Before I come to the Book it self, I shall touch a little upon the Preface, and begin with an expression of Da­niel Leeds's, which runs thus. ‘It is my real belief, That the Quakers at first came forth in life and power, and made a good beginning.’

Answer. Did they so? How comes it then to pass, that the first Instruments of that good beginning in life and power, as G. Fox, G. Whitehead, E. Bourough, R. Hubberthorn, Is. Pennington &c. and their antient works and Writings, must be thus brought upon the stage, by this Daniel Leeds himself, even in this very book, endeavouring thereby to prove their doctrine false, inconsistent, and little less than a meer heap of confusion? Can such things be an effect of life and power? And if he say, They lost that life and powr again, before those books were written: It may then be observed, how in the same Page he insinuates, ‘as if the loo­sing of it again, was through their contending with one another about trifles and Ceremonies,’ instituting this and that order, and getting into form &c. Whereas it is well known, that many of the above named Friends Books were written before the Institution of those Orders, (as he calls them). Besides, I find in a Paper entitulad A breif Admoni­tion &c. (delivered to Friends here at the yearly meeting in the year 1696. Which as I am credibly informed) was written by Daniel Leeds, there being also the two letters of his name, with two letters more subschribed to it) after having expressed what an healthy flourishing Country this was about eight years before, this passage, viz Doubtless it might have so continued, if the kernell of life and love had not took wing &c. Now hence I observe, That (accor­ding to this aknoledgement (for such it is implicitely at [Page 2] least) the kernel of life and love had [...]ot tookwing be­fore the Year 1688: yet most of the [...]ooks he quot [...]s were written long before th [...]t time. But surely no orderly sensible man will imagine, that order and form amongst God's Peo­ple, will occasion the life [...]d power to withdraw, whilst the power is not denyed : Is not God a God of order? And doth not the Apostel say to the Corinthians? Let all things be done decently and in order 1 Cor. 14: 40. Moreover if the life and love took Wings, but about or since the jear 1688, how could those Orders which were established above twen­ty years before be the occasion of it? Again, what Orders have We that they disown? Have We Montly meetings? So have they. Have We Yearly meetings? So have they? Have We Womens meetings? Daniel Leeds saith, ‘Those Meetings are certainly of service in Deeds of Charity and Hospitality, page 66.’

But to proceed, he concludes that page and begins the next with this passage viz, ‘When my intentions were first [...]t on this ensuing work, I had taken G. K's. books in e­qually with the rest or else I should have been partial as [...]aleb Pusey has been [being blinded with prejudice, as his term is in only faulting G. K's books, but not his Oppo­sers; but as I proceeded on, at lenght I found G. K. (ac­cording to the example of good men in all Ages) has pu­blickly acknowledged himself guilty of Errors in divers of his former books, and promised a correction of the same; and now of late we have his Retractation come over in Print.’

Answ. A meer flam: For among all the contradictions that we have charged and proved upon him, he has been so far from retracting any part of them, though they contra­dict his present doctrine, that he boasts in the very Retract­ing book it self, That for the most part they are the soundest passages in all his book, and that he can shew a good consistency of them with his present faith, See pa. 42: 43. And now, since Daniel Leeds in the close of his Preface asserts his pro­ceedings in his book to be honest and sincere; I appeal to all impartial people Since G. K's doctrines as charged by us, do [Page 3] greatly contradict each other; and yet he refuses to retract [...]ny [...]a [...] of them, Whether I s [...] [...]. Ks. [...] which probably D. L. had no thought about wh [...] he wrote his book, [...] any argument in sincerity and t [...]uth, for his not taking in G. Ks. books, as wel as o [...]hers, in this wra [...]gling piece of his.

As for his counting me Partial, because I have not fault­ [...]d G. K's. Opposers, as well as G. K. I answer, [...]ll by G. K's. oppose [...]s, he mean our Friends, I never [...] cause to be so sc [...]utinous, as D. L. hath been, in searching, either into our Friends books or G. K's. either, till since that time any farther than what related to the Controversy which G. K. had raised amongs [...] us here; and chiefly that about the uni­versal neccessity of the knowledge of Christ in the outward, in order to salvation [...], without our acknowledging of which I found he would not own the most upright amongst us, to [...]e any better than Heathe [...]s. Now, upon a time, looking into G. K's. Universal free Grace of the Gospel, in pa. 117 I found, that he there would not grant, That outward know­ledge, or the knowledge of Christ in the outward was univer­sally [...] salvation; which I presently shewed to an honest Friend, and then a late Friend of his, at Philadelphia; and when I came to town again, he told the, he had shew­ed G. K. the passage, and said his answer was to this purpo­se; That if he was in his senses upon his death [...], [...]e would leave [...] a [...] his last testimony to his Friends about him; That if they should find any thing in his former books, contrary what he now held, they should scrach it out, where they met with it. Now, had he not presently after this, and after his so uncharitably counting honest Friends to be but Heathens, gone about to perswade his over credulous followers; That he was not changed in his Principles, thereby deceiving and deluding them, should have had no occasion on that account, to have put Pen to Paper, as I did: But I suppose he wa­ [...]ily considered in time; That if he should acknowledge a change in his principles, his New and raw disciples, who [...]alued themselves at that time much upon their being ac­counted [Page 4] Quakers, and that of a primitive stamp too, would have forsaken him, and his notions also. Well, then he finds out a way to gloss over this place, and would have us believe, That when he denyed, as aforesaid, the knowled­ge of Christ in the outward to be universally necessary to sal­vation, his meaning was, that it was not so necessary to salvation begun; as if that difference betwixt our Friends, whom G. K. was then vindicating, and other people, was about salvation began only: Yet least that would not do, We must also be told of a distinction, betwixt the express, and the implicite knowledge of Christ, and that the express knowledge was not universally necessary, yet the implicite knowledge was. Now these things put me into a farther search, into both his former and latter books, and in his former I still found, where he was concerned to treat of the subject, he alvvais denyed that knovvledge to be essentially necessary to salvation, particularly in his Universal free Grace &c., p. 117, and Light of truth triumphant, p. 6. By his former books, I mean such as bear date before the year. 1681. or thereabouts, Which is supposed to be about the time that he wrote (as he acknowledged) 199 of the 200 queries concerning the Revolution of humane souls &c. But by his latter books it appears, that he is clearly changed in principle as to the point of doctrine; and I finding things thus, and also how he was receded from his principles in some other matters, wherein he differed with Friends, as About the sufficiency of the Light without something else, and about Preachers being Magistrares, and of the confused work he had made about his strange notions of the Resur­rection, as in my said book is shovvn: This I say, Was the occasion of my Writing that book, that thereby I might shevv to them, especially to the most sincere amongst them, hovv he vvent about to deceive them, by drilling them on, and persvvading them, we could never prove, he was chaing­ed in his Principles, as his ovvn vvords are, see, Some Fundamental Truths p: 13. Printed about the year 1692, Wherein he further saith thus; ‘I can prove a good consist­ency [Page 5] of my present doctrine with all [mark all] my for­mer and latter books.’ Behold now the man; for if this be true, what need he now at a pinch have put out his book of Retraetations: why he was driven to it, he must either do it, or else some of his followers might have fallen out with him about it; for some of them were not satis­fied with him in that respect; Nay, if we can beleive this D. L. he himself was one of the dissatisfied persons else what makes him say, He had taken in G. K's. books equal­ly with the rest, but that be found G. K. had promised a Cor­rection of them, and that of late his Retraction was come over in prent, See D. L. 's. Preface as before is shewn. But there is one thing more, which I am sure he ought not only to Retract, now his hand is in, but alse deeply to lament, and that is; His so abusing his poor bigotted followers Cas I have already hin­ted) in his thus deluding them, by so often perswading them, at the first, that he was not changed in his Principles; and when he hath done this, I know not, but as to this point, he may pretty well pass, for such a kind of an honest man, as is so vvith good looking to: But before he dos thus much, I do not see hovv he can be afforded the appellation. And novv to conclude, I do say; that suppose I had seen, and took no­tice of some passages in our Friends books, which might seem to me like inconsistencys, especially in relation to things not then in controversy, I do not look upon my self equally obliged to expose them, as I did his, which were so palpable, and done for the reason aforesaid.

