Section 1.

1. THat which makes this Reply so short, is, only by cutting off the Frivolous and Impertinent Digressions, by which T. E. seeks either to [...]ire or Divert the Reader from the main stress of the Contest betwixt G. K. and the other Quakers, which is their Heretical and Blasphemous Doctrines: And this will make my Reply the more Full for being so Short; by letting the Reader have a fair View of the Controversie, without Interruption or Confusion.

He spends the first 23 pages in Excusing their not coming to Defend themselves at Turners-Hall, as p. 11. because of The King's absence. Want of Trade. Scarcity of Current Money. Reply to the first 23 pages. Which might have occasioned a Mobb, &c. And p. 20. That G. K. did not give Notice what Weapon he intended to use, and of what Length, that they might have provided themselves accordingly. i.e. That he did not, in the short Advertisement, of half a Sheet, which he printed to give Notice of that Meeting, set down all the Books and Quotations which he intended to produce against them.

II. But, to come to the Business, T.E. p. 26. Justifies this Reasoning of George Whitehead's. Who ca [...]ls it Non sense, to tell of God being Co-Creator with the Father, or that God had Glory with God. D [...]es not this imply into Gods, and that God had a Father? Let the Reader judge, says he. Now T. E. would makes us believe that G. W. in all this, Quarrel'd only with the Particle Co, which signifies with, viz. That, the Word was Creator jointly with the Father.

Answ. 1. Then, by this, T. E. yields that G. W. did not believe that the Word was a [...] with the Father. 2 This is the very Language of Scripture, John 1.1. The Word was with God, and that All things were made by Hug. 3. It is G. W [...]s own Language, as quoted by T. E. p. 32. The Word, in the Beginning and with the Father, in His Glory before the world began. Therefore G. W. found no Fault with the Particle Co, o [...] with, because he uses it himself 4. G. W. [...]s Reasoning proceeds further than the Particle Co, for he argues, that God, that is, the Word, could not have a Father; and that this would imply Two God's. p. 27. T. E. quotes G. W. saying a [...]ain, To tell of the word God, Co Creator with the Father, is all one as to tell of God being Co-Creator with God, if the Father [Page 2] be God; and this is to make Two Gods, Two Creators, &c. By which it is un­denyable that he did not allow the Word to be God, or to have a Father.

T. E. after this, quotes several Passages out of other Books of G. W's owning the Divinity of Christ. But these (if sincerely meant) are no Expla­nation, but a Flat Contradiction to this. Therefore, let these Quakers De­tract their Heresies and Blasphemies, that is all that is desired of them.

But, in the next place, it would be inquir'd what they mean by ascri­bing Divinity to Christ, or the Word. This is the Way to Reconcile these Contradictions. And, intruth, I cannot find that they mean, by it, any Distinction from the Father, otherwise than as the Sabellians held, a Distinct Operation or Manifestation of the Father. Christ is not Distinct from the Father, says George Fox, and They (the Father, Son, Great Mystery, p. 242. 293. and Holy Ghost) are not Distinct. And he opposes Chr. Wade for saying, that God the Father never took upon him Humane Nature (but the Son, pag. 246. as Chr. Wade words it) and quotes against it, that Text where Christ is called The Everlasting Father. So that herein they join with those Old Hereticks the Patripassians, and with Muggleton, who say, that it was God the Father who was Incarnate and Dyed. And they cannot think otherwise, if they believe the Word to be nothing else but a Distinct Operation or Manifestation of the Father, and so but Nomi­nally Different from Him; as some of them do express it; for an Opera­tion or Manifestation can neither be Incarnate or Dye.

III. The next Heresie of G.W's and the Quakers, which T.E. defends, is that against the Incarnation of Christ, in making Christ or the Word to have assum'd an Humane Body, only as a Vail or a Garment, wherein He Dwelt for a time, as Angels, when they appear'd in Bodies; but Deny (with the Socinians) that He really became a Man, by taking our Nature into His own Person; and therefore say that He had not an Humane Soul, tho' He dwelt in an Humane Body. For this G. K. produc'd this passage out of a Book of G. W's, which T. E. owns, and Repeats p. 33. viZ. If the Body and Soul of the Son of God were, Both, Created, doth not this render him a Fourth Person? In excuse of this, T. E. supposes that he, in answer to whom G. W. wrote this (one T. Danson, a Presbyterian Preacher) did hold that Christ had a Created Soul from Eternity: and upon that Suppo­sition, that G. W. brought this as an Absurdity following from Danson's Position; that this would infer a Fourth Person in the Divinity. Now this is so gross a Prevarication, that not only no Presbyterian, but no Chri­stian, ever held that Christ's created Soul was from Eternity: It is a Con­tradiction; for if it was created, it could not be from Eternity. And there­fore such a Pretence as this, is downright pleading Guilty. But shews the true Quaker Doctrine, that Christ had no Human Soul; and consequently that He was not truly a Man. For proof of which, this Quotation of G: K's was most Pertinent; and T. E's Answer confirms it much more.

[Page 3]IV. G. K. brought another Proof to shew, that G. W. do's not acknow­ledge that Christ has now the Body of a Man; or will come in that Body, to Judge the World. T. E. repeats the Words of G. W. p. 37. Do'st thou look for Christ as he was Son of Mary, to appear outwardly, in a Bodily Exi­stence to save thee? if thou do'st, thou mayst look until thy Eyes drop out, before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him. This George Whitehead wrote against one Robert Gordon; and says T. Ellwood, pag 38. If he be Dead, his Eyes may be already dropt out, without seeing it. This was spoke like Merry Andrew. Why? did Robert Gordon pretend that the Last Judgment should come before he Dyed? was that the Dispute betwixt him and G. W? No. Their Dispute was concerning Christ's coming, in His Human Body, to the Last Judgment; and T. E. do's not pretend to the Contrary. And therefore this Childish put off, as it is an Affront to his Readers, so is it a Total yielding up the Cause; and that in the most Shameful Manner. As is his other Excuse, that that coming to Judgment was not to save us; for the Contest was not for what End He came; But whether He would come or not? None ever said, that the Saints were not saved, that is, justified, and in Bliss, before the Day of Judgment [...] yet the Full and Compleat Consummation of their Bliss, in the Re-Union of Soul and Body, and Perfect Happiness, will not be till then; which is the Ultimate and Compleat Salvation.

V. The next Quotation out of G. W's Books, is p. 39. in these words, And that he (Christ) existeth outwardly Bodily, without us, at God's Right hand: what Scripture-proof hath he for these Words? and then what and where is God's Right hand? Is it Visible or Invisible? within us, or without us only? And is Christ the Saviour, as an outward Bodily Existence or Person without us, Distinct from God, and on that consideration, to be worshipped as God, yea, or nay? And where doth the Scripture say, He is Outwardly and Bodily Glorify'd at God's Right hand? Do these terms express the Glory that he had with the Father before the World began, in which He is now Glorified? In Excuse for all this Vehement Denyal of Christ's BODILY Existence at the Right Hand of God. T. E. says, p. 40. That sometimes Questions are only for Information, or to amuse an Adversary, not to shew ones own Opinion. Yes, sometimes they are so. And it is very Plain when they are so. And sometimes they are the most Positive way of asserting; as implying an Astonishment or Wonder of the Contrary, as so manifest an Absurdity, as not to be Defended. And it is as manifest when Questions are in this strain. And T. E. dares not say, that these Questions of G. W. were not in this later sense. And therefore his suggesting this, was against his own Conscience; and to shew that he was Resolv'd to sup­port his Cause, Right or Wrong.

His second Answer is yet more Notorious, p. 40. He supposes that R. Gordon, G. W 's Opponent intended to Deny the Divinity of Christ (which he never Deny'd, but Strongly asserts) and to set up the Body that was born of [Page 4] the Virgin, for the only, whole, Intire Christ and Saviour. And that G. W. only meant to oppose him in this. 1st, The Words above quoted were a strange sort of opposition, if this had been so. But 2dly, This is as Errant a Slander as ever was Invented; and T. E. and G. W. know it full well. For R. Gordon held no such thing, nor any thing like it; No, nor any Man that ever was Born, that only the Body was Christ! Did that ever enter into the Head of any Creature! So Confounded, so Destitute of all appearance of Truth, are these Quaker Pretences, whereby, in stead of forsaking, they seek to cover and sow Fig-leaves before their Na­kedness. They have but one Security left, That it is a shame to Confute them. But this Drudgery some must undergo, for the Good of those among them, who are not stung with the Deaf Adder; and to save others out of their Cobweb but Destructive Snares, to those who are be­witch'd into them.

VI. As vile and gross, but more Impudent is that Imputation which T.E. puts upon whole Professions of Christians, in Vindication of G. W's an­swer to a Baptist, who from Rev. 1.7. inferr'd that Those who Pierced him (Christ) in his Body of Flesh, shall see that Body visibly come again: which G. W. opposes, and says that this is an addition to the Scripture. And T. E. p. 47. brings him off, as before, by supposing that the Baptist meant, as if Christ's Body, at his coming to Judgment, should not be chang'd at all from the condition and appearance it had upon Earth, and that it was only this sort of Appearance which G. W. opposed. It is well known (says he, p. 49.) that many of the Baptists, as well as others of other Professions, do hold the Body of Christ now in Heaven, to be as Really and Materially a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, as it was when upon the Cross. And p. 47. Not so much as mentioning any Change in it. Now if there never was a Christian, who did not believe that Christ's Body was Glorified in Heaven, and much changed from the Condition it was in upon the Cross, how will T. E. answer for this Horrid and Senseless Imputation cast upon so many Chri­stians? How will he clear G. W. from Denying Christ's outward appear­ance at the Great Day, when he can save him by no other Supposition than this, which is notoriously False, to all that bear the Name of Chri­stians? Ay, and must be so to T. E. and G. W. themselves.

VII. Here T. E. spends a great deal of fruitless pains (as in several other places) in Retorting upon G. K. But I leave him to Defend himself. He needs no Second in his Contest with them. For as to the Points of Doctrine Debated, he has brought them (for the most part) to comply with him, at least to Counterfeit an Agreement, which is a Greater Victo­ry, if that were his aim. They Confess that they have no Objection against his Morals, and that they Differ not in Doctrine from him: and yet have Excommunicated him, that is, have Condemned themselves. And as to their Retortions and In-consistencies, charg'd upon him, he has hi­therto kept himself superiour to them. And set them an Example, [Page 5] which is the only Method to save their Consciences and Reputation; if they have not too much Pride to follow it, that is, he has own'd that there are some Errors in his former Books, and has Promis'd to Print a Re-tractation of them, as St. Augustine, and other Great Men have done; and to their Greater Praise. But T. E. and the Party he defends, stand still upon their Insallibility, after it is Expos'd to the utmost Contempt. They will yield no Error in themselves, no not in an Iota; not in their saying that Christ was b [...]rn at NaZ [...]reth: which T. E. in his Truth Defended, printed 1695. p. 167. quotes out of W. Pean's Christian Quaker, p. 104. But, on the contrary, They Invent such Salv [...]'s, and strange Fetches, to Reconcile their Heresies and Contradictions (as T. E. in the Present Case) that sinks them Deeper into the Mire, is a Plain conviction of their guilt; and makes them a Laughing-stock to all Ma [...]kind. But like a Bird that hides his Head, and thinks no body sees him: so they, while they do not confess against themselves, think themselves safe, and will perswade many of their Implicit Followers, that no body else sees them.

VIII. But enough of this. Let us Return to T. E. p. 53. he Defends G. W's Disputation against a Baptist, for asserting that there was a Per­sonal Christ now in Heaven, at God's Right Hand: all which G. W. turns Inward, viz. a God's Right Hand WITHIN ƲS; and a Christ WITHIN ƲS: and to understand these as out of his People, in a Personal being, which are no Scripture terms (says he) still implies him to be a Personal God or Christ, like the Anthropomorphite or Muggletonians conceit of him. So that it seems a Personal God or Christ WITHOUT ƲS, is as Ridiculous to G. W. as the Anthropomorphit or Muggletonian conceit, of God's having a Body, in shape and circumscription like to ours. Can we imagine these Men so Ig­norant as to know no Difference betwixt Person and Body; but to think every Person to be a Body; because, in common speaking, when we say such a Person, we mean a Man; and this Man has a Body? This, sure, must be the Size of their Philosophy! though it is hard to believe it, that Men who are Writers, and trouble the World with Books, should remain in such Childish Ignorance, as to think that no Spirit is a Person; for which only reason, they Deny Personality to God; and by this fall into the same Muggletonism with which they charge the Baptist. For, if God cannot be a Person without having a Body; then He must have a Body, or have no Existence, because every Intelligent Being is a Person, that is the Meaning of the word Person: Which if the Quakers have not hitherto understood, Let them go to School again, and Learn to Read before they Write, and to Humbly themselves Greatly before God; and confess their Fault before Men; for Causing so Grievous a Schism in the Church; and Branding so many Christians, all the World, but themselves, as Limbs of the Devil, and Deserters of the Faith, upon a Mistake, which Proceeds meerly from their own Ignorance. But though God be a Person without [Page 6] a Body; yet Christ has now, and ever will have a Body, an Human Body, in His Person; even the same Body which he took of the Blessed Virgin, in which He Suffer'd, Rose from the Dead, and Ascended into Hea­ven. And for G. W. to call this the Anthropomorphit, or Muggleto­nian Conceit, shews his Utter Ignorance, and Blind Heresie; for both these give a Body to God, i. e. to God the Father, to the very Nature of the Deity. Which has no Relation to those who acknowledge only the Body of Christ, but own no Body of the Father. But G. W. puts both in the same Bottom; and makes the one as absurd and contradictory as the other, to shew how sound and orthodox he is in the Christian Faith! And T. E. makes no other Defence for G. W. but his Old False Suppose, that this Baptist was an Anthropomorphit. Nay, p. 53. he finds fault with G. K. for saying that There is no Church of England Man, Presbyterian, or Baptist, that holds that notion, That the Godhead has the shape of a Man. T. E. tells him that he is too slight a Voucher for all of these Communions. Insinuating as if some of them did hold that Notion; against his own Heart; which knows the contrary. All the World knows it, That all these Commu­nions do Detest and Abominate any such Notion. Nor can I tell him, in all Christendom, where to find (except himself and Partners) any As­sociates for the Muggletonians in this Point, but only their Brethren the Bidleite Socinians, or Ʋnitarians, for Bidle was a Profess'd Anthropomorphit, as he has Publish'd in his Socinian Catechism. But T. E. takes great pains to prove that G. W. do's acknowledge (in what Sophistical sense he under­stands, and we too now understand them) a Body of Christ now in Heaven. Let him free himself then, upon this Hypothesis, from Muggletonism, and he will at the same time see all those set free, whom he most falsly accuses with it. But what Body of Christ do's he allow now in Heaven? a Spiritual Body all do allow. But is it a true Human Body in our Nature? No, keep off that—That would discover all— for the Nature of Christ (says G. W. as quoted by T. E. p. 58.) is Pure, so that it is not their (i. e. Human) Nature, for their Nature is Filthy, therefore it is not in Christ. Here G. W. expresly Denys, and endeavours to Prove that Christ has not now our Human Nature; because (forsooth) our Nature is Filthy, that is, Cor­rupted. But did the Baptist say that it was Filthy in Christ? No. Expresly the Contrary. He said that it was Pure in Christ, tho' Corrupted in us. And how now do's T. E. bring off G. W. in this? Why? after the Old Fa­shion, i. e. he says that G. W. only meant that our Nature was not in Christ, that is (says he) as it is Filthy! which the Baptist, nor any other ever said. So that he sets up a Man of Straw, and throws him down again; and thinks thus to Deceive all Mankind, and keep their Vile Heresies still in the Dark. But they are Discovered.

