◊〉〈◊〉 build on Christ, the t••ue Foundation; and because they so ••o, in due time, the Wood, H••y and Stubble of their Erro••s, in oth••r thi••g••, while they build on the t••ue Foundation, will be burnt up by the divine Fire of the living Word, and living Spirit of God in them; and their Lord Jesus Christ is mine, and mine is thei••s, and I could be glad that I could en••ertain that Charity to C. M. but however, I have not that uncha|ri••able judgment of him (as bad as he is) that he hath committed that unpardonable Sin; for though he hath reproached the precious work|ings and operations of the holy Spirit, both in my faithful Brethren and me, ca••••ing them Del••••sions o•• Satan, yet because I judge he doth it ignorantly, therefore his sin is pardonable, upon Repentance, which I pray God may be given him, for that and all his ha••d Speech••s, and all other sins, before it be too late. But because he cannot fix his false Charge upon me, of denying Christ, he essayeth (but with as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 success) to fix it upon my Brethren, as dear Isaac Penning••on, whom I well knew to be a true Believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, and a ••ince••e Lover of him, even the crucified Jesus, and whose Sou•• I believe is in rest in Christ, in heavenly Glory. And as to hi•• words, We can never 〈…〉〈…〉 Bodily Garment Christ, but that w••ic•• appea••ed and dwelt in ••he ••o••y; it is easie to put a fa•••• and ch••ritable construction on it, as well as on Christs words, when he said, He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father; and yet many saw Christ's Body of Flesh, that n••ver s••w the Father: But to clear the thi••g, I. P. speaketh th••s in opposition to Socinian••, and others tinctur••d with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Prin••••ples, as if the Man|hood of Ch••ist, that w••s born of the Vi••gin ex••luding the e••ern••l ••ord, was the only and whole Ch••ist; 〈…〉〈…〉

his Body of Flesh; therefore he is said to have come in the Flesh, and to have taken Flesh. And if we consider Christ, as he was before the World was, by whom all thing•• were created, and in respect of his Godhead, the Body was not that, but the Garment of it, when he assumed it. But when we consider Christ as Man, as every other man, hath both Soul & ••ody belonging to his essential Constitution, as Man, so ••ad Christ, and still hath a most glorious Soul and Body; and we deny not, but according to Scripture stile, Christ's Man••ood, yea, and his Body, is called Christ, as when the Scripture saith, that he was buried, nailed to the Cross, buffited; and even his body was and is a part of his Manhood, and his Soul the other and more Noble part, most wonderfully and incomparably united with the Godhead, and most incomparably filled with all fullness of the Godhead, and of Grace and Truth, out of whose fullness we all receive, and Grace for Grace; and yet we do not judge that the Godhead is cir|cum••cribed within the Body of Christ; for the Godhead is Omnipresent as well as Omnipotent and Omniscient. And whereas he querieth, say|ing, Let Ke••th tell us honestly, whet••er he does not count his own Body to be the Body of Christ, in the same sence that the visible tangible Fl••sh which hung upon the Cross, was the Body of our Lord? I Answer, honestly, Nay, by no means, as I have sufficiently formerly declared in my printed Books, and Testimonies on all occasions; for as the Body of the Head is of far more Dignity than the Body of the inferiour Members, and hath the Soul, or Spirit and Life of man otherwise dwelling in it than the inferiour Members, so much more the Soul and Body of Christ hath the eternal Word living and dwelling in the same, th••n any other, and that incomparably, as Augustine well demonstrateth, lib. de agon•• Christian••, cap. 20 thus concluding, And there••o••e t••e Word doth not so aff••••me that Man (to wit, the Seed of Abraham) as the rest of the Saints, but much more excellently, and sublimely; and God dwelleth in th•• M••n Christ so, a•• there is no M••diator betwixt God a••d Christ, but God dwelleth ••n us, by and th••ough Christ, our alone Mediator, and for hi•• sake recei••e••h us to be so near un••o him, that both the Father and the Son, and also the holy Spirit dwelleth in all the Saints, yet the manner of Union, ca••••ed by s••me of the Antients the Hypostatical or Personal Vnion,) and manner of I••h••bit••tion in the Ma••hood of Christ, 〈…〉〈…〉, and b••yond all humane un••er|standing, excelling the manner of Gods dwe••ling in all the Saints; wherefore the Man Christ only, and none other Man nor Creatur