The next thing I shall take noice of, is, Daniel Leeds s' pretences in this his Preface now be fore me; that ‘His pro­ceeding, here in to expose and publish what follows [in his book] was by amotion heavenly.’ Yet I question not to prove him in his thus doing not only an Accuser, but a very false Accuser of the Brethren; which to be [...]re could not proceed from a motion heavenly, and scarse think he can be so infatuated, as to think it did, unless his meaning be; That he was influenced in this action, by the motion of the starrs, that are placed in that [...]i [...]mament of haven, and [Page 6] yet if his meaning he such, it will by no means deserve the credit, that was given to his Idle prediction, published in his Almanack for the jear 1695, where he saith; ‘All lovers of truth are to take notie, that from and after the 25. of January, no person shall find it safer shrouding under the name and denomination of a Quaker, than under the name of any other profession of Christianity what soever &c.’ For we have all along known, that no person not only from and after the month he calls January, but at no time else, hath been; is, or will be any thing the safer, for their being under the denomination of a Quaker, any more than that D. L.▪s words be true, were he saies, his pro­ceedings in this his book was from a motion heavenly and that's not at all.

I come now to his book, which he begins under the title of an Introduction, in p : 3. D. L. fearing that such licke seeming contradictions as he alledges against our Friends books might be found in the scriptures, he strugles hard before hand to guard against it, by telling us. ‘They, them­selves in their books gave that reason why 't is so with the scriptures bringing reasons to prove them not the same as given forth, but altered and corrupted. Now this cannot be alledged of their books, decause we have the first im­pression of them, and there fore they cannot be altered or corrupted.’

Answ. Is he there At this rate then [...]s abouts; if he should charge seeming contradictions upun us, for saying this on the one hand, and that on the other, and we can prove the both sides are according to scripture, yet it seems the must not be allowed, because our Friends, have told, how some scriptures have been altered and corrupted, which few professing Christianity I suppose vvill deny to be true; [...]ever the less, if for the reason the Quaker must not bring scripture to prove vvhat he hath vvritten, vvhy may not any one else be denyed so, to do, in defence of any truth vvhat soever, and so at this rate, any Opposers of the [...]learest truths, may deny any scripture that may be urged [Page 7] to convince him of his Errour. Well but do our Friends s [...]y that some scriptures have been altered and corrupteds What does D. L.'s. friend G. K. say less in a passage in one of his books, not yet reacted; vvhere he hath it thus viz ‘I hope it may be vvithout offence not only queried but also concluded, that the translations of the scripture have divers additions, which men have added without any pretence to divine inspiration : Nor are there wanting di­vers, both judicious and learned men, so accounted, of good repute, even among Protestants who do acknowledge, that some particular words have dropt in to the Greek and Hebrew text, since their first writing &c. All which being granted, yet do not hinder but that the purity of the scripture is sufficiently preserved, viz, in respect of the main and necessary things : See Truths Defence p: 59 and 60 &c.’

And so we say too, see W. p 's Rejoinder q : 38: 39. Now if D. L. can make appear, that any scripture that we have brought, or may bring, to prove any truth, be altered or corrupted, he may do it, or else what he hath said as to this matter, affects us more than it doth G. K. and others that profess Christianity. I shall there fore pro­ceed to put D. L. in mind that at this rate all Protestants may be deprived of what proofs they usually bring against Popish Innovations. And suppose a Friend, upon any occa­sion, should exhort people to serve the Lord with fear &c. and upon another occasion should tell them, they might serve him without fear all the daies of their lives, and should bring Psal. 2 : 11. for the one, and Luke 1. 74 for the other : Now I would know of D. L., whether he would dare to call this a contradiction: Likewise in John 16. 24 is said, Ask and ye shall receive; but in James 4: 3 Ye aske, and receive not. Christ saith in one place, I f [...]ll bear witness of my self, my witnest is not true, and in an other place he saith, Though I bear record of my self, yet my record is true, see John 5. 31 and 8: 14. Again, saith Christ to his discipels, I go to my Father, and ye s [...]e me no more [Page 8] John. 16. 10. yet John saith, When he shall appear, [...] shall see him as he is 1 John. 3: 2. Many more instances might be brought, but these I have menttioned I scarce think D. L. will dare to call contradictions, notwithstanding some scriptures may have been corrupted and altered. I remem­ber what ado they made of late, because a Friend had said The wicked Jews never saw the Worlds saviour; Though the scripture saith expresly, Whosoever sinneth hath not seen him 1 John. 3. 6. and surely the wicked Jews were sinners: Now by his rule, it is but saying, This scripture may be altered and corrupted, and thus this proof will be rendered invalid. And likewise, suppose the Jews should bring such an argu­ment against any Christan, endeavouring to prove to them out of the old testament, that Jesus must needs be the promi­sed Messiah; or an Atheist against us, when we prove out of the scriptures that there is a God, at this rate because our Friends, as well as GK and other Professours do say; some scriptures have been altered, therefore our proofs out of them aganst Jews and Atheists yea and Papists too, will be of no Authority, and but as a meer nose of wax.

Besides, this suppositious excuse of D. L's. suggested in the name of some preachers of late, with his paraphrases therein, will not cover his dishonesty, nor cloak his gross perversions and corrupt citatiens. Do the Quakers say that the scriptures in some places are alterred and corupted? What then? Will it therefore follow, that they must excuse D. L's. alteration and corruption of their writings? No such matter. Is the scrip­ture in English a translation out of other language, conse­quently but a copy, liable to mistakes in transcribing and translating, as well as printing; And the Quakers books the original impression? Will it therefore follow, that D. L. may mangle and misrepresent the Quakers writings, at his plea­sure, without controul? I know no reason for it and therefore shall take liberty to tell him of his faults whether it please him o [...] no And this further I dare undertake to prove, if any [...]easonable man, after perusal of what I have here offered to his view, can doubt it; that, should I suppose the scrrp­tures [Page 9] to be wholly clear of any errours, either of Transcriber, Translator or Printer, and D. L. bad the confidence, to make as bold with them, as he hath done with our Friends writings, he might mak a far bigger News book, than that which he trumpeted out in the Wilderness against us.

