The spirit of railing Shimei and of Baal's four hundred lying prophets entered into Caleb Pusey and his Quaker-brethren in Pennsilvania, who approve him. Containing an answer to his and their book, falsly called, Proteus ecclesiasticus, detecting many of their gross falshoods, lyes, calumnies, perversions and abuses, as well as his and their gross ignorance and infidelity contained in their said book. / By George Keith, A.M.

The Spirit of Railing Shimei, &c.

SECT. I.

WHereas in in pag•• of his Preface, he saith,

The Differ∣ence between the Quakers and G. K. here begun by him, about eleven or twelve years ago, was chiefly about that of the Ʋniversal necessity of the Faith and Knowledge of Christs outward Death and Sufferings, in order to Salvation.

Answ. This is a manifest Falshood, not only the printed Books on my side, and the Manuscripts yet extant on their side, but many Persons now living at Philadelphia, of good Credit, who were Eye and Ear-Witnesses to our Debates in publick, are suffi∣cient Evidences. The first and chiefest Controversie I had with them at that time, was,

Whether to preach Faith in Christ without us, (as both God & Man) & also Christ within us, (as he is God the Eternal Word) was to preach two Christs?

which William Stockdale, one of their chief Preachers did accuse me of, and which they could never be drawn to condemn. And whether my asserting,

That the Light within men was not sufficient to Salvation without something else, was an Error, and a Denyal of the Fundamental Principle of Truth;

which Thomas Fitzwater, another of their chief Preachers accused me of. And after that, John D' Lavall, one of their Magistrates and a Preacher, did pub∣lickly in the Bank-Meeting on a first Day of the week, at Phila∣delphia, accuse me of being guilty of Heresie, for asserting, That the Light within every man was not sufficient to Salvation with∣out something else. By that [something else] I oft told them, I meant the Manhood of our blessed Saviour, and his Death and Passion, &c. And at that very Meeting it was, where Samuell Jenings told the Auditory, The Question betwixt the Quakers and Me, was not, Who was the best Christian? but, Who was the best Quaker? Of this divers now living in Philadelphia can give Evi∣dence; as also, how at a Monthly Meeting in Philadelphia, I hap∣pened to speak concerning the Principles o•• Truth, Alexander ••eards••y, one of their chief Elders, took me up, and said,

I know not what thou means by [Principles] of Truth; for my part (said he) I never know any Principle of Truth but One, and that One was the ••ight within.

O•• this, I can pr••••••nt, if

required, produce Witnesses, men of good credit at Philadelphia who heard him at that very Meeting.

What I have either by Word or Writing asserted of the Uni∣versal necessity of the Faith and Knowledge of Christs Death and Sufferings, I have always done with that care and caution, by my frequent and oft repeated Explanations of my sence, that I have both the Authority of Scripture, and the consent of not only the ablest Divines of the Church of England, and the 11th, 12th & 13th Articles of the Church of England, but also of all other Protestant Churches [as with respect to adult persons, and such as are capable of actual faith and knowledge of Christ, which Infants and Idiots that have not the exercise of right Reason, are not] on my side.

Pag. 2 of his Preface, he saith,

In a private Meeting at Phi∣ladelphia, in the year 1691. he heard me over and over vehe∣mently press the universal necessity of Faith, after this manner, viz. I deny him to be a Minister of Christ, who doth not in the course of his Ministry preach Christ crucified without us, risen again without us, ascended into Heaven without us; and not only so (said he) but that the Faith and Knowledge of Christs Sufferings, &c. without us, is universally indispensibly necessary to all & every one, in order to obtain eternal Life & Salvation; and yet (said he) if an honest Indian or Heathen, &c. do but live faith∣ful to the Light within him, he could not miss of Salvation.

Answ. Note Christian Reader the open Heathenis•• and Infidelity of this Caleb Pusey and his Brethren, who make this to be an Error or Default in me, which was the constant Practice of the holy Apostles and Ministers of Christ in their Preaching, as is fully to be seen throughout the New-Testament, as Acts 2.36.3.20.4.11, 12.10.38, 42, 43, 26.22, 23, 1 Cor. 1••.••, 4. and as they preached Salvation by the Name of Jesus Christ, (viz. as both God and Man, and as he suffered Death for us, &c.) and by no other Name, so they preached Faith in that Name, as Universally Necessary, in order to Life and Salvation, according to Mark 16.16. John ••0.31. Acts 10.43. Rom. 10.9, 10. 1 Cor 15.1, 2, 3, 4 and many other Texts of Scripture to the same purpose, that hold forth the universal or general Necessity of Faith in Jesus Christ, as he came in the flesh; which yet doth not exclude such as d••e in infancy, born of believing Parents, or Natural Idiots, from being capable of Salvation, God working by his Spirit when, where and how he pleaseth, tho' in his ordinary way he worketh by the outward

means of the Word and Sacraments, it being a good Rule both in Law and Divinity, That Words are to be understood according to the subject matter; and even the Quakers must restrict the universal illumination they plead for, its being sufficient to the Salvation of all who obey it, at least to such who are capable to give that Obedience, which ••nfants and natural Idoits are incapable of (as is generally granted) as much as they are incapable of actual ••aith in Christ crucified. But Note the Dullness of this •• Pusey, who seems almost as void of good Sense and Reason as his Mi••••-stones, as if the Salvability of virtuous Heathens could not be consistent with the universal Necessity of Faith in Christ crucified, but by the Notion of the Twelve Revolutions of Humane Souls into other Bodies, which Notion therefore he would fix upon me. But without all such Notion I could ther, anst still can show the good con∣sistency of those two Assertions, as well as many worthy Divines both of the Church of England, and other Protestant Churches have done.

After all his Sophistical Insinuations and Inferences against me about the Twelve Revolutions (to which I have so fully answered in my former printed Books (as C. P. may know, had he but common Discretion) so that to say more would be a superfluous labour) he hath sufficiently cleared me in p. 26. of his Book, where he confesseth his Avoucher told him, I never made it an Article of my Faith.

Pag. 4. He insinuates, That they who Ordained me a Minister of the Church of England, have not given me Power to Baptize, which in his scoffing Spirit, he calls, making of Christians And p. 5. That I am now to be considered as a Minister, though of the meanest Class. But for this his Mistake he seems to Apologize in his late Sheet, printed with the Errata of his Book, after some Copies of his Book were published. What my Answer to his said Apology is, I refer to my Post-scrip•• at the end of this Book. And as for my Station in the Ministry, were it of the meanest Class, it is more honourable than the highest among his Frater∣nity of false Teachers; however, by the Grace of God I am a Presbyter of the Church of England, which (for his Information, I tell him) has but those of one Class above it. And I thank God I am well esteem∣ed by all that know me, in the Church, both high and low, and have got more new Friends, who are true Christians, in the Church of Eng∣land, than I have lost of the Old among the Quakers, who either were no Christians at all, or the best of them but erring Christians.

Pag 5, 6. His Insinuation, That the Question betwixt the Quakers and

Me, here at Philadelphia, about eleven years ago, was not, Whether Faith i•• Christs outward Manifestation was necessary to our Salvation, and of all Markind (to whom the Sufferings of Christ have been made known and revealed by the Scriptures, or otherwise) Is Notoriously false, as plainly appeareth by what is above-said; for if Christ Without is not to be preached as the Object of Faith, as he dyed for us, and purchased us by his precious Blood, even the Blood of his Humanity that was out∣wardly shed for us. And if the Light 〈◊〉〈◊〉 us ••e sufficient to Salvation without any thing else, than there is no need of preaching the Necessity of Faith in Christ without us, or in his outward Manifestation for our eternal Salvation. Now both these fore-going and Antecedent Asser∣tions the Quakers here who differed from me about eleven years ago, had asserted, as is sufficiently known And that this is the Quakers Prin∣ciple most generally, doth appear very manifestly from the Quotations out of their chief Authours, recited faithfully by me in my several Narratives, and in the Serious Call, as particularly where G. W. saith, in his Book, called, Truth defending the Quakers [quoted in Serious Call] p. 22, 65. Faith in Christ without men is contrary to the Apostles Doctrine: The like he saith in his Light and Life, p. 61. Another while (saith he) People must seek their Saviour above the Clouds and Firmament, contrary to the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 10.6. Another while they must look to Jerusalem for Justification, to the Blood that was there shed, contrary to Deut. 30.13, 14. and Rom. 10. To the same tune saith E. Burroughs in his Works, p. 306. in answer to his Opponent, who had said, That they who follow Christ aright, must follow him without, to the Cross without for Justification, or Mount Calvery without—The Spirit of Christ it leads to Christ without. N••w (saith E. B.) Reader, see if this be not near unto Popery, or enquire what else ••e means, as if he would have People go a Pil∣grimage; and this (saith he) is contrary to Rom. 10. Note here, how perversly E. B. doth construe his Opponents words, as if they meant that the following of Christ was to go a Pilgrimage to Jerusalem. But indeed I needed not to have gone further for Proofs than the Serious Call, throughout all that Section, having the Title, Concerning Christ and his Blood, &c.

SECT. II

AND here Observe, Friendly Reader, the Impudence of this Cal••b Pusey, in his Postscript on Daniel Leeds Almanack, p. 4. where

he saith, That notwithstanding the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ministers have attested the Quota∣tions, (viz. in the Serious Call) yet •• shall make it appear that they ••a••e all with D. L. to boot, attested to very false things. He saith, that C. K. in his Serious Call cites G. F. in Great Mystery, p 28. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lig••t that every man hath that cometh into the World, is sufficient to Salvation without the help of any other Means or Discovery Answ. I must now (saith C P.) make ••••ld and break in upon these Attestors, and not in vain neither; for I do affirm there is no such thing to be found in that page, nor in any part of that Book, That I Know Of.

Answ. But will this [That I Know of] excuse him in his so unjustly charging those Worthy M••n, the eight Ministers, as well as Me, for one or two Errors m••erly Typographical, in some Copies of the first Im∣pression, and which were Corrected in all the following Impressions; and that I sent to Sam. Jenings at Burlington some Moneths ago, I first corrected with a Pen before I sent it: Some of the correct printed Copies I have shown to several Worthy, Persons in Philadelphia, who having seen the Quotations, and C. P's Charge against those eight Ministers, as well as against D. L. and my self, have declared their ad∣miration at the Impudence of this C. P. For whereas he saith, He doth affirm there is no such thing to be found in that page, nor in any part of that Book, that I know of: Is his [That I know of] any sufficient Proof or Evidence that there is no such Passage in any part of that Book, and that therefore he must break in upon us, as false Attestators and be••yers of G. F in his Gr. Myst. as he chargeth us in his Book, p 4, of his Postscript. But whereas he so severely blames the eight Ministers for this wrong Quotation, I desire the Reader to take Notice, that in the broad Sheet, call'd, The Serious Call, &c. it is said, Most of these Quo∣tations (None of which are Retracted by the Quakers,) are attested, with near 200 more of the same Nature, in G. K's 3d and 4th Narratives, by eight Ministers of the Church of England. Where the Reader may see, it is not said in the Serious Call, that the eight Ministers attested to the Quotations as printed in that Sheet, but that most of these Quotations are attested by the eight Ministers in G. K's 3d & 4th Narratives. Now, whatever wrong Quotation has happened in the broad Sheet, of putting the figures 28 for 47. in G. F's Gr. Myst. and which was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fault of the Printer, and all over-sight in the Corrector, the like often happens to Quakers Books, as well as to others, yet Malice is self 〈…〉〈…〉 this on the eight Ministers, who did not attest to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉

Sheet, called, The Serious Call, but to most of the Quotations in that Sheet, collected out of G. K's 3d & 4th Narratives, as well as to all the rest contained in said Narratives. One of which Quotations is this out of G. F's Gr Mystry, p 47. truly set down in the 4th Nar. p. 3. attest∣ed by five of the said Ministers, and as corrected in the Errata, thus Its contrary to Christ to say, it is an Error that the L••g••t 〈◊〉〈◊〉 every man hath that cometh into the World, is sufficient to Salvation without the help of any other Means or Discovery; G. F's Gr. Myst. p. 47. And this proves the Passage, as to the true sence and intent of G. F's Gr. Myst. p. 47. to be rightly quoted; for what is contrary [i. e. Contradictory] to an Error, must needs be a Truth [seeing two Contradictories can never be both True or both False] and therefore G. F. held it to be a Truth, That the Light which every one hath, that cometh into the World, is sufficient to Salvation without the help of any other Means or Discovery. The substance of which, in effect, G. F. doth in plain words, positively assert, Great Mystery, pag. 47 For his Opponent having said, It is an Error to say, That the Light which every one hath that cometh into the World, is sufficient to Salvation without the help of any other Means or Discovery G. F. in his Gr. Mystry, pag. 47. (as truly quoted in pag 3. 4th Narrative) saith, Answ. Contrary to Christ, who brought the Jews off of all other Helps to himself, who said, Believe in the Light, while ye have the Light; and they that believed in the Light, should not abide in Darkness; and no man cometh to the Father but by me, saith Christ; for he was the Way, the Truth, the Light in Men, and the Life, and there is No Salvation by any other Name but by him [Note, as above, The Light In Men]—So he [viz. the Light in men] is the Only Means, without any other Help—And Christ will dwell in Man and walk in man, & what need they have any more Helps? See the place at large in G. F's, Great Mystery, pag. 47.

And whereas again in pag. 5, of his Postscript, he viz. C. P.) saith, Well, D. L's next Quotation is this, W. P in his Quake ism a New Nick-Name. pag. 6. says, Faith in Christs outward Manifestation is a deadly Poyson these latter Ages have been infected with, to the destru∣ction of Godly Living. Also, in Serious Call, G. K. here hath it. I again, (saith C. P.) charge all these Nine Ministers, and five of them in the 4th Narrative, together with D L. to be all false Attestors; for this Quotation agrees not with the Book; for W. P. calls not Faith in Christs outward Manifestation a deadly Poyson, &c. but says, The making holy Life legal, and saith in the History, Mark, [the History] of Christs

outward Manifestation, Christianity is a deadly Poyson &c. And he saith, The word Christianity is wrong placed, and should be next after the word Manifestation, and is so corrected in the Errata; & the words, The History, they have all of them very unfairly left out, as if there were no difference be∣twixt our Christian Faith standing in the History of Christ, and its standing in Christ himself howsoever manifested, so that they have curtailed his words, and wronged his meaning.

Answ. In all this Caleb Pusey has been as injurious 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the eight Mi∣nisters and to me, as in the former; for, as is above-•••••••• none of the eight Ministers did attest to the broad Sheet, called, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Serious Call, but to my 3d and 4th Narratives, four of them having attested to the third, and five of them to the fourth. And what Attestation I give to the Broad Sheet, I give to the Copy, that was rightly paged and Mar∣gined, and not to the other that the Prin••er and Corrector had wrong∣ed. Now in my 3d Narr. attested by four of the eight Ministers, the Quotation is true, and exactly agreeing with the Book, vid. 3rd Narr. pag. 7. N. 14.) and is there more full than as C. P. hath quoted it. The Passage, as quoted by me, and attested by the three Ministers, is this, The Distinction betwixt Moral and Christian, the making holy Life Legal, and Faith in the History of Christs outward Manifestation, has 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a deadly Poyson these latter Ages have been infected with, to the Destruction of Godly Living So, that it plainly appears, that C. P. has ••elved the eight Ministers as well as me, and that they and I have not belv••d W P. for the 3d Narrative, to which four of the eight Ministers have attested, hath the Quotation thus, Faith in the History, &c. and so have all the latter Impressions of the broad Sheet, called, The Serious Call, though in some Copies of the first Impression, the word History, by the fault of the Printer and Corrector, was omitted; but this Omission could be no design, seeing it was in the 3d Narr. and in many Thousands of the broad Sheet, which have been printed, and was with a Pen corrected by me on the Margin, in that printed broad Sheet I sent to S. Jenings, to which this Book of C. P. (as I was informed) is an answer

But that he saith the word Christianity is wrong placed, and should be next after the word Manifestation, and is so corrected in the Errata, is another fal••hood of C. P. and an Abuse put upon the Reader; for the Table of Errata doth not so correct it, but thus, p. 6. for Outward Christianity read Outward Manifestation, and not one wo••d to read Chri∣stianity after Manifestation; and indeed the whole Passage is to del••te

Christianity. But supposing the Passage to be as C. P. would have it, it helps W. Penn nothing, but sinks his Cause as deep in the Mire, to say, Faith in the History of Christs outward Manifestation is Christianity, is a deadly Poyson, seeing by the word [History,] it is evident that W P. meant all that is written concerning Christ, as he c••me in the flesh, was born of Virgin, and all that he taught, and did, and com∣manded, as related by the four Evangelists; and if the faith of that, or in that (to use W. P's phrase) be not Christianity, there is no Chri∣stianity in any men upon Earth. But for W. Penn or C. P••sey to insi∣nuate that by Faith in the History of Christs outward Manifestation, either his Opponent or the Church of England, or any other Protestant Churches, meant a Faith in the History, wrought meerly by the History, without any inward Operation of the Spirit working with and by Means of the History, is a false and groundless Cavil, as is that also of C Pusey, as if Faith in the History, &c. and Faith in Christ himself, were so different and opposit, that the one destroys the other, or were in∣consistent. It seems C. P is ignorant of that sound Maxim, Subordi∣nata non pugnant, i. e. Things subordinate are not Opposit, or fight not one against the other; and according to St. Paul, Ephes. 2 20. as the Ephesians were built on Jesus Christ, the chief Corner Stone, and prin∣cipal Foundation, so they were also built on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, as the secondary, subordinate and instrumental, that is, upon those Doctrinal Truths of Christianity delivered by them, as the Doctrine of Moses and the Prophets is ca••ed by Christ himself, Moses and the Prophets, and the reading of what is delvered by Moses in his five Books, is called, The Reading of Moses, in the Scrip∣ture.