is both God and Man▪ and is the Objec•• of divine Worship and Ado|ration, together with the Father, and the S••irit, and none else. And for Hicks quoting some words of mine, out of my Book of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Revelation, recited by C. M. p. 44. on Iames 5.6. Ye have 〈…〉〈…〉 just One, that is, Christ Iesus in their Hearts, him they crucified. To this I answer; This I never understood otherwise but figuratively, as when the Scripture saith, That Apostates and Wicked Men crucifie the Son of God afresh; for I affirm expresly in my said Book of Imme••iate Revelation, That the Life of Christ in mens hearts can never be killed or crucified in it self, see my Book of Immed. Rev. 2d Edition, pag. 75. & pag, 253, 254, 255. at great length, but men by Disobedience may deprive themselves of the Comfort and Benefit of it, as well as of Christs Sufferings on the Tree of the Cross, and so in that figurative sence, according to Scripture stile, may be said to kill him, even as we are all to look to him whom we have pierced, according to Za|chariah's Prophecy concerning Christs outward Suffering on the Cross, and to mourn bitterly because of our sins, which he did bear upon him, when he was pierced; and because Christ cannot (as to him|self, properly and strictly, in a strict litteral sence) be killed nor cru|cified in men, therefore I do not believe that he can be said to be in us that Sacrifice of Attonement and Propitiation that was necessary to be offered up for the Remission of our sins, and appeasing the Wrath of God to us; and if any think so, I am far otherwise minded; for it derogates from the great worth and value of Christs Sacrifice with|out us upon the Tree of the Cross; for the Body that Christ was to suffer in as a Sacrifice for the sins of the World, behoved to be a clean and holy Body, as it was, as a Lamb without Spot; and the Death behoved to be a real Death, and not metaphorical or figurative; and therefore Christ, as in us, could not be that Sacrifice of Attonement; for at this rate, not only Christ had outwardly dyed in vain, but he had offered up himself for a Sacrifice of Attonement, as oft as there were Saints to live in the World, and as many Saints, as many Offer|ings; all which is most absurd to imagine. But yet it must be grant|ed, that the Life of Christ in the Saints is as sweet Incen••e before God, and is a Sacrifice in another sence, seeing even the Saints are said to offer up themselves, through him, a living Sacrifice to God; and also, the Life and Spirit of Christ teaching and enabling the Saints to apply Christ's Sufferings, Death and Blood (that was shed

on that outward Cross) to them, doth bring them into perfect Peace with God, so that his Wrath is wholly appeased & quenched towards them, only for the sake and in virtue of the great Sufferings of Christ on the outward Cross; and if this be the sence of W. S. his words, and that they can be so construed, it is well; for that is my upright sence, and is of many hundreds more, yea, of all my faithful Bre|thren, call'd Quakers. And concerning what I. P. and some others have writ of Christs heavenly Flesh and Blood, and how the Saints fed upon it in all Ages, Christ being that noble Vine Tree unto them, that yeilded them his Grapes for Meat, and the Blood of them for Drink, as Wine is called the Blood of the Grape, and being their Apple Tree, their Fig Tree, yea, their Corn, Bread, Milk and Wine, their Wool and F••••x, their Feast of fas things full of Marrow, &c. All these are highly Mystical and Figurative or Metaphorical Expressions, and are not to be litterally o•• ca••nally understood, yet so, as the Metaphors hold forth, that th••se outwa••d things, by which these inward Mysteries are signified, are but the Figures, and the spiritual things are not the Figures of the natural, but the natural are Figures of the spiritual, as the outward Light is ou•• the Figure of Christ the spiritual Light, the true Light of the Soul▪ but the spiritual Light is not the Figure of the natural; which is ••uite otherwise than in vulgar Metaphors and Figures; and therefore b•• Ch••ists heavenly Flesh and Blood that he had from the be|ginning, ••is not to be understood any created material Body, but the living Word it self, according to its divine Emanations, metapho|rically only so called, according to Scripture stile, feeding and refresh|ing the Souls of the Saints in all ages, with unspeakable Refreshment; And therefore by Metaphors and Allegories they have given it such Names, according to its various Operation••. But that Christ is as much, or after the same manner in the Quakers, or any Saints, as in the Manhood and Body of Christ that s••ffered on the Cross, or that Ch••ist hath left behind him th••t Body that suffered on the Cross, & was buried, as if that were the Quakers Doctrine, as Faldo a••ledgeth, and C. M. from him, is abominably false: I am sure no Qu••ker, that do••h rightly understand the Quakers Principles and Doctrine, will ever say so, or ever did; althoug•• I shall not deny, but some igno|rant Persons that may go under the de••ignation of a Quaker, may have at times spoke very ignorantly and offensively in that and other 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Scan••al of our holy Profession, and to the stumbling of

the weak that could not rightly discern betwixt our true and faithful Brethren, and others falsly so called; but such there are among all Societies and Professions, that do not rightly understand the Principles of that Profession they pretend to belong unto; yea, how many Presbyterians and Independents, so called, to my certain knowledge, understand not their own Principles, notwithstanding of their pub|lick Confessions; and so, possibly some among us, notwithstanding our publick Confessions, well owned by the generality of our Friends, as especially that noted Treatise by Iohn Crook, called, Truths Prin|cip••es, &c. that hath had a very general Reception by us, and with which my Doctrine, in all particulars, doth well agree, so far as I know, as also with other faithful and sound Friends and Brethren.