I come now to his quotations out of our Friends books, which he has placed in two columns, under the notion of contradictions, which, how far he proves them so to be, or how far he falls short of proof, as also how honestly or how dishonestly he deals with them, will appear in the following examination of them (or at least of so many of them as may give the Reader a sufficient tast of the rest; I not having all the friends books quoted on both sides by me) and my remarks thereon, by way of answer thereunto.

I begin first which page 7 (it should be 6) where he quotes W P ▪s Sandy Foundation p. 22. thus. ‘Since Christ could not pay what was not his own [Debt] it follows, that in the pay­ment of his own, the case still remains equally grievous, since the debt is not hereby absolved or forgiven, but trans­ferred only.’ Now to this D. L. opposes G. W's Divinity of Christ in answer to Tho Danson p. 16 thus; ‘How false and blasphe­mous this charge is against Christ, I appeal to all sober Pro­fessours of Christianity, viz. That when God required satis­faction of Christ, it was due from Christ.’ Upon which D. L. makes this observation, viz ‘That as before (Saith he) W. P. renders Geo. Whitehead's head's doctrine ridiculous and shame­ful, so here G. W. renders W Penn's doctrine blasphemous, for holding, that Christ had a debt of his own to satisfy to God &c.’

Answer, It were well if D. L. woud be ashamed as he ought to be, of his thus ridiculously and shamefully abusing W. P, by his so basely adding in crotchets the word, [Debt] to W. P.'s. words, which is neither W. P's. word nor so much as deducible from his doctrine or argument: So this is but a meer crotchet of D. L's. envious brain, to render G. W. and W. P. inconsistent with each other, and also to misrepresent W. P, as if he beleived, that Christ was guilty of sin, when he suffered for our sins; which, as that pas­s [...]ge of W. P's. shows no such thing; so the same page proves [Page 10] the contrary; for the whole Page is cheifly to shew the ridiculous consequences that attend the rigid Presbyterian doctrine, of it's being impossible for God to pardon sins upon repentance, without a plenary satisfaction made by another, which consequences W. P. calls Irreligious and Irrational in 9. respects, the 3d. of which is ‘That it was unworthy of God to pardon but not to inflict punishment on the innocent, or require a satisfaction where there was nothing due.’

Now mark, These words plainly imply that W. P. counted Christ innocent, and that there was nothing of debt due from him, which spoils D. L's. pretended contradict [...]on. Besides, was it likely that W. P. must needs, by his own, mean Christ's own debt, and so render Christ a sinner? A very idle construction; for suppose Christ had a debt to pay, according to the Presbyterian strict rigid sence, must it needs follow from thence, that the debt was his own, and so paid it as being due from him? Nothing less: For is it not common among men, for a man to pay a debt for his Friend, which though he pay with his own, yet the debt was not due from him; Even so, Christ laid down his live for our sins, but yet not to pay any debt of his own, for as W. P. there saith there was no such thing due from him; no, he laid down his live it's true, but it was for us; he was wounded but it was for our transgressions, and Christ him self faith, Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends John. 15. 13. Nay though it had been to pay a debt in the Presbyterian, strict and rigid sense (which as I said was what W. P. there dis­cussed) yet it was not his own debt, though it was his own life he paid it with, as he himself said, I lay down my life for the sheep John 10. 15. and if for the sheep, then not to pay a debt of his own, and that that is W. P's. genuine sense in that place, I suppose no unprejudiced man will deny; and I charge D. L. with most base forgery in this place, for his adding the word [debt] to W. P's. words, thereby quite altering the true and real intent of them.

But again, He has as basely rendered, as well as falsely quoted [Page 11] VV. P. p. 5. where he hath it thus ‘ Sandy Foundation p. 14. VV. Penn. saith, If the only God is the Father and Christ be the only God, then is Christ the Father; which is ridi­culous and shamefull.’ Now here again I flatly charge him with most grossly perverting VV. P's. words sense and mean­ing, for though VV. P. saies If that the only God is the Father and Christ be that only God, then is Christ the Fath­er: yet that he there called this ridiculous and shamefull I absolutely deny, and it lies upon D. L. to prove, for the place proves it not, and if D. L▪ write again about it, I would advise him, to insert the whole paragraph, that it may be seen, whether any such thing be so much as deducible from what VV. P. there saith. And now let me tell him, there needs no carious wire drawing mincing nor mangling as he in p, 43. insinuates we should be forced to in our answer to him, to manifest his abuse to W. P. in this matter.

Neither was there any occasion for D. L. to talk of our agree­ing upon a consistent Creed, but if he write again, let it be what is agreeable with honesty, and consistent with truth, that honest men may stand by him in it.

In p: 4 (it should be 7) DL saith v In Dirinity of Christ "by G. W. and G. Fox, ‘they begin in the Epistle with commanding and charging Professours to bring express scripture for their Doctrine saying, Whether do the scriptures speak of three persons in the Godhead, in these express words? And where doth the scripture speak of a humane nature of Christ in heaven? &c.’ A little lower D. L. saith ‘Now may not the Professours say, Come G. W. Come Quakers where doth the scripture say, the distinction of Father and Son is not only nominal, but real. He having in p. 4. cited these as G. W 's words.’

Answ. We know that those Professors would have tyed our friends up to those very terms of three persons, and also human nature of Christ in heaven &c. And yet at the same time, blamed them for not calling the scriptures the only rule of faith. So that since they would needs tye our Friends up to those very words, 'twas but reasonable they [Page 12] should be held to their Rule to prove them by. But as fo [...] G. VV.'s saying, the distinction of the Father and Son is not only nominal but real; I question not, if the Father Word and Spirit be owned to be one God, but G. VV. will rest satisfied, without disiring to impose the words nominal and real on any man, though he might use them to satisfie the enquirer. But since D. L. would make us beleive he is impartial in relation to G. K, why must the Quakers be thus struck at, and G. K. passed by in this matter: For doth not he in his book called Presbyterian and Independent, visi­ble Churches &c. p 87, say of the scripture; ‘That it is not safe to leave the scripture words, and go to words of mans wisdom, and thereby declare our faith of Christian doctrine.’ And yet doth not the same G. K, make abundant use of other words in managing of Controversy, and plead for it too, as in his book called Antichrists and Sadducees detected &c. in p. 19, Where he saith, ‘I see not why I should be so confined to exspres scripture words 'in things that I re­quire no man to own or believe as Articles of faith, but leave them to their liberty &c.’ And now I dare say G. VV. and all sensible Friends will say as much.

The next quotation of D. L.'s I take notice of is out of G. F's Great Mistery p: 264 &c. cited by him in his p: 10 thus; ‘ Priest sayes, A man by his own power cannot get into regeneration, for they are dead in sins and trespasses G. F. replies, some are sanctified from the womb, and some children are holy; so all are not dead in sins and trespasses &c.’ Now to this he opposes G VV.'s Divinity of Christ in answer to T. D. p: 20: thus; ‘ G. VV. saies, Condemnation [...]ame upon all men—Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned p: 24: Again, Christ died for all, so all were dead in sins and trespasses &c.’ Answ: That some are sancti­fied from the womb according to G: F: is but according to scripture, see Jerem: 1: 5: Luke 1: 15: and 1 Cor: 7: 15: And also that condemnation and death came upon all men according to G: VV: is also according to scripture, see Rom: 12: 18, and so according to D: L. may not the scripture be charged [Page 13] with contradiction in that respect, as well as G: F: and G: VV: Then, whereas G: F: said, all are not (mark [are not] which is in the present tense) dead in sins and trespasses, it doth not at all contradict what D. L▪ produceth as G. VV's, that all were dead in sins and trespasses [were, being the time past] (tho by the way, let the Reader take notice, that I can find no such words, in the place cited by D. L, as G. VV's, though I have searched for them) For those words of scripture being taken in the strictest sense viz, If one died for all then [were] all dead 2 Cor. 5: 14 yet it doth not follow that those which were sanctified from their Mothers womb, nor those which were passed from death to life [are] still dead: For as G: F's following words are, hwich D. L. hath left out, and hwich, had he inserted them, would have bet­ter explained G: F.'s; meaning They that are so are but un­beleivers. And where as it is said, death passed upon all men, it this be to be understood strictly, and without any [...], how is it said of Enoch, That he was translated tha [...] [...] not see death Hebr. 11: 5.