Again, whereas upon John 5.39. C. Pusey saith, Now did not Christ himself disclaim the Jews from placing their Faith in the History [the said C. P. reading the words, Ye search the Scriptures, which reading, if allowed, gives the Quakers no advantage] so as to make that to be saving, or which is to say, to give Eternal Life, for they were to come to him that they might have Life, yet not so as to reject, but to search the Scriptures, &c. even so say we.

I Answ. Our Saviour reproved the Jews, that searched the Scrip∣tures, and professed to believe them, and obey them, and in fo••d••••ing to have eternal Life, without coming to Christ by Faith, that they might have Life. But this is no Proof that Christ di••claimed them, as he

phraseth it, to believe or have Faith in the Scriptures, as a secondary and subordinate Cause, and a Means or Instrument whereby they might believe in Christ himself; for said Christ to the Jews, Had ye be∣lieved Moses, ye would have believed me, for Moses wrote of me: By which it is apparent, that by our Saviour's Doctrine, as he himself is the primary and chief Object of the Christian Faith, together with the Father and the holy Ghost, so the Scriptures are the secondary and subordinate; and if C. P. will quibble upon the word (In) as, To believe IN the holy Scriptures of the Apostles and Prophets, were to make a Christ and a God of them, and to be guilty of Idolatry; nor would this give him any advantage, nor help W. P. out of the Mire, for, according to Scrip∣ture phrase, to believe (In) the Scriptures, or to believe (In) Moses, and (In) the Prophets, and consequently (In) the Apostles and Evan∣gelists, is no more but to believe the Truth of what they have deliver∣ed to us in those sacred Records, by a saving Faith wrought in us by the holy Spirit, as the principal Agent, and by the Scriptures as the Instrumental. Thus, Exod. 14 31. it is said, The People believed in the Lord, and in Moses his Servant, so the Hebrew hath it, and so it is on the Margent of some Bibles, particularly that I have, printed by Henry Hills and John Field, London, 1660. in a large Octavo. And seeing C. P. hath confessed, That the Quakers are not taught faith in Christs outward Manifestation, by the Light within, without the Scriptures, Hovv then can they believe in Christs outward Manifestation, if they believe not the Scriptures (or which is the same, according to Scrip∣ture phrase) In the Scriptures, viz. as the secondary and instrumental Object of their Faith, which R. B. calls, The Material Object of Faith, pag 895. of his Work. So that it is a plain case, if we are not to believe the Scriptures, or in the Scriptures, which (as is said) is equi∣volent, according to Scripture phrase, both in Exod. 14.31. and Jo••. •• 46. so nor are we to believe in Christ; for tho' the Greek particle En) in John 5.••6. be not expressed, yet it is implyed in the D••tive Cases of both the Names, as oft else-where, both in the Septuagin•• and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the New Testament. But seeing we have no other present outward Manifestation of Christ, [if by outward Manifestation, is meant, out∣ward Revelation or Discovery, as it properly doth so signifi••] we have no outward Manifestation of Christ, but what the holy Scripture gives us; that to believe in the History, & to beli••••e in the outward Manifesta∣tion of Christ, is but the same thing in two different Expressions. And

it seems more proper to call the Scriptures the outward Revelation, Dis∣covery or Manifestation of Christ, tha•• to call Christ himself (as he was incarnate) the outward Manifestation of Christ. But the several In∣stances above-given, prove sufficiently, that the Quaker-Authors above cited, as well as W. P. do not think it Necessary or profitable to be∣lieve in Christ without us, but hurtful and contrary to Scripture; for proof of which, I had formerly quoted W. P. in my Third Narrative, pag. 6 & 7, That seeing Christ is not now to come in the flesh, they (i. e the Quakers) need not preach what is not to be again. And that the whole Chri∣stian World hath so long and lazily depended on it, without thirsting after his inward holy Appearance in the Conscience.

Answ This is, in effect, the words of W. P. which, as in the latter part, are most Uncharitable, so in the former altogether false, That seeing Christ is not to come again, to be born in the flesh, and suffer in the flesh, he is not to be preached, as he did so come: Why? Because they need not preach what is not to be again, saith W. P. I desire the Reader to view at more length that & several more Quotations made by me in my said Third Narrative, p. 6, 7, 8. out of W. P's Books, and compare the•• with his Books quoted, and he will find that his great aim and drift, in these Quotations is to render Faith in Christ without us, considered both as God and Man, not only not Necessary to our Chri∣stianity and Salvation, but hurtful. And in agreement to W. P. and the other above-given Quotations, I shall add yet another out of Ed. Burroughs Works, p. 150, 15••. Whether (saith he) it is possible that any can be saved without Christ manifest within? If so, then whether it is not the Doctrine of Salvation, which is ONLY Necessary to preach Christ within? — And is he not a Deceiver that exhorts People for Salvation, to any other thing than the Light of Christ, Yea or Nay? And how hath Christ en∣lightned every Man that cometh into the World, if not within?

Thus, I think, I have put it out of Doubt, with all Intelligent and Impartial Persons, who shall consider what is above-said, That the great and chief Question between the Quakers and their Opponents, as well as betwixt the Quakers and Me, (I mean, the Quaker chief Au∣thors) was about the Necessity of Faith in Christ without Us, who have the express Revelation of it given us by the holy Scriptures, in order to Salvation; and not as Caleb Pusey states it, as with relation to the Heathens, though that was also a part of the Controversie, but not the chief part. And for a further Confirmation, I can produce several

Witnesses yet living at Philadelphia, and else where in America who were present at a Dispute betwixt T. Lloyd & Me at the School-House in Philadelphia, after the Difference begun betwixt the Quakers and Me, which held some hours, before a great Auditory of People, where T••o. Lloyd did earnestly contend against me, That it was NOT Needful to our Salvation to believe that Christ dyed for Ʋs, arguing from Micha 6 8. and Eccles. 12, 13. To which, or what else he brought for Proof, I fully answered; and at that very time John D' Lavall his Son in Law, opposed his Assertion, quoting against him Rom ••0▪ 8, 9, 10.

As I have shewed in my Answer to R. B. his ••pology, R. Barclay did acknowledge the Necessity of Faith in Christ without us, &c. where it was revealed, viz. by means of the holy Scripture, his words being, Ʋb•• Declaratur, i. e. where it is declared; wherein he doth evidently contradict his Brethren above-quoted. But yet, he did not well to tye the Necessity of that Faith. viz. in Christ crucified, &c. to such only to whom it is revealed; for though none can be guilty of not believing in Christ, where it is not revealed or declared, yet that doth not hinder, but that that Faith is Necessary, not only because it is preached or declared, but therefore it is and ought to be preached and declared, because it is Necessary to Salvation universally, either ex∣presly or Implicitly. For if that Faith be only Necessary to any, be∣cause it is preached or declared in the Scriptures, it would follow, That if men let alone the preaching of it to their Children and Posterity, so as not to let them hear or read any thing of that Faith, and so (which God forbid) to destroy the Bible, they should do a kindness to their Children, by preaching only Faith in and Obedience to the Light in them, for Salvation, and that to be sufficient without any thing else. But why should C. P. render my asserting Faith in Christ without, be∣ing universally Necessary to mens Salvation, so much to favour the Doctrine of the Revolutions of Souls, seeing by his and his Brethrens Doctrine, Faith in, and Obedience or Conformity to the Light within, is judged as universally Necessary to mens Salvation, as I judge Faith in Christ without universally Necessary? For as concerning Infants dying in In∣fancy, if C. P. will infer, That they must needs Revolve again, accor∣ding to my Perswasion, to have Faith in Christ without, seeing that Faith is Necessary to their Salvation; by the like Argument to that of C. P. I do equally infer as great Necessity of Faith in the Light within, and Obedience to it, in Infants, or otherwise that they must Revolve

again, in order to have that Faith, seeing the Quakers generally preach Universally the Necessity of Faith in Christ the Light within, and Con∣formity to it, as much as others and I preach the Necessity of Faith in Christ Without, and Obedience to his Commands outwardly delivered us in the holy Scriptures, as well as to the Dictates of the true Light within. If he say, Infants may be or are saved without all actual Faith and Obedience to the Lig••t within? May not I as well say, That they are saved [viz Infants of believing Parents] without all actual Faith in Christ without, and actual Obedience to his Commands outwardly given in holy Scriptures? Next, As to Heathens, I suppose C. P. will not say, that any Heathens, who are adult, are saved without all Faith in the Light within, or in Christ within, and Obedience to him within them, seeing this is their great Universal Principle, viz. the Necessity of Faith in the Light within, or Christ within, and Obedience thereto universally, in order to Salvation. But we find no such Do∣ctrine delivered in the holy Scriptures, that any Faith or Obedience, either of Jews or Gentiles, without Faith in Jesus Christ, as he came in the Flesh without, is sufficient to Salvation; neither is there any Pro∣mise of Salvation to such, but on the contrary St. Paul doth very evi∣dently prove, That the Gentiles as well as the Jews are all under sin, and none of them can be justified by their Works without Faith in Jesus Christ, considered as he is the promised Seed, as he outwardly was to come, and so did accordingly come in the appointed time. Besides that, Faith in Christ Within was a Doctrine as Universally unknown to the Heathens as Faith in Christ Without.

And whereas C. P. thinks to prove me guilty of varying in Funda∣mentals, by his labouring to fix upon me the Notion of the Revolutions he ought not only to have proved the Notion of the Revolutions to be an Error, but to be a Fundamental Error, inconsistent with and repug∣nant to some Fundamental of the Christian Religion, which I find not that he hath done, or so much as essayed to do, notwithstanding of all his Bawling and Out-cry against me, to render me Odious, if he could, but I thank God, I am sufficiently armed against him; And the Pi•• he thinks he hath digged for me, (if he be of the faith of his Brethren) he is fallen into it himself; for however he inveighs against the Revo∣lution of Humane Souls into other Bodies, he and they do not believe that the Souls either of good or bad Men shall at the Resurrection come into the same Body for Substance they lived in on Earth, but quite other

Bodies, other in Substance; for W. Penn saith, Its as absurd or more than Transubstantiation, to say, A Natural Body and a Spiritual body can be the same, viz. in substance. And R. Claridge severely blames me in his Lux Evang. attesta••a, for affirming, That Christ hath the same Body in substance in Heaven, he had on Earth.

And as to the Opinion of The Revolution of Humane Souls into other Bodies, so frequently mentioned by C. P. as I know no Christian that holds it either as an Article of Faith, or Matter of Opinion, so I sin∣cerely declare, I neither hold it as an Article of my Faith, nor to much as a probable Opinion; for it is inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body after Death; but this Argument can have no weight with C. P. and his Brethren, who own not the Resur∣rection of the same Body for substance; nor did I think it a probable Hypothesis, as it is commonly supposed to have been held by Jews, Pythagorians, and Platonists. But whatever thoughts I had of the Do∣ctrine of the Revolution of Souls, as an Hypothesis (like Copernicus Hypothesis of the Earths Diurnal and Annual Motion) will a change of Mind in that respect prove me to be varied in a Fundamental Prin∣ciple of Christianty, as C. P. would fix it on me, seeing I never made it an Article of my Faith, as he has (I think) sufficiently cleared me?

There is but one Quotation more in all the Broad Sheet, call'd, The serious Call, that to the best of my Observation, in reading C. P.'s Book, I find he quarrels at, and accuseth us with false Quotation. And first, he tells, That we have wrong quoted the page, quoting Pag. 40, for p. 250. in Gr. Mystery. But let any look into D. Leed's Almanack, and they will find that D. L. has not quoted p. 40. but p. 250. Therefore in this, the false Quotation is his, not D. L's, And in all the Copies of the Serious Call, that I can meet with here, the page quoted is p. 250. and if it be otherwise in some printed Copies, it is but a Typographical Error, that doth not affect me, far less the eight Ministers. For whereas he blames us for leaving out the Word [And] before the following words, which had the Ministers and I omitted, it was no material Omission; but the word [And] in that place seems super∣fluous, as well as the following [And] when the whole Paragraph or Period is set down; but both the Ministers, and I, who sig••ed to my Third Narrative, p. 14. where this Quotation is, set the word And in its proper place, And the Devil was in thee, And thou saith, &c. But

let Us examine C P's Quotation, which is as follows, in his Book, p 13 〈…〉〈…〉 thy Book, stuffed with Lyes, Low thou hast been 〈…〉〈…〉 come out of thee, and the Devil was in thee. 〈◊〉〈◊〉, saith C. P. here is the end of that part of the Sentence. But let 〈…〉〈…〉 Person read the Passage in Gr. Myst. p 250 and he will find the contrary, that the words, And the Devil was in thee, are not the end of the fore-going Sentence, but the begin∣ning of the following; for before the words, And the Devil was in thee, there is a Semi-colon, thus [;] which divides it from the end of the fore-going words. And for the Readers satisfaction I shall set down the words, as pointed in Gr. Myst. p. 250 And thou hast shewed in thy Book, stuffed with Lyes, how thou hast been tormented, and of the filthy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 come out of thee; [Note here the Semi colon, which ends the first part of the Period; and then follows] And the Devil was in thee, and thou saith, thou art saved by Christ without thee, and so hast Recorded thy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to be a Reprobate; so it is pointed only with a Comma at the end of the words, the Devil was in thee. And tho' C. P. might excuse G F. for his Ignorance in Comma's and Semi colons, as well as in his Mother Tongue (for his Gr. Mystery is full of false English) yet the sence of the words fore-going and following do plainly demonstrate the dull fallacy of C P's Defence of G. F. But C. P. is yet more false in his false and unjust Accusation of Chr. Wade, as if C. W. did not believe the Do∣ctrine of Christ within, and affirmed, It was dangerous to preach Christ within Man. But C. P. has no evidence for this but G. F. who had falsly accused him in this, as in divers other things, and particularly G. F. accused C. Wade, That he denyed the Equality of the Son with the Father; which C. Wade in his Book, Quakery Slain, p 23, 24. proves to be a Lye in G. F. for he owned the Equality of the Son with the Father, but C W. clears himself, That he denyed the Equality of G F. and Crea∣ture adopted Sons wish the Father; A full account of this I have given in my 4th Narrative, p. 15 attested by five of the eight Ministers.

And that C. W. only denyed G. F's blasphemous Notion of Christ within, which was,That the Quakers had Christ in them, God and Man, FLESH and SPIRIT, and that Christs Flesh and Bone was a Measure in one, and a Measure in another; for which see Gr. Myst. pag. 246. But C. Wade hath fully cleared himself (against the false Accusation of G. F. That he owned Christ within, in the true sence of Scripture, to wit, as he was God, and one and the same God with the Father; see the words quoted at large in my 4th Narrative, p. 16.

Thus I have thought fit to answer what Caleb Pusey hath falsly and unjustly objected against the eight Ministers and Me, as touching the Quotations in the broad Shee••, as well as the Sheet it self, as it is corrected in several Thousand printed Copies, many of which are to be sold in Philadelphia and New-York, as well as the Third and Fourth Narratives, out of which those Quotations were taken, and which were attested by the eight Ministers, as they, stand in said Narratives, against which C. P. hath not made, nor can make the least Exception, being in said Narratives as C. P. has quoted them, or rather more fully. And 〈…〉〈…〉 C. P. nor any other Quaker so far as I have heard or read in any of their Books, have objected so much as the least wrong Quotation in any of the rest, either as to the Words or Pages of the Books, it may pass for an Authentick Confirmation, That all the Quotations in the said broad Sheet, call'd, The Serious Call, being at least Fifty in Number, are exactly true.

SECT. III.