In his Fifth Argument, w••i••h he ground upon my supposed mar|velous Giddyness, Ignorance and Falshood, he sheweth himself mar|velously (not only) ignorant, but perverse; and after he hath per|verted my words, and belyed me in many things, then he cryeth out Ignorance, and other things that are Scripture Truths, he calleth my Ignorance; whereas it is but his Ignorance that doth not understand better: And I doubt not, but Judicious and Impartial Readers, who compare his Books and mine, will have another Judgment concern|ing me, and acknowledge, to Gods Praise, the Gifts, both of sound Knowledge and Expression, with his manifold other Mercies bestowed on me, for which I desire to praise him forever. And for my saying, T••at Light being used as a Name of God, is no Figurative or Tropical Expression; I have already above explained my sense of it, That the Natural Light is the Figure of God, that Divine Light; but the Divine Light is not the Figure of the Natural, as Figures of Meta|phors and Tropes in Natural things, commonly are quite otherwise: And Augustine De Genes. ad Lit. lib. 4. cap. 28. expresly affirmeth, That Christ is Properly, and not Figuratively, called Light; and yet who will say, that Augustine was not a more knowing Man than Cotton Mather? and who can deny but Light is immediate, though it comes through a Medi••m of the ••ir to our Eyes, and through the medium of the Eye to th•• sense of sight; for do we not as immediate|ly see a Candle, as we see a Man, and yet the specie•• o•• image of both come to our Eyes through the medium of the A••r? So that i•• this▪ as in many 〈◊〉〈◊〉 things, he showeth his own extream Ignorance, that's not worth time to mention. And that he reckoneth it my Ignorance,

that I say, Christ commanded not these words to be used in Baptism, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, &c. commonly called the words of Institution. As he can never prove any such Institution, so he hath Zuinglius (whom he maketh his President in another case) against him; for Zuinglius saith expresly, Lib. de Bapt. pag. 66. tom. 2. Christus Iesus Baptism, form••lam, qua uteremur his verbis non Instituit quem ad modum Theologi bactenus falso Tradiderunt; i. e. Christ Iesus did not institute the form of Baptism in those words, to be used as the Theologues have heretofore falsly delivered. And he is intoxicated with a Spirit of Ig••••••ance, and not I (as he falsly alledgeth on me) to assert, That Exod. 20.8, 9. so commandeth one day of seven, as that it may be First as well as the Seventh: Whereas if Natural dayes be meant, it cannot be the First, but the Seventh; for it is not said, Remember to keep the First Day for Rest, and after ••••at labour Six dayes. And that he denyeth and mocketh at an inward and spiritual Day, showeth him extreamly Ignorant of spiritual Things, as well as his Scoffing showeth his frothy airy Spirit, scarcely to be parallell'd. Is not the Day of Gods Power, Psal▪ 110. an inward and spiritual Day? And where it is said, Let us walk honestly, as in the Day, Rom. 13.13. and until the Day dawn, and the Day-star arise in your hearts, 2 Pet. 1.19. And is not this an inward Day? And that he reproacheth me with Giddiness, for saying, The Sabbath is Christ, to wit, the thing figured by the Jews Sabbath. In this he reproacheth as well his pretendedly much esteemed Calvin, who saith expresly the same, lib. 2. cap. 8. n. 32. of his Institutes, where he saith, Christ is the Truth, at whose Presence all the Figures evanish; the Body, by whose sight the Shadows are left, He I say, is the fullfilling of the true Sabbath. And a little after he chargeth it as Superstition upon them that would make the Observation of the First Day of the Week, for a Sabbath, to be a Divine Institution; and doth fully agree with us, That it is to be kept by choice, for good Order, and assembling together for divine Worship, and other good Reasons, but not by divine Precept, injoyning the strictness of the Jewish Sabbath. As for that silly Jest of Baxters, that C. M. pleaseth his airy mind with, telling the Quakers, That their (to wit, Presbyterian) Bells are not carnal, else they would not sound so high, he might have used it as much against Paul, for saying, Our Weapons are not carnal, as implying, that the Sword was a carnal Weapon; but according to Rich. Baxter there can be no carnal Sword, for then it could not cut; whereas things are

called Carnal from the hand that useth them, as for other causes; and the L••vitical Laws were called Carnal O••dinances in Scripture. And whereas he saith, None preach the most intimate Vnion and Com|munion with the Lord Iesus Christ, more than he and his Brethren, is a most bold and impudent Untruth, seeing, 1st, the•• say expresly, That Christ is not at all within us, but only without us in Heaven, and no wise in us, but by ••is Operatio••s; as if he and his operations could be divided▪ 2dly, That they de••y the Workings or Operations of the Spirit o•• God in the ••aint, to be Objective, or that the Spirit worketh as any se••sible Object upon the inward and spiritual Senses of the Sa••n••s: Hence with Jesuits and Papists, f••om whom they have borrowed that Distinction, as I can prove, as namely from Sacroboscus, a Jesuit, De••. decret. trident. p. 93▪ 94. they say, The Spirit worketh Effectively and ••ubje••tively, but not Objectively: And therefore do they not one whit more preach any nearer Union and Communion with Christ, than the darkest Papists; yea, some Papists that own sensible Workings of the Spirit, as some do, go far beyond them, (viz. C. Mather and some of his Bre|thren) in that particular. But that I have slandered the Assembly, in their saying, The Souls of the Righteous are not perfected in Holiness till a••ter Death, which C. M. hath twice cast upon me; I desire the Reader, for his Satisfaction, and my Vindication, but to read the place that I cited, viz. cap. 32. n. 1. where they say expresly thus, The Bodies of men [after Death] return to Dust, and see Corruption, but their Souls, which neither dye nor sleep, having an Immortal Subsistence, immediately return to God, who gave them, the Souls of the Righteous being THEN made perfect in 〈◊〉〈◊〉, &c. Where it is plain, that the Adverb of Time [Then] refers to the words in the first line, viz. After Deat••; yea, and as would seem then, when the Bodies return to Dust, and see Corruption, that sometimes is a considerable time after Death, where d••••d ••••dies are Embalmed; but this last part I suppos•• is 〈…〉〈…〉 in th••m. And seeing they plead for ••in for term of Life, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in••tant, what difference there is, that they ca•• make betwixt dyi••g in their sins, and living in their sin•• for Term of Life, is not ••nte••ligible; for in Scriptu••e-phrase, Not to have In••••uity p••r••ed ••••ay 〈◊〉〈◊〉 men dye, and to dye in Ini••uity, is all one; for the in••tant ••f Death is quick as a Thought. That I said, Notorio••sly 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Persons, Lyars, Deceivers, Drankards, &c. are qualified Members of your Church; I said it, according to what I