IX. T. E. p. 67. sets down J. Faldo's Objection against the Quakers, viz. That Christianity was introduced by Preaching the Promised Messias, and [Page 7] Pointing at His Human Person; but Quakerism by Preaching a Light within. And then gives W. Penn's Answer, that had they Preached a Christ Now coming in the Flesh, they had Denyed his true Visible Appearance at Jerusalem. And therefore that since they believe that Appearance, they need not Preach what is not to be again. Why? did Faldo, or any other, contend for a New In­carnation of Christ, or His Now coming in the Flesh? This is a strange Perversion! But such are necessary to support the Quakers Doctrine: And then the Inference is as Wild; That there is no Need of Preaching the In­carnation of Christ, because It is not to be again. i. e. We have done with it. It is past and gone, and of no more use to us. but T. E. excuses it thus, p. 71. That they should not Preach ONLY the Incarnation and Sufferings of Christ at Jerusalem, i [...]e. without Preaching likewise the Inward Operations of his Spirit in our Hearts. Why? did J. Faldo, or any other oppose this? No surely. Why then did they oppose J. Faldo's urging the Necessity of Preaching a Christ without, and not only The Light within? For that was all J. Faldo meant or said. T. E. says again (ibid.) that there is no need of Preaching Christ's outward Appearance ON THAT ACCOƲNT, that is, for Proving his Sp [...]ritual Appearance. He might as well have said, For Pro­ving there was a God, or any Influence from God. This was no Part of the Controversie. Again. T. E. says, (ibid.) there was no need of Preaching Christ's outward appearance ƲNTIL His Inward Appearance was Preached. Here are Salto's, which if they Pass, there is no Treason, Heresie, B [...]asphemy, or Idolatry, but may securely be vended. For Example, if any should say that the King is not King of England, i. e. not only, for he is of Scotland and Ireland too. That Christ is not God, i. e. not only, for He is Man too. That GOD is not Just, i. e. not only, for He is Merciful too. That we need no more Preach Faith or Repentance, i. e. not only, for there are Good Works, &c. to be Preached. That we may worship an Image, i. e. Supposing it to be God, or a Special Presence of God in it, &c. If I should say that T. E. was not an Ho est Man, or a Fair Dealer; and when taxt for it, should think to come off by saying, that he was not only so, but a Good Husband, and a Dutiful Son besides, would he so Excuse me? But what was the Reason which W. Penn gave why the out­ward appearance of Christ at Jerusalem need not be Preached any more? it was none of these Ingenuous Contrivances which T E. has since found out, it was not Only, or Vntil, or on that Account; but Himself tells the Reason very Plainly, it was, because that outward appearance was Past; and there­fore, says he, for that Cause, and because it was not to be again, it need not now to be Preached. And therefore we need not Preach what is not to be again. But there is farther in Mr. Penn's Reasons, quoted by T. E. viz. And that the whole Christ an World besides (the Quakers) have so long and Lazily Depen­ded on it, without their thirsting after his Inward Holy Appearance in the Con­science. This is a Hard Censure. But T. E. says, p. 73. That this do's not [Page 8] Include every single Man (except the Quakers) in the whole Christian World. That is very Gracious! Though W. P. did not the Favour to Except Any. But our Dispute now is not concerning Mens Practices, but their Principles: And if W. P. or T. E. cannot Name one single Man, much less any of those Communions which he Disputes against, that ever thought Christ's outward Appearance would save them, without His Inward Holy Appearance in their Consciences; then against whom have they Disputed? Whom have they Con­demned? And if all that can be said in Defence of such Desperate and Blas­phemous Positions as have dropt from their Pens, be such a Supposition as this, then must they unavoidably fall under the Load of what is Charg'd upon them. And till they not only Repent, but Confess, they can have no Pardon from God or Men. For Christ's outward Appearance and Sufferings at Je­rusalem, tho' Past; and not to be again, must always be Preached, as being the Foundation of the Whole Christian Faith. Which the Quakers have Re­duc'd back again to the same Level with the Heathen, as will appear more fully in the next Quotation.

X. Which is p. 74. where T. E. justifies these Words of W. P. The Di­stinction betwixt Moral and Christian, the making Holy Life Legal, and Faith in Christ's outward Manifestation, Christianity; has been a Deadly Poyson th [...]se later Ages have been Infected with. Which T. E. after the Old Fashion, solvs, by supposing, p. 75. that J. Faldo, and others his Opponents did hold, That a Bare Historical Belief of Christ's outward appearance in the Flesh, is of more value and advantage to them, than a Vertuous, Pious, Godly Life. What then? Is there therefore no Distinction betwixt Moral and Christian? But, in the next place, neither J. Faldo, or any of W. Penn's Opponents, ever Be­liev'd or Imagin'd any such thing, as that a Bare, Historical [...]aith (which the Devils have, and Tremble) would save any Man, or was Preferable to a Pious, Godly Life. But you would make Monsters of other Men, to Hide your own Deformity. For, in the next Quotation, p. 75. W. P. not only Drops an Expression, but argues, at length, for the Heathen, that is, as he there describes them, those who never had the External Law nor History, and would prove them to be Christians thus, Let us but soberly consider (says he) what Christ is, and we shall the better know, whether Moral Men are to be Reckon'd Christians. What is Christ but Meekness, justice, Mercy? &c. Can we then [...]eny a Meek Man to be a Christian? This is according to Mr. Penn's Theo­logy (which will be consider'd by and by) of making the Promis'd Seed of the Woman, Gen. 3.15. not to be Christ's Human Nature, which he took of the Blessed Virgin, but only an Inward Principle, i. e. the Light within; which the Heathens have; and so have Christ; and are therefore. Good Christians, acording to the Quaker Doctrine.

In Answer to this, T. E. has given the first Proof of Ingenuity, that I have found in this Book of his. For he go's not about (as in other cases) to excuse, or mollifie this; But down-right Justifies it, that moral Heathens [Page 9] are Good Christians: Nay, he seems to Prefer the Heathen, whom he calls A Child of God, in Contradistinction from a Christian. He makes nothing of Christianity but only an outward Character, or Discriminating Difference, viz. an Historical Faith of Christs outward Appearance in the Flesh at Jerusa­lem. Which indeed, if that be all, is but a very small matter, a little History; But he makes the Heathen to have The Kind and Nature of a Chri­stian, which he Prefers to that outward Character, or Discriminating Diffe­rence which do's distinguish him from the Historical Christian. G. Keith had allow'd that Morality was a part of Christianity, and did belong to the Ge­nus of a Christian. But there are two things (said he) in the true Difinition of a Man, the Genus and the Differentia; they have the Genus, but not the Differentia. But this would not satisfie T. E. he objects against this, and shews his Parts in Philosophy, as well as Divinity. And I pray (says he) which is of most Moment in this case, the Genus or the Differentia? To have the Kind and Nature of a Christian, or to have only some outward Character, or Discriminating Difference, to distinguish a Christian from a Child of God, as Namely an Historical Faith of Christ's outward appearance in the Flesh at Jerusalem? But with submission, I must correct T. E's Philosophy; for it is the Differentia, not the Genus which Determines the Kind or Na­ture. Animal is the Genus of Man, but it is Rationale which makes him of a Different Kind or Species from other Animals. And this sets the Diffe­rentia as much above the Genus, as Man is above a Beast. But by T. E's Logick, Bucephalus is little Inferior to him, only in some outward Cha­racter: For, which I pray, is of most Moment in this case, the Genus or the Differentia? Bucephalus has the Genus, and T. E. has the Differentia, and, as himself makes it, but a small one. Therefore, tho' a Moral Heathen have the Genus of a Christian, yet he can no more be a Christian without the Differentia, than a Horse can be T. E. And this Differentia is not only an Historical Faith in Christ's Appearance in the Flesh, as T. E. makes it? But a Living Faith in his Blood outwardly shed, as the Full At­tonement and Satisfaction made to the Justice of God for our Sins. And as far as any one is from this Faith, so far he is from Christianity. Therefore the Quakers, by Disputing against and Disowning of this Faith, instead of bringing the Heathen within the Pale of Christi­anity, have thrust themselves out among the Heathen. From whom, their meerly Historical Faith in the Death and Sufferings of Christ, as T. E. rightly argues, do's Difference them very little. And let the Quakers here Consider to what a Condition they have brought themselves; That they cannot Pretend to be Christians, but upon such Principles as must bring in all the Heathen with them. That is to say Truly and Really, they are no more Christians than the Heathen; and that they are Preaching up Heathenism, instead of Christianity amongst us; by making them Both to be the same thing; or to Differ only in some small Circumstances, which are not necessary to the Christian Faith. For says [Page 10] W. P. as T. E. quotes him, p. 77. As he that Believes in Christ, Believes in God: so he that Believes in God, Believes in Christ. Which is a fine Round saying, but the latter Part is notoriously otherwise: for the Hea­then Believe a God, who never heard of Christ. But Christ is the Light within! and the Light within is Christ! And all the Heathen have the Light within! therefore they all have Christ! This is the true Quaker Doctrine; and all the Notion they have of Christianity. They have let us see it very plainly. We thank them.

XI. This is the Meaning of what T. E. would Excuse, p. 78. viZ That W. Penn spending about three Pages in Folio, to give the Description of A True Christian Quaker, has forgot to speak one Word of the Man Christ, as the Object either of the Christian Quaker's Faith, Love, or Homage. T. E's Excuse is, That W. P. was then Describing who he or they are that obey the Light. And was it not strange that the Quaker Light should quite overlook the outward Christ? It could not be, had they Believ'd in Him. as Impossible as that a Man could Describe the true Faith in God, and yet never name God at all. It is the same thing to Pretend to Describe the Christian Faith, without Naming of Christ. One would wonder how any could avoid it, even in the first Line. This cannot be Forgetfulness: or it was a very Artificial one.

XII. So was not that which is next quoted of his, p. 79. &c. where he makes the Inward Work of Regeneration performed by the Light within, a Grea­ter Mystery than the Incarnation of Christ. If the Manifestation (said he) of the Son of God in the Flesh be a Mystery; how much more is the Work of Regeneration a Mystery, that is wholly Inward and Spiritual in its operation? This shews how much they Prefer their Light within to the outward Christ. But T. E. says, p. 82. That the Comparison here did not lie between the Incarnation of Christ, and the work of Regeneration: But between the Difficulty of Believing the one, and Experiencing the other. But I must tell T. E. That he is Mi­staken, and that his Excuse is point-blank contrary to Mr. Penn's own Words, which lay the Comparison Expresly betwixt the Incarnation of Christ, and the Work of Regeneration. And this Put-off, is to suppose all his Readers to be Children, or not to Understand English or Common sense. This is not Explaining, but quite Altering of Words: Adding and Sub­stracting at Pleasure. Though if T. E's Sense were admitted, it would not mend the Matter. Because the Saving Faith of Christ's Incarnation, &c. is our Regeneration. But I will not stay upon that. My Business now be­ing only to Consider his Defence of others, not to follow as many New Notions as he, in his Distress, is Forced to start. He says that W. P. has this same Notion in other Places. So let him. But we are now Con­sidering of this Place: And if it be Ʋnsound, let him confess and Retract. And it is a favour to him, not to Pursue those other Places which T. E. quotes out of his other Works, They make the Matter still worse and worse, as p. 82. where he brings in W. P. Objecting against J. Faldo, [Page 11] &c. That they made the History (i. e. Christ's Incarnation) the Greatest Mystery, i. e. Greater than the Operation of their Light within. And so do all true Christians. But W. P. calls the Incarnation of Christ the History, and the Light within the Mystery, as being Greater; 'Tis Strange (says he, in the same place which T. E. quotes, i. e. of his Rejoinder, p. 336.) that should be reputed most mysterious (speaking of Christ's Incarnation) which was the Introduction to the Mystery (i. e. of the Light within) and those Transactions, (i. e. of Christ's outward Sufferings) c [...]unted most Difficult, that were—as so many Tacile Representations of what was to be accomplished in Man. In short, it is to lessen, if not totally exclude the True Mystery of Godliness, which is Christ Manifested in his Children. Here he makes the Light within the True Mystery; which Implies the Incarnation and outward Sufferings of Christ were not the True Mystery. He calls them but [...]acile Representations of the True Mystery, i. e. The Light within, and but the Introduction to it: and wonders that any should think the outward Sufferings of Christ, which he calls Those Transactions, to be more difficult than the Inward Trans­actions of the Light in their Hearts. And now I wish T. E. Joy of this Book of W. P's, which he has call'd in to his Aid. But I hasten from this, and much more of this sort, which I could Produce.

I likewise pass over several Monstrous Absurdities in T. E's own No­tions, which he Interposes, as not being the subject I am now Pursuing. He says, p. 83. That Christ's Incarnation was not properly call'd a My­stery, from the Perfection of Holiness that was in Him. Was it no part of the Mystery, or not Properly so, that the Fulness of the Godhead, the Highest Perfection of Holiness Dwelt Bodily in a Man? Is this no Mystery? But I proceed. He brings a New and his Old Defence for W. P. he says, p. 84. It is Plain that the Scope and Prist of th [...]se Words of W. P. was to perswade People not to rest Barely in an Historical Belief of Christs Incarnation—But to come to a Living Faith, &c. But, as I have often Reply'd before, there being no such People whose Principle it is to Rest Barely upon an Historical Faith; none such who oppos'd W. P. therefore it is plain, that this is a meer sham pretence, only to cover and hide the Broadest of Heresies or Blasphemies that can be spoken. But T. E. in the same page, to Lessen the Faith in the outward Jesus, endeavours to Render it Mighty Easie, in comparison of their Inward Light. For little of Difficulty (says he) there is in Barely and Historically believing this (i. e. That God sent Christ to Dye for Sinners, and to reconcile God to Men by His Death) the Common Faith of all that Part of the World called Christian shews, wherein all Professions, and the most Profligate and Prophane in any Profession, doth so Believe it. I wish T. E. were not out in his Reckoning. i. e. That all these he Names did Really and Truly Believe this, even H [...]storically. But that it self (though that alone will not do) is not so Easie a Matter as he would make it. He sees, at least we do, how Hard a Task it is with the Quakers, who will [Page 12] not Believe that the outward Death of Christ was ordain'd as the Satisfaction for their Sin. The Socinians do likewise openly oppose this, and all the Deists. Into which Societies, the Greatest Numbers of our open Debauchees do glory to Inlist themselves. These call themselves the Beaux Esprits, the Men of Sence, and Large Thoughts: and among the Profligate and Pro­phane of the Meaner Rank, Few, if any of them do Really Believe it, even Historically; or f [...]rget it, and never think of it: otherwise it would have a Greater Influence upon them. For the Historical Faith must be In­seperable from the Saving Faith; And indeed the Saving Faith, is the Hi­storical, throughly Digested, and Apply'd. And it is often seen that they who do neglect so to aptly it, do, in time, quite lose it: And it is Gene­rally Lost amongst the Vicious and Prophane of all sorts; so that Few of them are to be found, who have even the Historical Faith. They Re­peat not, that they may Believe, Matth. 21.32. A Vertuous Life is a ne­cessary Qualification even for a True Belief of Christ: Which is a Gift of God, Ephes. 11.8. And John the Baptist was sent to Preach Repentance, as a Necessary Preparation to Receive the Faith of Christ. So that this is not so Easie a Matter as T. E. thinks; nor Common to the Vicious and Hy­pocrites; who lessen it, and slight it, as the Quakers have Endeavour'd; as T. E. endeavours, p. 86. where speaking of his Beloved Heathen-Chri­stians, he presses it upon G. Keith, That he must grant the Object of their Faith to be, not the outward Appearance of Christ in the Flesh; but His In­ward Appearance and Manifestation, in and by His Divine Light, Life, Word and Power in their Hearts. This is Plain Language! And this, he says, must be Granted, if we allow that any of them can be saved. Which to be sure T.E. do's, who gives them the Genus, which he thinks the chief Part of Christianity.

How God will Deal with the Good Moral Heathen, who never Heard of Christ, I will not determin, nor enter into the Secrets of Providence: But that they have the Christian. Faith, by Believing their Light within: or that their is any Object of the Christian Faith without the outward Jesus, who suffered at Jerusalem, is a Quaker Dream, and opposit to the whole Tenure of the Gospel. And now that I have shewn the difficulty of attain­ing to the outward and Historical Faith of Christ; let me Compare with it the Difficulty which the Quakers Pretend there is in attaining to what they call their Inward Faith in their Light within: which, as they have Ma­nag'd it, is indeed as Difficult, as for a Man to run out of his Wits: But to Minds Prepar'd for such Enthusiastical Delusions, it is as Easie as to think Highly of ones self; and construe all the strong Imaginations of their own Brain, for Immediate Revelations: And of this Method the Easiness may appear, from the Qualifications of the Persons most subject to it. Ignorance is the true Mother of their Devotion. But such a Profound Degree of this Intoxication as Possesses the Generality of Quakers, I will [Page 13] grant is not Easie to be Met with; or to be found among any other Dis­crimination of Men, that are known in our Parts of the World, if any where at all, either of the Present or Past Ages: yet it is an Easie and a Common thing for Men to follow their own Jmaginations; and Supiness, Ignorance, and Conceitedness do naturally Produce it; so that (to apply T.E's own Distinction) To Believe even Historically, Christ's Coming in the Flesh; and the Ttue Ends and Design of it, is Harder than to Experi­ence my Minds running without Care or Pains, after my own Fansie, which Men do to avoid Labour, and the difficulty of Examining and Comparing: For the Workings of Reas [...]n are full of Labour; not so of the Imagina­tion; which is strongest in Mad Men, and those most Destitute of Reason. And the Sobriety of Religion is with much more Pains acquir'd, than the Levity of Imagination, which has no Stint or Rule, but Runs away with those who have not the Curb of Reason to govern it, as a wild Horse, when the Bridle is broke. And therefore the Be [...]ieving of the One, which T. E. speaks of, i. e. the Historical Faith of Christ's Incarnation, &c. and the True Ends of it, is more Difficult than the Experiencing of the other, i. e. the workings of what they call their Light within; as much mor [...] Difficult, as Knowledge is more Difficult than Ignorance, and Reason than Imagination. And they are Novices, know least of Religion, who are soon­est lifted up with Pride: and these fall into the Condemnation of the Devil; 1 Tim. iii. 6. who Transforms himself into an Angel of Light; as of­ten as h [...] can Perswade any to put Darkness for Light, and Light for Darkness.