BUt Caleb Pusey's next fallacious Evasion, is, to put such streigned and perverse Glosses on the words of the Quotations collected in the broad Sheet, as might seem to weak and inconsiderate Readers to be sound; and in this Undertaking he hath used the help of G. W. in some of his Sophistical Defences of himself and his Brethren, particu∣larly in his Book, called, Truth and Innocency. But I have so fully and amply detected his fallacious Methods in that Undertaking, as well as the Author of the Switch (whose help C. P. seems to have ••orrowed) in my several late Narratives, especially the Fourth Narrative, that to do it here again would seem to be superfluous. But to give the Reader a False in two Instances only at present, of C. Pusey's and G. Whiteheads deceitful way of defending their Brethrens Blasphemies. Whereas it is expresly said in Sa••l's Errand, p. 8. He that hath the same Spirit that raised up Jesus Christ, is Equal with God; To render this Orthodox, C. P. cites G. W's Truth and Innocency, p. 9, 10. thus defending it; The words (saith he) HE THAT HATH should be le••t out, as being contrary to G. F and our Principle. But that they were contrary to G. Fox or F. Howgil either, who defends the like Blasphemy, he has not given any real Proof. And at this rate, not only the highest Blasphemy and vilest Heresie, but Atheism it self may be defended by C. P. & G. W. for it is but to take away the words of any Sentence, that renders it

Blasphemous or Atheistical, as if one should say with the Fool in Psal. 14.1. There is not •• God, this Method of C. P. and G. W. doth excuse him, if admitted; for when any find fault with the Expression, it is but to tell them the word [Not] should be left out, and what remains is Orthodox. But why did not G. W. and C. P take the same Method to excuse the Blasphemy of Fr. Howgill, which hath been twice printed without any Correction, first in a Treatise by it self, and next in the Collection of his Works, Pag. 232. the words being charged thus, They that have the Spirit of God are Equal with God. F. Howgill denys not the words, nor doth he say, the word [They that have] must be left out; for then, being Pl••ral, the following 〈◊〉〈◊〉 would not be good Sense, i. e. The Spirit of God are Equal with God. But as George Whitehead had taken the liberty to say, He that hath, should be left out, he might with the like Confidence have said, the word [A••••] is to be left out, and the word [••••] put in its ••oom. Judge Reader what Jugling this would be, and what Jugling this Defence of C. P. & G. W. is, which ••ay excuse the worst of Heresies and Blasphemies. Now, as to Fr. Howgill's Distinction of Equal in Nature, but not in Stature, defended both by G. W. & C. P. let them take it either of the holy Spirit, or of Men who have the holy Spirit, it is still blasphe∣mous. If of the Holy Spirit, it is Blasphemous to say the holy Spirit is not equal to God in Stature, but in Nature; for there is no Distinction in God betwixt his Nature and Stature, and the Spirit of God is in all respects Equal with God; and it is no less blasphemous in G.W. & C.P. to say, Because the Saints are partakers of the holy Ghost, or of the divine Nature, that therefore they are Equal with God in Nature, but not in Stature; for they are no wise equal with God either in Nature or Stature.

The second Instance of C. P's as dull as fallacious ways of defending W. P. in his Proteus, pag. 31. The words of W. P. being in Serious Apology, p. 146. That the outward Person that suffered at Jerusalem was properly the Son of God, we utterly deny. C. P. saith, This hath been fully answered to other Adversaries. But I say, no otherwise than fully and fo••ly deceitful, even as C. P. laboureth to do it. He saith, W. P. meant it only of Christs outward Body. But how could he mean it only of that? was that Person only an outward Body? This is as great an Error as the former; for that very Person who suffered [at Jerusalem] was both God and Man, the Word incarnate, and not a Body abstractly.

as C. P. wordeth it, to wit, abstracted either from his Soul or from the eternal Word personally united with it. But as W. Penn did not believe that outward Person, that he was properly the Son of God, so nor did he believe that his outward Body was any part of him, so as in part to constitute him the full and entire Christ, as sufficiently is evi∣dent from W. P's dispute with John Fald••, in his Rejoynder to J. F. for about sixteen pages, viz. from p. 296. to p 312. And whereas in p. 269. he quotes J. F. saying, The Apostle Paul calls his and the Saints Bodies their Cloathing, 2 Cor 5. yet they were nevertheless a part of them∣selves. To this W. P. answers, A meer Rattle for Children! did the Body, God prepared for his Son to do his Will in, help to constitute him Christ, as much as the Apostles Body did help to constitute him Paul. And in p. 305. W. P. makes the Body o•• Christ to be Christ only, from that familiar Ʋsage o•• Speech, the thing contained for the thing containing. Note Rea∣der, this familiar usage of Speech is that called by Rhetoricians a Metonym••, as so indeed G. W. else where calleth it; and saith G. W. I distinguish betwixt Christs having Flesh and Bone, and Consisting of it; Which still is a vile Heresie; for tho' Christ, as he was God, and before his Incarnation, did not consist of Flesh and Bone, yet when he was Incarnate, it was a real part of him, as he was God and Man, and yet one Person, and he did consist of it, as well as of his reasonable Soul, as Man, respecting his Manhood, and of his Divinity considered as God. And it is very apparent, that C. P. is in the same Error with both W. P. and G. W. by his arguing, And was not he the Son of God, that was before Abraham was! And was not he glorified with the Father before the World began? But we do not read that the outward Body was before the World began, nor before Abraham. But to this dull Sophistry, I Answer, The Son of God, the true Christ was before Abraham, and before the World began; but he was not both God and Man, the Word Incarnate, before he took Flesh in the Virgins Womb; and Christ thus entirely considered, as both God and Man, is the entire and compleat Christ and Saviour, and therefore it is, that his Blood is called, The Blood of God, Act. 20.28. though this is denyed by G. W. as I have showed in my Narratives, as also, that he has denyed, that Christ hath a created Soul (see G. W's Divinity of Christ, 2d part, p. 18.) And I further prove, That G. W. in the same Book, p. 35. has denyed the Generation of the Son of God to be Eternal, or from Eternity, in answer to T. V. who did argue for the three Persons in the Godhead, from their

Personal Acts, John 14, 15▪ 16. Chapters. To this G. W. Replyes, Where doth the Scripture call them Personal Acts? Were they not Spiritual Acts of the divine Spirit and Power of God? And was there any Act but what was brought forth in Time? And was the Fathers begetting the Son a personal Act? However (saith he) was it not an Act in Time? If so, how says T. V. That the Generation of the Son must be Eternal? What distracted confused Work is here!

Judge Reader, if this Discourse of G. W. be not as plain a denyal of Christs Eternal Generation, and so of his being God equal with the Father, even as A••ius or any A••ian ever was guilty of. And thus, while G. W. their chief Apostle now living, has both denyed that Christ, as God, had an Eternal Generation, and that, as Man, he had not a created Soul, as above quoted, to speak with Reverence, he is, according to G. W. neither Ʋncreated nor Created, and consequently there is, according to him, No Christ at all; Not Ʋncreated, because whatever is Uncreated, was from Eternity; Nor Created, seeing he hath denyed that he hath a created Soul, or indeed any created Body, so much as in part to constitute him Christ.

It avails the Quakers nothing to say (though C. P. brings it up against me) That I defended G. F. and others of their Authors, in former times; for I had not in those days seen many of the Passages in their Books, which I have seen of late times, and some that I had seen, I had not well considered; but that ever I defended any of their Blasphemies or Fundamental Errors, or ever had any of them, I utterly Deny.

SECT. IV.

ANd this leads me to vindicate and clear my self from the Nine particular Fundamentals, wherein C. P. saith, I am varyed since I left the Quakers and joyned to the Church o•• England, which, I thank God, I can very clearly and easily do, as well as sincerely, notwith∣standing all the Dirt that C. P. hath cast upon me, which I can as easily shake off as St. Paul did the Viper.

The Nine Fundamentals charged, are as follow, viz.

First, The Necessity of Faith in Christ, as he outwardly suffered for us.

But I am not changed in this, in the least, I thank God; I hold still the same Fundamental, and he and they who hold it not to be a Fundamental of Christianity, are gone from Christianity to Heathenism.

But observe Reader, how he endeavours to convict me of Contradiction, for saying, The Express Knowledge and Faith of Christ, as he outwardly suffered, is necessary to the perfecting mens Salvation, who have it not before Death. I had sufficiently cleared my sense in my Book, called, The pretended Antidote, in answer to the Ministers in Boston, That such who have had an Implicit Faith in Christ here in this World, and not an Ex∣press Faith, for want of Opportunity to have it revealed, they shall have it in Heaven after this Life, for Then is mens Salvation perfected, and not till then. Whereupon these of Boston, or some of them, would infer upon me, I held a Purgatory, and as unjustly C. P. through his supine Ignorance, would infer upon me, That I am guilty of a Con∣tradiction; for Contradictories are neither in respect of differing Times, Places and States; and therefore this is no Contradiction.

And in p. 12 of his Proteus, he argues against my saying, That the term [Express] in one case, implyes [Implicit] in another, which he thinks to Refute thus, ••••at because I had affirmed, that Cornelius be∣fore Peter preached to him, had no Express Faith and Knowledge of Christ, that therefore, according to G. K. Cornelous had an Implicit knowledge and faith of Christ; and yet within a few lines after, I said, Cornelius had no knowledge nor faith of Christ crucified.

Answ. But this is no Contradiction; for Express and Implicit, tho' opposit Terms of Distinction, yet they are not Contradictory, no more than White and Black, Man and Beast are Contradictory. That Cornelius had no express faith of Christ before St. Peter preached it to him, will not prove either that Cornelius in his former state had or had not an implicit faith of Christ; for many Moral Gentiles neither have an express nor implicit faith of Christ; but whatever Faith of Christ any men have, it is either express or implicit, as every Annimal is either Man or Beast; but many things are neither.

The second Fundamental is, Of Christs subsisting of a reasonable Soul and Humane Flesh, according to the Athanasian Creed. But C. P. would have his Reader believe, I denyed this fundamental Article of the A∣thanasion Creed, because in one of my former Books (••ector Corrected, p. 27.) apologizing for G. F. or some of the Quakers, who denyed the humane Nature of Christ, as G. F. used to argue, Humane is Eart••ly, I boggled at the Term Humane, as not being express Scripture; but I was not aware in that day how G. F. and other Quakers deny••d the real

Manhood of Christ, consisting of a created Soul and Body, like to us in all things, sin excepted, which I ever believed while a Quaker; and I challenge C. P. or any whomsoever, to give the least Instance to the contrary. But is the Denyal of the Term Humanity or Humane, a fundamental Error in Christianity, while at the same time I owned the equivolent of it in true English, Latine and Greek, as Manhood and Manly in English, Vir, Virilis, Virilitas in Latine, and Anthropos, An∣thropinos in Greek? After I came to detect the Unsoundness of G. F. and G. W. their denying that Christ had any other Soul or Body that did constitute him Christ, but what was no real part of Mans 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Na∣ture, and having well considered, that if we reject the Term Humane, because coming from a word that signifies Earth, we should by the like reason refuse to call Christ the second Adam; for Adam comes from the Hebrew word that signifies Red Earth, and yet the Scripture calls Christ the second Adam, and we are warranted by Scripture so to do I can∣not find that G. F. owns any other Flesh of Christ, but what came down from Heaven, as I have noted in my 4th Narrative; but I always be∣lieved that Christ took real Flesh of the Virgins Substance, and had a real crated Soul, and was of the same Nature with all Mankind, but without all sin. But to say, The Soul of Christ did pre-exist (not from Eternity, but before its infusion in the Body, even from the beginning of time, (with which he chargeth me, when a Quaker) I never understood was reckoned a Fundamental Error by Orthodox Divines. Now E. Burro•• calls it Blasphemy to say, That Christ is in Heaven in our Nature, pag. 301, 306. of his Works. But W. Penn in his prim. Christianity, saith, That Christ took our Nature, and Triumphed in our Nature; which is a perfect Contradiction to Ed. Burroughs, unless that W. P. meant that Christ took the Quakers Nature, but not the Priests Nature, or the Nature of other Men. But if Christ had not taken the Nature of all Men, his Death for all Men had not been a sufficient Ransom. And as im∣pertinent is he in charging me with denying the Fundamental of Christs having the same Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones he had on Earth, be∣cause I said, It is no more a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, but a pure Aetherial, i. e. Heavenly Body; and yet in the same Book I plead, it is the same in Substance, though greatly changed in Condition and Qualities▪ and as I have else-where explained it, as in my Book, Errors Corrected, it is heavenly Flesh, being endued with heavenly Qualities, no more subject to Death and Hunger, Thirst, Sleep, &c. But I charge it on W. Penn

and R. Claridge, as also on C. Pusey (if he own their Doctrine) for a fundamental Error, in denying, that the Body of Christ in Heaven is the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Substance it was on Earth; which they both have denyed; and Christs glorified Body is not Flesh and Blood in that sence, 1 Cor. 15.50.

The Third Fundamental. Proteus, p. 14. The Light within.

This I still hold to be a Fundamental and Essential of Christian Reli∣gion, as really as Annimal is essential to the Definition of a Man, as really is the Light within, considered universally, essential to Chri∣stianity; but as Annimal is only the Genius, which constitutes not the Species of Mankind, without the specifical Difference b••twixt Men and Brutes, that is, Rationality: So the Universality of the Light, teach∣ing some Moral Duties to God and our Neighbour (but not faith in Christ crucified, which the special Light of Revelation gives, that's not Universal) doth not constitute Christianity in Specie, without the super∣added Light of special Revelation. And I charge the Quakers to Err Fundamentally, who hold with G F. G. W. and E. B. That the Light within every Man, or any Man, is sufficient to Salvation without any thing Else; Which was never my Faith or Perswasion; and I challenge any Man to prove it against me.

But, Reader, pray take Notice how these two Infallible Brethren, R. Claridge and C. Pusey contradict each other about the sufficiency of the Light. In some of my former Books I had distinguished betwixt what the Spirit of God can do by his absolute Omnipotency, and what he is pleased to do, according to the Method that his divine Wisdom hath appointed, and his divine Providence hath afforded of sufficiency of Helps to lead all Men into all Truth necessary to Salvation, without the holy Scriptures; I having affirmed the first, but denyed this last, as with respect to his ordinary way of Providence; the like or the same Distinction, in effect, C. P. useth in his Proteus, p. 5. of his Post-script, And also seeing (saith he) the Dabate is not about what God and Christ doth do, but what God and Christ IS sufficient to do. Here the Reader may see that C. P. seemeth to use the same Distniction I had used, in effect; for I never questioned, nor do question the sufficiency of God or Christ, what they can do, I have always acknowledged that God and Christ can and could have Taught all Men all that is sufficient to Salvation without the holy Scripture, and without all outward Mea••s and Helps of Instruction; but we find by Experience that he hath not

••o done, nor is it the revealed Will of God that ever he will so do 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Mankind, but the contrary, according to many places of Scripture, particularly Rom. 16.25, 26. And yet, for this my Distinction, which C. P. seems to have copied after me, R. Claridge doth severely blame and oppose me, pag. 15. of his Lux Evang. attest. That is opposeth the Attributes of Gods Omnipotency and Wisdom, and sets them, as it were, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 variance. And if I be guilty of this Charge, so is his Brother C. Pusey. But leaving these two infallible Brethren to reconcile the matter be∣tween themselves, which will be hard, nay, impossible for them to do, I say, it no more opposeth Gods Omnipotecny and Wisdom, than when Christ said, Mat. 26.53, 54. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve Legions of Angels; but how then shall the Scriptures be fullfilled, that thus it must be? Here it is plain, that both Christ and God could have done what they did not, and what their Wisdom thought fit not to do. And many such Cases might be instanced, none of which doth oppose the Attributes of the divine Wisdom and Omnipotency; for when we say, God can do this or that, which his Wisdom thinks not fit to do, we abstract, by a mental Abstraction, from Gods secret Decrees, and also from his Revealed Will delivered us in the holy Scriptures, but respect∣ing them, it is most true, that God cannot any wise contradict his Will either secret or revealed. And it being Gods revealed Will that we should obtain Salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ who dyed for us, and by his Death, Blood and Passion, Resurrection, &c. which are something else than the Light within, taken in the highest sence; and therefore I still say, The Light within,(call it God, or Christ (as God) in a figu∣rative sence, by a Metonyme, as when David said, The Lord is my Light and Salvation, i. e. the Author both of my Light and of my Sal∣vation, yet) it is not sufficient to Salvation without the Manhood of Christ, and his Death and Sufferings, Resurrection, &c. for neither God nor Christ can contradict the Revealed Will of God, which is, not to save us (1 Thes 5 9, 10) without the Death and Resurrection &c. of Christ, but by it, with other concurring Causes and Means, all in excellent Harmony. And though it is not Gods Revealed Will to teach all Man∣kind all that is needful to their Salvation, by any Light within them, without the holy Scriptures, or some outward Means of Instruction equivolent, yet we know not but some he may teach so, as he taught Adam and the first Prophets, who had none before them. Again, it is

one thing to say, God by his internal Word or Light can teach, or is sufficient to teach Us and all Men what is Necessary to Salvation, if he had so pleased; but we find he hath not been pleased so to do; And it is far another thing to say, God or Christ in Men is sufficient to Salva∣tion without any thing else; for this placeth mens Salvation wholly upon God and Christ as within men, and wholly excludes the Manhood of Christ, and all that he hath done and suffered for us, and his Medi∣ation in Heaven, from being concerned in our Salvation, as any neces∣sary cause thereof. And indeed, as this was the chief Difference be∣twixt the Quakers and me here at Philadelphia, about eleven years ago, so I find it hath been the chief Difference betwixt the Quakers and all Orthodox Christians who have opposed them. And it is a palpable Contradiction in C. P. as well as in G. W. and many others of the Quakers, to say, The Light within is sufficient to Salvation without any thing else, and yet to say, Not without respect to Christ considered as he suffered and dyed for us; for if that respect be absolutely necessary, it necessarily infers, that the Light within is not sufficient to Salvation without Christs Death and Suffering, &c. and if they mean, it hath a respect to the same, but not an absolutely necessary respect to Christ as he came outwardly and dyed for us, &c. they still cheat all that hear them as well as their own Souls; for in so doing, they make the Light within the intire compleat Saviour and Christ, and Christ God-Man without us meerly Accessary, and at least but Necessary to the facilitating our Sal∣avtion, but not to the very being of it, or rather indeed not at all neces∣sary, so much as to facilitate it; for if the Light within be the entire Christ and Saviour, it were a much more easie way to obtain Salvation by Obedience to the Dictates of the Light within only, than by Faith and Obedience to all the positive Precepts of Christ in the Scripture, as well as to the Dictates of the true Light within.