found in your Confession, that requireth no more than an outward P••of••ssion of Religion, and that such scandalous Persons may have; fo•• if no scandalous Persons could make •• Profession, but that the very Profe••sion it self did exclude all scandalous W••••••ing, then there could be no scandalou•• Profession, no•• P••of••ssors 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are scanda|lous; but if ye deny that, Baxter will b••tter info••m him, in the Treatise above mention••d; beside that, I h••ve proved C. Mather a noto••ious Lyar, and yet he is a M••mber of their Chu••ch; and it is bu•• too well known, how many scandalous Persons of all sorts, belong to the Presbyterian Church, as much, at least in some places, as to the Episcopal, and as when the Presbyterian Church was National in Scotland, and is now lately again become Natio••al in Sco••la••d, can it be imagined, or was it ever known, that any Church in C••••i|stendom, that was National, or did take in the whol•• Nation, ••ut had many scandalous Persons in it. His last instance of m•• Igno|rance, is, That I denyed that Baptizing o•• Infants, was the Pra••ti••e of the Church during the fi••st Century: but all that he saith here 〈◊〉〈◊〉 me, is a bewraying his own Ignorance, and withal, his Perve••••ion. For to prove th••t Baptizing of Infants was the Practice of the Chu••ch in the first Century, he citeth O••igine and Cyprian, none of wh••ch lived in the first Century, and Agustine, that lived not till about the end of the fourth Century, and Calvin, that lived not till at least fourteen hundred Years after the first C••ntury, and they might be mistaken in their thinking that baptizing of Infants was practised in the first Century, as well as in other thi••g•• they did too much take upon trust; and suppose some small matte•• ••s to be found in Origine, concerning Infant Baptism, yet that is not Church ••istory, and so contradicts not my Assertion; for Origine had some private Opinions that were not generally received in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Church; beside that, wiser men than C. M. h••ve thought, that R••ffinus, Origine's interpreter, hath incerted that of Infants Baptism, as well as some other things, into O••igine's Works, that were not really his, and did not agree to his Time, and Erasmus, mu••h better versed in Antiquity than either C. M. or all his Brethren, hath plainly acknowl••dg••d, that Ra••••••nus did take too much liberty in addi••g ••hings of his own, as could be easily proved; and ••ccording to the best Chronology, Origine and Cyp••ian lived tog••ther, to wit, a••out the middle of the third Century, ••. A••••t••dius showeth in his Thesa•••••••• C••••onologiae. And as for Tert••lians

Authority, whom he citeth for infants Baptism, while their innocent Age was yet upon them; it is a manifest ••alshood, if not a willfull Perversion, if ever C. M. hath read Tertullian upon the place, and proveth him either Ignorant, or Forgerer; and to show this, I shall faithfully recite Tertullians words, from my own reading (I having well read in Tertullian, Cyprian and Orig••••e, and divers others, I sup|pose before Co••. Mather could well read in his Accidence or Grammer) in his ••ook, De Baptismo adversus Quintiliam, cap. 18. he saith,

Ai•• quidem Dominus nolit•• il••os pro••ibere ad me venire, veniaut ergo dum adolescunt, &c In English thus, Indeed the Lord saith, forbid them not to come ••nto me; let them there••ore ••ome, when they grow up to Youth let them come; when they learn, when they are taught whither they come; let them be Christians when they can 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christ; w••y doth innocent Age hasten to the Remission o•• Sins? 〈◊〉〈◊〉 will be more wary in secular things, that to whom Eart••ly S••bstance is not trusted, that which is divine should be 〈◊〉〈◊〉; let them know to ask Salvation, that thou mayest seem to give to him that asketh.