XIII. W. Penn contends earnestly that the Seed of the Woman Promised Gen. iii. 15. was not that Jesus who was Born of the Blessed Virgin, or any other Person, but only a Principle, or Seed in every Man's Heart. The Seed (says he, as quoted by T. E. p. 91.) cannot be that Body, (i. e. of Christ) and consequently the Seed of the Promise is an Holy and Spiritual Prin­ciple of Light, &c. received into the Heart. And this Light within he makes to be Christ. Now see how T. E. endeavours to Rescue him. He says, p. 90. concerning Christ's Body, That that Body, simply Consider'd as a Natural Body; which (says he) was the Notion the Adversaries had of it, was not properly the Christ. But there were no such Adversaries, no, not one that oppos'd W. P. who said, that the Body of Christ, simply considered as a Natural Body, was Properly the Christ. No Man in this World ever said so. Therefore W. P. is no ways Justified, but rather Exposed by this: and the Quaker Principles laid more open.

XIV. One or W. P's Arguments by which he Endeavours to Prove that the outward Christ was not the Promis'd Seed, is, because (as he says) One outward thing cannot be the Proper Figure or Representation of another: And the Passover being a Type of Christ, he thence Infers, That the outward Lamb, shews forth the Inward Lamb, i.e. the Light within. This is set [Page 14] down, p. 90. of T. E. among other such like Arguments of W. P. and T. E. answers, p. 92. W. P. did not say the Paschal Lamb was no Figure of Christ without. Did he not? What then becomes of W. P's Argument, That one outward thing cannot be the Figure of another? CANNOT, it is Impossible, i. e. The Paschal Lamb, not only was not, but Could not be the Figure of Christ. But as T. E. has put it, Christ may still be the Promised Seed, even the outward Christ; which W. P. said▪ Could not be.

T. E. Pleads again, p. 96. and catches hold of the Word Proper, in W. P. and seeks to Draw him out of the Mire by that Twig, viz. That one outward thing cannot Properly be the Figure or Representation of another. And so he makes the Paschal Lamb to be Properly a Figure of the Inward Lamb, i. e. The Light within: But Improperly a Figure of the outward Christ. This is hard Fishing! and renders their Heresie yet more Broad-Fac'd. The Paschal Lamb was many ways a Type of the outward Christ, and of His Sufferings outwardly in the Flesh. It Sacrific'd, so He: [...] Bone of it Broken, so none of His: The Door-Posts sprinkled with its Blood, so our Consciences by His Blo [...]d: It Sav'd from the destroying Angel, so His Blood from Sin and Death: It without Blemish, He without Sin: It with Bitter Herbs, He with Bitter Dolours upon the Cross—And several other Parallels which are betwixt them. Which all were proper and fit Types of Him. Otherwise T.E. arraigns the Wisdom of God for making Impro­per Types. But these Types can no ways, but by a Mad Imagination, be apply'd to the Light within, which, in the Quaker Sense, sheds its Blood WITHIN, and its Bones are not Broken WITHIN, &c. And of this the Paschal Lamb was a Proper Type! But an Improper Type of Christ without! It could not be Apply'd to Him, but by Long and Strange Fetches! B [...]t of the Sufferings, Blood, and Bones of the Light within, you see how Natu­rally, and Most Properly, They are all Typify'd! And doth it not so? says T. E. p. 92. i. e. The outward Lamb shew forth the Inward Lamb. Just as you have seen! and as T. E. stumbles upon it, p. 93. where he forgets himself (for Great Wits have Short Memories) and owns quite contrary to what I have quoted. That it was the outward Body, or Manhood only of Christ our Spiritual Passover, that, in a strict and proper Sense, was said to be slain. Now we are come quite about again. Now the outward Lamb shews forth the Inward Lamb, neither Strictly nor Properly; But the out­ward Body of Christ; and that Only. And now T. E. has left W. P. where he found him, To say what he can for one outward thing not being the Type of another. That the outward Lamb shews forth the Inward Lamb, &c.

XV. T. E. shews us how hard it is to find out a Quaker by Words; what Double Meanings and Secret Reserves they have in every thing that they say: and that they can say (when Pinch'd) any Words that can be Required of them; without Danger of being Discover'd. When they [Page 15] acknowledge Christ to be Man, do they mean the same thing as we do▪ No, far from it. They have a Spiritual Manhood, that means quite ano­ther thing. And in this Sense, T. E. acknowledges, p. 97. That Christ was truly a MAN, bef [...]re he appear'd in the outward Body, which was Nail'd to the Cross; and that not only In his People, but out of, or without them also. How long before? Even From the Beginning. And if he was Truly Man, then (says he) to be sure He is not less truly Man now. Yes! to be sure! and they think Him to be as Little Man NOW, as He was Then. But they are Desir'd (if they would be so Good) to let us know, How Christ became the Son of Man, how He took upon Him our Flesh, how He was the Seed of the Woman Promised, Gen. 3. before He was Made of a Wo­man, and even before any Woman in the World was Made. This is New Divinity! These Men Dance in the Clouds. They have not a Mind to be understood; which is a Demonstration that they Mean not as we do; and that their Meaning is not Good.

SECT. 2. Of Justification and Sanctification by the Blood of Christ, out­wardly shed.

1. WE come now to the Second Head of G. Keith's Charge, which T.E begins to Answer, p. 103. which is, That the Quakers do Deny Justification and Sanctification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed. And the first Proof is W. Penn, who Totally Excludes the Satisfaction of Christ. His Argu­ment is from that Petition in the Lord's Prover, Forgive no our Debts, as we forgive our Debtors. From whence W.P. infers, That, if it is our Duty to forgive without a satisfaction received; and that God is to forgive us, as we forgive them, then is a Satisfaction Totally Excluded. But though the Debtor makes no satisfaction, yet God has promised to do it, in Full Measure, Pressed down, shaken together, and Running over, to those who Forgive any thing for His sake. So that here is Satisfaction not Totally Excluded; But Filled up, every to the Brim. But how do's T. E. Answer this? He says, p. 104, 105. That W.P. meant only to Exclude a PLENARY, or FƲLL, or RIGID (which is the same) Satisfaction. 1st. Every true Satisfaction must be PLENARY, else it is no Satisfaction. Paying part of a Debt, is not a Satisfying of the Debt. But 2dly. W. P. neither made any such Distin­ction, nor could Intend it: For his Argument runs against All Satisfaction. He did not mean that we were Commanded to Forgive our Debtors only in part; else God was to Forgive us but in part, since, as he says, God is to forgive us, as we Forgive them. And thence concludes, That A Satis­faction, i. e. Any Satisfaction is not only Excluded, but, to shew his Vehe­mence, TOTALLY Excluded. T. E. was no Friend to W. P. in men­tioning [Page 16] his Sandy Foundation, upon this occasion, which is wholly Socinian, Disputing Expresly against the Holy Trinity, and the Satisfaction of Christ Particularly: and I Charitably believe, that he wishes it had never been wrote: and that it may be now Forgotten. Therefore I Forbear to Rip it up.

II. The next Quotation is out of George Whitehead, which T E. comes to p. 109. and Repeating the Charge, That G. W. blames W. Burnet, his Opponent, for saying, The Blood shed upon the Cross, sprinkles the Con­science, Sanctifies, Justifies, Redeems us, says, That G. W. only Blames him for saying thus, as an Absurdity following upon what W. Burnet had said, That that Blood was not now in Being. Why? Do's G. W. believe that that Blood is any otherwise in Being, than as W. Burnet did believe? He Dare not say so. And if not, their there was no Contest betwixt Burnet and him, upon that Head. So that this is Plainly giving us the Go by: and all the Consequences which G. W. draws, or pretends to draw from that saying of Burnet's are fully Chargeable upon Himself.

But 2dly, I desire the Reader here to take Notice of the Grossest piece of Deceit, that, perhaps, ever he met with: For that saying of Burnet's (p. 40. of his Book) is only his Repetition of it, as being the Quakers own Objection against the Efficacy of that Blood which was shed upon the Cross, to us now, viz. That it was not now in Being, and therefore that we could not now be Justified by that which was not in Being. To which W. Burnet Answers, That though that Blood shed be not in Being (that is Sup­posing, but not Granting it) yet the Efficacy of that Blood is still in Being, and it still speaks in God's Ears, and crys aloud for Mercy. If Abel 's Blood did cry against the Murderer (for Vengeance) How much more louder doth the Blood of the Lamb slain, cry for Mercy? &c. Here Burnet only gives way to this Supposition of the Quakers, viz. That that Blood was not in Being, by way of Concession, not as his own Opinion; to shew that no Conse­quence could be drawn from it, to favour the Quaker Heresie of Denying Justification by that Blood. And yet T. E. (concealing of this) would put it upon Us, That G. W. in Answer to this Place of Burnet, did oppose him only for that Supposition; and that (agreeing Perfectly with him in Justification by that Blood) he only shew'd the Ill Consequences of that Supposition, which was his own; and which he will not, no, nor T. E. or any other of their Quakers, Dare Deny at this Day, viz. That that Blood shed upon the Cross, is not now in Being. This is Turning the Tables upon W. Burnet, in such an Impudent Manner, that, if I had not seen his Book, I could not have believed it. But 3dly, If that Supposition had been W. Burnet's, and not the Quakers own, it would not Rescue G. W. because he plainly makes the Conclusion his own, by Denying Justifica­tion by that Blood: However, justly it is drawn from that supposed Supposition. 4thly, The Agonies and Passion of Christ upon the Cross, are not [Page 17] now in being: And this Argument of G. W's will Dissolve all the Me­rits of His Death, to our Justification thereby, as well as by His Blood; for indeed they are the same. But 5thly, All these little Cavillings about the Blood of Christ, which was shed either before or after His Death, are only to Amuse: For they Deny any Justification by the outward Christ, upon any account. In A Serious Apology, written by George Whitehead, and William Penn, printed 1671. p. 148. Repeating a Charge against them in these words. That we deny Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in His own Person for us (wholly without us) and therefore Deny the Lord who Bought us. To which W. Penn answers in these words. And indeed this we Deny, and Bodly affirm it, in the Name of the Lord, To be the Doctrine of Devils, and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption, which does now Deluge the Whole World. If they think to come off by that saying, wholly without us. I answer, that the Meritorious and only Procuring cause of our Justification is wholly without us, i. e. By the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in His own Person for us; and the Satisfaction which He hath made by His Death and Passion for our Sins. But the Application of this to Particular Persons must be Inward, by the Operation of His blessed Spirit in our Hearts. And this hinders not, but rather supposes that the Meritorious Cause is wholly without us, i. e. All the Merit is to be Attributed to what Christ hath done and suffer'd for us: for we can Merit nothing from God, of our selves. And not only to Deny this, but to call it a Doctrine of Devils, &c. And that In the Name af the Lord! As it shews these Men to be utter Strangers to the true Principles of the Christian Reli­gion; so do's it Deserve an Animadversion which I will spare in this place.

III. T. E. p. 111. puts the Baptist's Objection against G. W. in these words, Now the Quakers would be so far from directing Men to go to the Material Temple at Jerusalem, that they make it but a vain thing to look to Jerusalem, to the Anti-Type of that Temple, viz. to Jesus Christ, as he was there Crucified, or to that Blood that was there shed for Justification. Now says T. E. see the Answer which G. W. gives, thus, The Quakers see no need of Directing men to the Type for the Anti-Type, nor yet to Jerusalem, either to Jesus Christ, or His Blood And where do the Scriptures say, the Blood was There shed for Justification? T. E. says in Excuse, That there is a Typographical Error in this Passage. But do's not Infallibility reach to Writing or Print­ing, as well as Speaking? It seems the Quaker Infallibility do's not go throughout. But what is this Error? Why intread of The Quakers see no need of Directing Men to Jerusalem, either To Jesus Christ or His Blood, it should have been Either (says T. E.) For Jesus Christ, &c. i. e. That Men need not go to Jerusalem, For to look For the outward Material Blood which was shed There 1600 Years ago. Why? was that the Baptist's Meaning? T. E. dare not say that. The most Superstitious that ever went thither in Pil­grimage, never thought any thing so absurd as that. 2dly, What is the [Page 18] Difference betwixt FOR and TO in this Place? To send Men to Jerusa­lem, TO look for Jesus Christ or His Blood, or FOR to look for them? 3dly, Was this Typographical Error ever taken Notice of before? No, not a word of it, though it was Printed in the Year 1663. Were there any Errata of the Press Printed? Yes, a good many, at the End of the Book. Was not this among them? No. Then surely, it was either thought not to be an Erratum: or not so Material as Tras­mutation for Transmutation, and several other Literal Erratas, which are there carefully Printed. And Trumping it up Now, shews the weak Efforts of a Dying Cause; like a Drowning Man catching at a Straw; which yet do's not save him: For, as before said, this Typographical Error (supposing it to be one) do's no service at all to his Cause, but leaves him just where it found him: But what says he to that Expression above quoted, Where do the Scriptures say, the Blood was there shed for Justification? This is a Crabbed Place. And though T. E. Repeats it again, p. 112. Yet he says not one Word in excuse for it. But G. W. lets us see his Opinion fully in the same Book here quoted by T. E. viz. The Light and Life of Christ within, Printed 1668. p. 51. where he makes a Dialogue betwixt the Baptist he Disputes against, and himself. Thus. I ask (says G. W.) who is He that satisfies and appeaseth God, Dischargeth the Guilty, and Pays the Debt? Bapt. It is the Man Christ Jesus. G. W. Whence came He? Bapt. God gave Him. G. W. And what is this Man Christ Jesus, who can Satisfie, Pacifie an Infinit God? Bapt. He is God-Man, born of a Virgin. G. W. How would this Divide God, and set Him at Distance from Himself? Is it good Doctrine to say, That God Pacified God when He saw Himself angry? For says the Baptist, It was God Man that did it. Which is all one as to say, God Corrected Himself—and then He was Mediator to Himself, &c. Thus G. W. Blasphem­ously (with the Socinians, and in their very words) Ridicules the Satisfaction of Christ, and our Justification by it: and shews his utter Ignorance of the true Christian Doctrine. Which I stay not now to Dispute: My Business being only to Detect these Men, That they have Grosly Mistaken it.

But before I proceed, I find my self oblig'd to ask T. E's Pardon. For that I said just now, while I was considering his page 111. That he Durst not say, That the Baptist's meaning (against whom he Disputes) was to send Men now to Jerusalem, to look for the Blood of Christ which was shed There 1600 Years ago, as if it were now to be found there. And indeed I thought so, That neither T. E. or any Man whatever Durst have ventur'd upon a Supposition so Monstrously Absurd: But, to my great surprize, I find, reading, p. 115. That he Positively, and without any Haesitation asserts it. That the Baptist did Direct People now to go Thither (Jerusalem) for it (the Blood of Christ there shed) or Look thither for it, as if it were now to be found there. These are his Words. I will not take up the Reader's time to vindicate this Baptist, (W. Burnet) whom T. E. thus accuses; but Refer [Page 19] to his Book, Intituled, The Captital Errors of the People called Quakers, Printed 1668. In Answer to which G. W. wrote The Light and Life, &c. above quoted. And it will there appear, not only that W. Burnet had no such gross conceit: but that he Plainly and Fully Expresses himself to the Contrary, viz. That it was the Merit of Christ's Blood, and Faith in the Redemption thereby wrought, that he contended for: and not that the Material Blood which was shed at Jerusalem, was Now there to be found. But the Quakers oppose the Christian Doctrine: and (when pin­ched) think to Blind the Eyes of the World, by Pretending that they only spoke against such Opinions, as never were held; and which their Op­posers Detest as much as they can do. But if they Differ not from us now in Doctrine, as they, of Late, would have us believe: Why then do they seperate from us? Why have they Branded all other Communions, but themselves, as in the Apostacy, as Conjures, Devils, &c. Have they never un­derstood our Doctrine, till Now? Then Now, tho' Lat [...] let them Return.