But whereas C. P. labours to prove me at variance with the Mini∣sters of Norfolk about the Light within, his labour is vain; they say nothing in derogation from the true Light within, but from the Notion of it as taught and held by the Quakers, which is indeed so very false, that their Notion o•• it may be and is justly called Ig••is Fatuus, or what other Names they give it, even as our Saviour called the false Light that the Pharisees and Jew-set up in then (in Opposition to Christ and his Gospel) Darkness But let us examine and discover R. Claridge his so∣phistical Syllogism he useth to prov That in Gods Ordina••y way the Light

within is sufficient to lead and guide the faithful into all Truth necessary to their Salvation, without the holy Scriptures, Lux Evang. attest. p. 18, 19. His Syllogism or Argument is this, Christ is Gods ordinary way of Salva∣tion, And the Light within is Christ, &c.

Answ. Christ is Gods ordinary way of Salvation, not as within only nor as God only, but as both God and Man, and as revealed to us in the holy Scriptures, as well as inwardly enlightning us; but in this sence the Minor or Assumption of his Syllogism is altogether false; for the Light within is not Christ, as both God and Man, and as he is revealed in the holy Scripture, our Prophet, Priest and King without us. Thus it appears his Syllogism or Argument is a meer Sophism and Fallacy.

The Fourth Fundamental he saith, is of Perfection.

But I no where remember that ever I called it a Fundamental Do∣ctrine of Christianity to assert a sinless Perfection in this mortal Life to any of the Saints; or if I did it will not therefore follow, that it is a Fundamental, or that I am obliged to hold it to be a Fundamental; for instead of thinking it to be Fundamental Doctrine of Christianity, to assert a sinless Perfection in this Life, I think it is an Error to assert it, though not a fundamental Error, so long as I did not believe I had attained it, as I never did, nor did I ever know a Person that I thought had attained a sinless Perfection among the best Quakers that ever I con∣versed with; but I still hold both Perfection and Freedom from sin at∣tainable (and attained in this Life by many) in Scripture sense, as I have explained it in my answer to R. Bar••lay's Apology. And seeing C. P. thought to press me so hard with his Consequences to own the Revolu∣tions (but without all success) let me press him and his Brethren a little from his and his Brethrens Doctrine of a sinless Perfection, not only at∣tainable in this Life, but absolutely Necessary to be obtained by every one be∣fore Death, otherwise they cannot immediately after Death go to Heaven, as they commonly teach. Now, it is most certain, that many of their Friends have dyed, and had not obtained this sinless Perfection before their Death, but were very far 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of it, even as far as many others, and much f••rther, having dyed in great Error, sinful Ignorance, much Ʋncharitableness and spriritual Pride and I think C. P will scarce dare to affirm That all his deceased Brethren before Death were arrived at a sin∣less Perfection; I Query therefore, as the Quakers use to argue against their Opponents) Whither are thy gone? Not to Heaven, nor to

Hell, Nor to Purgatory, they will or much say, by their own Argument, for they do not profess to believe a Purgatory; what then remains, by ••. Pusey's and his Brethrens way of arguing, but that the Souls of his Brethren that dyed, before they had attained to a sinless Perfection, must needs Revolve into other Bodies, in order to attain to a sinless Perfection? I am sure this Consequence is more necessary and proper against C. P. and his Brethren, for the Revolutions, than any argument he hath used against me, to infer them, from any words or passages i•• my former Books. This is an Argument ad Hominem.

The Fifth Fundamental, he saith, is concerning Prayer.

But I do not remember that ever I asserted, That the Difference betwixt my Perswasion and the Church of England, about Prayer, as whe∣ther in the extempore way, or by set Forms,) was a fundamental point of Difference; and had I thought so then, it will not follow, that it was a real Fundamental, or that I am obliged now to think it so. But I suppose the fallacy of C. P. lieth here, that because in a Book which was printed with my Name, stiled, The fundamental Truths of Christianity, there was a small Treatise added concerning Prayer, pleading for Pray∣ing by the Spirit, without set Forms; but that Treatise had nothing to do with the Title of the Book, and many years ago, I declared in print, that I never gave it that Title, the Book being printed, and the Title and Preface added by a Person in England without my know∣ledge, while I was in America; and so soon as I saw the Book, I cor∣rected the Title with my Pen, thus Some fundamental Truths (which Title wholly belonged to the first part, as the Book will show, which yet proves not, that I reckoned every thing in that part •• Fundamental, no more than if I should say, There are some or many Quakers in Phi∣ladelphia, that therefore there are none else in i•• but Quakers.

The Sixth and Seventh Fundamental he gives, are aginst S••••aring and paying Tythes.

Answ. But this fallacy depends on the same false Foundation with the former, that because perhaps both are mentioned in that called, Some Fundamentals, (for I have not the Book by me, and I do not well remember the Contents) therefore I h••ld, not swearing and not pay∣ing Tythes to be fundamental Doctrines of Christianity, which I can safely say, I never did; for if I had I behoved to think, that all who

did either Swear or pay Tythes erred fundamentally, and so were in •• state of Damnation; which I was far from thinking; for I was more Charitable, as my Books writ, when I was under the Profession of a Quaker, ••an show.

The Eighth Fundamental he chargeth on me, is about the Three Per∣sons, which I formerly opposed, and now I own.

But this is as dull Sophistry as a••y of the former. I never disputed against, nor opposed any of the substantial Doctrines concerning the holy Trinity, but only boggled at the Terms Three Persons, being led into that Error by the Quaker-Teachers, who cryed out against them, as not being express Scripture; but I had not then discovered the My∣stery of Iniquity that was in these false Teachers, who under a pretence of but disowning the Terms, disowned the whole Mystery it self, which I never did; for I can sufficiently prove I owned that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were Three from all Eternity, destinct by their Incommu∣nicable relative Properties, and but One in Essence; and that the Son had an Eternal Generation, and that the holy Ghost did from Eternity proceed from the Father and the Son; that neither the holy Ghost nor the Father was incarnate and made Man, but only the Son, as appears from my Book, called, The Way cast up, and that other, in defence of it, call'd, The true Christ owned. Now where the whole Doctrine is own'd and only the Terms of Three Persons scru••led at, no charitable and ju∣dicious Persons will call this a Fundamental Error, though an Error it is, and too great an Error also, as too many others were that I held. But that the chief Authors and Writers of the Quakers (and par∣ticularly G F. G. W. F. H. & W. P.) erred in the substantial parts of the Doctrine of the holy Trinity, and therefore erred fundamentally, I have effectually proved in my fourth Narrative, from p. 28, to pag. 36. to which I refer the Reader [Any who desires to have the use of it, or of all my five Narratives may have them in the Librarys belonging to the Churches of New York and Philadelphia.] And for a further Instance that W. Penn hath erred fundamentally, in the Doctrine of the holy Trinity, he thus argues in his S••ndy Foundation, p. 14 For if that the only God is the Father, and Christ be that only God, then is Christ the Father. So if that one God be the Son, and the Spirit that one God, then is the Spirit the Son, and so round. Here it is evident, that he concludes, that Christ is the Father, and the Spirit is the Son, which is a fundamental Error,

and being received, Overthrows the Christian Faith. But his Argu∣ment is a meer Sophism and Fallacy, and proves him as ignorant in true Logick, as he is in true Divinity▪ for his Syllogism has four Terms in it, contrary to that Infallible Rule in true Logick, That every true Syllogism ought to have but three Terms, and each of these three terms ought to have but one Signification in both Propositions, other∣wise the Terms are four, or more, and not three; whereas the middle term, That one God, in the first Proposition, signifies the Father; but in the second Proposition it has another signification, and signifies the Son. For tho' the One God is the Father, yet that one God is not the Father Only, but also the Son and holy Ghost; and therefore to make his Syllogism in due form, it should be thus,

The One God is the Father, the Son and the holy Ghost. The Son is the One God; Therefore the Son is the Father.

Here it is evident, that the One God, in the first Proposition, signifies all the Three, but in the second Proposition, it signifies only the Son; therefore, as I have said, the Syllogism hath four Terms, and is a meer Sophism and Fallacy. If this detection of W. P's Sophism exceed the Millers (viz. C. Pusey's) capacity, I am not to be blamed, but he must blame himself for medling in a matter that he doth not understand; for I write not this Observation to him, but to them who can understand it; and as the Shoe-maker should not go beyond his Last, so by as good Reason this Miller should not go beyond his Mill, unless he was a good Logician, as well as a Miller. He has charged me in his Proteus with several Contradiction, which only his Ignorance, assisted with his Malice, hath prompted him to do; for he little better understands the true nature and properties of a Contradiction than the Mill-stones of his Mill do. But however short he is in true knowledge either in Na∣turals or Spirituals, he as much abounds in Uncharitableness, and most uncharitable and bitter Expressions, notorious Falshoods, Lyes and Slanders, as is obvious to any that reads his Book. And I intend to give, at the end of this Treatise, a List of some of the most notorious Falshoods in his Book, beside what are given already, and may further be given.

The Nineth Fundamental C. P. chargeth me to have varied in, Pro∣teus, p. 18. is about the Resurrection, That whereas formerly I deny••d the

Priests carnal Notions of it, in my Book, called, The Pres. and Independ. vis. Churches, I must now be one with them that hold those carnal Con∣ceptions.

Answ. This proves no Change in the Fundamental of the Resurrec∣tion; for he who believes the Resurrection of the same Body for sub∣stance, that the Soul lived in on Earth, though he hold it carnally and grosly, cannot be said to deny the Fundamental of the Resurrection. But what I said in that Book was not to the Ministers of the Church of England, but to Presbyterians and Independents of New-England, who I then thought held the Resurrection of the Body too grosly and carnally; but I know none at present of the Ministers of the Church of England with whom I differ about the Doctrine of the Resurrection: As some have erred in holding the Resurrection too carnally and grosly, so others may have erred in having a wrong Notion of it spiritually, so as to turn it all to meer Spirit; neither of which Extreams (I think) I am not guilty of.

But this C. P. who neither believes the Resurrection nor understand what a Contradiction is, yet abounds with his charging me with new Contradictions about the Resurrection, even when I was under the Pro∣fession of a Quaker, but the Contradiction is only lodged in his own con∣fused Brain; as if it were a Cantradiction to say, The Mortal and Cor∣ruptible puts on Immortality and Incorruption at the Resurrection; and to say, That which riseth neither consumes in the Grave nor corrupteth. But this is no Contradiction, any more in me than in St. Paul, who hath said, This Mortal shall put on Immortality, and this Corruptible shall put on In∣corruption; and yet the same St. Paul compares the Body that dyeth and riseth again to a grain of Corn, that though it corrupteth in one sense, yet it corrupteth not in another. It so far corrupteth, that by its Corruption, the Seminal substance in the Grain is loosed, and as it were set at liberty from the Husk or drossy part, that kept it, as it were in Prison, which Seminal substance corrupteth not, i. e. it is not lost nor perished, for it becomes a Saminal Principle to a new Generation, and therefore it is not lost nor perished; for if it were lost and perish∣ed in the ground, where it was ••own, it could never rise.

The large Quotation he gives out of my Book, called, The correction of Errors, or Truth advanced, pag 115, 116, 117. as concerning the Manner of the Resurrection, and some Circumstantial Points about it, whether true or false, I think not C. P. (for his great Ignorance) a

Person proper to dispute with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 about them; for his extream Igno∣rance makes him a continual Wrangler; I had said enough in my Book, called, ••••••••-christ and Sadduces, writ against him some years ago, sufficiently to convince him of his vile Heresie and Unbelief, both about the Resurrection, and other things therein contained. There is no judicious and impartial Person that r••ads what I have said in the pages quoted by C. P. in that Book, and else-where in the other pages on that Head, that will charge me with denying the Resurrection of the Body, though perhaps judicious and impartial Persons may differ from me about some Circumstances of it, and yet both they and I well agree about the Fundamental Doctrine of the Resurrection. For I having again and again asserted in that very Book the Resurrection of the same Body for Substance, that is, the true Body of Man that dyeth, leaving nothing behind but Dross and Corruption, that is no more any real part of the true Body, than the Dross in Gold Oar is a part of the true Body of Gold, No Man but such who is as Ignorant and full of Prejudice as C. P. can charge me with denying the Fundamental of the Resur∣rection; whereas Ca. Pusey and his Brethren are justly chargeable with Denying the Fundamental of the Resurrection, if they be of their Brother R. Claridge's mind, That neither the Body of Christ now in Heaven, nor the Bodies of the Saints at the Resurrection are the same in Substance with what they were on Earth. This is a full and absolute Denyal of the Resurrec∣tion; for if the Substance is gone of any Body, nothing of it can re∣main; and to say that Accidents can remain without a Substance, is a great part of the Popish vile Error about Transubstantiation. But be∣cause I quoted Job 28.6. compared with Rev. 21.21. where mention is made of Gold, in a figurative sense, that to render my words Ridi∣culous, he questions me, Whether the Body at the Resurrection is to be made of Golden Dust, as vulgarly understood? Whereas it is obvious to every Vulgar Capacity, that I understood it not in a Vulgar Sense, but in a Metaphorical, of which there are frequent Instances and Examples in Scripture. He might as well, in his scoffing Spirit, ask, Whether the White Robes, mentioned Rev. 6.11. were White Robes, as vulgarly understood.

And because I had said in that Book, That many of the dear Children of God never had an outward and visible Se••ulchre, he concludes that there∣fore I hold no Resurrection but what is within [Men] or at least whe∣ther I can be clear of such a Notion, as to hold only the Resurrection

within men? O the so••tish Blindness of this Caleb Pusey! as if no∣thing that is of an invisible and inward Nature and Property, can be any where but Within Men. The words Invisible and Inward in the case being of the same Signification. Is not the Body of Gold, that lies in the impure Oar o•• Mineral, invisible and inward, in respect of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that vails and hides it? and the like of the other Mettals. But are all the Mettals no where but within Men? What if I should tell him the Bodily Substance of his Mill-stones is invisible and inward, as indeed every Bodily Substance is invisible and inward, in respect of the visible and sensible Accidents that are inherent in them, and are as it were, the outward Garment; doth it therefore follow, that his Mill-stones are within him? I beg my Readers leave for tempting his Pa∣tience to read such Ignorant Objections answered, therefore shall say no more upon this Head, nor any more upon any other so charged by him; for it is enough.

In pag. 27. C. P. taking it for granted, That he has proved me varied in all those Nine Fundamentals above charged, and therefore thinks he can, to a Demonstration, prove me an Apostate from my own Definition of an Apostate, that is, a Person who has changed from one or more true Fundamentals of Christianity. But by that Definition which I adhere to, I form the contrary Argument,

He who cannot prove me varied in one Fundamental of true Chri∣stianity, cannot prove me an Apostate,

But Caleb Pusey cannot prove me varied so much as in one Funda∣mental, and his labour to do it, has been in vain,

Therefore he has not proved, nor can prove me an Apostate from true Christianity.