Than which, nothing can be more clear, that Tertullian was not for, but against Infants Baptism. But perhaps he thinks to excuse himself, that he brings Tertullian's Authority by way of Query. And for his citing Ireneus's saying, Infantes renascuntur, i. e. In••ants are born again; either it is to be understood of Water-Baptism, or it is against C. M. who doth not believe that Water-Baptism is our Regeneration, as the Papists commonly call it; and seeing nothing of Water is mentioned, it is no clear Testimony. But s••eing he hath mentioned nothing of Church History, he hath not proved me guilty of Ignorance, for saying, They can gi••e no Evidence in Church History for In••ant Baptism. For his citation of Church Hi|story, concerning Hyginus, to prove Infant Baptism, he should have named who the Writer of that Church History is, and whether ap|proved by true Protestants, seeing many fabulous things are alledged by Papists concerning Antiquity. That called, Quest. et resp. ad Orthod. is generally denyed to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Iustine's, by all judicious Protestants; and that Iustine saith, in his Dialogue with Tryph. That all alike might then receive Baptism, w••ich is the spiritual Circumcision: As it saith nothing of Infants, so it is plainly against C. M. and his Brethren, if he ••ean Water-Baptism, who do not think that all who receive Water-Baptism, are spiritally circumcised, which is a Popish Opinion, and a manifest ••rror, contradicted by daily experience. And his charging

me with Hypocrisie, for commending the dead Saints, but condemning the living Ones; classing W. P with me; he showeth his Fo••ly and Rash|ness in that, as in other things; let him tell us what living Saints do we condemn; we do believe that God hath his living Saints now in the World, as he hath had in a••l Ages of the World, even in all Pro|fessions in Christendom, that hold the true Foundation, though upon it too many build Straw and Stubble, which God will in due time burn up, as I have abovesaid. Moreover, that Infants Baptism was not practised until the third Age or Century, and was not brought in by the Commandment of Christ, there are many men of great Note for Learning, and Skill in Antiquity, far more famous for Learning than Cotton Mather is like ever to be, that assert the same, as well as I , and contradict Calvin's mistaken Judgment in that particular; for Cur|cellaeus saith, in his D••ssertations of Orig. Sin, That the Custom of Bap|tizing Infants, was brought in without the Commandment of Christ, and did not begin before the third Age after Christ was born; In the two former Ages (saith he) no sign of it doth appear. And th••t the Antients were of opinion, That only the Adult are capable of Baptism, Valefridus Strabo, that lived in the ninth Century, Ludovicus Vives, and Eras|mus in the Church of Rome, and Grotius and Salmasius, great Protestant Authors, do plainly acknowledge, and Berengarius, and the Albigenses were of the same mind, as that learned & judicious Protestant Writer C. M. Du Veil, in his Explanation of the Acts of the Apostles, doth show; see his Explanat. on cap. 2. v. 14. and cap. 8. v. 12, 31. and cap. 18. v. 8. And notwithstanding of his Insinuations to the contra|ry, I challenge C. M. to give any one instance wherein I have not faithfully quoted the Antient Writers named by me, whether in my former Book, called, The pretended Antidote, &c. or in this, in each particular. And were I so minded, and saw a service in it to the People of New-England, I could easily produce sufficient plain Te|stimonies, from Antient Fathers, so called, and Writers both Greek and Latine, to confirm the Doctrine of the People call'd Quakers, in all the principal and most material things wherein they differ from C. M. and his Brethren; but the Scripture Authority being that of greatest weight, in respect of any outward Testimony, I have chosen rather to make use of that. Nor wi••l it serve to justifie C. Mat••er, his Exclamations against me, that seeing the Quakers hold all these Doctrines which Baxter, and some other Protestant Writers hold to

be Fundamental, that therefore I should not have so charged them, as I have done in my first Book, called, The Presbyterian and Independent visible Churches brought to the Test; for if they and we agree in Fun|damental, then why are we so uncharitable to them, as not to judge them a true Church? — To which I Answer; Although we hold all their Fundamentals, according to what Baxter has delivered, as I have above sh••wed, yet they hold not all our Fundamentals; for it is a Fundamental Doctrine and Principle held by us, to wit, The inward Revelation o•• Christ in all true Believer••, and That God teacheth all true ••elie••er•• by his inward Voice, Word and Teach|ings, or inward divine Inspiration and Revelation, properly so ca••••ed, that is as well Obj••cti••e as Effective, and by way of Object, working sensibly and inf••••••ibly upon the inward and spiritual Senses of their Souls, and which their Souls and Minds, if duely and fitly disposed and qualified, do infallibly apprehend; but yet this Fundamental held by us, is plainly denyed by C. M. and his Brethren; and it is a Funda|mental Error in them w••o h••••d it, as the generality of their visible Church Mem••••r▪ do, That all s••ch divine inward Objective Revelation and Inspiration is ceased; and from this Fundamental Error, divers other very g••eat Errors ••••ow, as so many unclean streams from an unclean Fountain; fo•• if all true and saving Knowledge of God and Chri••t, and all saving ••aith require true divine inward Revelation and inspiration, properly so ca••••ed; and the true and real inspeaking of God, and his internal Word and Voice that doth as sensibly and perceptibly operate, by way of Obj••ct, upon the inward and spiritual hearing, o•• discerni••g ••aculty of the Soul, as any outward Voice or Wo••d of a man do••h upon the outwa••d Hearing; then, if that be cea••••d, all t••ue and saving Knowledge and Faith, are ceased, and all true Love, Hope 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Re••entance, and all other Fruits and Virtues of the Spirit, because all these have a necessary connexion with the true sa••ing Knowledg•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••aith; 〈◊〉〈◊〉, a••l true Preaching, Praying and Worship, and all true Obedience and Service unto God, and all real and true Religion, a••l ••••pending upon the inward Principle of inward divine Revelation and Inspiration, properly so called; and yet we do re••dily ackn••wledge, a di••••inction betwixt these extraordinary divine Revelations and Inspirations, that the Apostles and Prophets had, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they were ••postle•• and Prophets, and these other that they had common to them, and ordina•••• with all Christians; and for the