[...]. 12 he quotes W: P.'s Christian Quaker, thus, ‘Now nothing can bruise the head of the Serpent but some­thing that is also internal, as the Serpent is; but if the body o [...] Christ were the seed, then could he not bruise the serpents head in all, because the body of Christ is not so much as in any one &c Whom he would make T. Ellwood to oppose in Foundation of Tythes &c’ p. 2 [...]8. 240, thus, ‘Nor do the Quakers ascribe salvation to the following the light within, but to Christ Jesus, to whom the light leads—If any one expect Remission of sins by any other way than by the death of Christ renders the death of Christ useless.’

Answ. I do affirm if D: L, or any other, comes to know the serpents head bruised in any measure, it must be by some thing internal, neither doth what T: E. hath said as above, any waies contradict it: For though we ascribe not our salvation [to our own following of Christ] who is the [...]ght of the world, according to: Tho. Ellwood, yet that [Page 14] follows not, but thath Christ the Light of the world is he thath bruises the Serpents head, and to ascribe our salvation to Christ the light of the world, who appears internally, in order there to, is one thing, and to ascribe it to our works, which Tho. Ellwood and all sound Friends deny, is another thing. For allthough the Apostle know nothing by him self (which is a large degree of growth) yet there by he was not justified 1 Cor : 4 : 4. Nevertheless the same Apostle saith, By grace ye are saved and thath not of Your selves it is the gift of God Eph: 2 : 8. Yet this is no contradiction. And though the Apostle saith We are reconciled by his death, yet he also saith, we are saved by his life Rom: 5: 10, which life is internal : For in him was life and the life was the light of men Iohn. 1 : 4. Neither do we read of any whom Christ hath forever pefected, but those who are sanctified Heb 10 : 14. Now thath this doctrine of Christ the seed's bruising the head of the serpent inwardly, is owned by D. L's great Friend G: K, as wel as by W: P, is clear from his Way cast up p : 99. not yet retracted, thus expessed, ‘Though the outward coming of the man Christ, was deferred ac­cording to his outward birth in the flesh, for many years, yet from the beginning, this heavenly man, the promised seed, did inwardly [mark inwardly] come in to the heart, and bruise the head of the serpent.’ Come novv D: L, if thou art impartial, as thou pretendest, and art not blinded with partiality and prejudice, lay this which thou idly callest a contradiction in VV: P. and T: E, at G: K's door also : For here he owns the seed which bruises the serpents head to be inward, as vvell as VV: P; and that he owns the very same passage of T: E, may appear, by his brin­ging those two very quotations, to prove his doctine con­sistent with Friends doctrine, in his book called Heresy and Hatred p: 9.

His necxt lash is upon the matter answered by the foregoing : For as Christ the light is the salvation of all that believe, according to G : F; so we ascribe our salvation to him alone, according to T: E, and this is no contradiction, [Page 15] Alas poor Daniel! How far is he gone in to prejudice and blindness, to represent these things as unreconcilable: For upon this, he calls and cry's out Come, let's see if T : Ellwood with al his sophistry and false glosses can recon­cile these two assertions. Alas poor man! does he want to h [...]ve Sophistry and false glosses reconcile sound assertions, while he with his pretended motion heavenly counts them contradictions. But for the sake of some, I shal a little il­lustrate this matter, with this comparison: Suppose a sub­ject were sentenced by his Prince, to be cast in to prison, for some great misdemeanor committed against. his per­son, yet the Prince commiserating his poo [...] condition, Finds out a way to save him, but upon this condition, that he humbly and thankfully receive the same, and no more live in disobedience to him. Now is not his Prince, in this case, by saving him from his deserved punishment, his Saviour, though he live for the future in all obedience to his Prince's commands; Yet he can not ascribe his being saved from the punishment incurred, to any thing but his Princes clemencey and goodness. Eve [...] so, VVe VVho VVere once dead in our sins and trespasses, and had in curred the dis­pleasur of God, ascribe our being saved out of that state, and from the punishment due thereto, to the mercy of God alone through Jesus Christ, but not to any of our own works. And now I must needs say, all this is more than D: L's. cevill deserved, and is indeed more in respect to others, than from any hopes I have of it's working much effect upon him.

I now follow him to his p : 14, were he cites Chr; Quaker by G : VV: p. 212, ‘The man's mistaken if he suppose that we plead for the Righteousness of a crea­ture, [i: e: Christ as man] or mans own Righteousess, wich he himself is enabled to perform, as the cause of our justification &c:’ To which D: L: opposes VV: P 's: Serious Apology p : 148. ‘Death came by actual sin, not imputative, therefore justifcation unto life came by act­ual Righteousnes, not imputative :’ Upon which D: L: [Page 16] makes this ‘Note, whether is the errour of both these, [...] the contradiction greater:’

Answer, Whether in this matter, the palpable Forgery or ignorance of D: L: be the greater, is not hard to demon­strate, for my part, I cannot think he can be so ignorant, and therefore can count him no less rhan a base Forger, thus to foist in words of his own, thereby to misrepresent the words of G: VV; as if when he Speaks of the Righteousness of a creature, he meant the Righteousness of Christ as man, Which words [Christ as man] D, L, hath added; for as they are not G: VV's words, So neither are they coherent vvith the rest of the matter: Novv vvhat is this less than forgery? and a contrivance to render G: W, erronious, as vvell as in­consistent vvith VV: P: But to shevv that he is neither, I shall transcribe the passage as it is laid dovvn in the book it self, that thereby it may be seen, Whether G, W's errour or D. L's forgery be the greater: G: W's vvords are thus, ‘4thly The man's mistaken if he suppose that vve plead either-the Righteousness of a creature, or mans ovvn Righteousness, vvich he himself is inabled to perform, as the cause of our justification : for Christ that strengthens us or enables us, by his povver and spirit dvvelling in us, to do the Fathers vvill, he is the ground and cause of our justifi­cation, and in him vvho is the beloved are vve accepted, not meerly for our ovvn vvorks or obedience, but for his sake, vvho vvorketh in us, and enables us to do those things vvhich are vvell pleasing in his sight,’ Novv is it not strange▪ that D, L, should be so infatuated, as to abuse and find fault vvith such sound doctrine; and so at present I shall leave it as such, but the forgery at Daniel Leeds's door, and come next to examine, vvhether it contradicts W : P : or not; for as he hath not shevvn us vvherein, so I cannot see hovv he can find out his pretended contadiction, For as G : W : ovvns not mans ovvn Righteousness vvhich he is able to perform of himself, to be the cause of our Justification; so neither doth W : P. say or ovvn that a man of himself is able to per­form that actual Righteousness, vvhich is necessary to justi­fication, [Page 17] therefore no contradiction: But is it not as sound doctrine, to say justification comes by actual richteousness, as it is to say, that Abraham our Father was justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his Son James 2: 21. Now was not this his offering up his Son, an actual work, and is not Faith without works dead, v: 26? And surely a man is not justified by a dead faith: Now although a man is said, and that in a schriptural sence, to be justified by works, yet it is not for his works sake who worketh all our good works in us, and for us.