But that he thinks it gravels me so much to be called an Apostate by him and his Brethren, he and they are greatly Mistaken; I am sorry indeed for their Ignorance and Prejudice against me, on their own ac∣count; but since I have the Testimony of a good Conscience, and the Spirit of God bearing witness with and in my Conscience that I am No Apostate, but a True Christian, having the true Christian Faith, which (I thank God) I feel to be lively and operative in me, I rejoyce to suffer Reproaches for Christs sake, believing the Truth of his Pro∣mise, That such are blessed, and shall be blessed.

I grant, I had too many Errors when I was under the Profession of a Quaker, which through Gods Mercy and Grace I have renounced and

Retracted, which makes me a better Christian than I was, and notworse, but I am not conscientious that I held any Errors denying any Fun∣damental of Christianity, nor have I found any that has proved it against me. That Contradictions may be found in some of my former Books is probable, though I think I was less guilty of that than many or most Quaker Wriaers. But a man may be guilty of twenty Contra∣dictions in points Circumstantial and remote from Fundamentals. And suppose in my former Ignorance I held some things to be fundamental, or which the Quakers thought so, and which they still think so in their Ignorance and erring Minds, and now I think them not fundamental, this will not prove me changed in any true Fundamentals. For it is not what men think to be Fundamental, that is always so, but what men think so from the certain knowledge they have that they are so, by warrant from the holy Scriptures. Nor hath C. P. any advantage against me that he taketh Notice, That I have freely acknowledged, that I as well as R. Barclay have said and writ many things repugnant and con∣tradictory to true Principles and Fundamentals of Christianity, at least Indi∣rectly and Consequentially; for no Man can be justly charged by indirect and remote Consequences, that may be drawn from rash and inconsider∣ate Expressions that may fall from his Pen, that therefore he denys the Principles that those indirect and remote Consequences are repugnant unto, unless he himself see the necessary tendency of those Consequen∣ces; and that this ought not to be charged upon men that hold the Principles, to which they seem Repugnant, is the Judgment of all sound and judicious Persons.

In his following part of his Book, he calls, Some few more Instances, &c. I find nothing New that is worth Observation, but what I have already sufficiently answered unto, except that I have Retracted my Errors in what I had said or printed against Baptism and the Supper, and some of those many things that I had Retracted in part, some years ago, upon true Conviction and clear Illumination, which he Ignorantly as much as Malitiously calls, my Sayings and Gain sayings, i. e Contra∣dictions. But what a man Retracts of his former Errors, in so doing he is not chargeable with Contradictions; for he only is guilty of Con∣tradictions that at one and the same time holds Contradictory Propo∣sitions to be true, which I have not done; and indeed no man can be∣lieve real Contradictories, no more than he can believe that a part is equal to the whole.

But seeing C. P. will needs have it so, that by my ••oyning in Doctrine and Faith, as well as in Practice, with the Church of England, I have departed not only from one, but a great many true Fundamentals of Christianity, and that consequently I am an Apostate, and No Christian. This must needs infer that the Church of England, as it is now establish∣ed, is guilty of denying all those Fundamentals which he chargeth me to deny, and to have departed from, which I held while I was under the Profession of a Quaker, and consequently that the Quakers Funda∣mentals in as many things as he chargeth me with, are directly Contra∣dictory to the Fundamental Principles of the Church of England. But how doth this agree with what many Quakers have said, of late, yea, and some of their Authors, who are of Note among them, That the People called Quakers differ not in Fundamentals from the Church of Eng∣land, in matters of Faith; and especially W. Pen saith, in his answer to the Bishop of Cork, to this effect, That he and his Friends agree with the Church of England in all her Articles, excepting a few concerning the Sa∣craments, and Church Discipline and Government, or such other as are not Fundamental; To this effect, I think, he hath confessed; I have not his Book by me, but, I think, I have given in effect the sense of his words, whether he meant sincerely or not, I am not concerned at present to enquire. Besides, many of the Quakers at present have confessed, That they own all or most of the Articles of the Apostles Creed, and if leave be given them to put their sence upon them, they say, they will own them all; and they say, There is no Fundamental Article of the Christian Faith either in the Apostles Creed, or any where in Scripture, but they own, as well as the Church of England; and particularly W. Penn hath told us in his Key, They own the Scripture Trinity; and to be sure the Church of England owns no other: But how insincere he is in this, his Sandy Foundation is a standing Witness. And if Joseph W••yeth in his Switch is to be belived, and I think C. P. doth believe him, The Quakers differ little or nothing at all in Doctrine from the Church of England about the Trinity, except as to the words Three Persons, which if true, can be no fundamental Error; but however C. P is bound to believe him, and I am not bound so to do, as I do not; but I argue only Ad Hominem with C. P if he have so much Sense and Learning to know what an Argument ad Homi∣nem is, viz. that which binds my Adversary, but not Me; and such is the late Policy or Craft of the more crafty sort of Quakers, especially the Teachers, that were it not for the standing Quotations in their

printed Books, that witness against them, they could hardly be con∣vinced that they differ in one Fundamental, and perhaps scarce in any other Article of Faith, that is extra-Fundamental. Now if the Quakers and their Writers agree with the Church of England in all Fundamentals according to W. P. and others of their Authors, then I think it will follow, That when I was a Quaker, and a great Writer for them, as they say, (and my Books in print generally approved by them, before they were printed) that I agreed in Fundamentals with the Church of England as much as they [still I argue ad hominem] and seeing I now also agree with the Church of England in Fundamentals, and have sub∣s••ri••ed my assent & consent to the Thirty Nine Articles, this C.P. must be very injurious to me, to charge me that I have departed from any Fun∣damentals, either of Quakers or Church of England, seeing, according to W. P. they are one in Fundamentals. But if C. P will differ from his Brethren in this, and particularly from W. Penn, That the Quakers differ from the Church of England in Fundamentals, and that therefore G. K. is an Apostate, I Query then, What must all Persons of the Church of England be, with whom G. K. is one in Doctrine and Reli∣gion, (Our gracious Queen Anne not excepted, and all other the most Virtuous Persons of that Church) but No true Christians at best? But will C. P.'s Distinction that he gives in his Book, pag. 46. betwixt the Queens Religion and Christian Clemency, resolve the Question? I say, Nay; for whoever have not the true Christian Religion, have no Christian Vertue, and consequently nor Christian Clemency, which is a great Chri∣stian Vertue. Persons who have not the Christian Religion, may have Moral Virtues, and among the rest that of Clemency, but these Moral Vertues, in Persons who have not the Christian Faith, such as the Moral Heathens, are not Christian Virtues, but widely differing, because not springing from a Christian Root and Principle, nor regarding the great Object of the Christian Religion, the Root of all the Christian Vertues being Faith in Jesus Christ, considered as God and Man, &c. the great End and Object being the Glory of God, not only in the Work of Crea∣tion, but also and most especially and chiefly in the Work of our Re∣demption.

But to go round again, both according to W. Penn and G. Whitehead, as well as many other Quakers, the Religion of Moral Gentiles and the Religion of the best True Christians, differ not in kind or specie, but are one and the same, as I have sufficiently proved out of their Books,

in my five Narratives, and particularly W. P. in his Quakerism a New Nick-Name, p. 6. doth greatly blame them who make a Distinction be∣twixt Moral and Christian; and therefore, according to him; every Moral Heathen, Turk or Jew, is a Christian, and the Religion of Hea∣thens, Jews and Turks is all one with Christians, the One Fundamental Principle thereof is the Light Within, as W. P. and they say; and whose Religion is one, their Fundamentals are one, for one and the same Religion cannot have differing and contradictory Fundamentals in differing Persons; and therefore not one of the Nine Fundamentals above charged against me by C. P. nor any other Fundamentals but what are commonly received by Jews, Heathens and Turks, who are Moral persons, are Fundamentals of Christianity, and consequently (on supposition that I denyed all other Principles but what are com∣mon to all Moral Jews, Heathens and Turks) I am No Apostate, by W. P. G. W. and C. P. but as good a Christian in Principle and Do∣ctrine as any of them; and for my Practice I may compare with the best of them, I bless God. And so much for my Arguments ad Hominem.

But to make it appear that I am a true Christian, as really now as when under the Profession of a Quaker [and a much better Christian now] it is generally agreed among all true Christians, That the A∣postles Creed, for the Simpliciter Credenda, contains all the Fundamentals of Faith; The Ten Commandments (respecting what is Moral in the fourth contain all the Fundamentals of Practice, for the Agenda; and the Lords Prayer, contains all the Fundamentals for Devotion and Worship, being used in Faith, and in the Name of our blessed Medi∣ator, and through him, by the help of the holy Spirit, in respect of the Pretenda; and all this I held sincerely when I was under the Pro∣fession a Quaker, and endeavoured to practise accordingly, as well as to believe and worship God and Christ in Truth and Reality. And all this I continue still to do, and much more abundantly, with several other things, at least of Practice, I now own, that then through my sinful Error, I omitted and opposed, such as Baptism and the Lords Supper. And whereas when under the Profession of a Quaker I was guilty of a sinful Seperation from the Church, as well as divers other erronious Practices, as the Quakers now generally are; but now I am joyned to the Church, & have reformed what was Erronio••s in Practice, in the judgment of all true Christians, I am a true Christian still, and am not departed from one Fundamental of true Christianity, by leaving

the Quakers and joyning with the Church of England. But if I have departed from Principles of Quakers, which either they or I h••ld Fundamentals, but were no real Fundamentals of Christianity, but Dr••ss and Rubbish built on the true Foundation, this will not me prove all Apostate from Christianity, but only from the Dross and Dregs of Qua∣kerism, or what is worse; and ••et them call me so, if they will, in that sense; for we find in Scripture the word to Apostate, according to the Greek, used in a good Sense, Whoever ••••mes the Name of Christ, let him depart frrm Iniquity; The Greek word here is [Ap••steta] i. e. let him Apostate from Iniquity.

SECT. V.

THere now remain only two things that I think material to clear, and after that to give the List I promised.

The one is, My charging the Quaker Magistrates in Pennsilvania to be guilty of Persecution, in their proceedings against me at Philadelphia, in the year 1692. and that not only a little, as their Fineing me five Pounds in their Court at Philadelphia, for calling S. Jenings an Ignorant, Presump∣tuous and Insolent Man, and being too high & impe••ious in Worldly Courts, and which hath been sufficiently known. Whereas much harder and more severe Names were given by W. Penn to the Mayor of London and the Justices at the Sessions in the Old Baily, London, above twenty years past, as witness his and W. Mead•• printed Tryal; which, to be sure, neither W. P. nor any of the Quakers, judged a breach of any just Law in him so to do. And the like Instances may be found in G. P.'s Journal, of giving more hard and severe Names to some in Commission of the Peace in England; and if G. F had been ••ined for this, it would have been judged by the Quakers to be Persecution; and therefore was this of the Quakers against me, Persecution. But this was little to what I shall hereafter show.

After Twenty eight Quaker Preachers had given forth a formal Sen∣tence of Excommunication against me at Philadelphia, without any hear∣ing, tryal or conviction, for my Opposing their vile Errors,I appeal∣ed to their next yearly Meeting, that was to be at Burlington in Septem∣ber, 1692. which Appeal was printed, and many of them yet to be produced, which contained Twelve Queries, the foul last of which did so offend the Quaker Magistrates and Justices, that they publish••d a Proclamation against me, without all calling me before them, to con∣vict

me, and caused it to be published at the Market-place in Philadel∣phia, 27 August, 1692. and afterwards posted it up against me before S. Jening's Door.

Now that the ground of this Offence may appear altogether Unjust, upon the Quakers Principle, I will here set down the sum and substance of those four Articles for which they pretended their Offence, and they are as followeth, viz.

The Nineth Query,

Whether the Twenty eight Judges had not done much better to have past Judgment on some of their Brethren, who hired men to fight, and recover a Sloop (that was stollen) by force of Arms, and some of them, being Justices, gave a Commission so to do?

The Tenth Query.

Whether to hire Men thus to fight, and also to provide the Indians with Powder and Lead to fight against other Indians, be not a manifest Trans∣gression of our (the Quakers) Principle against all Ʋse of the Carnal Sword and other carnal Weapons?

The Eleventh Query.

Whether it be according to the Gospel, that Ministers should pass Sentence of Death on Malefactors, as some pretended Ministers here have done?

The Twelfth Query.

Whether there is any Example or President for it in Scripture, or in all Christendom, that Ministers should engross the Worldly Government, as they do here, which hath proved of a very ill Tendency?

For these four above-said Querys, they gave out, as is said, their Proclamation against me, signed by three of their Ministers, who were also Justices, viz. Arthur Cook, Robert Ewer and Samuell Jenings, and other two, viz. Arthur Cook, Robert Ewer and Samuell Jenings, and other two, viz. Samuell Richardson & Anthony Morris, wherein, among other cruel and and unjust Aggravations, they say, Yet we cannot, with∣out Violation of our Trust to the King and Governour, as also to the Inhabi∣tants of this Government, pass by or connive at such part of the said Pam∣phlet and Speeches, that have a tendency to Sedition and Disturbance of the Peace, as also to the Subversion of the present Government. And in their Mittimus to send two Men to Prison, for spreading and uttering the said Appeal, they call it, A Malitio••s and Seditious Paper, tending to the Disturbance of the Peace and Subversion of the present Government. And they further say in their said Proclamation, We have thought fit by this publick Writing, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 only to signifie, that our procedure against the Persons

now in the Sheriffs Custody, as wed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 what we INTEND against others concerned in its proper place, respects only that part of the said printed Sheet, which appears to have the tendency aforesaid, and not to any part relating to Differences in Religion.

Here Note, First, These others were G. Keith, T. Budd, G. Hutchinson, and three more, six in all, who signed that printed Sheet.

Secondly, That this Prosecution that they intended against us, was quite another thing than the Tryal that G. K. and T. B. had at the Ses∣sions in Philadelphia, December 1692. and on quite another account th••n 〈◊〉〈◊〉 calling S. Jenings, (in our printed Book, called, The Plea of the Innocent) an Ignorant Insolent Man, &c. as above-said.

Thirdly, That to clo••k their Spirit of Persecution, they say, What they intend against other concerned, in its proper place, &c. respects not any part relating to Differences in Religion; Whereas what they intended against us was wholly and only relating to Differences in Religion, as the words of the Queries above-quoted do plainly prove. For what I writ, and we all six signed, in the printed Sheet, called, An Appeal, was because that we found that the Quakers who had hired men to fight, and did pass Sentence of Death on Malefactors, had trespassed their own professed Principle, especially as to fighting, which the Quakers generally have professed to deny, so much as in Self-Defence, and con∣sequently not to defend themselves against Robbers and Murtherers by any Carnal Weapons, and therefore not by Gibbots or Gollows. And whatever our Adversaries thought in the case, it was a matter of Re∣ligion to us, at that time, in no case to use a carnal Weapon. And that this was the Principle of G. F. and the Quakers in general, appears not only from R. B's Apol. Thes. 15. §. 15. but by the Quakers printed Declaration presented to K. Charles, 1660. signed by G. F. and eleven more of their Number, most of them great Preachers and Authors, and there they expresly say, We have used no Force nor Violence against any Man, &c. When we have been wronged, We have not sought to Revenge our selves. Judge Reader, if these above-mentioned Persons, Quaker Justices in Philadelphia, who not only fined some of us, and put some of us into Prison, but intended the highest Rigor and Severity against us, that they thought they could act (so far as they had any colour or pre∣tence of Law to defend them) did not transgress this printed Decla∣ration of G F. and eleven more at London? Did not the Quakers use Force and Violence against us, when they cast some of us into Prison,

and ••ind us? And did they not declare their Violent Intention against us, especially T. B. and My self, when in their Proclamation they tell the World, They intend to proceed against us, for that part of the printed Sheet above quoted, that they have charged to be a Malitious and Sedi∣tious Paper, tending to the Disturbance of the Peace, and Subversion of the present Government? In pursuance of which their cruel and bloody Intention, some Moneths after T Budd and I were presented by a grand Jury of Quakers, Alexander Beardsly being Fore-man, for trespassing that Fundamental Law in the Province, made by the Assembly held at New-Castle, May 10. 1684. and that very day that the Grand Jury presented us, it was told and reported over the Town of Philadelphia, and some of my Friends came and told me of it, how T. Budd and I were to be tryed at the next Court for the breach of the above-said Law, which was construed by many, as well as by me, that they would make it a Capital Crime, and punish us accordingly; for whatever they accused us of, they wanted neither Will, Interest nor Power to make us guilty, by packing a Jury to their content, (to satiate their Cruelty) to find us guilty of the Breach of that Law, which has the following 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in it, That if any person shall Con••emptuously, Malitiously and ad∣visedly by Writing, Publishing or Speaking, express, utter or declare, by any Words or Sentences, to (〈◊〉〈◊〉 up or incite any of the People of this Province or Territories, to hatred or dislike of the Person of the Proprietary and Governor, or do or commit any act or deed tending to the Subversion of the established Government, shall suffer Imprisonment for any time not exceeding Twelve Moneths, and undergo such Corporal Punishment as the Quality of the Offen∣dor and the Nature of the Offence may require.