latter we contend, that were and are ordinary and common to all Saints in all Ages of the World, but not for the former that were extraordinary, whereby they not only wrought Miracles, and spoke with Tongues, but had Doctrinal things of Faith revealed to them, without all outward teaching of Men or Books▪ whereas we do not say, any peculiar Doctrine of the Christian Faith is made known to us without all outward Teaching, but by it, Instrumentally, and by the immediate Revelation and Inspiration of the Spirit, Principally; and we are sufficiently charitable, that we judge, there are true Believers among them (though we cannot own their visible Chu••ch) that either hold not these Errors with them, or if some hold them in words, or Notion, and The••••y, yet as in respect of their Experience and in|ward sence and feeling, hold them not, but the contrary; and such have better Hearts than Notions; and though they err in holding an unsound form of Words, through too much relying upon their Teachers, yet their inward sence and experience doth contradict them. And in all these twelve Particulars I first charged upon them, I still affirm, they do grosly err, and they are such great matters of Difference betwixt them and us, although they are not all Funda|mentals, that no Society holding such Errors, deserve to be esteemed the visible Church of Christ, restored to that purity of Doctrine that the visible Church ought to have, and had in the primitive Times, and yet will have, as she cometh to be fully restored to her primitive Purity. And though it seem a strange and new Doctrine to C. M. and his Brethren, to distinguish betwixt the Scripture, called by some the external or outward Word, and the inward living Word of God that proceedeth from the Mouth of God immediately, as every mans word that proceedeth from his Mouth, and goeth into the Ears of the Hearers, is his immediate Word; yet not only antient Wri|ters and Fathers, so called, did so distinguish, but even these called the Reformed, who began the Reformation from gross Propery. And for the antient Writers I shall give but one, (though I could give divers besides) to wit, Augustine, of great esteem and fame with Protestants, and particularly with Calvin, whose Authority he more useth in his Institutions, than any of all the Antients: In his 5th Book de Trinitate, cap. 11. Augustine saith expresly, Proinde Verbum quod foras sonat, signum est verbi, quod intus luc••t, cuj magis verbi competi•• vomen, nam illud quod profertur caruis ore vux verbi est verbum{que} et ipsum

dicitur propter illud, a quo ut foris appareret assumptum est: In English thus; Therefore the Word that soundeth outwardly, is a sign of the Word that shineth inwardly, to which the Name of the Word doth more agree; for that which is pronounced with the fleshly Mouth, is the Voice of the Word, and it is called the Word, because of that from which it is taken, that i•• might outwardly appear. Where I desire the Reader to Note these two things, 1st, That Augustine doth acknowledge the Word within, or internal Word. 2dly, That the Name of the Word doth more be|long to the internal Word, than to that which outwardly soundeth in our fleshly Ears; in both which he doth contradict C. M. and his Bre|thren, who do not acknowledge any inward Word in the Saints, since the Apostles dayes, and hold, That the Scripture is the only Word that is the Object and Rule of our Faith. And th••t famous Reformer Zuinglius (whom I the rather cite, because C. M. maketh him his President for his zeal against the Quakers, in the end of his Address) in his Commen|tary De vera ••t falsa Relig. de Verbo Dei, cap. de Ecclesia contra Emserum, saith, Qui in Ecclesia Scripturam Caelestis Verbi explicari, audit, &c. In English thus, Who in the Church heareth the Scripture of the heavenly Word explained, judgeth what he heareth; but that which is heard is not the Word it self whereby (to wit, chiefly) we believe; for if we did be|lieve by that Word which is heard or read, then all sho••ld become Believers; and after, he saith, It is therefore manifest, that we are made faithful by that Word which the heavenly Father preacheth in our hearts, whereby he doth also enlighten us, that we may understand, and draweth, that we may follow. And again, Who are instructed with that Word, judge the Word that soundeth in the Preaching, and striketh the Ears; but yet, the Word of Faith, which is seated in the Minds of the faithful, is judged by none, but by it the external Word is judged, which▪ God hath appointed to be preached, although Faith cometh not (to wit, chiefly) by the external Word. Both which Testimonies of Augustine and Zuinglius, do ma|nifestly confirm the Quakers Doctrine against C. M. and his Brethren, who acknowledge no inward Word in the hearts of the faithful▪ by which their Faith is wrought, and will have the Word of Faith to be only the written or outward Word, contrary both to Paul and Zuinglius, who give the preheminence to the inward Word, and call it the Word of Faith. And as Zuinglius holdeth for the Quakers in asserting the inward Word, against C. M. and his Brethren, so in that called Ori|ginal Sin, for thus he saith expresly, lib. de Baptismo, Paul, cap. 3. to