I now must again call upon D: L. to be impartial, for if W: P. be guilty of errour here, how can his Friend G: K. be sound? For it is one of the false doctrins he charges the New England Professours with; ‘That justification is only by Christ's righteousness without us, imputed to us, and received by faith alone, and not by any righteousness of god and Christ infused into us, or wrought in us, see Pres­byterian and Independent &c.’ p: 204, not yet retracted and in his Looking glass to the Protestants p: 31, he saith ‘this is our faith, that we are justified by an inward righteous­ness wrought by the Spirit of God in our hearts.’ What Saist thou now Daniel? Can W: P. be heterodox in this matter, and G: K. orthodox? Be impartial; for this of G: K's. is so far from being retracted, that it is by him im­plicitely justified in the Retractation book it self; ‘For there he denies, that he hath retracted or renounced any one assertion in any one of his former books, that was judged by him an Article of faith, of which this about justification is one; for saith he : this is our faith, that we are justified by an inward Righteousness &c.’

His next flingh is grounded cheifly upon his abusing G: W's. words and meaning, as well as that he there in abuseth his Reader, by his forging words in G. W.▪s name which are not G. W's. words; but his own as before is shown, and so I shall leave both these misrepresentations of G. W. char­ged to D. L's. account under the one head of Forgery.

In the same 14th. page he cites W. P's Rejoinder p: 287, [Page 18] thus, ‘No present work, how good soever, can justifie any man from the condemnation which is due for the guilt of sin, that is past;’ To which he opposes Sandy Foundation p: 16, thus, ‘God's remission is grounded on our repen­tance.’

Answer, Though W: P. saies in the one book, No present work how good soever, can justify any man from the condem­nation which is due for the guilt of sin that is past. Yet there is nothing in the other book, that (so much as consequential­ly) doth say it can: For though it is there said, That Gods re­mission is grounded on our repentance; yet yit is to be observed, that it is called Gods remission, and so no present work how good soever, of ours can either remit or justifie us; for it is Gods remission, and so called by W: P. And although W: P. saith, it is grounded upon our repentance, yet it is to be un­derstood in a scriptural sence, and one of the scriptures which VV: P. brought to prove what he asserted was 2 Chr. 30 : 9. ‘ For if ye turn again unto the Lord, the Lord your God is gracious and mercifull, and will not turn away his face from you.’ Where (saith W : P.) how natural is it to observe that Gods remission is grounded on their repentan­ce; and not that it's impossible to pardon, without a plena­ry satisfaction which was his then Antagonist's doctrine; and the several scriptures brought by W: P. prove clearly, that it was upon the wicked's returning again to the Lord, that he remitted them, had mercy on them, and abundantly pardonned them.

Again p. 15 he quotes G. F's. Catechism p: 2 ‘The light that shews to every man his evil deeds, is Christ.’ In oppo­sition to which he produced W. P's Christian Quaker p: 91 We do not say that the light in every man is Christ, but of Christ.

Answer: Tho G: F. saies, The light that shews to every man his evil deeds is Christ, yet W. P. saies nothing to the contrary, so no cnotradiction. And this is certainly true, that the great Light that shews to every man his evil deeds is Christ, according to G: F., tho the measure that is contai­ned [Page 19] in every man, W: P. chuses here rather to call the light of Christ, than Christ in fulness. And G: K. himself in a late book entituled Heresy and Hatred p: 14. say's ‘The light within being God and Christ;’ and yet in the same page he calls it A real measure or the eternal word Christ Jesus. No question but this is sound enough in G: K. though it would scarce be so in us.

He adds a citation out of G: F's Great mistery p : 185 viz ‘The Devil teacheth them, in whom he fows his seed, not to have the light within them, the seed Christ, the Root of God.’ Upon which D: L. notes, ‘Who must we believe, G: F. or G: W. and W: P.? For here G : F. holds the light within to be not only Christ, but even the Root of God.’

Answer, This is partly answered by the foregoing: And whereas G: F. calls the light, the seed Christ, it is accord­ing to Scripture, which saies Christ is the Light of the world John 8: 12, and also it is said Gal: 3 : 16 that the Seed is Christ; and whereas G : F. saies so of the light within, it is no more than to say, and that in a scriptural sence, Christ within the hope of glory Coll. 1 : 27. and yet in Ephe. 4 : 7. it is said But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ; and surely D: L. will not say this is a contradiction. Besides, I remember that G: K. in a letter to John Delaval, which I have by me in G. K's hand writing, in the year 1692, saith; ‘To say the man Christ is in us, or the light in us is the man Christ, I do not contradict it in a true scripture sence, as he is called the hidden man of the heart, and the new man, but this is a figurative expression, and that in a twofold respect: First by a Metaphor, or Allagory, as he is called a Lamb, a Lion. 2dly By a Sydechdoche of the giving the name of the whole to the measure.’ Now I say, if G. K. be thus allowed to distinguish, why may not G: F., G: W. and VV: P. and as for G▪ F's. using this expression The ROOT of God? I ask Doth not Paul also use this expression? viz The Foun­dation of God? 2 Tim. 2: 19, and as Christ is Gods Foun­dation for us to build upon; so also he is according to Rom: [Page 20] 11: 16: 17: 18 the root for us to grow upon. And G: K. in his VVay cast up p: 114 sais, ‘That Christ is the Root and vine into which the Saints are grafted.’

As to the next clash, It is also partly answered by the foregoing; it relates to something G: F. said in answer to a Priest, who commonly in those daies denyed God and Christ to be in men according to scripture: Though in this case, I do confess the Priest's words were true in a sence, viz That whole Christ, God and Man is not in men; yet that God is in men is clear according to Scripture, and that Christ is in men is clear according to Scripture, and that Christ is in men, not only as he is God, but also as man, is clear according to D: L's. great Friend G. K. who in his VVay cast up p. 123 saith ‘That Christ is really present in and among us, not only as he is God, but also as he is man.’ Now since Christ as he is God dweller in us accord­ing to Scripture, and as he is man he dwelleth in us ac­cording to G▪ K. as he is God and man is he not the whole Christ. Yet that he doth so dwell in us, as that the whole fulness of the Godhead and manhood, is contained in men; I believe, neither G. F. nor G. K. did own, any more than W▪ P. Besides, G. F. answer to the Priest was but by way of query, which does not alwaies conclude a judgement : For when Christ asked the Pharisees, what think ye of Christ? whose son is he? they said unto him, The son of David; Christ answered by way of query, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord Matt. 22. 42: 43. Now by this his answer, Christ did not deny himself to be the Son of David; for that would have contradicted the scripture, which calls him the son of David &c. Matt. 1: 1. And so G. F's. asking a question, cannot be said to be a denyal of W. P's. assertion, therefore no contradiction.