But by the good and merciful Providence of God, before the next Cou••t could sit, which was to be in about a Moneth after the said Pre∣sentment, they who were my chief Adversaries were turned out of the Government, and Governour Fl••tcher came from New-York, and received the Government of Pennsilvania by the K. and Queens Com∣mission, and put a stop not only to our Tryal, which they intended, but to several other Tryals of Persons that were presented at the former Sessions, on other accounts, as I was informed to the number of Ten several Presentments, but whether so many, or any other (but that concerning T. Budd and my self,) is not my present business to resolve. And as to the Presentment of the Grand Jury of Quakers, all of them my cruel Enemies, who had signed in their Monethly and Quarterly

Meetings against Us, I can give sufficient Evidence both here and else where; for T. Budd and I obtained a Copy of the said Presentment from him that kept the Record, (and paid him well for it) which we carried with us to London, and had it read at the Quakers Yearly Mee∣ting there, in the year 1694. at the Bull and Mouth, in the hearing of William Penn himself, and where also my answer to it was read and heard. And some years after this, that Governour Fletcher came to London, I went to visit him, and thank him for his rescuing me and my Friends (Peter Boss being in Prison for his fine of 7 l. for writing a pri∣vate Letter to Sam. Jenings, telling him of some of his faults, and W. Bradford and J. M' Combe being Prisoners for Printing and selling the said Sheet, called, An Appeal, &c which Persons Governour Fletcher set at liberty) out of the cruel hands of the Quaker-Magistrates of Philadelphia; He told me, that what he had done in that, which was very just, and his Duty to do, Mr. Penn had made a great complaint of it against him to the Government in England. And indeed, so high∣ly, did William Penn resent things against me at London, that he told me, as well as others, I had spoiled his Country. These things con∣sidered, it is sufficiently evident, what the Quaker Magistrates judged of me, and what Cruelty they intended against me; also, they made it their Work in their publick Meetings, such of them as were Prea∣chers and Magistrates, to make me highly Criminal against the King, insomuch that on a Sunday at the Bank Meeting in Philadelphia, Arthur Cook and John D' Lavall did publickly accuse me, in the hearing of hundreds of Persons there present, that I said in that Meeting, The King had broke his Coronation Oath. But I appealed to the People there present, Whether I said any such thing, or any thing like it, my words being an answer to a Query the two aforesaid Persons put to me, to ••nsnare me, as they thought, Whether a true Christian might be a Magi∣strate? To which I readily answered, Yea; but according to the Quakers Principles, either to Swear or Fight was short of Christian Perfection; after which I added the following words, God forbid that I should say the King is no Christian, because he took the Coronation Oath. For effectual proof of this, I have an Instrument signed by a great many credible Persons then present, wherein they have cleared me, that these were the words I sp••ke, and not those which the above-named Persons ac∣cused me of. And further Instances I could give, to what height of fury the Quaker Magistrates at that time were enraged against me;

and though their pretence was, That it was for my being an Enemy to the King and Government, and speaking and writing what te••ded to the subver∣sion of the Government here, plainly appears from their words in their Proclamation, above mentioned; We cannot (say they) without Violation of our Trust to the King and Governour, &c. see the words at large, as above-quoted; & see good Reader, how like they are here to the Jew•• & Tertullus, Acts 24. who would have made St. Paul guilty of moving Sedition, which they thought worthy of Death. And the Mittimus they made to send William Bradford and John M' Comb to Prison, goes in the King and Queens Authority, (which Mittimus is printed both in the Tryal & Appeal) thus, These are therefore by the King and Queens Authority, and in our Proprietarys Name to require you to take into your Custody the Bodies of William Bradford and John M' Comb, &c. I say, though this was their pretence against me, yet the chief, and indeed the only ground and rise of their Offence was my blaming their false Doctrine, and charging them with vile Heresies, such as no Protestant Society would tolerate.

And for a proof of my not being guilty of the Crimes charged against me by those Quaker Magistrates, contained in their said Procla∣tion, and in the Presentment of the Grand Jury of Quakers, after Go∣vernour Fletcher came to the Government of Pennsilvania, Coll. Mark∣ham, Andrew Robinson, and others, being then Magistrates under Go∣vernour Fletcher (and Coll. Markham being then Deputy Governour) drew up a publick Instrument, and signed it, wherein they cleared me fully of all things the Quaker Magistrates had laid to my charge, withal declaring, That the Difference betwixt the Quaker Magistrates and Me were meerly about points of Religion, plain contrary to what they affirmed in their Proclamation against me. And upon application made by W. Bradford and J. M' Combe to Governour Fletcher for enlargement from their Imprisonment, he examined into the cause of their Commitment, and finding it was upon Religious Difference, discharged them, and caused W. B's printing Letters to be restored to him, which the Quaker Magistrates had taken and detained from him.

But now, for my affirming in some of my late Prints, That I was presented by a Grand Jury of Quakers, whereof Alex. Beardssy was Fore-man, as above-mentioned, for trespassing the Law of Province made against them who should express, utter or declare any words or Sen∣tences tending to the Subversion of the establish't Government, &c. C. Pusey

accuseth me, as followeth, p. 39, 40, 41. of his Book, That I am so infatuated to publish such Falshoods, as by the words of the Presentment it self, published by him and themselves, here plainly appears.

But if C. P. be not infatuated, he has a fore-head of Brass and Im∣pudence, to publish such a Cheat & Deception to the World, especially in a place where Matters of Fact was so well known; for the Present∣ment given in against me, for being guilty of Writing and Publishing a Seditious Paper, tending to the Subversion of the Government, &c. was not until several Moneths after the first Presentment and Tryal, where∣in I was fined 5 l. for calling Sam. Jenings, An Ignorant Insolent Man, in my Book, called, The Plea of the Innocent. But C. P's notorious Fals∣hood and lying Spirit appears in this, that he would make the World believe, there was no other Presentment made against me, but that set down in pag. 24. of our printed Tryal.

Now let us hear how he makes it appear, that I am guilty of the following Falshoods, and false Insinuations. First, he saith, pag. 40. by their saying, The Presentment would have been prosecuted if the Govern∣ment had not been changed; whereas the Presentment was prosecuted, and brought to Judgment, and that long before the change of Government, and he only was fined 5 l. &c. Now mark the Cheat, Good Reader, The Presentment against me, for calling S. Jenings, Ignorant, Insolent and Presumptuous Ma••, was prosecuted, and I fined five pounds, which was not exacted, for they had a more dreadful Punishment behind to exact of me, after the second Presentment (had Providence suffered it to come to Tryal; but it was not suffered to come so far) had it been pro∣secuted against me. Now observe the Logick of this C. P. The Pre∣sentment was prosecuted, and he tryed, and fined accordingly, There∣fore there was no other Presentment, after the first Presentment made against him. Whereas I have given sufficient Evidence there was a second Presentment against Me some Moneths after the first, and alto∣gether upon another account, and that they intended to prosecute Me to be guilty of writing a Seditious Paper (viz. the Appeal that was printed) tending to the Subversion of the Government, appears evidently from the words of their Proclamation above-quoted, where they de∣clare, what they intended against others con••••rned (as touching the printed Appeal) signed by Me and five more, thought their Fury was principally against me.

His second Falshood that he chargeth on me, pag. 40. recoyleth on

••••••self, 〈…〉〈…〉 the first, and proves him guilty of a Notorious Falshood, as well as my Innocency. He blames me for saying, I had been accused for endeavouring to alter the Government; and this, he saith, is a falshood. Now that it is no Falshood, but a real and certain Truth, I have made it evidently appear by the words of their Proclamation against me, above quoted, where they accuse me of words that had a tendency to Sea••••ion and Disturbance of the Peace, as also to the Subversion of the present Government; the same Expression they have concerning the printed Appeal, in their Mittimus, as above quoted.

His Third Falshood charged on me, is, That in the Presentment G. K. was not accused for endeavouring to alter the Government. But still, the perpetual Cheat of this Fraudulent Person, is, That there was but one only Presentment against me, and which was prosecuted, and tryed, and found guilty, for calling calling Sam. Jenings an ignorant and insolent Man, in my Book, called, The Plea of the Innocent. Whereas in the Procla∣mation they put forth against me, (which is in print, and I have to show) there's not a word of the Book, called, The plea of the Innocent, but the great Accusation against me, in the said Proclamation, was for that part of the printed Appeal that had a tendency to Sedition and Distur∣bance of the Peace, and also to the Subversion of the present Government; and for this, they declare what they intend against me and others on that s••ore. Judge now, Reader, if his C P. be not as fast held in the Net as if he had a Thief fast in his Mill; for if words spoke or writ, which hath a tendency to Sedition and Subverting the Government, be not an endeavouring to alter the Government, I know not what is.

But, lastly, C. P. saith, Nor had we any Law to make it Capital; he adds, But that they would have found him guilty of Death, a more wicked, malitious and false Assertion G. K. could hardly have invented against those then in the Government. From this he infers, That G. K. is aposta∣••ized from common Honesty.

To which I Answer; That they wanted no will to have made me guilty of Death, I have sufficiently proved, by their severe Accusations against me, of speaking and writing what tended to the Subversion of the King's Government, as well as that of W. P's. This, in my apprehen∣sion, I being no bred Lawyer, nor accustomed to the terms of the Law, in their strict signification among Lawyers, I took to be a Capital Crime, and whatever it is in the sence of the Law, it still appears to me, in the sense of Gods Law, and the Law of Reason, writ in mens hearts,

That Sedition, and endeavouring to subvert the Kings Government, is a Capital Crime, i. e. such a Crime that deserves Death, and so it was judged both among Jews and Romans, Acts 24.6.25.1. and I am told that the Civil Law doth so determine it.

But let us examine a little what C. P. saith, viz. We (i. e. the People in Pennsilvania) had not any Law that made it Capital.

Answ. This is no Evidence that they had no mind to make that Capital which they accused me of in their Proclamation, and for which I was presented a little before the Government was changed, and com∣mitted to Governour Fletcher, let the judicious and impartial Reader well consider, and weigh the words of their Law above-quoted, which was made in the Assembly the 10th of May, 1684. where the Law determines, That w••o by speaking or writing do or commit any act or deed tending to the Subversion of the present Government, shall suffer Imprison∣ment for any time not exceeding twelve Moneths, and undergo such Corporal Punishment as the Quality of the Offender and the Nature 〈…〉〈…〉 may require. Here it appears, that as to the Corporal Punishment it is not expressed nor limited, what it shall be, either as to 〈…〉〈…〉 in special, but wholly left to the Arbitrary Will and Pleasure 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Judge or Judges, to make it as severe as they will; and such who were to be my Judges (had Providence permitted them to have brought me to a Tryal) were sufficiently known to have had Will enough to have gone not only to the utmost Extent of the Letter of the Law against me, but to have exceeded as far, as they went beyond the Law to make that Sedition in me, & tending to subvert the Government, which had nothing in it deserving such Censure, nor indeed any Censure at all, being only a querying or expostulating with them, for their manifestly trespassing against their professed Religious Principle, as above shewed. And that they had a mind to make it Capital, is evident, that one of their own Profession, who knew their Designs, told me, They were pre∣paring a Gibbot for me; this I can attest upon Oath, when duly required, that he so told me. And I having enquired at the ablest Lawyers here at Philadelphia, (and who were recommended to me as the ablest here) Whether the Corporal Punishment mentioned in the said Act, was not Capital, i. e. might not, by the Letter of the Law, be construed to extend to Death, seeing Death was but a Corporal Punishment, and there is no Limitation or Restriction in the case; and it is wholly 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Arbitrary Will and Pleasure of the Judges to determine, whether

as to G K's Offence, that the Quality of the Offender, and the Nature of his Offence, doth not require it to be Capital i e. worthy of Death? The said Lawyers, I say, have unanimously answered me, That though they could not hang me by that Law, yet they could (if it was their Will so to do) cause Whip me to Death; for if Whipping be the Corporal Punishment intended by the Law, there is no Limita∣tion, as to the Number or Severity of the Lashes, or time how long, nor any other Limitation, insomuch that one of the Gentlemen Law∣yers, and who is reckoned one of the ablest Lawyer•• in the Province, told me, by that very Law the Quaker Magistrates might have Oatified you, that is, (said he) they might have caused whip you, with an in∣tention to whip you till ye dye, and so it was intended (said he) as was reported) to be done against Dr. O••••es. But why should I more be mistaken in the true sence of the word [Corporal] i. e. Bodily Punish∣ment, than W. Penn? for tho' all Corporal Punishment is not Death, yet that Death inflicted by the Magistrate is Corporal Punishment, [i. e. Bodily] I have at least Governour Pen••'s own Authority for it, who in his Rejoynder to J. Faldo, makes the Death of Hanging, or any other Death inflicted by a Magistrate, whether justly or unjustly, to be Only the Death of the Body, but not the Death of the Man himself, except by that familiar Speech (he means a Metonymi••) where the thing contained is put for the thing containing. And he is so much for this Notion, that he affirms, That the Death of Christ, as well as of other Men, to be the Death of his Body ONLY; see W. P's, Rejoynder, p. 305, 306.

And why have they changed this Law made in the year 1684. against Sedition, and what tends to the Subversion of the Government, but that upon more mature Deliberation and Advice, they did consider, or some that were better skill'd in the Law, taught them to understand, that the said Law, by which they intended to try me for Sedition and what tended to subvert the Government, might be construed to extend to some Capital Punishment. The Law now made in the year 1700. for the same Offence is but 5 l. or three Moneths Imprisonment. Note, Reader, is not this a great Change!

Now if C Pusey should still be so hardned as to deny that there ever was any second Presentment made against me (after the first which was prosecuted, as above-said) I think I have given sufficient Evidence to the contrary. Its true, I have not the Copy of that Presentment here by me to produce, but I have sufficient Evidence of some at present

alive, and some of them not far from this, and who are of good Credit, that will attest it, if need be, as I am also ready to do, were it before a Magistrate (& that with a good Conscience) when required. In the mean time, I doubt not but this will satisfie all impartial and unprejudiced Persons, that C. P. hath most unjustly and insincerely charged me with those Falshoods, and that they most justly reflect upon himself, and he is chargeable with them. And for the Truth, that there was such a second Presentment against me, as above-mentioned, I would have appealed to the publick Records, but that I have been informed, that some Records (which they thought made against them) have been quite ••azed out, or altered.

The other Accusation that C. P. doth make against me, and which he extreamly ••ggravates, is That in some of my late Prints I have taken advantage to st••r up the peaceable Government to Persecution; and for this he quotes my Book, called, An Account of the Quakers Polliticks, p. 28. where I said, What Security has the Civil Government, but when they think fit, and apprehend they are annimated by the Spirit so to do, but that they may make use of the Sword, considering their Numbers, Wealth, Polliticks and Methods of Correspondency to carry on their Designs. And upon this he cry out, O Envious Scoffer! O Murthering Spirit! But I may cry out most justly against him, O gross Perverter of my Words! there is not the least shadow of Persecution either in the words quoted, or any where in that Book, nor indeed in any of my Books. All that I did infer from it, was, to give warning to the Government To keep a watchful Eye over them, lest they should so do. And I pray, what hurt is in that? for it belongs to them to watch over all, and especially over such, who by their dangerous Principle of Wild Enthusiasm, may be tempted to such Extravagancies as the Ana-baptists in Germany were, by the same dan∣gerous Principle of Wild Enthusiasm. But I had cleared the Quakers, that I believed they had no such present Intention, nor do I know that ever they had; but what they have not had, they may be tempted to have, especially considering what the Quaker-Magistrates did against their peaceable Neighbours here, which they can never clear themselves of, but that it was Persecution, and had not Providence prevented, would (in all probability) have come to a great hight; and that which makes it more suspicious against the Quakers in England, is, that to this day they have never blamed the Extravagancy of the Quaker Magi∣strates for their persecuting here at Philadelphia in the year 1692.