the Romans saith, That the knowledge of sin cometh by the Law; where, therefore there is no knowledge of the Law, (as in Infants,) there can be no knowledge of sin; but where no knowledge of sin is, there is no Prevarication, and so Damnation cannot be. And after, Because Paul saith, That Death is come upon all men, because all have sin|ned: Theologu••s from these words judge, T••at that Disease and Conta|gion that is Heredi••••ry unto us all, and is naturally lodged in us, is sin, that bringeth to us Damnation, but they Err the w••ol Heavens wi••e: Wh••re it is to be noted, That Zuinglius do••h acknowledge, That there is a sin••••l Disease and Contagion conveyed from Parents to Children, but yet it is not imputed unto them to bring Damnation upon any Infants; plain contrary to C. M. and his Brethren, who 〈◊〉〈◊〉, That many Infants, both of unbelieving and believing Parents, are eternally Repro|bated and Damned, only for Adams Sin imputed to them; Which is most hor••d Uncharitableness, and horridly reflecting upod the Merc•• of God. And the same Zuinglius, in his Chapter of the Eucharist, plainly asserteth, That Christ by ••is Flesh and Blood, with which he ••eed|eth the Souls of the faithful, doth understand a spiritual t••ing, which only the Spirit giveth, and not any Flesh consisting of Veins and Nerves; with••l affi••ming, with Origine and A••gustine, That Christs Flesh and Blood, which he ••eedeth t••e Saints with, is called so by an A••••egory and Similitude, but is really the Word it self, called also by an Allego••y Bread, Wine, Milk, Honey, Marrow, Fatness, &c. Again, the same Zuing|lius in ••is Commentary de vera & ••alsa Relig▪ doth thus comment on Pauls words, Rom. 1.19. The knowledge of God is manifest in them (so doth he translate the place, & so do••h the old English Translation) for God hath showed it unto them. We see here openly (saith he) that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 acknowl••dge, concerning God, is of God, which we ascribe to (I know not wha••) Nature; for he saith God hath manif••sted it; and w••at other ••hing ••s Nature, but a continuing and perpetual operation of God, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of all things? And ••g••in, in his Cap. of God, he saith, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Philosophers have spoken truly of God somethings, it was from 〈…〉〈…〉 God, who hath scattered some Seeds of his Knowledge even 〈…〉〈…〉 Gentiles, although mo••e sparingly, and more obscurely. So that Zuingli•••• had far more Charity ••owards honest and conscientious Gentiles, than C. M. who 〈…〉〈…〉 him very widely, as in the ••orm•••• particulars m••••tio••ed, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in thi•• last, that he affirmeth, That 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••nowledge of God the Gentiles have, o••ght to be attributed to God,

and not to Nature; and therefore not to mans Reason (as C.M. would have it) which is nothing but a natural Faculty of the Soul. And Thomas Shepherd, that had been a Preacher at Cambridge in N••w-England, in his Exposition of the Parable of the Ten Virgins, saith plainly, That that inward Law given to the Heathens, is falsly called the Law of Nature; for it i•• of God; and so saith Bachannan, in his Book, De jure Regni ap••d Scotos; and a large Volumn might be printed of Testimonies both out of antient and lat••••r Authors, a••l of g••od e••teem for Piety and Learning, yea, and even divers Protestants, that do acknowledge, That the Illumination that is generally in men, that ••each|eth them that there is a God, and showeth them good and evil, is a Prin|ciple above Humane Reason: As among English Protestants, Henry Moore, cited by Increase Mather against the Quakers, and praised by Baxter, as above, who saith expresly, in his Moral Cabbalae, cap. 1. v. 1, 2. of Genesis, By the Will of God every man living on the face of the Earth, hath these two Principles in him, Heaven and Eart••, Divinity and A••nimality, Spirit and Flesh; but that which is Annimal or Natural operates first, the spiritual or heavenly Life being for a while closed up at rest in its own Principle, &c. but by the Will of God it is, that afterwards the Day light appears, though not in so vigorous Measure, out of the hea|venly or spiritual Principle. And carrying on the Process of Gods work in mens hearts, by way of Analogy, from the First Day to the Seventh, concerning the Seventh, he saith, Gen. cap. 2. v. 3. of his Mor. Cabb. So the divine Wisdom in the humane Nature celebrated her Sabbath, having now wrought through the Toil of all the six dayes Travel; and the divine Wisdom looked upon the Seventh Day as blessed and sacred, a Day of Righ|teousness, Rest and Ioy in the holy Ghost. And thus if C. M. had but some ordinary Reading in English Writers, and did but understand what he reads, he might have found an inward and spiritual Sabbath, or Day of Rest, not only in the Scriptures, and the Quakers Books, but in Henry Moore, a man of far more Sense and Learning, than I suppose C. M. will pretend unto: Also, he might have found it in Calvin, lib. 2. Instit. cap. 8. n. 30. So that he showeth his Ignorance sufficiently, in comparing the finding o•• a spiritual or inward Seventh Day, to the difficulty of finding the Quadrature of the Circle; which if it were found, it is probable the Penury of his Learning would not suffer him to understand. And what H. Moore saith of the spiritual or heavenly Life lying for a while closed or shut up at rest in its own