I come now to his p: 17: 18, to what he cites from G. F about the soul. To which I say, 1st. It hath been often answered by our Friends, particularly G. W. and W. P. 2dly Though D. L. slights their answers, counting them fallacious &c. Yet his peculiar Friend G. K. hath but in the year 1692 [Page 21] vindicated, both G. F. doctrine about the soul, and also W. P's. answers to the Professours, about the very same sub­ject of G. F.'s., which D. L. cites; see his Serious appeal p: 60, not yet retracted, where it may be seen, that what D. L. calls in G. W. and W. P. Fallacious equivocation, his Friend G. K. calls a Sufficient vindication. Now what curious wire drawing will D, L. use here, to clear himself from contra­dicting his great Friend G. K. But since among so many learned and Wise men, there have been so many opinions about the Soul, unless he could define better than other folks what the Soul is, and what the Breath of life is which God breathed into man, by which he became a living Soul, his raking up seeming contradictions about it tends to no bo­dies profit that I know of. As fot what he tells us of the Raniers saying, The Soul is a part of God; therefore to talk of going to hell is an idle story; is very idle in D. L. to cite. For I do believe, as man continued a living soul to God, by vertue of that life which God breathed into him, and as he is restored thereto again by Christ, in that state Hell is not his portion : Yet till then the Soul is not living to God, but death and hell is it's po [...]tion; for the Soul simply is one thing, and its being a living soul to God, is surely another thing.

In p : 18: 19 he cites G, F, again thus, ‘Great Mistery, p, 205 and p. 63. The Saints came to se the end of Sabbaths and New-Moons, and witnessed the body, Christ, before the day was made—for the body is the light of the world, the body is the life given for the life of the World, in whom there is rest —Christ gave himself, his body, for the life of the World; he was the offering for sin.’ Now D. L., to make W. P. contradict G F▪ quotes out his Serious A­pology p. 146 as follows, ‘But that the outward person that suffered was properly the Son of God, We utterly deny —A Body best thou prepared me,’ said the Son; sot he Son was not the Body, though the body was the Son's Up­on which saies D▪ L. ‘Let W P. reconcile these, and also tell us who is the Father of that outward person.’

[Page 22] Answ Easily reconciled : For as W: P. denies the outward person to be properly the son of God; so G: F's▪ words, as here laid down by D: L, do import the same: For he being there answering a Priest, who was mightily crying up the outward Sabbath, which according to scripture, was a shadow of things to come Coll 2. 16 : 17 derected him to Christ the substance, or body of that shadow, and said, the body is the life of the world, and the light of the world &c.

Now what is this to W: P's saying, The outward person is not properly the son of God: For surely, the body, which is the substance of the shadowy things under the law, is Christ indefinitely, which G: F. calls the light of the world &c. But what W: P. meant, was restricted to his outwatd visible person only; which surely none will say, that that of its self was properly the light and life of the world: so that what W: P. and G. F. both do say is true, and therefore no contra­diction. And doth not D. L. know, that the words [body of Christ] have various significations in scripture? As, first his Church is called his body Coll 1. 18. The bread of the passover is called his body by Christ him self Matt 26 26. And that which suffered on the cross was also his body. Again the substance of shadowy ordinances (which is Christ is called the body, which was the body in G. F's. sence, in this place mentioned by D. L.

And where as D. L. would know of VV. P, who is the Fat­her of that outward person? I presuming that VV. P hath mat­ters of more weight to exercise him self in, than to answer such sort of cavilling folks, shall therefore undertake to tell him, and that according to scripture, He was the son of. David Matth. 1. 1 and as Paul said to the Romans 1: 3 He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; which was the outward person VV. P. meant Well! but how was he the son of God: why the next verss shew, viz And dedared to be the son of God, with power according to the spirit of holiness &c. And now I cannot but often observe, how D. L. by his strik­ing thus against the Quakers, does often hit his Friend G. K. a greivous box on the ear; for in The VVay cast up [Page 23] p. 104. G. K. saith, ‘He was the son of Mary, David and Ahraham according to the flesh; but according to his hea­venly nature, even as man, he was the son of God. And in p. 102 he saith, It is not the outward flesh and blood, that is the man—but it is the sould or inward man, that dwelleth in the outward flesh and blood, that is the man most properly, such as Christ was from the beginng. Surly now if D L. be impartial, he must take in in G. F's. errours in his next anniversary book.’

D. L. falls upon VV. P. again p. 19. quoting his Reason against Railing p. 91 as follows ‘ Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our Debtors, were, (saith he) nothing can be more obvious, than that which is forgiven, is not paid; and if it is our duty so forgive without a satisfaction re­ceived, and that God is to forgive us, as we forgive them, then is a satisfaction totally excluded.’ Now to make as if he contradicts him self he cites Rejoynder p. 284. where saith D. L. VV. P. cites and defends, ‘We believe that Christ in us doth offer up a living sacrifice to God for us, by which the wrath of God is appeased to us.’ Where upon saith D. L. ‘Note a self contradiction, for in the one he totally excludes a satisfaction, and in the other he grants it Answer.’

Can D. L. be impartial here in? Does he not know, that where VV. P: denies it as a payment of a debt, it is in the Presbyterian, rigid sense, to wit ‘That man having transgressed the righteous law of God, and so ex­posed to the penalty of eternal wrath, it's altogether im­possible for God to remitt or forgive without a plenary satisfaction; and that there was no other way by which God could obtain satisfaction, or save men, than by in­flicting the penalty of infinite wrath and vengeance on Jeuss Christ the second person of the Trinity, who for sins past, present and to come, hath wholly born and paid it, to the offended infinite justice of his Father:’ see W. P 's: very words Sandy Foundation p. 16, of which I shall speak more when I come to his Numb: 30: But as to Christ [Page 24] offering up in us, by which the wrath of God is appeased to us, VV, P, expleans in the next paragraph, to wit ‘that Christ offers himself in his children in the nature of a Me▪diatory Sacrifice; And further saith Christ as a Mediator can atone in the consciences of his People at what time they fall under any miscarriage if they unseignedly repent ac­cording to 1 John 2, 1, 2. &c.’ Now it is one thing to ap­pease the wrath of God or man in a Mediatory way, and quite another thing to pay the debt that's due in such a strict sense as aforesaid. So that though W, P, denyed such a satisfaction to be made in one book; yet he did neither expresly nor consequently own it in the other; therefore no contradiction.

Now whereas D, L. askes ‘How many thousand offerings this new Scripture makes of Christ;’ as many Saints, so many times Christ offers himself up a Sacrifice, For this I shall refer him to his great Friend G, K, for satisfaction, if any thing besides abusing the Quakers will satisfie him, see G, K's VVay Cast up not yet retracted where in p, 157, 158, ‘he holds that Christ is a Mediator in the Saints, and that his Spirit as man, prayeth and maketh intercession on to God in the Saints, and cites Rom, 8 for it,’ Now dare D, L. say, that the praying of Christ is not an offering and living Sacrifice to God; and G, K. saith ‘ Christ hath done so from the beginning, by whom the children of God in all ages have received grace from God,’ And in p, 109 G, K. tells how ‘ Paul Preacht Christ to the Galatians, in the time of their Heathenism, cruicified in them,’ and cites Gal, 3 5 6 Now let G. K. tell D, L. how many crucifyings of Christ there is, so many heathen, so many times Christ crucified, But I say again, prejudice blinds man,

Well now to make G, F, contradict W, P, in this matter, in his Numb, 30, he quotes Great Mistery p 63, thus ‘ Christ gave himself, his body for de life of the world, he was the offering for the sins of the Whole world, and paid the debt, and made satisfaction,’ To which he implicitely op­poses W, P. as before, to wit, that ‘a satisfaction is [Page 25] totally excluded, and what is forgiven is not paid.’