IV. The next Quotation objected by G. Keith, is out of a Letter of one Solomon Eccles (A Great Preacher and Prophet of the Quakers) where he said, That the Blood of Christ is no more than the Blood of another Saint. Which T. E. excuses thus, p. 117. But that Blood which he said was no more than than Blood of another Saint, was the Blood that was forced out of Him (Christ) by the Souldier after He was Dead. This is a Plain Confession instead of a Defence. But hear the Reason he gives for it. He makes a Difference betwixt the Blood which Christ shed, before His Breath went out, which he calls a Voluntary offering of Christ Himself; because He was then Alive: and betwixt the Blood shed after He was Dead; which he calls The Forcible Act of a Souldier, i. e. not Voluntary in Christ: and so of no more Vertue than the Blood of another Saint. This is Horrible! Did not Christ Voluntarily Deliver up His Body to the Death, and His Blood to be Spilt? yet these Men would render His Death, and the Blood Spilt after it, as a Force upon Him: and so take away all the Vertue and Efficacy of it; and make no more of it, than of the Blood of another Saint! But Saint John, ch. xix. 34.35. lays much Greater stress upon it; And tells this, with more Particular Observation, than of the shedding of any other Part of His Blood. Then it was that the Blood and Water Issued forth out of His side, the Two Sacraments of Baptism, and His Supper; and Two of the Three Great Witnesses upon Earth. 1 John v. 8. And this Piercing of Christ's Body, after He was Dead, is Recorded, ver. 37. as the Fulfilling of that Famous Prophesie, Zech. xii. 10. And, as the Great Ground and Confirmation of our Faith. And he that saw it, bare Record, and his Record is True: And he knoweth that he saith True, that ye might Be­lieve. Know ye not (said St. Paul) That so many of us as were Bap­tized into Jesus Christ, were Baptized into His Death: Rom vi. 3, 4. There­fore we are Buried with Him, by Baptism, into Death. But why Buried with Him (upon the Quaker Doctrine) more than with any other [Page 20] [...]int? For His Burial was not Voluntary: He was then Dead! And it is no Wonder that they have thrown off the Baptism of His Death, who have Renounced the Benefit of His Death it self, of His Blood after that shed, and of His Burial. He was no more to them after He was Dead, than any other of their Friends or Saints. Can Christian Ears bear this! Well then, to Mollifie this, since Christians do take it so Ill, T. E. will let it pass as an Ʋnjustifiable Expression. And says that in his Truth De­fended, p. 112. he has call'd it so: But when was this Book Printed? last Year, 1695. In Answer to this then objected against them by G. Keith; and to stop All Christians from Running upon them as Blasphemers. But 2dly, How do's T. E. call this an Ʋnjustifiable Expression, in that Book? Do's he do it Plainly and Honestly; and with any Zeal against so Foul a Contempt cast upon the Death of our Lord? No, nothing like it. Nay, he do's not so much as own it to be Ʋnjustifiable; but puts an If to it. And therefore (says he) If Sol. Eccles did let fall any Ʋnjustifiable Expression concerning that Blood that was forced out of Christ's Body by the Souldier's Spear, after He was Dead, as that it was no more than the Blood of another Saint—How Mr. Ellwood! Do you make an If of it? It is Easie then to see what you think of it. You meant by an Ʋnjustifiable an Inconve­nient Expression, and so Ʋnjustifiable, that should lay you open to the Odi­um of All that own the Name of Christ. You say that G. W. has like­wise disclaimed those Words of Sol. Eccles. How is that? After such a Manner as you have done, by saving, as you Repeat his words, p. 117. I do not make S. Eccles 's Expressions therein an Article of our Faith. This was a Terrible Rebuke! They may be True and Laudable too for all this: For Many things are so, which are no Articles of Faith. But Hark you Good T. E. How came you to Falsifie your Friend G. W's Words, by Concealing a Material Part of them; and Nibbing them out of the middle of one short Sentence? For his words are these (p. 59. of his Light and Life, &c.) And yet I do not make Sol. Eccles his Expressions therein (especially as construed by our Adversaries) to be an Article of our Faith. Here is a se­cret Reserve. As construed by our Adversaries. Then it seems the words are justifiable enough in themselves; but how do their Adversaries con­strue them? we have seen what Constructions they can put upon their Adversaries Meanings! And here is a Hole for them to creep out at; when ever they shall be Taxed by any of their own Party, with this their Modest Reproof of Sol. Eccles. G. Keith taxes them, very justly, for not shewing their Dislike of this Blasphemy of S. Eccles, severely and sharply as T. E. mentions it, p. 124. and answers, That if they were as Hot-headed as G. K. perhaps they might: But that Blasphemy is an High Charge, and they that understand it aright, are not so forward as G. K. (it seems) would be, to Brand Persons with it, for every unsound Expression. This is wonderful Cautious and Discreet! But they had not all this Mo­deration, [Page 21] when they Branded all the Christian World, in Heaps, as Apostates, Conjures, Devils, See G. Fox's Great My­stery, p. 89. 98. 111. 153. 158. 175. 217. 219. 226. 253. 267. and 311. from the Days of the Apostles, for those same Doctrines, which they now Pretend to hold themselves. They Excom [...]nicated John Story, John Wilkinson, and many more with them, for not submitting to the Jurisdiction of their Wo­mens Meetings, as an Ordinance of Christ, which was first Invented by George Fox. And they have since Past the same Sentence upon G. Keith, for not Retracting what he had wrote against the Corruption of their Doctrine [...] But, as to the Broad and Impious Blasphemy of Sol. Eccles, That must pass, at the most, among other Ʋnsound Expressions: And they must not judge so severely, and Brand Persons, for every Ʋnsound Expression. No, not for Every one; and it seems this must go for a Peccadillo amongst the Rest. There never was, surely, such a Company of Good-Natur'd Forgiving People! They can slip over, cover, and excuse the Lewdest Blasphemies, in a Charitable way! Nothing can Provoke them! They would not Censure any, or Give an Ill Name for the World! They can see no Faults in their own Friends! G. W. says of this very Passage of Sol. Eccles, that it was so Harmless, as might have satisfied any Spiritual or Ʋnbyassed Mind, (this is in his Light and Life, before quoted, p. 58.) And if so, it was Perfectly Innocent and Harmless indeed: And must satisfie the Friends that no Reproof was meant against it by G. W. though some­thing (so seeming) must be said, by way of Policy, to stop the Clamours of All Christian People. It was this which put T. E's Wit upon the stretch; and it found out, at last, that Distinction abovenam'd, betwixt the Blood of Christ, which was shed upon the Cross, before and after He was Dead; which helps not their Cause, but has made it worse, as be­fore is shewn. But, tho' Sol. Eccles names the Blood shed after He was Dead; yet he makes no Distinction betwixt that, and what was shed Before (which T. E. now Ingeniously puts upon him) But meant it, in the true Quaker Notion of the outward and Material Blood, whether shed Before or After Death, in opposition to their Notion of the Inward Blood, shed in their Hearts. For Sol. Eccles says, in the same Letter, That none of you (Baptists, Independents, Presbyterians, and Pope) Ʋnderstand the Blood of Jesus Christ no more than a Bruit Beast, i. e. They All Understood and Contended for the outward Blood: But of the notion of Inward Blood, of the Light within, they knew no more than Bruit Beasts. Therefore Repent (says he) for God will suddenly overthrow your Faith (i. e. in the out­ward Blood) and your Imputative Righteousness too; for the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, which He did at Jerusalem, and without the Gates, the Pope, the Episcopal, the Presbyterian, Independants, and Baptists, shall fare all alike; and shall sit down in Sorrow, short of the Eternal Rest: But the true Imputative Righteouss of Christ we own; but it is Hid from you [Page 22] All, Till the Lord do open an Eye within you i. e. To see the Righteousness of The Light within, which is Imputed, that is, as some Learned Quakers have Expounded it (before those I can name) In-putted. Putted within them. Now here, by Sol. Eccles's Words, the Quakers have a Notion of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, which none in the World have but themselves. Others mean by it, The Merits of, and Satisfaction made by the OƲTWARD Obedience, and Sufferings of the OƲTWARD Jesus, which are Imputed, that is, Apply'd to us, by our INWARD Faith in Him, and Obedience to His Laws. So that here is both Outward and In­ward: The Object of our Faith; and Meritorious, Procuring Cause of our Redemption wholly outward, or without us, i. e. The Man, who is also God, Christ Jesus: The Inward is the Application or Imputation of His Righteousness, or Full and Compleat Obedience to the Law of God; and Undergoing the Curse of it, as the Satisfaction Requir'd for our Trans­gressions of it; Apprehended and fully Believed on in our Hearts. Now the Quakers opposing this, by setting up the Inward, shews that they wholly throw off the outward: Else, they do not oppose this. But T. E. would fain have it to pass, That they only speak against those, who wholly throw off the Inward; which none ever did. He says p. 121. That they oppose those only, who Deny Him (Christ) to be, with Respect to these Offices, At all within, and shut Him Wholly out, making the Work of Mediation, Sanctification, Justification, and Salvation to be Only and Altogether outward. Who ever made the Work of Sanctification, &c. to be WHOLLY outward? This is the Impudent and Impious Fiction I have so oft taken Notice of, of Imposing the most gross and Notoriously False Principles upon others; that in such a Dust as they have Raised, their own Vile Heresies may Pass Undiscover'd. The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, and the Shedding of His Blood, as above Explain'd, is the Common Belief of Christendom: Now T. E. is Desired to tell us, in his next, what that Blood of Christ was, and what the Imputation which Sol. Eccles said that the Pope, the Episcopal, the Presbyterian, &c. knew no more of than Bruit Beasts? What other it could be than the Imaginary Blood and Sufferings of their Light within? If it was any thing else, they will please to tell us.

V. W. Burnet, G. W's Antagonist, seeing how they Endeavour'd to depreciate the Outward or Material Blood of Christ, and turn all the Merit of the Redemption of Man to the Inward or Mystical Blood shed within them, argues thus, All things under the Law, in the Type, was Purged with Blood; and this Blood was Material Blood, and not Mystical; and that Blood which Christ shed, in Order to the Effecting the Salvation of Man, must needs be Visible and Material Blood. To this G. W. Replys, as quoted by T. E. p. 118. To say that Material Blood was the Type of that which was Material, is to give the Substance no Preheminence above the Type, or [Page 23] like as if one should say, one Type was the Type of another. By this G. W. makes Christ's Outward or Material Blood, not to be the Substance or Anti-Type, whereof the Legal Sacrifices were a Type: But that it self is a Type, i [...]e. of the Mystical Blood, or Light within. And his Proof is, That no Ma­terial thing can be the Anti-Type; and therefore that Christ's Material Blood, could be no more than a Type: and therefore that i [...] it was Ty­pify'd by the Legal Sacrifices, one Type was the Type of another; which he makes the Absurdity. And T. E. Retorts thus upon W. [...]u [...], p. 122. This is to give the Substance no Preheminence above the Ty [...]e, when the Substance or Anti-Type is Denyed to be Mystical, and made Only Material, because the Type thereof was only Material and not Mystical. Ans. 1st, W. Burnet never said, that Christ was ONLY Material, as if there had been no Mystery in His Incarnation, Passion, &c. no Christian ever said this. This is the Quakers never failing Artifice of Imposing Manifest Lyes upon their Adversaries, that they may Consute them. But W: B. Disputed only against those who would not Allow Christ's outward Material Body and Blood, but only their own Light within to be that which was Typified by the Sacrifices under the Law: and even by the Sacrifice of Christ Himself. 2dly, T. E's Consequence is not good, for supposing that Christ was only Material, it will not follow that His Body had no Preheminence above that of a Bullock, such as was Sacrificed under the Law. And none who had any Reverence for the Body and Blood of Christ, Durst have made such a Blasphem [...]us Comparison. 3dly, None say that the Legal Sacrifices were only Material, and n [...]t My­stical; for they were Types of Christ; and so Mystical. So that T. E's Premises are all False; and his Inference not Conclusive. Next he comes to Excuse, that Aph [...]rism of G. W's That one Type cannot be the Type of another. And he says that G. W. in Words following those above cited, applies this to Circumcision. What then? Let him apply it to what [...] he will. But do's he not apply it, in this place, to Christ? Let any one that can Read English judge.

VI. G. Keith objects, G. Ws Explanation of Acts xx. 28. The Church of God, which He Purchased with His own Blood, viz. Now the Blood of God (says G. W.) or that Blood that Relates to God, must needs be Spiritual, He being a Spirit; and the Covenant of God is Inward and Spiritual, and so is the Blood of it. This Excludes the outward blood of Christ from being the Blood of the New Covenant: And from so much as Relating to God; unless G. W. holds, with the Anthropomorphits and Muggleton, That God is Material and has a Body: For he says, That the Blood of a Spirit can only be Spiritual. To this says T. E. p. 131. Will G. Keith say, That the Blood of Christ which was outwardly shed, had no Spirituality in it, nor might, in Any Sense, be called Spiritual, considering the Miraculous Conception of the Body, &c. No. G. Keith, nor any body else will say [Page 24] so, except such as T. E. G. W. &c. And this is nothing at all in Excuse of G. W. But exposes him, and his Stickler much more. For suppose Christ's Blood had some Spirituality in it; and in some Sense might be called Spiritual, as the Spiritual Meat, and Spiritual Drink, and Spiritual Rock in the Wilderness: 1 Cor x. 2.3. Will this, if there be no more in it, makes His Blood to be the Blood of God? And what is this to G. W's Argument, That a Spirit cannot have Material Blood? and therefore, That if the Blood of the New Covenant, be the Blood of God, it cannot be Material Blood, i. e. That the Material Blood of Christ was not the Blood of God; otherwise than as the Spiritual Meat, and Spiritual Drink; and All things are His. This lets us into the Heart of the Quaker Divinity.

VII. G. W. says in a Book of his call'd, The Voice of Wisdom, p. 36. That the Righteousness which God effects in us, is not Finit, but Infinit. T. E. says p. 113. That these Words are an Inference from a Position of his Adversaries one Thomas Danson, viz. That the Righteousness whereof Christ is the Subject, and that whereof He is the Efficient, are of one Species or Kind. 'Tis true that G. W. mentions this. But not as finding any Fault with it: For he says the same and more himself, in the same page, viz. That Righteousness which God works in us, by His Spirit, its of the same Kind and Nature with that which worketh it; for the Saints are made Parta­kers of the Divine Nature, 2 Pet. 1.4. T. Danson made the Righteousness of the Man Christ of the same Species or Kind with ours, as His Human Nature is. But G. W. makes the Righteousness of God, to be of the same Kind and Nature with ours; which is Blasphemy: and far beyond what T. Danson had said: with which G. W. found no Fault, unless that he had said too little of the Oneness of the Righteousness of God and ours: But he brings this former saying of Danson's to Confront that Po­sition of his, which G. W. sets down, viz. That the Righteousness which God works in us, is but Finite, as well as other Effects. This G. W. opposes, and brings the above-quoted, saying of Danson's, as a Contradiction to this: and then Proves against Danson (according to his skill) that the Righteousness which God effects in us, is not Finit, but Infinit. This is in opposition to the above saying of Danson's, That it was but Finit. And if G. W. thought it but Finit, why did he oppose Danson in this? But he not only says that it is Infinit, but goes on to Prove it. For (says he) Christ is Gods Righteousness; and Christ is formed in us, Gal. iv. 19. Thus miserably Perverting the Scripture. But they are Desir'd to tell us, how In­finity can be Formed? 2dly, How formed in that which is Finit? G. W. in the same place, Exclaims against those who would make that Righteousness in them (the Saints) but Finit. When as (says he) Christ His Infinit Righ­teousness, and the Saints are in one another. Here he makes the Righteousness [Page 25] of Christ, and of the Saints to be the same; and corrupts that Text, Heb. ii. 11. to Prove it, which he Repeats thus, He that Sanctifieth, and they that are Sanctified, are one. Whereas the Text is, are all of one [...]. And concludes thus: Then God's Righteousness in us, is not Finit, but Infinit. Yet T. E. would make us believe, that he said no such thing. But this is no Novelty with him.