Principle, is but the same, in other Terms, with what we say, That the Life of Christ is crucified in Vnbelievers, viz. not in it self, but to them. And why should C. M. find so great fault with this manner of Expression, that is according to Scripture, when his reverend Baxter (as he designeth him) writeth in a phrase that must have a charitable Construction put upon it, otherwise it would look as odd as any thing C. M h••s quoted out of any of the Quakers; for R. Baxter saith, conce••ning God, in his Treatise above-said, call••d, Directions to the Con••erted, motive 12. pag. 34. Doth it not wound you to thin••, that even th••••e, H••, (viz. God) should be so straitned, and t••r••st into Corners by a hellish Enemy, as if that simple Habitation were too much for him, and that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Dwelling were too good for him (meaning the heart defiled with sin.) Now if any should accuse Baxter with Blasphemy, he••e, in saying, ••od can be straitned, & thrust into Corners by a hellish E|nemy, would not C. M. excuse him, and say, it is a Catachrestical or im|proper manner of Speech, and is not to be strictly taken? and then, if he were not very partial, why doth he not excuse such Expressions in the Quakers Writings, that are capable of the same charitable Construction? And it were an easie thing to gather may Phrases and Expressions out of Presbyterian & Independent Books, that might seem very offensive, to a degree of Blasphemy, if they were not charitably construed; yea, I find an Expression in Calvin, which if C. M. could have found in a Quakers Book, we should have had him cry out aloud, Blasphemy! for he saith expresly, lib. 3. cap. 2. n. 24. Quia C••ristus non extra nos est, sed in nobis hab••tat: In English thus; Because Christ is not without us, but dwelleth in us; but if ••otton Mather say, ••alvi••ss fence is, That Christ is not only or wholly without us, but also dwelle•••• in 〈◊〉〈◊〉; as this is a charitable Construction, so let it be given to such, or the like words, that may be found in the Quakers Books, unless he could find, that their wo••ds could not bear such a favoura••le Constru|ction. But since C. M. findeth so much f••••lt with me for saying, T••at not only Conscientious Gentiles, but ••aithful Ch••istians shall kno•• more of God and Christ after Death (which is the g••neral Expe••t••tion and Consolation of all Saints, who know now but in part, but then shall know fully) and thereupon 〈…〉〈…〉 Quakers new P••rgatory shall ere long be erected: what saith he to his m••ch esteemed Calvin, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 on these words of Peter, 1 Pet. 3.19. B•• which also he went and 〈…〉〈…〉 to the Spirits in Prison, &c. plainly affirmeth, concerning the

Souls of the deceased before the Death of Christ, Indeed I willingly grant, (saith Calvin) that Christ did shine unto them by the Virtue of his his Spirt, that they might know, that the Grace which oft they had only tasted, was then given unto the World; and by a probable Reason, that place of Peter, 1 Pet. 3.19. may be applyed to this, where it saith, That Christ came and preached to the Spirits which were in Custody, or place of Expecta|tion (they commonly translate it Prison) for even the Context leadeth us thither, that the ••aith••••l, who before that time were de••eased, were made partakers of the same 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with us, beca••se he doth amplifie the Power of the Death (of Christ) from thence, that it did penetrate even to the dead, while piou•• So••l•• did enjoy t••e present sight of that Grace, which they ••ar|nestly expected; and on 〈…〉〈…〉 hand, it was made more manifest to the Repro••a••••, ••hat they were ••xcluded from all Salvation. But if C.M. think, that Calvin's words doth not infer a Purgatory, why should he surmize any such thing from mine? And though C. M. ignorantly in his airy fantastical Mind mocked at some called Quakers, for calling the Flesh, by way of Allegory, the Woman that should not speak in the Church, (although we deny not but Women are there also to be understood litterally, but yet not all Women, nor in all respects) alledging, That the D••vil is the Fleshes Husband; yet if he had been well read in Origine or Augustine, he might have found a better account; but not to go so far backward, let his Reverend Baxter answer him, who saith, in the Preface to his Directions to the Converted, In a weak Christian the Spirit is Master, but the Flesh is Mistriss. And notwithstanding that the said R. Baxter is too uncharitable to the People called Quakers, yet I find in the said Book, he is much more charitable to them, than C. M. is, who will not allow them the lowest degree among true Christians, Because, as he will have it, they deny almost all the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith; for thus Rich. Baxter expresly writeth concerning Quakers, B••hmenists, and some of the Religious Orders of the Papist••, in his 23d Character of a confirmed Christian, pag. 66. But those o•• them that place their chiefest Happiness in the Love o•• God, and the eternal Fruition o•• him in Heaven, and seek this sincerely, according to their Helps and Power, tho••gh they are misled into some superstitious Errors, I hope, I may number with those that are sincere, for-all their Errors, and the ill Effects of them: And truly I have that Charity for Rich. Baxter, that if he had known the Quakers better, and had had that occasion of some more inward acquaintanc•• with them, he would have been

still more charitable to them, in his judgment of them; for the things he hath judged to be Errors in them, either they do not hold them, or they are not Errors, but sound things of Truth, and many of them possibly owned by himself, but in other Terms: It is the great Cala|mity of these Ages, that men are oft confounded in their Languages, and contradict one another in Words and Terms, when they agree in one Sense of the same things: It may be hoped, and is earnestly to be prayed for unto Almighty God, that all that are sincere Lovers of the Truth in all Societies in Christendom, may have more Charity one to|wards another, and they may acknowledge whatever is of Truth and Virtue one in another; and this would prepare the way to bring them all to one Sheep fold, and to have one Shepherd, as the Lord hath pro|mised, and which he will in due time fullfill, and that Time is at hand, Amen,