But C. P. thinks he has great matter of Argument against me, to 〈…〉〈…〉 a persecuting Spirit, for my saying in plain Discovery, pag 25 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Civil Magistrate should punish them, and use some outward 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by hindering their preaching in publick Assemblies, and p••••nting, it 〈…〉〈…〉 Persecution. I say still, no more it would, considering the vile 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Blasphemies that they have ve••ted and uttered, and continue so to do, in their Preaching and Writing, in England espe∣cially, & having gives more offensive words to Magistrates in England 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they did prosecute some of the Laws against them, than ever I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of my Friends ••••••med to do.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 observe, Reader, how wretchedly and perversly this C. P. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 from my sober words, That Coertion and Restraint upon th••se of the Quaker Teachers, that ••ent abominable Heresies and Blasphemies, is no Per∣secution. To conclude, That I am for the Inquisition, saying, p. 44. Are not Gortion and Restraint some of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Tools of the Inquisition? And what th••n? are not Prisons and Gibbets some of the Tools of the In∣quisition also? And had not the Quaker Magistrates such Tools, and have they them not still? Have the Quakers forgot Sam Jenings di∣stinction, that what they did against us, was not Persecution but Prosecu∣tion?

And let the Impartial Reader further judge, whether it be not ano∣ther abominable Perversion of my words, to infer from my saying, It would be no Persecution, if Coertion and Restraint upon the Quaker Teachers to hinder them from publishing their vile Heresies, &c. That I would have the Government in England become Executioner of my private Revenge upon the whole Multitude of them; yea, so great a Multitude as 150000. in England and Wales, for so great a Number, by modest Computation, I did judge might be in England and Wales. But as I have no private Revenge against them, I thank God, so I have freely and plainly de∣clared my mind, that I would not have them exposed to Suffering, which is what they call Persecution, meaning the People who are led away by the false Teachers that swarm among them, but that their false Teachers might be restrained from Preaching and Printing their vile Heresies and Blasphemies, to the poysoning mens Souls. But this C••••••tion and Restraint C. P. doth construe it, that they must not breathe. Yes, let them breathe, and live, and have all that is due, but let them no•• breathe forth their Blasphemies and Anti christian Principles; and if they will needs do it, I say still, to use Coertion and Restraint in the case, would be no Persecution.

What my judgment i••, about the best way to deal with the Quakers, in order to bring them out of their dangerous Errors, I have fully and amply declared in my Answer to R. B's Apology, pag. 454 where I say, At the case stands at this day, I think an Expedient may be used to reclaim the generality of the many Thousands that are seduced by the vile Errors of Quakerism, without the least just occasion of Complaint of Perse∣cution, which I desire not the least to come upon any one of them, being sensible that they would rather be hardened by what they commonly call Per∣secution, than amen••••d by it. What that Expedient is, the Reader may see, if he please to turn to pag. 454. of that Book, where I show, the Invalidity of R. B.'s Arguments, which he brings to prove, That Magistrates have no Power to punish for Heresies, even the worst. But yet I give some Instances, that considering some Circumstances, it may not be safe nor proper for the Magistrate to inflict Punishment upon them for their Heresies; but to use some Coertion and Restraint towards false Teachers I think may be warrantably done, as to restrain Mad-Men, or them who have the Plague or Leprosy, from the converse of them who are Healthy.

I have now done what I proposed, by way of Answer to C. P's Book, omitting Nothing that seemed material to require an Answer. As for his Scur••ilous Expressions and Ra••lings against me, they are so many that, I think, to number them, would fill several Sheets of Paper; indeed there is but little in all his Book, but what is of that sort.

In the Close (as I said I intended) I will here give a Life of some other Falshoods and Lyes, that he and his Brethren have invented a∣gainst me, and which he has printed in his Book.

1. He accuseth me, (Proteus, pag. 38.) That in the parts of America, between Piscat••away and Philadelphia, I had brought false Accusations against the Magistrates of Pennsilvania. But what I have said above proves the contrary.

2. He saith, I came to the Quakers New Meeting-House on Rhode-Island, as appears by Relation from Rhode-Island, being the 6 day of 6 Mo. and being the first day of the Week [Note, This is a great Mistake, for it was not the first day of the Week, but the Fifth, as any ordinary Child may find, that can count the days of the Mo••eth, tha•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sixth day of August this year was on the fifth day of the Week. Had G. K.

committed such a Blunder, what noise of Lying and Falshood would C. P. have made of it, as he did for a meer Eroor of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the broad Sheet, called, The serious Call, where p 28. is put for p. 47. and which afterwards was corrected in man. Thousand Copies, which he is bound to allow, seeing his own Book has many Errors of the Press, that were not at first corrected, and some of them are not as yet cor∣rected, in his Table of Errata] And G. K. (saith that false Relation) being in a Turbulent Frame, called to the Governour, in a commanding way, that he might be heard.

That this Relation is false, I have many Persons of Credit, that were present, who can attest, that in Moderation and with due Respect I desired the Governour to command them to give me a hearing, for that they had broken the Rule of all Civility and good Morality, to interrupt me, when I began to speak, wherein they were far short of Heathens, as well as of those Jews, Acts 13.15. who did not interrupt St. Paul, when he began to speak in their Synagogue, but the Rulers of the Synagogue invited him to speak, though he was as much gone from Judaism then, as G. K. at Rhode-Island was gone from Quakerism; yet they did not reproach him, with calling him Apostate, as the Quakers did me in several of their Meetings.

3. That I called to the Governour, that the Auditory might be compelled to stay and hear me.

This is utterly false. The Governour being no profest Quaker, but a Favourer of their way, departed out of their Meeting soon after I be∣gan to speak, and at the Door, as he was going out, he said to me, he thought I would do ••est to let them alone till they had done, and then offer to speak I Replied to him, That their way was, when I offer to speak, at the end of their Meeting, in all haste to go away; but if he would perswade them to stay and ••ear me, I would stay till they had done.

4. That else I would complain to the Queen.

Answ. This is utterly false. But after that Walter Clark, Deputy Governour and Quaker Preacher, had interrupted me very u••civilly, and proffered to read a printed Libel against me, and some of them had threatned me with incurring the Penalty of 20 l. Fine, for interrupting them; but I did not interrupt them, for I was silent all the time that their Preacher was speaking; but they did interrupt me, and so brought themselves under the Penalty of the Act. Mr Myl••s 〈…〉〈…〉 the Q••••e••s Name, That I was a Missionary from the 〈◊〉〈◊〉,

that had a Patent from the Crown of England for the propa∣gating the Gospel in Forreign parts, and if they would not suffer me to speak in their Meetings, Complaint would be made to the Queen.

And whereas some began to wrest my words, as if I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 said, I was sent by the Queen; I Replyed, I know not that ever the Queen (Whom God ••less and preserve) heard of my Name; but that I was a Missionar•• from the Corporation, who has their Authority from the Queen.

Whereas they say, I told them, I had as much to do there as they; I grant it, and so I think I have still, or rather more; for if they have right to preach Error there, I had more right to preach Truth; and there is no Law that forbids a Minister of the Church of England to speak in a Quakers Meeting, when all are silent; and where no Law is, there is no Transgression.

5. That I desired the Justices that they might compell the People.

Answ. It is utterly false. I desired the Justices indeed to command that I might have a hearing, and not be interrupted; for they came there to keep the Peace, such as I spoke to, and were my good Friends, and Members of the Church of England, who will attest the contrary to this false Relation.

6. That their Meeting was finally disturbed by me.

Answ. It is false. What Disturbance happened was wholly made by them; and after their Preachers and others were gone, many Quakers and others staid and heard me peaceably for a considerable time.

7. That I applyed to the Governour two days after, to force the way to the Meeting-House.

Answ. Utterly false. There was no need to make any such Appli∣cation, to force the way to the Meeting-House, nor did I desire any such thing of him; but what I desired he readily granted, that I might have leave to meet in the Town-House, there to detect the Quakers Errors out of their Books, as accordingly I did, and the Quakers, by agreement, met with me one Meeting; but how poorly they acquitted themselves, many in the place can witness; for they did not so much as offer to answer to one Quotation of their vile Errors, which I read out of G. F's Great Mystery, and other Authors, no, not so much as to own or disown, tho' pressed to it, but spent most of the time in reading Nameless Libels against me, stuffed with Lyes, &c. particularly that called, One Wonder more, where it is falsly charged on me, That I took the Scots League and Covenant, and Walter Clark, some days after,

said to me, before many 〈◊〉〈◊〉. That 〈…〉〈…〉 prove it was a truth; but I proved to his face that it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 false, for I was born in the Year 1638. and the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 League and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was taken in the Year 1643. and 1644. when I was but five years Old, and so was incapable of it, and it went through the Nation but that one time. Whereupon Walter Clark was mute, and seemed to be convinced of his Rashness.

8. That I pretended I could open or lock up their Doors, as I pleased.

Answ. A Notorious Falshood, I never pretended any such Power. But when the Quakers threatned me again and again at Rhode-Island and at Flushing on Long-Island, that I had broke the Act of Toleration and incur'd the Fine of 20 l. every time I offered to speak in their Meetings; I told them, if they will stand to that Act, any Justice of the Peace might lock up the Doors of their Meeting-Houses, none of them being recorded, as the Law requires, and none of their Preachers being qualified as the Act requires; and if they did shut the Meeting-House Door upon me, I might procure it to be opened.

9. That I disturbed the Quakers Meetings in all the other places in New-England and Long Island into which I came.

Answ. All false, for what Disturbance was made in any of them, was wholly made by them, and never by me; and so Insolent and Pre∣sumptuous were the Quakers at Flushing in Long-Island, that though two Justices of the Peace came with me to the Meeting, to desire them to give me a peaceable hearing, as I had given them; and though his Excellency Edward Lord Cornbury Governour of the Province, had sent a Letter to the Justices of the Peace, and told them, I was to be heard, yet they would not regard the Governours Letter nor what the Justice of the Peace Coll. Jackson said to them.

10. That a rash precipi••ant Person (who by his Garb lookt like a Minister of the Church of England) read certain abusive Manuscripts in their Yearly Meeting at Shrewsbury in East-Jarsey, and that I sent him, (see Proteus, p 46.

Answ. The Person is my worthy Companion Mr. Talbot, (well re∣ported among all, except the Quakers, whose Tongues are no Slander) who went most voluntarily, without my sending, for I had no power to send him, but in love and good will to me, and to serve the Truth, he went and read my Advertisement to them, declaring my purpose to have a Meeting at a House near their Meeting-House, to detect their Errors out of their own Books, the Day, Hour and Place being men∣tioned.

And after that, another day, they sent me a scurrilous Answer, as their manner is, to which I sent a sober Reply, and which the same Person read in their Meeting, which Manuscripts, with their Answers, I have to show.

10. That I alledged, I had a Power from the Bishop of London to speak in their Meetings, which when produced proved only a Letter of Recommen∣dation, p 45, 47. Upon which they Query, Doth not G. K. with his fellow Disturbers and Peace-breaking Ministers of the Church of England, also abuse the Bishop of London, by using these Letters of Recommendation beyond their due limits?

Answ. That I alledged I had any such Power from the Bishop, is an utter Falshood; and as for my Lord of London's Letter of Recommen∣dation, that I used it beyond the due limits, is also false; and what use I made of it, was very moderate, and to such to whom it was directed.

This is but a hint of many more gross Falshoods, Lyes and Calumnies he and his Brethren have heaped up against me, from the Father of Lyes, so that it may be justly said, The Spirit of Railing Shimei, and of Beals Lying Prophets has entered this Caleb Pusey, as the many Instances throughout his Book, which I have produced (and were it worth the vvhile, I could produce many more) do evidently prove.

But, Reader, it is worth Noticing, that after the Quakers both in New-England & Long-Island had threatned me with the 20 l. Fine in the Act of Toleration, when they understood by some plain clauses in said Act, that their Preachers were excluded, particularly for not owning the Doctrine of the holy Trinity, according to the Church of England, then they said, that Act did not reach these American Parts.

Postscript.

SInce (as C. P. acknowledgeth in his additional Postscript) that about 18 or twenty of his Books were dispersed, before that Postscript came out (and most of my Answer to it was writ before I saw his Post∣script) he doth acknowledge, That it is a Mistake in him, If G K. have other Orders or Powers than that of a Deacon. How then will Caleb Pusey save himself from that dreadful Thunder-bolt of G. Fox, not only for

his confessed Mistake concerning me, but also his gross Falshoods and Perversions, which to be sure are not from God? G. F's Thunder-bolt is this, Gr. Mystery, p. 98. And thou, and you all, that speak and write, and not from God imme••••at•••• and infallibly, as the Apostles did, and Pro∣phets, but only have gotten t•••• words, you are all under the C••••se, in another Spirit, ravened from the Spirit that was in the Apostles. And in his Book, called, Saul's Errand to Dama••cus, pag. 7 he says, They are Conjurers, and Diviners, and their Teaching is from Co••j••ration, which is not spoken from the Mouth of the Lord, and the Lord is against all such, and who are of God are against all such. Note, These absolute words of G. F. quite overthrow that distinction that some Quakers have given, That they do ••o ascribe Infallibility to their Preaching and Writing simply, but only to the Spirit of God, which is Infallible, and to their Speaking & Writing so far as it is from the Infallible Spirit. But here we see G. F. speaks Absolutely, not Conditionally Neither was it ever any part of the Question, between the Quakers and their Opposers, Whether the Spirit of God is Infallible, or Whether such who follow the Infallible Spirit are so far Infallible as they so do; for its granded by all who be∣lieve there is a God. But the true Question betwixt the Quakers and their Opposers, is, Whether what the Quakers speak and write, is by the Infallible Spirit? and if it be not, by G. F's Thunder-bolt, they are all under the Curse, and what they speak is Conjuration, and they are Con∣jurers and so is Caleb Pusey by G. F's Censure, and so indeed was G. F. himself also. Another principal part of the Controversie betwixt the Quakers and their Opposers, is, Whether Quakers, or others, are inspired and moved by the Spirit of God, to speak or write, without all Use of the holy Scriptures, as the Means and Instrument whereby the holy Spirit worketh in the hearts of true Believers?

Again, Note Reader, That though C. P. severely breaks in upon the eight Ministers, and me the nineth, and accuseth us with belying the Quakers, and G. F. in giving false Quotations, simply for two or three very small Errors of the Press, that happened in some Copies that were first published, and which were corrected in all the following Copies, after it was discovered by some of my Friends and my self; and yet this C. P. himself, has found in his own Book, Proteus Ecclesiasticus, above forty Errors of the Press, which he has corrected in his Table of Errata, after many of his Books were published without any Correction; which sheweth his great Partiality and eager Spirit falsly to accuse me without

ground: Would he not say that I had done unfairly by him, if I should have blamed and found fault with Letters or Figures that have hap∣pened to be wrong printed in his Book, and published before he had corrected them? yet upon this very occasion of mis-printing a Figure in some Copies that were first published, he accuseth me for belying the Quakers and G. F.

Pag. 56. He accuseth me, That in my Book, called, The Quakers Standard, &c. pag. 476. I falsly and craftily say, that R. B 's method of arguing against unlawful Games, unprofitable Playes, and superfluity of Apparel, &c. was chiefly against the Abuse and Excess of these things; and chargeth me with a great and willfull Abuse upon R B. as if he was not against the use of Games, Plays, Sports, superfluity and vanity in Apparel.

Answ. I know none in the Church of England that do justifie, as nei∣ther do I, unlawful Games, unprofitable 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and superfluity of Ap∣parel, &c. and too much of that sort there is among many; but it is not every thing what the Quakers call vain, superfluous and unlawful, that is so; nor was I obliged to take notice of R. B's Intentions, but his Arguments, which, as I said then, so I say still, are not against what is lawful innocent Recreations, (that are profitable both for the Body and Mind) and distinction of Apparel, but the abuse and excess of them; for R. B. himself being a Gentleman that had an outward Estate, had Apparel suitable to his Quality, far above what his Servants had, and others that were his Tenants, and did freely suffer his own Children to play, for innocent Recreation, according to Zech. 8 5. and so did W. P. and so do Quakers commonly both here and in England, and the Rich Quakers Wives wear as costly Apparel, or rather more costly than they do, whom they call the Worlds P••ople, both here and in England.

Pag. 8. of his Remarks on Dan. Leeds Almanack, he quotes G. W's Truth and Innocency, to justifie G. F's saying, Your Gospel, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is Dust, which is the Letter, pag. 14. N••ws out of the North. But G. F's words are so palpably Scandalous, that he seems asham'd to set them down in Print. But how doth he justifie them? Why he brings some other places, where the holy Scriptures are clearly owned, as spoken by the Lord. Well then, either our Gospel, Mat∣thew, Mark, Luke and John is not holy Scripture, or by G. F's Blas∣phemy it is Dust still. Is not this a ••••re Justification?

Obj. But G. F. saith this only of the Letter, the Paper and Ink.

Answ, But that's not the Controversie, neither the Church of England, nor any other Protestant Churches think, that the Gospel is either Letter, Ink or Paper; but the [Gospel] which is the Word and Words of God, are writ in the Letter, and with Ink on Paper, though by a Metonymie, or usual Speech (as a Cask full of Wine, is called Wine, so) the Book of the holy Scripture, done with Ink and Paper, is called the Holy Bible or holy Scripture; but who, tho' they were Mad, or perfect Sots, will say, that the Cask or Vessel, that hath the Wine in it, is Wine? So that this Excuse of the Quakers is a meer Juggle, and gross Deception.