VIII. Again, p. 134. he justifies this saying of G. Ws, That Blood and Water that's said to Cleanse, is not of another Kind, but agrees in one with the Spirit. And Demands, in great assurance, Is not that True? No. Mr. E. it is not True, but far from Truth, That the Blood and Water are not of another Kind from the Spirit. They are Material and out­ward Blood and Water, which, through the operation of the Blessed Spirit, do cleanse. But this makes them not of the same Kind with the Spirit more than Christ's Human Nature is of the same Kind with His Divine Nature; or than a Man's Body is of the same Kind or Natu [...] with his Soul. And this still shews more and more your Contempt and Denyal of the outward and Material Body and Blood of Christ for your Justification.

IX. T. E. p. 136. brings in W. Penn justifying this saying of Isaac Pen­ington, viz. Can outward Blood Cleanse the Conscience? And W. P. says, We do Deny that outward Blood can be brought into the Conscience, to Perform that Inward Work: which they themselves (i. e. the Professors, as the Qua­kers call'd their Opponents) Dare not, nay, do not hold. Yet T. E. says, p. 135. that Isaac Pennington put this Question (Can outward Blood cleanse the Conscience?) to the Professors, who place ALL upon the OƲTWARD. You must Excuse him, he Began, and was Resolv'd to go Quite through with this Topick, in every Case, to Misrepresent his Adversaries Mean­ing; and if he cannot Find Faults, to Make them. But here he stands fairly Corrected by the more Ingenious W. P. (whose Authority he Pretends to Maintain) who says that the Professors Dare not, nay Do not hold this.

G. Keith, as quoted by T. E. p. 137. has given a clear Answer to this poor Subterfuge of Supposing that any did think the outward and Material Blood of Christ was to be brought into the Conscience; and there Mate­rially Apply'd: which none, sure, in this World ever Imagin'd. G. K. says, The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience, is by the Ap­plication of a Living Faith in Christ, whose Blood it was, the Spirit of God working that Faith in me. This is Full and Orthodox. But says T. E. in answer to this, Why do's he say, The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience, as if it had been Really and Materially brought in there? This is Intolerable! and shews that they either can not, or will nor take an Answer. T. E. p. 136. tells of a Distinction which W.P. made betwixt the Pardon of Past Sin; and the Present Sanctification of [Page 26] any Person: and applys it to this Purpose, as if the outward Blood of Christ could have no Tendency but only to the Former. But this, in­stead of Solving the Matter, serves only to Discover the strange Confu­sion and Ignorance of these Men in the Mystery of the Gospel: as if Christ's Blood, outwardly shed, were not as Effectual to our Sanctification, as to our Justification; to Procure for us, the Graces of the Holy Spirit towards Living acceptably to God for the Future, as the Pardon of Sins that are Past.

SECT. 3. Concerning the Resurrection of the Body.

I. T. E. is in Great Confusion upon this Head, making Tedious Re­petitio [...] and long Digressions about the Bush, not knowing what to say; and yet that he might appear to say something. But I will Reduce his Immethodical Ramblement into this Order. 1st, To shew his weak and Fallacious Excuse for that Great Opposition which the Quakers have given to this Article of our Faith. 2dly, That T. E. instead of Vindica­ting others, has himself down-right oppos'd this Article of the Resur­rection.

First. His Excuse for the Quakers opposition to the Doctrine of the Resurrection. He would (as in Former Cases) Deceive his Readers, by Supposing, against all Sense and Reason, That we so understood the Re­surrection, as if the Body were to Rise in the same Grossness and Carnality that it has in this Life. And that this was all that they oppos'd.

But such a gross Notion of the Resurrection no Christian ever held. And G. Keith has sufficiently Explain'd himself, even as quoted by T. E. p. 145. 146. That the Body, when Raised again shall be the same, as to Substance, but not as to the Grossness and Carnality as now; and did Illu­strate it by the Chymical Extraction of Spirits out of Herbs, &c. and by the Change that is wrought in the White and Yolk of an Egg, whereof a Chicken is made out of the same Substance. Yet T. E. will not under­stand him: But gives us a Dull Piece of Buffoonry, and tells him, p. 147. That if he and G. K. were Fellow-Commoners at a Chicken, he would take the Substance, and leave the Rest to G. K. And p. 148. That to make his Instance of the Extraction of Spirits, to be Parallel with the Notion of the Resurrection which the Quakers oppos'd, the Gross Body of the Herbs, which he says, may be made so Subtile and Volatile, must still remain the same Gross Body of Herbs, that it was before, notwithstanding of its almost unconfinable subtilty by Chymical Operation. And, in the same page, Explaining what sort of Resurrection they oppos'd, says, We have always [Page 27] Denyed the Body which shall be Raised, to the same Body that Dyed, with Re­spect to GROSSNESS and CARNEITY; Which all that they oppos'd Denyed as much as they. And p. 145. he says, That which W. Penn re­puted as absurd was, that a Body should be Changed from an Earthly or Animal Body, to an Heavenly Body, and yet, after such Change, continue to be the same Earthly or Animal Body that it was before. And Mr. Penn might Re­pute this to be Absurd. And Disprove it Effectually, and get the Victo­ry over it: and Triumph! But he can name no body, that ever held any such Absurdity. That an Earthly Body, Changed into an Heavenly Body, may be the same Body, it is True: But that it should be the same Earthly Body, none ever said. It is a Contradiction, it is to say that it is Chan­ged, and not Changed. But how is it possible (says Mr. Penn, ibid.) that it should be the same, and not the same? Very easily. Is Mr. Penn the same Man, as before he turn'd Quaker? No sure. There is a Great Change wrought in him. Yet it is the same W. Penn; or else He never Changed. But, says he, in his Reason against Railing, p. 134. If a thing can yet be the same, and notwithstanding Changed; for shame let us never make so much stir against the Doctrine of Trans-substantiation; for the Absurdity of it, is rather out-done, than Equal'd by this Carnal Resurrection. But Mr. Penn is so far out in his Reasoning here, That a thing being Changed shews it to be the same. If you Dye one piece of Cloth, it is no change, in another piece of Cloth: And it were no change in the Cloth, if it was not the same Cloth that was changed. And if Mr Penn thinks Trans-substantiation a Less Absurdity than this, we may yet see another change in him. But, to return to T. E. Notwithstanding of all that can be said or Done, he still holds to it, That we believe no Change of the Body in the Resurrection, and puts it upon G. Keith, p. 143. So that it seems (says he) according to G. Keith, it must be a Terrestrial Elementary Body, after it is Re-united to the Soul in Heaven. Though G. Keith has not only said, but Argu'd to the Contrary, even as quoted, in the same place, by T. E. Therefore we see he is Resolv'd. He will not Badge an Ace! It must and shall be so! For otherwise, the Quakers are Undone: Because if this be not the No­tion of the Resurrection which they oppose; then there is nothing left, but that they down-right oppose that Doctrine of the Resurrection, which has been all along Receiv'd in the Catholick Church; and makes one of the Articles in her Creed. But this will yet further appear in the second Point, viZ. That T. E. has not only Negatively, as in the first Point; but even Affirmatively, and in Plain Terms, Deny'd the Resurrection, in this his seeming Vindication of it. By the Resurrection, as ever Understood in the Church, is Meant the Resurrection of the same Body which Dyed. It is not otherwise a Re-surrection, i. e. a Rising again. For that cannot Rise which never Lay down: and that which was not Before, cannot be Again. The Quakers will sometimes say, as T. E. p. 151. that there is [Page 28] a Resurrection, and that of Bodies: and that there is an Heavenly Body: Be­cause these are Express words of Scripture. But they Deny the Resur­rection of our Dead Bodies: Or that ever they will be made Heavenly Bodies. What they Mean by a Heavenly Body, themselves, nor all the World can tell. One of their She-Preachers told a Friend of mine, That it was the Holy Ghost. But that they Deny the Resurrection of the same Body which Dyed, T. E. makes very Evident, p. 149. where he Disputes, That the Natural and the Spiritual Body are Two Distinct Bodies; and not the same Body, in Different States and Qualifications. Thus he Ex­pounds the Apostle's words, 1 Cor. xv. 44. He does not say, The Natural is made a Spiritual Body; or the Natural Body and the Spiritual Body is but one and the same Body: but he sets them in opposition, as Two Distinct Bodies. And The Body (says he) that is put into the Grave, is a Natural Body: but the Body that is Raised, is a Spiritual Body — and that none might think this Spiritual Body was the same, he adds, There is a Natural Body, and there is a Spiritual Body. Thus T. E. understands that Scripture, and goes on to Prove it further by the Comparison of the first and second Adam; and says that the Spiritual and Natural Body, are no more the same Body, than the first and second Adam are the same Man, i. e. than Christ and Adam are the same.

And to shew their utter Ignorance of the Doctrine of the Resurrection, T. E. p. 140. &c. quotes W. Penn, and G. W. and joins with them him­self, in Proposing as a Great Absurdity, that the Soul hath not its Per­fect and Compleat Happiness, before its Re-Ʋnion with the Body: and Ridicules this, by saying that the Deceased Saints are in Heaven but by Halves: That the Soul is in a state of Widowhood, which is a sort of Pur­gatory: And that it is Ʋnequal the Soul should be Rewarded so long before the Body, its Beloved Companion. But it is rather Punished, if it be in Pur­gatory, as these Men presume to Banter. And why (say they) must the Felicity of the Soul Depend upon the Body? I suppose they mean but in Part, as a Widower may have some Happiness, tho Great Grief with it. But why not upon that Body it had before, as well as upon a New Body▪ For let me ask these Quakers, who say that the Soul will have a Body in Hea­ven; tho' not the same body it had before: will that New Body be any Addition of Happiness, or Advantage to the Soul? If not. To what Pur­pose is it? But if so, then is the Soul in an Imperfect State before it gets that Body: and all the Quaker Objections Return upon themselves. Let them then speak out, and own the True Quaker Opinion, viZ. That the Soul do's Receive that Heavenly Body Immediately after Death. Nay, I have heard some say, That they had it already; and all the Resurrection that ever they expect. Indeed, they know not what they mean by it: and that Heavenly Body which they talk of, most of them understand nothing by it, but the Soul it self; or an Heavenly Frame or Disposition of the Soul: [Page 29] which they think they have attain'd already; or, may be, some of them may think, they may have it in an Higher Measure, after their Death. And this is all the Resurrection, and all the Heavenly Body, that they Mean, when they use these Words.

II. T. E. p. 153. brings in the subject of their Infallibility; and stands stoutly by it. G. Keith had objected against this out of a Book of G. W's, call'd The Voice of Wisdom, before mentioned, where G. W. Boldly avers, p. 33. That they that want Infal [...]ibility—they are out of the Truth; and their Ministry is not of the Spirit; seeing they speak not from the Spirit, but from their own Hearts, which are Deceitful where they want Infallibility. And their Com­mon Salvo, to those they would Impose upon, That they only Plead for the Infallibility of the Spirit, i. e. of God (which none ever Deny'd) will not do, in this Place: For p. 32. Danson, whom G. W. opposes, had put his Objection so Clear as to obviat that Distinction: His words are these, As for your Participation of the Infallible Spirit (if that were granted) that Infers not a Participation of the Spirit's Infallibility. As indeed it do's not, more than of its Omnipotence, Omniscience, or any other of the Divine Attributes, But G. W. do's violently oppose this, and says, most ignorantly, that This tends to Divide the Spirit from its Infallibility, as if such as Partake of the Spirit, do not Partake of its Infallibility, was there ever such Folly as this? Truly I think not; nor such Mad Enthusiastical Delusion ever heard of before in the World: For they may Pretend to Partake of God's Omnipotence; by the same Reason; and with as much Justice. Was W. P. Infallible, in not only saying, but Printing it, That Christ was born at Nazareth? Or, if there was an Error in the Press, and Nazareth put for Bethlehem, from the Likeness of the Words; was T. E. Infallible, in Printing this over again (as before is told) without Correcting of it? Were these Quakers Infallibly Guided into the Meaning of that Scripture, Matth. xi. 30. My Yoke is easie, and my Burden is Light, who quoted it, at a Conference, before those whom I know, as a Proof for their Light within? A little Human Learning would have done well here, to have understood the Meaning of the word [...] in this Text, which signifies Light, not as oppos'd to Darkness, but to Weight of a Burden: which common sense much less Infallibility could not have mista­ken in this Text. Was William Walker (a Great Quaker Preacher) Infallible, who mistook John xiv. 2. In my Father's House are many Mansions, for In my Father's House are many Manchets. And made the Application, what Plenty of Provision was in Heaven, fine White Bread, little Manchets; and Many of them? This I have from those who heard him: and heard other Quakers Improving upon his Doctrine, what Fine Bread there was in God's House. In-numerable Instances of the Like Ignorance might be Given; and of Lying Prophesies, the Rankest Treasons, and Blasphemies, Pronounced In The Name of the Lord: for which I Refer the Reader to The Snake in the Grass, where he will find a Plentiful Collection of them; and Un-denyably Vouched.

[Page 30]Now George Fox (their First and Great Apostle) in his Answer to the West­morland Petition, 1653. p. 5. says, All you that Speak, and not from the Mouth of the Lord, are False Prophets. And in his Saul's Errand, &c. 1654. p. 7. says, They are Conjurers and Diviners; and their Preaching is from Con­juration that is not spoken from the Mouth of the Lord. If G. Fox told a Lye in this, then by his own Rule, he was a Conjurer, because he spoke not from The Mouth of The Lord. And if he spoke Truth. He is as much a Conjurer, and all the Quaker Preachers with him, who either Preached False Doctrine, or Mis-understood, or Mis-apply'd any Text of Scripture, or any other Man's Meaning (of which we have pretty Broad Instances now before us) because No Mistake, of any sort, can come from The Mouth of The Lord.

SECT. 4. of Christ's Coming to Judge the Quick and the Dead.

I. GEorge Whitead says, as quoted, p. 160. Now what is that Glory of the Father, in which His (Christ's) coming is? Is it visible to the Car­nal Eye? And when was that coming to be? Is it now to be looked for outwardly? But further we do acknowledge the several Comings of Christ, according to the Scriptures, both that in the Flesh, and that in the Spirit, which is Manifest in several Degrees, as there is a Growing from Glory to Glory: But Three Comings of Christ, not only that in the Flesh at Jerusalem, and that in the Spirit; but also another Coming in the Flesh, yet to be Expected, we do not Read of, but a Second Coming without Sin unto Salvation, which in the Apostles days was looked for. The First Coming of Christ he confesses to be that in the Flesh at Je­rusalem. The Second be makes to be His Inward Coming into our Hearts; which, he says, was looked for in the days of the Apostles, i. e. Christ was so [...]ome, at that time, in their Hearts. But the Coming to the Future Judgment he calls the Third Coming; and this be Utterly Denys. And T. E. Endeavours to support him by Matth. xvi. 28. where Christ said, That some standing there should not tast of Death, till they saw the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom, i. e. till the Destruction of Jerusalem; which was a Glorious Manifestation of the Power of Christ, in Fulfilling those Judg­ments which he had Threatned upon the Jews. And it was likewise a Type of the Final Judgment and Destruction of the World. But T. E. knowing nothing of this, would understand those Scriptures which speak of Ghrist's coming to Judgment, to mean only His Inward Coming in the Heart; which he calls His Second Coming. This is the Meaning of those Questions above quoted. Is it visible to the Carnal Eye? And when was that Coming to be? Is it now to be looked for outwardly? &c. By which it is plain that they mean, That their is no visible Coming of Christ, to be Now looked for outwardly. I have told above, what they mean by a Glorify'd or Heavenly Body, not any thing either Visible or Intelligible. But if they would consider, that Christ's [Page 31] Glorify'd Body was visible to St. Paul at his Conversion; as to other of His Apostles, at His Trans-Figuration upon the Mount, they would not find such Difficulties in apprehending that He may be Visible at the Last Day, even to outward Eyes, when they shall be strengthned much more than those of the Apostles upon Earth. Then shall the Jews, with their outward Eyes look upon Him whom they Pierced, according to the Literal Prophesie, Zech. xii. 10. And St. Barnabas, in his Cathol. Epist. chap. vii. says, That His Body, tho' Glorify'd, shall then be so Like what it was upon Earth, that they shall be amazed at the Likeness. And he says, That this Likeness was Prefigur'd in the Likeness of the Two Goats, the Scape-Goat, and the other offer'd in Sacrifice, Lev. xvi.