Answ. What G: F. said was in answer to a Priest that said, ‘Every man should not have his sins pardonned;’ Which G. F. did not deny, but told, how ‘ Christ gave himself an offer­ing for the sins of the World,’ and that he had enligthned every man coming into the World, that all through him might believe and (which was enough to shew, that though all man had not their sins pardonned, yet all were put into such a capacity, as that they might have their sins pardon­ned, in as much as) Christ had offered himself for all (which many of the Professors at that time dinyed) and which offer­ing the Father was well pleased with, and satisfied in, and so in that sence he made satisfaction, according to G. F., & which W: P. in that very book viz Sandy Foundation p: 32 did really own viz ‘That Christ in life, doctrine and death, fulfilled his Fathers will, and offered up a most satisfact­ory Sacrifice, but not (said he) to pay God, or help him, as being otherwise unable to save men.’ So that here we find W: P. owns Christs satisfaction, as wel as G: F., there­fore still their faces look not contrary (rightly understood) as D: L. would, and does represent them.

Well but G: F. saies, Christ paid the debt, and W: P. saies, what is forgiven is not paid. Now to this I say, That Christ paid the debt, so far as that in a scriptural sence, the Father for his sake was satisfied, and well pleased whit it on our account, is true; For he gave himself a ransom for all. 1 Tim. 2: 6. this is Scripture: But, that God could not pardon, except he was fully paid the debt, by a plena­ry satisfaction made by another; and which was what W. P. did deny, is unscriptural. For it is said Micha 7 : 18 VVho is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and in Exody 34. 6: 7. The Lord God, mercifull and gracious, long suffering and abundant in Goodness and Truth, keeping mer­cy for thousands, forgiving iniquity' transgressions and sin. So that it is not rational, to say, that a Transgressor is par­dohned, and yet the transgression fully satisfied for by anoth­er, who the Presbiterians said, was the second Person in [Page 26] he Trinity : For then mankind would be obliged only to the second person, because the first was fully paid, and it was only against this Notion that W. P's. struck, and I do not see that he contradicts G. F. in it, unless the scripture contradicts it self; for the scripture abundantly speaks of Gods forgiving us and [...]ardoning our sins, according to W. P. and the scripture saith also in plain words, that Christ bath redeemed us and given him self a ransom for all, and in this sense it is according to G. F. viz made satisfaction. His Numb: 55 being to the like effect which the foregoing, I account sufficiently answered by what I have alredy said upon this subject: I shall now take notice, how in many places of his book, he idly and sillily slants at G. W. about these words of his viz. ‘I may see cause otherwaies to word the matter, and yet our intentions be the same;’ for which he cites Counterfeit Convert p: 72, and then he cries out in p. 21 ‘Is this like the antient simplicity of a Quakers Pray who knows when such a man is sincere, or how to [...]eleive him in what he saies, that thus hides his meanings saies one thing, an means another?’

Answ. Truly I think D. L. hath not been enviously poring all this while in our Friends books for nothing. Pray, who but a man m [...]dled in his senses would make such a palpably ridiculous use of G: P's: innocent words? As if to say, I may se ecause other wise to word the matter, and yet intend the same thing, be equivalent which D: L's, ap­plication, viz, to say one thing and mean another: For since he (G: W) intends the same thing, how does he mean another thing? But what a doltish man is this? Is it not common for men (yea have not the best of men done it) to word a matter other wise, and yet intend the very same, as they did at first wording? Let him see how Luke words the matter, in giving account of some of Christ's, last words to his diciples, where he saith thus, And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Hierusalem, until ye be endued with power sromon high Luke 24 : 49. Now compare this with the account he gives [Page 27] of the same thing Acts. 14, and see if he do not otherwise word the matter, and yet intend the same thing, for there he hath it thus, And being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Hierusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father which, saith he, ye have beard of me. And many such like instances may be sound in scripture; but least D. L. should dislike scripture instances under pretence of their being corrupted, I will give him one out of his Friends G. K's. late book of Explanations and Retractations, not again retracted as I hear of yet, let him Look in p. 5. where G. K. saith ‘Though I cite scrip­ture and make use of them in arguing this point, yet I can truly say I have not my knowledge from them.’ Note, this he cites out of his book entituled Immediate Revelation p. 54. which he here explains, by other wise wording the m [...]tter, thus ‘Here note, I say from them, as being the efficient cause &c.’ Now though he here otherwise word the matter, yet his intention are still the same; For he saith himselfe in the same place, ‘What I then hold; meaning,’ what he held in 1668, he held in 1697, though he have other wise worded the matter. But what Author shall I fetch to con­vince D. L. better than him self : For in this very book of his, p. 33, he finding fault with and ridiculing G: W, about his charging a contradiction upon John Newman, saies D: L, ‘Pray judge if this (meaning Newman's assertions) [...]e any more then to say four pence in one place, and a gro at in another:’ Importing, that to be one and the same thing, and so indeed it is: Therefore, wether to say four pence in one place, be not one way, and agroat in another place, be not another way of wording the matter, and yet intend the same thing? We see D. L. has resolved in the af­firmative.

I come next to his p. 25. where he cites G. W. again Divi­nity of Christ p. 82. in these words ‘while we were sinners. Christ, died for us, it was Christ that dyed. To which he sopposes John Whitehead▪s Refuge Fixed p. 38. thus Nothing [Page 28] that was mortal was called Christ.’

Answ. What John W [...]e head wrote, he declares tw [...] as being eclxasive of the soul and spirit of Christ, and we know, exclusive from the sould and spirit, his flesh was called the body of Jesus, as it is said Joseph of Arimathea begged [the body] of Jesus; and this was mortal and dyed : But as whilst living, his Godhead soul and spirit was united to that body, so when that body dyed, it was called the death of Christ, though his Godhead soul and spirit dyed not. so that if exclusive there from his body was pro­perly and intirely the Christ, then Christ was not from the beginning : But we believe according to scripture, that Christ was from the beginning, and that the Rock that followed Israel in the Wilderniss, was Christ 1 Cor 10 : 4. and yet also, according to scripture, he took on him the body that was mortal, and that which he suffered in that body, was also called the sufferings of Christ; For as much (saith the Apostle) then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh &c. 1 Pet 4 : 1. And though the scripture calls it's suffering, the death of Christ; yet it also implyes, that Christ was that day in Paradise Luke 23 43, though that which was mortal was in the grave till three dayes after.

As to his comparing our Friends writings to those Priests, whom Samuel Fisher in his Rusticus p : 773. for their in­consistent arguments against our Friends, twits with his rounds of No : so: so : no &c.