Pag. 8. of his Remarks, C. P. saith, about the Scripture being the Word of God, We own them (saith he) to be the Words of God, as it is written, Exod. 20.1.

Answ. But are the Words of God Dust, Ink and Paper? This is still Blasphemous. Or, are not the Scriptures of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John the Words of God, as well as those in Exod. 20.2?

Again, in the same page, C. P. saith, And indeed I could never see this their Cavil to be any more than a strife about words, inasmuch as both they and we own them to be writ by divine Inspiration.

Answ. Suppose this were a Cavil, and but a strife about words, Who began it? Why, first the Papists, who to exalt the Authority of their Church above the Scriptures, and set up Humane Traditions of par∣cular Persons, that are contrary to the Scriptures, gave such Names of Contempt to the Scriptures, as Ink and Paper, dead Letter, &c. and the Quakers in that, as in many other things, danced after their Pipe, and they call the Scriptures, Death, Dust and Serpents Meat. But this Controversie with the Quakers about the Word of God, is no Cavil nor Strife about words, but a very material Controversie, because all these Places of Scripture in the Old and New Testament, that mention the Word of God, or the Word of the Lord, and set forth the great Use and Benefit of it to the Souls of Men, for their Conversion and Edifi∣cation, the Quakers turn all to the Light within, and will own nothing to be the Word of God, but what they call the Light within, and Christ within; Whereas, tho' Christ is called the Word in several places in Scripture, as he is also called, The Light of the World in Scripture; yet he also called the Apostles The Light of the World So that the Name Word of God, as it is sometimes in Scripture given to Christ, so much more frequently to the whole Truths delivered in the holy Scriptures,

by the Inspiration of the holy 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and which God hath appointed the ordinary means of our Instruction, Conversion and Edification, by the Operation of the holy Ghost; and above a hundred 〈…〉〈…〉 Scrip∣ture might be quoted, that mention the Word of the Lord and the Word of God, which cannot be understood of Christ at all, but of his Do∣ctrine, and Precepts, Promises, Threatnings, &c. and to distinguish betwixt the Word of God and the Words of God, (as the Quakers do) universally, i•• a most falacious and deceitful Cavil & Quibble, by which the false Teachers of the Quakers have led their blind-folded Followers to reject the Word of God contained in the holy Scriptures, from being the great and primary Rule of Faith, and the necessary and ordinary Means, whereby the holy Ghost doth illuminate the faithful; thereby making the Light within a full Rule to lead to Salvation, as G. W hath expresly affirmed in his Book, called, The Glory of Christs Light within, p. 32. And therefore seeing the Quakers hold the Light within uni∣versally, in all Mankind, to be both a full Rule, to lead to Salvation, and the primary Rule, (and yet they grant that it doth not teach any one peculiar Article of Christs Birth, Death, Resurrection, Ascention, &c. without the holy Scriptures, which either it should do, or these Truths are no essential and necessary Truths of Christianity) whatever Judas kiss, at times the Quakers seem to give the holy Scriptures, yet the Con∣temptibl•• Names that George Fox, their chief Founder, and their great Authors have given them in their Books, plainly show the mean esteem they have of them. And whatever use they make of them, to teach their Children sometimes, yet since they do not allow the reading of them, nor practise it in their Meetings, altho' they duly read G. F's Orders in their Quarterly Meetings from time to time) it is very evi∣dent that they make little use of them, while they themselves, as well as their Children, are grosly ignorant in the true sence and understand∣ing of them, and will not allow them to be the Word, affirming that Christ is the Word only, and that is the Light within, which is in every Man, Jew, Turk and Heathen, &c. But tho' Christ is the Personal and Essential Word, according to John 1.1. and Rev. 9 13. and divers other places of Scripture, yet that hinders not but that there is an outward declarative and written Word, which is not Christ, nor God, but both God, Christ and the holy Ghost are the Author of it, and use it as the Means, whereby Souls of Men are enlightned, convinced, con∣verted and built up in the holy Faith, according to Psal. 19 7, 8, 9, &c.

compared with Psal. 119. throughout. And that by the Word is not meant Christ himself, but the Words of God spoken and written in the following Texts (and a hundred more that might be produced) is very 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as Isa. 28.13. & 8.20. John 15 25. 1 Thes. 〈…〉〈…〉 Cor. 4.20.

Pag 11. Some Remarks, &c. C. P. most deceitfully glosseth upon the words of Edw. Burroughs, p. 47. of his Works, That's no Command of God to me (says E. B.) what he commands to another, as if E. B. only meant it of singular and extraordinary Cases, and not of common Duties of Prayer and Preaching; but the very words of E. B. in that same very place, within a few ••••nes, prove C. P's gloss to be false; for the case mentioned by E. ••. expresly near the end of the page, is that of Prayers, Preachings, Ordinances and Churches.

Pag. 11. He is as deceitful in justifying W. P's gross and vile Error, saying, Christ in us offereth up himself, and there he stops, being, as seems, ashamed or afraid to set down the whole Sentence, because of the Unsoundness & Offensivenes;s of it; whereas the whole Sentence is this, Christ in us doth offer up himself a living Sacrifice to God for us, by which the Wrath of God is appeased to us. These are the very words in W. P's Rejoynder, pag. 284. Now there can be no Sacrifice that ap∣peaseth the Wrath of God towards Men, but that alone Sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross, and had his Blood shed. But the Quakers have devised an inward Sacrifice of Christ in men; whose Blood is in∣wardly shed in them, to quench the Wrath of God, and who is crucified and buried in them. All which contradicts the holy Scripture, and is altogether derogating from Christ, that alone Propitiatory Sacrifice, when he offered himself upon the Cross, who, as he is the alone Sacrifice, so was but once offered, and there is no other Sacrifice Propitiatory, but that alone that was offered without us; it being the nature of a Propitiatory Sacrifice, that properly and really it must be slain, and the Blood thereof shed, which to affirm of any inward Sacrifice, is an overthrowing of the Christian Faith, as much, if not more, than the Popish unbloody Sacrifice in the Mass.

Pag. 12. And as deceitful is C. P. to quote me to justifie W. P's as∣sertion; It must be granted (said I, Serious Appeal, p 27. as he quotes me•• that the Life of Christ in the Saints, is a sweet Incense before God, and is a Sacrifice in another sense My meaning is plain, it was in another sence, even as he Sacrifice of Incense, was not Propitiatory to reconcile

M••n to God, as the Sacrifice that was to be slain was, and the Blood to be poured out. And C. P. is gross, deceitful to ask D. L. Doth he think that W. P. was so weak to understand it of that Sacrifice without us on the Tree of the Cross? Answ D. L. did not so think, but to under∣stand two Propitiatory Sacrifices, by way of Merit to attone for sin, is most contrary to Scripture; for this inward Sacrifice is not only an∣other from the outward, that W P. has set up, but Manifold, even as many as there are Saints, at least, and as many Christs. Beside, no∣thing could be Propitiatory Sacrifice for sin, but what was really Man. Now unless Christ be really M••n, in all the Saints, and really slain, and his Blood real shed in them all, and multiplyed into as many Men, or Manhoods is, as Saints, it is impossible that Christ should be a Propitiatory Sacrifice in Men. But the Sacrifice of Incense was not to attone nor pro∣pitiate, nor was it to be any thing that could be slain, or have Blood to be shed, but did presuppose the Attonement already made, and that the Life and lively Breathings of the Spirit of Christ in the faithful, is as a sweet Incense before God, in that sence as true and right Prayer and Thanks-giving is, that is spiritually performed, I still assert; but this doth nothing defend W. P's vile Errors.

Now that neither W. P. nor G. W. did own Christ as he was out∣wardly crucified, and his Blood outwardly shed, to be a real and proper Sacrifice, Propitiatory, for sin, is evident from their words faithfully quoted in my first Narrative. W. Penn in his Christ. Quaker, p. 97, 98. first Edition, saith, One outward thing cannot be the proper figure or repre∣sentation of another; nor is it the way of holy Scripture so to teach us. The Outward Lamb shews forth the inward Lamb. Here it is evident W. P. will not allow the Man Christ, that was outward, to be the Lamb that was sacrificed for us, but the inward Lamb. i. e. the Light within. And G. Whitehead in his Light and Life, p. 56, denyeth that Blood whereby God did purchase his Church, Acts 20.28. to be outward Blood, but inward and spiritual. Now the Blood of God (saith he) or that Blood that rela••es to God, must needs be spiritual, he being a Spirit, and the Co∣venant of God is inward and spiritual, and so is the Blood of it.

Some Remarks, Pag. 2. C. P. alledgeth against D. Leeds, That he has altered the Terms of the Accusation about calling Christ, as Man, Finite and Impotent. Where (saith C. P.) did I ever take or go about to take W. P. off from calling Christ, as Man, Finite and Impotent only? This seems to me a free Confession of C. Pusey, That W. Penn did call our

our blessed Saviour Finite and Impotent, as Man, though not O••ly, and I remember not that D. L. doth so charge it with the word Only. Now though Christ, as Man, is Finite, as the best of created Beings are Finite; yet to call him Impotent, I think is very Unwarrantable and Irreverent, if not Blasphemous. Christ indeed, simply as Man, is not Omnipotent, yet it will not follow, that because he is not Omnipotent, simply as Man, that therefore he is Impotent; for it implyeth some great Defect or Imperfection: There is a midst betwixt Omnipotent and Impotent, viz Multipotent, and such our blessed Saviour, no doubt, was, even as Man, having all Power given him in Heaven and Earth. Beside, W. P's false and sophistical Reasoning in his Sandy Foundation, pag. 20, 21, That Christ neither did nor could satisfie divine Justice, either as God, or as Man, nor as God and Man, is a great undervaluing of our blessed Saviour, and renders him (which is horrid think!) an Impotent Saviour; for without his making Satisfaction to the divine Law and Justice, he could be no Saviour to Men; and yet W. Penn affirms he could not make Satisfaction as God, nor as Man, nor as God and Man. Its true, he could not make Satisfaction simply as god, though the Reasons given by W. P. are not good, nor rightly stated. The true Reason why he could not make Satisfaction, simply as God, is, because the Person who should make that Satisfaction behoved to suffer and dye, that being the Penalty of the Law, for the sins of Men; but had Christ been only God, he could not have dyed or suffered, God being an infinite Spirit, and infinitely per∣fect every way, without Body, Parts or Passions, according the first Article of the Church of England. And it is also true, that Christ could not make that satisfaction [As Man simply] because had he been meer Man, what he did or suffered could not have been of full and sufficient Value to make that Satisfaction which the Justice of Gods Law required. But W. P's reason why Christ could not satisfie, as both God and Man, is extream weak and false. His Reason is this,

For where two Mediums (saith he) or middle Propositions are singly incosistent with the nature of the end, for which they are at first propounded, their conjunction rather does augment than lessen the difficulty of its accomplish∣ment. And this (he saith) he is perswaded must be obvious to every unbyassed Understanding.

I Answ. First, the words of his Argument are in very improper

Terms, as two Mediums or middle Propositions, which in the present case are neither Logical nor Grammatical, and far less Scriptural; for if he allude to a Syllogism, every true Syllogism can have but one Medium, and but one middle Proposition; and what other he means by two Mediums, or two middle Proposition; and what other he means by two Mediums, or two middle Propositions in the case, as I do not understand, so nor (as I think) can the best University Scholar in Oxford or Cambridge; for to say the truth, being apply∣ed to the present case, they are plain Non-sence: for, who that ever was but ordinarily well studied in Divinity, did say or think that Christ, as both God and Man, are two Mediums or middle Propositions? The Scripture saith,

There is one God and one Mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus:

But this Mediator is both God and Man, and not two Medators, nor two Mediums. But if W. P's intent in this argument is this, That where two Causes, dis-junctly or seperately considered can∣not produce the Effect intended, that therefore when they are conjoyned & operate conjunctly, the cannot produce that effect, the Argument is apparently false, as is obvious to every ordinary Understanding, whereof many Examples can be given to prove the contrary, but at present I shall only produce this one; The Body can neither eat nor drink the Meats and Drinks proper to it, without the Soul, i. e. the Soul being seperated from it; nor can the Soul eat or drink the said Meats or Drinks without the Body, but doth it therefore follow, that the man, who is the composi∣tion of both Soul and Body, vitally united, can neither eat nor drink? surely nay.

And as weak and impertinent are W. P's Arguments against our Saviour's Satisfaction for our sins, Sandy foundation, pag. 21.

That mens sins being not only against the Father and the holy Ghost, but against the Son also, that therefore the Son must be satisfied; and who shall satisfie him?

Answ. It is granted, the sins of men are against the whole Tri∣nity, and the satisfaction required and paid by the Son, as both God and Man, is, properly speaking, made to the Justice of the divine Law, which is the Law of the whole Trinity, which being infinitely Holy, would not suffer their Holy Law to be transgres∣sed, and the Transgression pardoned, without a due satisfaction to the Justice of the Law, that so the Justice of God, and his

〈…〉〈…〉 being an essential Perfection of the whole Trinity, as well as Mercy. And seeing the Son only was Incarnate, and was both God and Man, and not the Father, nor the holy Ghost, therefore the Son only being both God and Man, could make the Satisfa∣ction, tho' the divine Decree and Appointment, whereby that Satisfacton was made, and the Wisdom, Goodness, Justice and Power, whereby that Decree was executed, was of the whole Trinity.

And, Lastly, as impertinent is his other Argument,

That if man, or suppose a Prince or King can pardon, without a satis∣faction any great Crime, as Murther, Rebellion, &c. that therefore God doth pardon mens sins without a satisfaction to his Law:

For, first, some sins, as willful Murther, Adultry, and the like hainous sins ought not to be pardoned by the greatest King on Earth, without satisfaction to the Law of God; the sin of Murder requires Life for Life by Gods Law still in force; nor was there any Sacrifice for those hainous sins under the Law, without due satisfaction to the Law. Memorable is that Passage of Zaleucus the King of ••ocreuses, who would not pardon the Adultry com∣mitted by his Son, without satisfaction to the Law made by him∣sslf, That whosoever committed Adultry should lose both Eyes; and that the said King should shew himself just as well as merciful, he took one Eye from his Son, and another Eye from himself, which fully satisfied the Law; and which doth also partly resemble the various suffering of our blessed Saviour, who suffered for our sins, the penalty due to us, in our vice and stead, the Just for the Un∣just. This notable Instance of both the Justice & Mercy of King 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is made use of by Gr••tius in his Treatise of The Satisfaction 〈◊〉〈◊〉, to illustrate, in some sort, our Saviour's satisfaction to the divine Law for our sins, though this and all other Examples fall 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of this great Mystery of our Saviour's satisfaction. Nor is 〈…〉〈…〉, as W. P. would render it, that the Son should 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Justice of his own Law transgressed by us, as well as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Law of the Father and of the holy Ghost. But, Secondly, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and offences we commit against our Brethren, which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 commanded to forgive, upon their Repentance & acknow∣ledge 〈◊〉〈◊〉, our blessed Saviour has given full satisfaction for them,

〈…〉〈…〉; yet the Law against wilful Murder and other hainous sins, requires still that the Offender suffer a Tem∣poral Punishment, according to the Equity of the Law. Nor does Gods requiring a satisfaction to his Law, hinder his forgive∣ness to be free and of free and rich Grace to us, because it was his free Love and Grace (without all Merit on our part) that pro∣vided such a satisfactory Sacrifice for us, as his own dear Son. In 〈◊〉〈◊〉, seeing W. P. denys in his Sandy foundation, That Christ either satisfied as God, or as Man, or as God and Man, he renders him altogether An Impotent Saviour; and he renders him, as Man, not only to be Finite and Created, which all Orthodox Christians hold as vvell as I, but a Finite Impotent Creature, because he utterly denyes that That outward Person who suffered at Jerusalem was pro∣perly the Son of God, (v••••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Apology, pag. 146). And vvho vvas that but the Man Christ Jesus? And in his Rejoynder to Jo. Faldo, as above quoted, he denys that the Body o•• Christ that suffered did help to constitute him Christ, and consequently that that visible man that suffered, vvas not God; and then vvhat vvas he, but A Finite Impotent Creature? Thus it appears hovv vain and idle C. P. has been to clear W P. of that horrid Assertion; and as vain and idle is C. P. to quote for his Justification; for though I have said, and say, that Christ, as Man, had, and still hath a created Soul and Body, and in that respect is a finite created being, yet that very man being God, by the Personal Union of his Man∣hood vvith God the Son, I never thought nor said that he vvas Impotent, or a Finite Impotent Creature; most Unjust therefore is Caleb Pusey to lay this at my door.

FINIS