II. T. E. has another Pleasant come off, p. 161. He says that G. W. oppos'd W. Burnet only as to the Opinion of the Millennium, or Thousand Years Reign of Christ upon Earth: and that this was the Third Coming of Christ, which G. W. Denys. Whereas, neither in Burnet nor G. W's Book is there one Word of Millennium, or any thing like it; But their Dispute was only concerning the Last Judgment. So that this must pass among the rest of T. E's Supposes, to help him out at a Dead Lift.

III. But if T. E. must Down, he is Resolv'd to Fall in Good Company. For p. 162. he makes St. Paul as Fallible as Himself. He supposes that Saint Paul did Expect the Day of Judgment to come in his time, from 1 Thess. iv. 17. We which are alive, shall be caught up in the Clouds, &c. G. Keith says, That the Apostle's using the word We, there, [we that Remain] is an Enallage Per­sonae, putting [We] for [They] like that of James, Therewith Bless we God; and therewith Curse we Men, James iii. 9. But says T. E. Though he delivers it Positively and like a Dictator, yet I see not why he must needs be believed: Why might not the Apostle speak in the first Person [We] as supposing that Great and Extraordinary Appearance of Christ, was so near at hand, that it might Probably fall out in his time? Why might he not? I'll tell you Why, Mr. Ellwood, Because it did not fall out in his Life time: And if He thought it might, then it will follow that He was mistaken: and consequent­ly that what He wrote was not Truth: and so not only the Authority of this Epistle, but of All His Epistles; and of all the Rest of the New Testament, will fall to the Ground; for did not He write by the same Spirit as the other Pen-Men of the New Testament? And you cannot think to come off by such a Text as 1 Cor. vii. 6. I speak this by Permission, and not of Commandment. For, concerning the other Text, he says Expresly, 1 Thess. iv. 15. This we say unto you, by the Word of the Lord: And if he was mistaken in this, then was He Guilty of Great Blasphemy, to speak a Lye In the Name of Lord: And we can­not Believe one Word of this, or any thing else that he either said or wrote.

I Expect now that T. E. should tell me, That he only made a Quere of this; and put a Perhaps to it 1st, This was a very Reverend Suppose, to throw dovvn the vvhole Scriptures all at once! But 2dly, T. E. go's fur­ther [Page 32] than a Suppose; for he aftervvards Positively Asserts it, and endea­vours to Prove it thus. For as the Apostles (says he) accounted the Times they Lived in the Last Days or Last Times—so they thought the End of the World was not far off. What else made Paul, when he had told the Corinthians, That the things he had Related were written for our Admonition, add, Upon whom the Ends of the World are come? 1 Cor. xi. 11. Why else did Peter say, The End of All things is at Hand? 1 Pet. iv. 7.

And now I am come to vindicate the Apostles against T. E. He strikes Home! Therefore, let him know, That by the Later Times, and the Last Times was Understood, The Last Dispensation which was to be Given to the World, viz. That of the Gospel, or the Messias. Which Time was usually called by the Jews, the [...] The Age that was to come, or the Last Age. But now as to Saint Paul, who seems homest Charged, He has, as foreseeing such misconstruction of his Words, or some having so miscon­strued them, fully Clear'd himself, and the other Apostles, in a following Epistle to the Thessalonians, 2 Thess. ii. 2. Now I beseech you Brethren (says he, with Great Earnestness) by the Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; and by our Gathering together unto Him, That ye be not soon shaken in Mind, or be troubled, neither by Spirit, nor by Word, nor by Letter, as from us, as that the Day of Christ is at Hand. Let no man Deceive you, by any means, for that Day shall not come, except there come a Falling away first, &c. But T. E. will not Believe him, or else he must not believe G. W. who says in a Book he and others wrote, Anno 1659. called A Brief Discovery of the Dangerous Prin­ciples of John Horne, &c. p. 9. And as for that 1 Thess. iv. 15. concerning the Coming of our Lord from Heaven, which these Men aforesaid would blindly put Afar off— The Saints who then were Alive Remained unto it—so their Conversation was in Heaven (i. e. a Heaven within them; for) they did not say their Conversation was at a Distance off above the Clouds, from whence you [...]ook for a Christ—And thence Concludes. That your Faith, which is not Grounded in Christ's Appearing In you, is to be turned up by the Roots. In the Title Page, This Book is said to be wrote, By the Truth which is in George Whitehead, John Whitehead, and George Fox the Younger. I will not De­tain the Reader with Applications. These things are so gross, as not to be made Plainer.

III. The next Quotation is, p. 164 G. W's words before mentioned. Dost thou look for Christ's coming again to appear outwardly, in a Bodily Ex­istence? if thou dost, thou mayst look until thy Eyes Drop out, before thou wilt see such an appearance of him. And here T. E. crys out of Fraud and Falseness in G. Keith, for leaving out these Words, as the Son of Mary, Dost thou look for Christ, as the Son of Mary, to appear, &c. which mean no more than Christ, in His true Human Nature; and the same Body which He took of the Blessed Virgin, in opposition to the Quaker Notion of understanding Christ's Coming only of the Inward and Invisible Appearance or Manifestation [Page 33] of Christ in the Heart. And T. E's. objecting against this, of Christ's coming, as the Son of Mary, do's further Confirm us, that these Quakers do not mean his coming in His true Human, and Outward Body. T. E. Objects too, that these words, to save thee, are not Repeated in this Second Quotation of G. W's Words. Which has been spoke to before, and so I dismiss this head, as I do likewise a long Contest, which lasts as far as p. 177. Concerning some Letrers, and other Papers in MS. which G. Keith Produced, full of the Hereti­cal Delusions before mentioned: And which T. E. Confesses and Denies, as if he were Mumbling of Thistles; and Interlards with Billings-Gate against G. Keith: With which I do not meddle. And having Proofs sufficient out of their Printed Books; I will not trouble the Reader with Examining of their Manuscripts.

IV. T. E. Comes to defend himself. p. 177. And a Quotation of his own, which G. Keith cited, Viz. In comparing the Books of Friends, to the Books of them called the Greek and Latin Fathers, he (G K.) has not done as a Friend and Brother, but as an Enemy, in supposing Friends Books to have been Written by no better Guidance, nor clearer sight, than theirs, who Lived and Wrote in those Dark times. T. E. is very Angry that the Auditors at Turners-Hall, shouted at this Quotation. And well they might. To see the most Ignorant and Heretical of all the Sects that ever were in Christendom, thus to set up themselves above the Primitive Fathers of the Church; and to Pre­fer their own Writings, who cou'd not rightly spell their own Mother Tongue, (Illiteral Mechanicks!) to the Great Atbanasius, Basilius, the two Gregories (Naziansen and Nysen) Cyril, Ambrose, Epiphanius, Chrisostom, Hierom, Augustin, Hilarius, &c. All of whom T. E. Instances, by Name, p. 178. As Inferior to the Quakers; and ascends Higher, to the Second Century, and p. 179. Names Cyprian, Tertullian, and Origen. None of these were to be Compar'd with George Fox, and his Disciples! These were Dark Times, to the Year 1650, when the New Light of the Quakers Arose in our Hemesphere! When (the Church being Pull'd down) the Vi­lest, and most Monstrous, and Numerous Spawn of Multifarious Sects, that ever the Bottomless Pit spew'd forth, at once, were, with a Thousand other Devils, let loose amongst us▪ A just Punishment for our Schism and Rebellion! And we are yet left to War with the Tayle of this Hydra, which is Gathering New Life; and if it shou'd (for our sins) Prevail, our Last S [...]e wou'd be worst than the First. Who can refrain from Indigna­tion! To see such a Conceited, Senseless, most Ignorant and Blasphemous Crew, Destitute of Comon Modesty or [...]hame, wipe their Mouths, and Gravely set up themselves above all the Glorious Lights of the Church, Confessors and Martyrs, ever since the Apostles; whom they Damn as Apostates! See Snake in the Grass 2. Part Sect iv. As their Execrable Father G. Fox said, in his Great Mystery. p. 89. That the Quakers Have a Spirit given them beyond all the Fore-fathers, since the days of the Apostles, in the Apostacy. T. E. Quotes [Page 34] scraps out of Perkins, Jurieu, and Dalley, to shew Errors in the Fathers, who did not pretend to Infallibility. Tho these Modern Authors have made much too Bold with them (There are Spots in the Sun.) But this must not Eclipse their Light; and Glorious Gifts they had from God; whereby they support­ed His Gospel, with Irresistible Learning, Piety, and Constancy, even to the Death. God chargeth His Angels with Folly; and suffer'd Imperfections in His Apostles Peter Deserved to be Blamed; and even Barnabas was carry'd away with his Dissimulation. Gal. 2.11.13. There were great Failings in Noah, in Lot, in Moses, in Samson, in David, in So­lomon: And the Quakers (who, while in the sink of Heresy and Corruption, [...]oast of a Sinless Perfection) may set themselves above all these, by the same Rule. But what is so Extravagant, that they dare not, that they have not done! William Shewen (a Great Quaker Writer and Preacher; and Highly Extoll'd by them, at his solemn Funeral about two years ago) in his Treatise concerning Thoughts and Imaginations. Printed 1685. p. 25. Sets up a Quaker, as Meeker than Moses, Stronger than Samson, Wiser than Solomon, And more Patient than Job— Harmless and Innocent as He (Christ) was. If the Reader be Astonished at this; he will see more. p. 37. Where the Qua­kers pretend to be come even beyond the Outward Christ, or Jesus; They can come to God now without Him; And worship Him no more. Not to Jesus (says he on the Margent, that you may take the more Notice of it) The Son of Abraham, David, and Mary, Saint or Angel, but to God the Fa­ther, all Worship Honour and Glory is to be Given, thro' Jesus Christ. i. e. Thro' the Inward Christ, or Light within. But to Worship the outward Jesus, the Son of Mary, he Ranks with the Worship of Saints and Angels. And his Ascension and Sitting at the Right Hand of God, W. Shewen will not have it understood of the outward Jesus, but onely of this Inward Christ. p. 38. Who, when he is thus known to perform all these Offices in his People, he is then, by such, known to sit down at the Right Hand of God—He is then also known to Surrender up the Kingdom to the Father. And in the Margin he puts this Note, Viz. This is the Ascending of Christ up where he was before he Descend­ed. Turning all this to the Inward Christ, or their Light within; Perform'd within them; where they have an Inward Ascension, an Inward Right Hand of God, an Inward Kingdom, an Inward Delivering of it up, &c. And de­nying any thing of this to be Perform'd Outwardly, or to belong to the out­ward Jesus. Now T. E. is desired to shew any such Errors as these; and the Denyal of these Four great Essentials of Christianity; which is Ch [...]ged and Proved against him, and his Partners; and is the Subject of our present Discourse. 1. Faith in Christ, as he Outwardly suffer'd at Jerusalem, to our Salvation. 2. Justification by his Blood outwardly shed. 3. The Resurrecti­on of the Dead. 4. The Future Judgment. He is desir'd to shew any such Errors as these, in those Fathers, whom he so much despises. No. If any had Published such Doctrines as these, in those which he calls Dark Times, they had been spew'd out of the Church, with the utmost Abhorrence. Many [Page 35] were cast out for much less Errors than these. Nor ought such Errors to be Tolerated in any Christian Nation. And it is an horrible Scandal that such shou'd be suffered to pass under the Name of Protestant. It is enough to make that Name odious to all other Christians. From the Place last Quoted to p. 197. There is nothing but a wrangling Personal Dispute betwixt T. E. and G. Keith, about some Papers Exhibited by the one against the other. All which I pass over. And come to G. Keiths Appendix to his Narrative which T. E. begins there to Consider.

SECT. V. The several Charges in the Appendix.

THese are some further Instances upon the Four Heads, which are the subject of the Narrative: And a few other things which come in by the by, and might have been spar'd. But that this Reply may be Full, I proceed to Examin them.

1. A Quotation out of G: W. is set down. p. 198. Wherein he denies either the Soul or Body of Christ to be Human, or that he had an Human Nature, and he says that the Blood of God, with which he purchased his Church, Act. xx. 28. Was not the Blood of the Human Nature. And where doth the Scripture (says he) call the Blood of God Humane, or Humane Nature? To this T. E. Answers, That Christ, was not of a meer Earthly Extraction: That there was more of Divinity even in that Body, than in the Bodies of other Men. Which none, hardly the Socinians, will Deny. But T. E's Inference is not Good, That because Christ's Body had more Divinity in it than other Mens, that therefore it was too Heavenly to he call'd Humane or Earthly. For the Hypostatical or Personal Union of his Human with his Divine Nature, did not Destroy or Swallow up his Humanity, as the Eutychians held; But his Human both Soul and Body, are still, and for ever, Truly and Properly Humane, else he were not Truly and Properly a Man. And the not knowing of this has greatly Milled the Quakers: Who▪ if they had given themselves, but a little, to Humane Learning (which they despis'd, be­cause they had it not) and had known the Ancient Heresies which were Condemned by the Church, in several Ages; they wou'd not have fallen in with so many of them, as they have Ignorantly done. T. E. Wou'd not have given such an Answer as he do's here, That Christ's making his Soul an offering for Sin, was true, and so it is (says he) in a Figurative Manner of Speaking. Which was the very Words and Excuse of these Primitive Here­ticks; who said that Christ's Passion was not Real, but onely in Appearance to Mens Eyes. And, if his Body was but a Vaile or Garment, wherein he [Page 36] dwelt, as the Quakers and Socinians do make it, then indeed his sufferings were no other than Figurative or [...]alse; and he cou'd no more be said to have been Cruci [...]y'd, then a Man would be Crucify'd if his Cloak or Garment was Crucify'd. And thus it must be, if Christ's Humane Nature was not Hypostatically united to his Divine Nature, so as both to make but one Person, as Soul and Body is in Man. For otherwise the Soul cou'd feel no­thing, or be said to suffer for whatever was done to the Body. And T. E's. Argument, and G. W's▪ which he Recites, is most Ridiculous, that Christ's Soul was Immortal, and cou'd not be put to Death. So is every Mans. And when we Kill a Man▪ no body says, that we Kill his Soul. But as the Separation of Body and Soul is Death to us; So it was, and us Really, to Christ: And not onely In a Figurative ma [...]ner of speaking, as T. E. (with the Ancient Hereticks) do's contend.

II. Page 202. There is a Quotation of G. W's, brought, wherein he denies, That there is continual need of Repentance. And T. E. Justifies it, by supposing, that the Quakers are free from all Sin Else, there must be Con­tinual need of Repentance. I will not Enter now, upon their most Exploded Title to a Sinless Perfection (having done it sufficiently elsewhere) I onely mention this now to shew their Infallible Hardiness in pretending still to it, after it has been Expos'd even to Laughter, and as many Failings shewn of these Perfect, Sinless Creatures, as wou'd make any of the Prophane to appear Ridiculous. And this Pretence to a Sinless Perfection, is not the least Gross of their Imperfections: And shews the Excess of their Spirituall Pride. For which they may Read their Sentence. 1 John 1.8. If we say that we have no Sin, we deceive our selves; and the Truth is not in us. For, as Solomon says, Prov. xx. 9. Who can say, I have made my Heart clean, I and Pure from Sin?

III. The next Quotation is p. 202. Where G. W's. Perversion of Isa. ix. 6. Is set down. He turns that most Express Prophesy of Christ, Viz. Ʋnto us a Child is [...]orn, &c. To an Allegorical sense of Christ within, and his being Born in our Hearts. And says that he was thus Born in Isaiah him­self, who wrote these Words, Who had also been as with Child, Says he, i. e. Of Christ. T. F. In Defence of this, says, p. 203. That this was meant of Both, Viz. Of Christ's Outward and his Inward Birth: but this is false; for the Prophecy was only of his Outward Birth. And if it can be turned to the Inward, how shall we thereby convince the Jews, as to the Outward Christ? This Liberty of Interpretation will confound all the Prophesies of Christ in the Old Testament. And it is Remarkable that Isaac Penington, a Quaker, having wrote a Book, Intituled, Some Que­ries and Answers of deep Concernment to the Jews, and Design'd purposely for Their Conversion, do's not, through the whole, once Name the outward Christ; But bids them onely look to their Light within. T. E. Quotes a Book of G. Keith's call'd The Rector Corrected. p. 30. In Justification of this Exposition of his, of Isa. ix. 6. To mean both [Page 37] the Outward and the Inward Birth of Christ. And tho my business is not here to Vindicate G. Keith, yet I had the Curiosity to look into that Book of his, and find, that this Text was not so much as under Consideration, or once Nam'd, in that place, but he was treating there wholly of another Subject; and which is no ways Applicable to this.

IV. The next Quotation is. p. 203. G. W. in his Book call'd The He Goats Horn Broken (by way of Wittieism upon John Horn, whom he An­swers) p. 33. 34. Charges this (among others) as an Error in J. Horn, Viz. That when Paul saith Christ was seen of him Last, 1 Cor. xv. 8. He must needs mean it of his Body seen, and seen by Bodily sight. Which is contrary (says G. W.) to Gal. 1.16. To this says T. E. that if G. W. had denied that Christ was Bodily seen of Paul, that had not Allegorized a­away Christ's Resurrection. And this is all he says to it. But if Christ was not Bodily seen of Paul, then was Paul a false Witness of Christ: For, in that Place 1 Cor. xv. He Names himself among other Witnesses to Christ's outward Resurrection. He was seen (says St. Paul v. 5.) Of Cephas, then of the Twelve; After that he was seen of above 500 Brethren at once; after that he was seeen of James, then of all the Apostles; and last of all, he was seen of me also. Now if he was not seen of Paul, then was he seen of none of the Rest: And so they are all together False-Witnesses. As St. Paul makes the Inference, v. 15. Yea, and We are found False-Witnesses of God; because we have Testified of God, that he Raised up Christ: Whom he Raised not up, if so be that the Dead Rise not. But T. E. says, quite contrary to this Reasoning of St. Paul, That tho we shou'd deny that Christ was Bodily seen of Paul, yet this wou'd not Allegorize away Christ's Resurrection. St. Paul thought that it wou'd totally overthrow it, and all our Faith with it. And moreover, That to deny the Resurrection of one Bodys, do's Infer the Denyal of Christ's Resurrection. As he Argues, ver. 12, &c. Now if Christ he Preached, that he Rose from the Dead; [...] say some among you, that there is no Resurrection of the Dead? But now if t [...]ere be no Resurrection of the Dead, then is Christ not Risen: And if Christ be not Risen, then is our Preaching vain, and your Faith is also vain. You see how these Articles of our Creed, the Resurrection of Christ, and our Resurrection, are linked so closely together, that they do mu­tually suppose one another; and taking away of the one, do's destroy the other. Therefore I do Earnestly Recommend it to the Quakers, to Consi­der from whence they are Fallen; how their Error as to our Resurrection has taken away likewise the Resurrection of Christ: And the denyal of his out­ward Resurrection, is Rendring our Faith vain; and overturning the whole Foundations of Christianity: Of which this of the outward Resurrection of Christ was the main Pillar: And therefore, in the Choice of one to succeed Judas, it is said, Act. 1.21. That he must be chosen out of those who had been Eye-Witnesses of Christ all along, that he might be a Witness with us (said the Apostles) of Christ's Resurrestion. This was the Hinge, and very, Basis of the Christian Faith. Which the Quaker New Light has wholly overturn'd.

[Page 38]V. Page 204. The Perversion of that Text Isa. LIII. 9. Is instanc'd, He made his Grave with the wicked, which R. Hubberthorn (of the First Rank of Worthies among the Quakers) to favour their Notion of the Inward Christ, or Light within, Suffering, Dying, and Rising again in the Heart, Corrupts thus, He made his Grave in the wicked. To this says T. E. First, That R. Hubberthorn did not mention, Isa LIII. As if a Man might not Repeat a Text, and that it were not usual, without Quoting Chapter and Verse. Secondly, He says, that R. H. was not there treating Of the General Resur­rection, or the Resurrection of the Body. His words are, Christ the Seed made his Grave in the wicked, and in the Rich in his Death; and out of that Grave shall rise with his Body into Everlasting Life. And adds, If thou canst Receive it, thou mayest be satisfied. Right! If thou canst Receive it! There you are pretty secure. For who can Receive such Unintelligible Jargon! T. E. is desir'd to tell us, what they mean by the Christ or Light within Rising out of the Wicked, into Everlasting Life. But to his Answer. He says this was not spoken of the Resurrection; whereas it is Plain, that it was spoken of the Resurrection, and of nothing else. Unless he will say, that by Rising out of the Grave, they do not mean a Resurrection; and so give us a New Language; and have secret meanings of their own for words, that no bo­dy may understand them. Which I am afraid is the Case.

VI. Here follows a War about Contradictions in G. W. with which I will not meddle; thinking it not worth a Victory to find Contradictions in him. But I will onely mark where he discovers his Principles as to Religion. As at the end of p. 205, and beginning of p. 206. Did G. W. (says T. E) ever call or own Christs Body, now in Heaven, or while it was on Earth, to be Terrestrial, or of the Earth? Then it was not a true Human Body, while on Earth, or now in Heaven: And Christ was not then, nor is now Truly and Really a Man. But of this enough before.

VII. Page 207. T. E. makes a nice Distinction betwixt Summoning God as a Witness, as he words it, and declaring such a thing as truth In the Pre­sence of God. He says, one is an Imprecation, especially the words So help me God; but that the other is not. But when I declare a thing as In the Pre­sence of God, is there not an Imprecation Imply'd, if I speak False? But this touches a sore place of the Quakers. For there was nothing wherein they were more Positive, than of the Unlawfulness of Attesting God, in what­soever Form, in any Worldly business, or going beyond plain Yea or Nay. And that every such Attestation was by them counted an Oath, and utterly Forbidden under the Gospel. What! (say they, in a Treatise of Oaths, Pre­sented to King and Parliament, 1675. Signed by William Pen, George White­head, and 11 more p. 17.) make God, the great God of Heaven and Earth, our Caution in worldly Controversies, as if we [...]rou'd bind him to obtain our own [Page 39] Ends! It is to make too Bold with him, &c. And p. 74, putting the Question. What shall we say is beyond Yea and Nay? Ans. Without doubt, an Oath. And in their Book call'd A Positive Testimony against all Swearing under the Gosp [...] Printed 1692. p. 23. The Appealing (after any manner) to God as a Judge, or any ways using his sacred Name, or Mentioning any thing whereby it may be Imply'd, [...]s by Heaven, Earth, &c. When Relating onely to Human, Worldly and Inferior matters, may be Granted to be an OATH. And p. 31. How can any Invoke God for a Witness, or any other Purpose; or any ways Imploy or use his sacred Name, for a security in Earthly matters, if it was not a PROPER OATH? And p. 39. From hence it may be seen an Invincible Reason against Swearing, and the Naming or using God's sacred Name, any ways, to Confirm the Truth of my Speech, Relating to Human and Worldly matters. And p. 46▪ 47. With what Face or Pretence can any that sin­cerely Profess Christianity take any Oath, or use any Higher Expressions, for Con­firming Human and Temporal ma [...]ters, than Christ's Evangelical sentence of Yea, Yea, and Nay, Nay; or what is Equivalent thereto? And what Christian Men or Magistrates, or Powers of the Earth can Lawfully Prescribe or Require more than Christ hath Permitted herein? Yet all this Notwithstanding, they have, the very last Session of Parliament, not onely submitted, but Imploy'd their Interest to obtain; and when opposition was made, struggled hard; and at last Prevail'd for an Act of Parliament, that they shou'd be admit­ted to use in Temporal Courts, and for Worldly matters, this Form of giving their Evidence, In the Presence of the Almighty God, the Witness of the Truth of what I say. For they found themselves Pinch'd in their Temporal Affairs (which at first, were very small, when they set up their Principle against Swearing; But since are grown very Considerable; and they have now as large a share of Mammon, as most in the Kingdom, which is often Risqued) by their refusing to Swear in matters of Law: And they have hit upon this Medium to Reconcile their Interest, and their Consciences together. But which has got the better I leave the Reader to Judge. However to qua­lify the latter a little, they have since Published a Collection of Testimonies out of the Writings of their Ancient Friends (wherein all Contradictions are to be found) to justify their present Proceedings, which with the oppo­site Testimonies (some whereof are above Recited) are Printed by John Pen­nyman, who remain'd a Member of their [...]raternity, till such Contradictory Practices as these drove him from them.

VIII. Page 209. T. E. excuses W. Pen for saying, That to deny the Lo­cality of Heaven and Hell was not very offensive; by giving this Definition of Locality; viz. Certain particular Places or Parts of the World, set out, boun­ded and limited to any certain and determinate Dimensions. Well: How does this excuse it? If this be so, then is not Christ's Body in any certain place, bounded and limited to any certain and determinate Dimensions; i. e. in no place at all; for all space is thus determined and limited: else it were not space. [Page 40] And if Christ's Body be in no Place, then has he no Body; for every Body must be in some place or other. And if this be not offensive, then what can be? But T. E. says, 2dly, p. 210. That W. P. only said, it was not ve­ry offensive. Which shews (says T. E.) that he held it to be offensive, and was of­fended at it. Goodly! Goodly! Very angry he was indeed! But why not very offensive? Is the taking away any outward, that is, any Local Heaven or Hell, and the Truth of Christ's Human Body, but a Little offensive [...] No. But very Pleasing to the Quaker Light within, which wou'd turn all these Inward; and make but an Allegory of them. And in this case, not very offensive, means the same as not offensive at all. And it is a Common Phrase; especially when we wou'd Excuse any thing; and to Insinuate our Likeing, at least, not Dislike of it: Particularly where the Case is such, that our open and Positive Commendation might be ill taken. It is like Sounding the Depth of the Water, that we may know how far we can go without danger. But if these be such small offences, and easily past over, I would fain know what those Monstrous things are, for which the Church of England, and other Professions have been Stigmatiz'd by the Name of Baals Priests, Devils Incarnate, and such like Appellations, with which I will D [...]rty no more of my Paper? Why, verily for Preaching up the Locality of Hea­ven and Hell, and of the Body of Christ, now Lo [...]ally in that Local Heaven: And thus Running out from the Quaker Allegorical Doctrine, of finding all these within us, and no where else. This is the Grand Quarrel the Qua­kers have against us. For they can Name none other.

IX. There is another Position which gave very little offence to W. P. as Sorting with a most Blasphemous and Absur'd Notion of the Quakers, that the Soul of Man is a Part of God. Which is fully prov'd in The Snake in the Grass. Part 2. Sect VII. Where G. Fox's words are Quoted, making our Soul of the same Person and Substance with God, without Beginning or Ending, and Infinite in it self, to be one Soul with God, a Part of his Substance, Person, Essence, and Being. But this is something Mollified, as to the Ex­pression, in that which T. E. says, p. 210. Was not very offensive to W. P. Viz. Assigning to it (the Soul of Man) something more of Divinity than the usual opinion doth. What was that something? And what more of Divinity is it which the Quakers ascribe to the Soul, than the usual opinion doth? The Divinity is not Divided; and therefore if we Truely and Properly partake of any Part of it, we partake of it All. Man's Soul was Breathed from God: and made a Glorious [...]mage of him; and Partook of many Ex­cellencies and Endowments which were Communicated to it by God: All this The usual opinion doth ascribe to the Soul. But what more is it, which the Quakers wou'd have? Even what I have above told you out of the Foun­der of their Faith, G. Fox. And if this had not been Pleasing to W. P. he wou'd not have been a little offended at those General Expressions which [Page 41] lead to this; and which do Imply all this. He wou'd not have ascribed more of Divinity to the Soul than the usual opinion doth; since that more is Rank Blasphemy. But this he wrote in his Younger days, in the First Flights of his Zeal, and New Conversion to Quakerssin; when the Fascinations of that Spirit were Fresh and Vigorous. But I hope, and desire to believe that he will do it no more. And that he gives T. E. little thanks for these Lame De­fences which he has made for him.

X. The next thing observable, is the Quakers Notion of a Church, which T. E. p. 210. Says must not be taken with Respect to Particular Persons (the Faithful or Believing) but with Respect to a Gathered People; which (says he) is both the Common and True Notion of a Church. And, in this sense he boldly stands to it, that the Quakers are the onely Church of Christ upon the Earth. And says, p. 211. That this is no Presumption in them to affirm, nor ought to be offensive to others to hear, since we (says he) therein Claim no more to our selves, than every other Body of Professed Christians claim to themselves; Namely, that they, and they onely ( as a Gathered People) are the true Church of Christ. But of all these Bodys of Christians which T. E. Names, I know of none with whom the Quakers do joyn in this, but onely the Church of Rome. For the Church of Rome onely (except the Quakers) make themselves the Catholick Church, excluding all others (as a Gathered People) who are not of their Communion. But the Church of England never yet call'd her self The Catholick Church, or excluded others, even as a Gathered People, from being Members of The Church. The most Rigid for Episcopacy, allow all Episcopal Churches, to be Included within the Denomination of The Church; which Appellation none of them ( Rome onely Excepted) do confine to their own Church. And [...]is brings in the Churches of Denmark, Sweden, and vast Empire of Russia in Europe; the whole Greek Church, spread far both in Europe and Asia; the Numerous Churches of the Christians in the East-Indies, where St. Thomas the Apostle Planted the Christian Faith; and they derive themselves from him: And the large Region of the Abyssens in Africa. All which Churches are, and ever have been Episcopal And do far out number all the Anti-Episcopal Communions in Britain, Holland, Switzer­land, Piemont, Geneva, and a few other Hans-Towns in Germany; which are all of them in the whole World. And their Rise not above 150 Years ago. So small a Proportion do these Modern Dissen [...]ers from Episcopacy bear, either as to Antiquity or Numbers, to the Episcopal Churches of the World; without Reckoning those of the Romish Communion; who are indeed the greatest opposers of Episcopacy, Reducing it [...] the See of Rome; which onely they term Apos [...]olical. But all these, and all the other Dissenters above Nam'd together with them, will not amount to a Tenth part of the Number of those in the Communion of the above-Nam'd Epis­copal Churches, none of which ever own'd the Supremacy of Rome, except Denmark and Sweden, who have, with us, thrown it off. And all these, [Page 42] the Church of England do's own as Churches, and each of them as Members of the Catholick Church: And no one of them do's assume to her self the Title of The Church. None but the Church of Rome, and the Quakers. If any other of our little Dissenters do assume this to themselves, we will give them into the Bargain. But I believe there is none of them will Pretend to it.

And now since T. E. does own that a Gathered People, and not Particular Persons (however Holy) is the Common and true Notion of a Church; I wou'd Gladly be inform'd where the Quakers do Place the Church before G. Fox? Or was there no Church of Christ before? Did it quite fail out of the World? And were Christ's Promises defeated, which said, that it shou'd never Fail, or the Gates of Hell prevail against it? If he says, That there were particular Persons, in all Ages, of their Principles.

1. They can shew none such, except the vilest Hereticks, who were con­demn'd by the whole Catholick Church.

But 2dly, This, if it could be prov'd, would not do their business; Be­cause T. E. has here confin'd the Notion of the Church to a gather'd Body of People.

Then either there was such a Gather'd Body before G. Fox, which the Qua­kers are oblig'd to shew, or otherwise there was no Church of Christ before G. Fox; or otherwise the Quakers are not The Church now: Because they have separated from All other Gather'd Bodies of Christians in the World. It is left to the Quakers Choice, which of All these Absurdities they will fall under; for it is impossible to avoid them All.

If they think to Retort (which is no Answer), That this is like the Questi­on which the Papists do ask at us, Where was your Church before LU­THER?

Ans. This is not, where THE Church was? And if the particu­lar Church of England were lost, as the Seven Famous Churches to whom St. John wrote in the Revelations (and she has no more Promise than they), yet THE Church is not lost, of which she is but One Member: And All the above-nam'd Episcopal Churches, who never submitted to the Pope of Rome, are abundantly sufficient to Repel that Frivolous Objection of the Papists, as if there had been no Church of Christ before Luther, except on­ly the Church of Rome. But to the Quakers, who make Themselves Only to be THE Church, this is an Invincible Argument: And they will ne­ver be able to struggle from under it.

And it is to be observ'd how the Papists and the Quakers are alike invol­ved, by this Contradictory Pretence of setting up a Particular for the Ʋ ­niversal Church. Christ has promised to his Church, That it should never fail, or fall from the Faith, i. e. He will always preserve such a Church somewhere or other: But the Promise is to no Particular Church. Now when a Particular Church arrogates to its self the Title of THE Church, it is consequential to this, That she should set up for Infallibility too: [Page 43] VVhich Rome and the Quakers ONLY have done (and it obstructs Both, in Re­turning from their Errors) who ONLY have assum'd that Presumptuous Title: Which whoever does, as Gregory the Great said, is a Lucifer for Pride, and the Fore-runner of Antichrist. This the Papists and the Quakers have to divide a­mong themselves. And the Contradiction of the Stile, Roman-Catholick, i. e. Particular-Ʋniversal, is as Applicable to A Quaker Church for THE Church.

Here, by the way, let me shew the Extensive Charity of the Church of England, and other Episcopal Churches, above that of Rome, and of these Narrow and up-start Dissenters; who wou'd confine the whole Church of God to themselves. But as St. Cyprian said of the Bishop of Rome, That while he sought to thrust other CHƲRCHES from him; he onely thrust himself from the CATHOLICK CHƲRCH; So have these, in a much more plain and open manner; and with such Absurdity as is Loathsome. To hear such an Ignorant wretch as Solomon Eccles, a Prophet and great Preacher of the Qua­kers, say, the Quakers are in Truth, and none but they! Which T. E. Re­peats, p. 212. (Being objected by G. Keith) and gives no other Answer, but I have not seen that Paper, that I remember. But passes no Censure or Refle­ction upon it.

If the Quakers should say, That their Charity is as Extensive as that of the Episcopal Churches, which extend the Notion of The Church only to them­selves: And the Quakers do it to themselves. Let them consider how far theirs is extended, viz. To a few [...]n Pensilvania, and some other Colonies of the West-Indies, which, besides the Quakers here at home, are all the Ga­thered Bodys they have to Brag of Except a very Few, and Inconsiderable in Holland; and much Fewer in one or two places in Germany. But [...] them all come in, they bear not the Proportion of a Mole-Hill to a Moun­tain, to the Episcopal Churches; which are all the whole Christian World; except a small parcel of Wens or Warts, which have lately grown to the Bo­dy of the Church, in these Western Parts. But then again: The Charity of the Present Episcopal Churches extends Backwards, to all the Ages of the Church, ever since Christ▪ For all these have, every where, and always been Episcopal, without one Exception, till of very late years, and onely in this Corner of the World. But the Quaker Charity can extend no farther Backward than G. Fox, in the year 1650, but 46 agoe: For, before that time, they cannot pretend to any Gather'd Body of People, that ever was in the World of their Principles or Perswasion. So that this Comparison, lets them see their Diminitive Novelty; and ought to turn their Faces from whence they came.

XI. Page 213. There is a dispa [...]e concerning a very offensive Passage in W. P's. Rejoinder to J. [...]aldo, p. 310. Which G. Keith says is Nonsense, or Anti-Christian Doctrine; as being Intended to take away the Humane Body of Christ. For which G. Keith says that W. P's words, which follow, are given for a Reason, Viz. Because, that Flesh of Christ is called a Vail; but [Page 44] he himself is within the Vail, which is the Holy of Holies, whereunto Christ Je­sus our High Priest hath entered, Heb. X. 20, 21. I confess the words are obscure. Nor do I well understand the meaning of Christ's entring with­in his own Flesh, which is the Vail; and then within himself, which is the Holy of Holies. It seems to bear this meaning, that as the High Priest, having enter'd through the Vail, left it behind him; so that Christ hath left his Body behind him, having passed through it, into the Holy of Holies. Which G. Keith says, one Robert Young, a Preacher among the Quakers in Pensilvania, Did assert, and brought these very words of W. P. to Confirm it. Which T. E. p. 215. Does not deny, but says, there ought to be some o­ther Voucher besides G. Keith. However, this Sense of the words is agree­able to the General tendency of that Book, which is to Depreciate the Outward, in Comparison of the Inward Christ, or Light within; otherwise there cou'd have been no difference betwixt W. P. and J. Faldo, who did not deny, either the Divinity of Christ; or the Inward Influence of his Blessed Spirit in our Hearts. Yet T. E. gives this Excuse for these words of W. P. That they were given as a Reason (among others) why the Body of Christ which was Nailed to the Cross, simply consider'd by it self, and Abstractedly from that Divine Life and Power which dwelt in it, shou'd not be called the Christ.

This makes the matter look much worse against W. P. than any thing G. Keith hath said. For it is certain that J. Faldo never said any such thing, as that the Body of Christ simply consider'd by it self, (which T. E. has put, as here, in a different Character, to shew that he laid the stress upon that Limitation) and Abstractedly from the Divinity of Christ, was the Christ. No Christian cou'd say or think any such thing. And therefore it was against something else, which W. P. disputed against something where­in J. Faldo opposed him; which was, in asserting the outward Body of Christ, against the Quakers Notion of turning it all into an Allegory of the Light within. And (as Robert Young, a fellow Preacher of W. P's. understood his words above Quoted) they were intended, that Christ had Passed through, or got within the Vail. i. e. of his Body; and so left it behind him, when he wont beyond it, into the Holy of Holies. If this was not W. P's meaning let him clear himself from this Defence of T. E's which will not admit of any other Construction to be put upon it.

XII. G. Keith Quotes W. P's. Truth Exalted. Reprinted. An. 1671. p. 13 14. But T. E. throws it off. p. 216. in this slight fashion, That neither deserves nor needs any other Answer here, than a bare denyal. This made me suspect something, and to look into the place; where W. P. is describing the Quakers Christ, as he calls it; which he does at great length, several Pages together; and from Top to Bottom, not one word of the outward Christ; but applying the most express Prophesies of him, to that Christ or Light within the Heart. Ʋnto us (says he, p. 13.) The most Afflicted, Despised, and [Page 45] Forsaken by all the Families of the Earth, is a Child Born unto us, a Son is Given, we call him Wonderful Councellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Fa­ther, &c. and p. 14. This is the Second Adam, the Quickning Spirit —The Law writ in the Heart and Spirit, put in the Inward Parts —This is the Qua­kers Christ. And p. 15.— This Ʋniversal Light—is God's beloved Son, hear ye him.

XII. Page 217. T. E. to save W. P. from having Sworn, by saying, As sure as the Lord Liveth, and yet Condemning that Form, As the Lord Iaveth, for a direct Oath, confesses this Latter to be an Oath, but not the Former. This is very Nice! But if T. E. (the Doctor subtilis of the Quakers) had not Inform'd our understandings, any Dull Reader wou'd have been apt to think, that the Former had rather been the Greater Oath, as being more Positive; but cou'd never have seen how it cou'd have been not onely less, but no Oath at all; because it is the very words of the Latter, and every word of it, onely adding, as sure as, to it. But what was the occasion of W. P's. using of these words? They were the severe Sanction of a Prophecy, which (in his Book call'd Reason against Railing, p. 180.) he gave forth against Tho. Hicks, a Baptist Preacher, his opponent, in these words. So sure as the Lord Laveth—And I testify to thee from God's Living Spirit, if thou desist not, and come not to deep Repentance, the Lord will make thee an Example of his fury, and thy Head shall not go down to the Grave in Peace. To this, says T. E. p. 218. That he (Tho. Hicks) Desisted is certain; and that he did not come to Repentance, I suppose G. Keith will not adventure to say. This is in Justifica­tion of W. P's. Prophecy, as if it had been thus Fulfilled, or solved. First, By Tho. Hicks's having Desisted; i. e. From opposing the Quakers. Which T. E. says, is Certain. Secondly, By his Repenting for it; which he says onely that he has Heard. And W. P's. Prophecy being Conditional, and these Conditi­ons of it thus Perform'd, it saves his Prophecy from being a False one. But First, as to T. Hicks's DESISTING to oppose the Quakers after this; which T. E. will not have us to Doubt, because He, even He himself says, It is cer­tain. Whereas the Contrary is most certain And I can give a most certain Demonstration of it. For T. Hicks did not Desist, but, after all this, he Prin­ted an Answer to this very Book of W. P's. wherein this Prophecy is; and at the end of his Post Script, he takes notice of this same Prophecy, and says, That if W. P. were his Judge, be believ'd that he wou'd make good his Prophe­cy, and my Head (says T. H.) Should not have gone to the Grave in Peace. This Book of T. Hicks's is Intituled. The Quakers Appeal Answered. And Printed 1674. Well, but T. E. may say, that he Desisted when he had Done. Most likely! i. e. He did not continue Writing to the last moment of his Life. But did his Head go down to the Grave in Peace? Yes. And was he not made an Example of God's Fury? Did he dye in Despair? At least so, as to be an Example? Which must be Publick, and Notorious to those about him, when he Dyed; otherwise it was no Example. No. There was nothing at [Page 46] all Extraordinary in his Death: But to all Appearance, he Dyed in Peace, and with Comfort: And gave not the least Sign of Repentance for the opposition which he had made against the Quakers. And here, I cannot refrain to say one word to Mr. Penn; That he wou'd seriously Reflect upon the Dreadful Blasphemy of giving forth Lies, in The Name of the Lord! Nay, tho any thing of his Prophecy had befallen T. Hicks, yet it had been no less Blasphe­mous, and a False Prophecy in W. P. if it was not Positively Reveal'd to him by God, in some Extraordinary manner; and in some other way, than the strong Impulse of his own Imagination.

But he was carry'd into this, by the Common Track of the Quakers, whose constant custom it was, and seen in all their Writings, to Publish all their Conceits, as the Immediate word of the Ever-Living God. And (as W. P. here) to Pawn the very Being of God for the Truth of their Delusions; That As sure as the Lord Liveth, what they deliver'd shou'd so come to pass. And tho such of their Predictions have 1000 times been Defeated, and Prov'd False, yet this is no Mortification to them; But they Persist still in the assurance of their own Infallibility! Can such an Instance of strong Delusion be given, ever since the World began! Pray God to open their Eyes, that they may, at last, Consider of it, as they ought; And recover themselves out of this Snare of the Devil, wherein they are taken Captive by him, at his will.

XIV. Page 218. 219. Some Contradictions of W. P. are Disputed, which I pass by, in this place, because their Doctrines is the subject which I now Pursue: And wou'd not Interrupt.

What follows of T. E's. Answer is in Vindication of himself, from Charges laid against him by G. Keith. Which are, for the most part, upon the same Heads, which have been already Consider'd: And his Defence of himself, is after the same fashion as he has defended W. P. and G. W. by always Per­verting the Question; and Imposing False Positions upon his opponents, that he may seem to Confute them; and hide his own Principles the while. Of which method having seen so much before, I will, to save Repetition, but offer you a Taste here, to verify the Character I have given of him: And to ease the Reader; who, if he be not already Tyred, I am sure I am; therefore I shall beg leave to Contract.

XV. Page 220. 221. The Charge against T. E. is, That he deny'd the Blood of Christ, which was shed after his Death, by the Spear, to be any Part of the Sacrifice; from this Reason, because, he said upon the Cross, Consum­matum est. It is finished. Whence G. Keith Infer'd, That Christ's Death must be excluded by the same Rule, because that was after he had said It is Finished. No, says T. E. That cannot be charg'd upon me, because I said, that Christ had pronounced, It is finished, had Bow'd his Head, and given up the Ghost, before his side was Pierced by the Spear. This was onely too free him­self from the Consequence of Excluding Christ's Death, from being a Part [Page 47] of the Sacrifice; which it does not. For if, It is Finished, was meant of the whole Sacrifice, then it was Finished before his Death. But however T. E. says nothing, in Excuse of his Excluding the Blood shed after his Death. Therefore that stands still Excluded by him, without any Defence.

And this does exclude the Whole and Intire Sacrifice, to which Christ's last Words, It is finished, are not Extended; but only to All that he was to do and suffer before his Death. For as the Bodies of the Legal Sacrifices were Burned, that is, sacrificed; and their Blood offered, After the Death of the Beasts which were Sacrificed; so was it in Christ, whom they Frae-figured; his Body pierced and his Blood shed, after his Death, were Truly and Properly a Part of the Sacrifice, as much as what he suffered before he Expired. And as the Legal Sacrifice was not compleated by the Death of the Beast; but by the Burning of it, and offering of the Blood afterwards shed. And those who Reject That Blood, do mutilate his Sacrifice, and render it ineffectual to them­selves.

XVI. Page 223. T. P. is charg'd with these Words, I deny that Christ came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary. This takes away the Hunane Nature of Christ. T. E. says, p. 225. he meant this only as to Christ's Divine Nature: Which is Non-sense. And none ever said, That his Divinity was Generated of the Properties of Man in Mary.

XVII. G. Keith brought a Quotation out of T. E's. Truth defended, p. 138. wherein he said. That Jesus the Saviour was not Created. T. E An­swers here, p. 226. That this Arose from hence, that he (G. K.) wou'd make the Manhood onely to be Christ, without the Godhead. Which G. K. was far from saying. Nay, but the page before, Viz. p. 225. T. E. owns that G. K. [...]ad Confessed not to the Manhood onely, but the Godhead and Manhood Ʋnited.

Therefore, it is plain, that T. E. meant to exclude the outward, or Creat­ed Christ. And places all upon the Inward Christ, or Light within, which he says, was not Created, i. e. upon Christ as God onely, but not Man.

XVIII. This will appear further in what follows. T. E. said, in the same Book, That Christ is the Great Cause of Regeneration and Sanctification, Chiefly as he is Manifested Inwardly in the Heart.

This is to Prefer his Inward to his outward Appearance; and to his out­ward Birth, Death, &c. And This is as Absurd (says G. Keith) As to say, the Beams of the Sun that Descend on the Earth, are the Chief Cause of the Earths Fruitfulness; and not the Sun it self that is in the Firmament. T. E. Answers, p. 229. As if Christ (says he) were no otherwise in the Saints, than the Sun is on the Earth, Viz. by its Beams. This shews us the Heart of the Quakers, who a [...] not satisfied with the Influences and Inspiration of Christ: But will have the very Person of Christ within them. And acknowledge no other Christ now in being. It is the True and Real Heat and Light of the Sun which is con­vey'd to us in its Beams. And it is the True and Real Virtue and Light of [Page 48] Christ, which from him, in Heaven, is convey'd into our Hearts. And what more wou'd the Quakers have? Nothing less than the very Body and Person of Christ within them! This is the Foundation of all the Quakers Er­rors. Whereby they pass over the outward Birth, and Sufferings of Christ, as so many Facile Representations, and Historical Transactions: But place all the Merit, and Salvation in their own Light within, which they think to be the onely True, Real, Substantia, and Personal Christ; and that there is none other.

XIX. What follows in the 3 next pages, which are the last of T. E's Answer, is nothing but some Personal Reflections, and Vapourings, wherein none but themselves are Concern'd. Therefore I leave them. Having o­mitted nothing, I think, that is Material in T. E's. Answer, which Concerns the Principles of the Christian Religion; which onely are my Concern, in this matter; otherwise I had neither put the Reader, nor my self to any Part of this Trouble.

Pray God it may Answer the End for which it was Intended, that is, to Perswade those who wield their Pens amongst the Quakers, to Contend no longe [...] for vain Victory; or to Buoy up their own Reputations: That they wou'd not mis-spend their Wit, and their Time to Gloss and Cover their Er­rors; which does but Expose them the more. And since they now do pre­tend, in Discourse, and otherwise, to be the same with the Church of Eng­land, in Faith and Doctrine; that they wou'd, with a Noble and a Christian Courage, Fairly and Above-board, Retract and Condemn whatever they have said or wrote to the Contrary. This is Incumbent upon them; to Rescue the many Souls Deluded by them. For that they are so Deluded none can deny. I have many times heard several of them, some of their Preachers, plainly own all the Gross things Charged upon them; even Denying any Merit or Salvation by the Blood of Christ, which was outwardly shed: That Christ is now a Man: That there will be any Resurrection of our Dead Bodys: or Future Universal Judgment. Now where did they Learn these Doctrines? There are none of any other Communion, who believe, few that ever heard of such things Therefore it is certain, that these have been, Deluded. And who have Deluded them? And nothing will undeceive them, but see­ing their Leaders downright Retract these Errors. While they seem to ex­cuse them, they Confirm their Ignorant Followers in them. Whose Blood will be requir'd at their Hands, if they do not all that is in their Power, to re­trieve them. What shall I say more? To my Perswasions I will add my Prayers for them. Which I do daily offer for their Conversion. And thus to God, and his Mercy I leave them, through Jesus Christ, who shed his Blood for them, Dyed, Rose, and Ascended OƲTWARDLY, and will, in the same Body, come again to Judge them: In which Day, may they hear a Favourable sentence from Him; and, with us, be one with him to all Eter­nity, Amen