I shall only say thus much, that I hope I have shewed, and yet shall shew here in that there is no comparison to be made between them : For the occasion of Samuel Fisher's so treating the priests, was the so different terms they at times gave to the light (which D: L. may disprove if he can) whereupon (saies S: F. ‘One while he calls it me­aphorical not proper, another while proper not meta­phorical, one while natural as opposite to civil and not moral, spiritual not supernatural, another while, and in other respects he makes it civil, moral and spiritual, [Page 29] one while common to all, universal, but then not saving, other while sufficient and saving, but then particular only, and particular to a few.’ This with much more was what S. F. grounded his No. so. so. No. &c. upon, which D: L. should not have concealed from his Reader; But it is no wonder a man should do so, who strives for victory more than truth.

Again, in p 30. 31. he cites G. F's Great Mistery p 289. thus ‘God was in Christ, and they are one, the Creator; the father in the son and the Son in the father, and Christ in you, and God in Christ, the Creator.’ And Quakers Plainness p. 24. by G▪ W, ‘The son is co—worker with the Father.’ To these he opposes G. W's Light and Life p 47 as follows viz ‘What nonsense is this to tell of God being co—Creator with the Father? Where upon D. L. makes this, Note Does not G. W. here accuse both G. F. and himself also, with Non sense? for what's the diffe­rence between Co—worker and Co—Creator?’

Answ. As blind as D: L. renders me in his p : 45. about the Resurrection, yet I shal shew him, that I can see a great deae of difference may be betwixt a Co—worker and a Co—Creator. For the saints were Co—workers together with Christ; but surely they cannot be said to be Co—Cre­ators with him; And though Christ being man as well as God may be said to be Co-worker with the Father; yet to tell of God being Co▪Creator with the Father does (as G. W. saies) imply two Gods. And what G. F. said of Gods being in Christ, and they are one, the Creator; the Father in the son and the Son in the Father &c. is true and scriptural and it brings him no waies under accusation of G. W. as this quarrel▪ picker would render him.

In his p : 37. he quotes R. B.'s Apology p : 95. in these words viz ‘Wherefore as we believe he (Christ) was a true and real man; so we also believe that he continues so to be glorified in the heavens in soul and body.’ Upon which D. L. notes W. P. saith, ‘ Christ as man was finite, viz. came to an end. But here R. B. says, he continues a [Page 30] real man in soul and body and so is not finite.’ And then D. L. says ‘Chuse which of these you will believe.’

Answ. Not D. L. to be sure That Christ continues a real man &c. is true according to scripture, as well as according to Robert Barclay: But that therefore he as man is not finite, it follows not. For D. L. continues to be a real man for ought I hear, yet he is finite; But to be sure R. B's. meaning was that Christ as man was to continue without end: Well the same is believed likewise concerning the Saints, yet are they finite for all that: But whereas D. L. tells us that W. P. saies, Christ was finite viz came to an end, it is a great abuse upon W: P and great untruth in D: L, for W: P, hath no such words, vis came to an end, as D: L, wickedly ren­ders it to insense the world, as [...] W: P, believed that the man Christ was come to an end, An Abominable Forgery I come In The last paragraph I conviected D L of a great forgery, and now in this I am about to convict him of another, as great. In his Number 58 he cites G VV's, Di­vinity of Christ p: 27 thus, ‘The God whom we ser­ve and believe in, is infinite, the only wi [...]e God, and nothing relating to him, or his being, finite.’ Against which he brings VV, P thus Sandy Foundation p: 20 VV. P, ‘there calls the man Christ The finite impotent creature.’

Answ I must needs desire the Reader to take notice of the greate heat D. L. hath imposed upon him, and the great abuse he hath put upon VV. P, here in, in saying that he calls the man Christ, The finite and impotent crea­ture, and there upon in divers places bestowing his discan­ting sort of vaunts and taunts upon W. P. after such a rate, as if he had a sicence to abuse men at pleasure. ‘As first, in the same page he saith, Here I cannot but take notice, that though VV: P. blasphemously calls the Man Christ, the finite impotent creature &c.’ And in p. 39 he speaks a­gain of VV: P's calling Christ's whole man, the finite impotent creature. And in p. 39. he speaks again of W: P's calling Christ's whole man, the finite impotent creature And a little lower, he ironically hath it thus ‘The [Page 31] man Christ must be called, The finite impotent creature▪ by this high and elevated dust and as his W. Penn.’ Nay he is so fond of the lye, that when he comes to p. 24. he hath it again, thus, I cannot but mind VV: P's devised distinction, and unscriptural expression [if it were no worse] in calling the man Christ The finite and impotent crea­ture &c. Now Reader do but behould how this D: L. has made a man of straw, and then fights with it : For I do affirm there is no such saying, or irreverent expression, in the whose book, as that the man Christ is a finite and impotent creature, No, neither expressly, nor impli­citely, nor so much as consequentially. By which it may be clearly enough see [...], that D L. was not influenced to this work by a Mo [...]ion heaven [...]y; and well would it have been for him, if he said no more in the case, than what by a little otherwise wording matter, he could have made out to have been (in the main at least) the truth: But Alas poor Daniel! The case is otherwise with him; for no otherwise wording the matter will do here, he can do no less in justice, than according to the example of his friend G: K. (who has retracted wil out cause) to openly and freely retract it (he having so much cause so to do) or else it wil assuredly lye hard at his door, and likewise prove as hard to make good his assertion in the close of his preface that his proceeding here in (viz in his book) were good and sincere.

Well in p: 140 he again cites G: F's Great Mistery p: 222 thus Priest sais, ‘ Christ is without the saints, in respect of his bodily presence’ G: F. answers, ‘How then are they of his flesh and bone.’ And the D: L. brings in VV: P. thus, Christian Quaker p 9 [...] ‘The body of Christ is not so much as in any one.’ Upon which D: L. notes, ‘That VV: P. is still clashing against G: F, al most on every hand.’

Answ. It is clear that the body meant by VV: P. was the visible body of flesh and blood &c. (in which sense I can hardly beleive D: L. thinks that G: F, meant that that [Page 32] visible body is in us▪ however G F's following words shew that purport of this passage, to wit, ‘And eat his flesh and drink his blood, and how have saints his mind and spirit, and he with them, and they with him, and sit with him in heavenly places, and he is the head of the Church: How then is he absent? &c.’ Thus G▪F▪ by which it appears to me, that the reason of this his answer was, because the Priest would not allow that Christ was in us, by reason his bodily outward presence is absent from us Besides, G▪F, did but query, and G▪ K, saith in his Truth Defence p▪ 59▪ ‘That to query a thing will not conclude the Questionist doth positively affirm or deny.’

In the same page he offers a quotation out of W▪P▪ s▪ Rejoyn­der p▪ 13▪ viz▪ ‘That [Christ] his coming was but [mark but] to bring the World to a more improved knovvlege and large enjoyment of that divine povver, vvisdom, life and righteousness vvhich former ages had, comparatively, but an obscure sight and imperfect sense of▪’ To oppose vvhich he cites Truth's Principles by I Crook; ‘If Christ had not dyed▪ man must have perished in sin this being the vvay, found out by God, to recover him. Upon vvhich D▪L, notes Here's one Christian he grants the merit of Christ's coming and death: But W. P, makes the benefit of his coming, to be no more but [...]o shevv man more plain vvhat he savv be­fore as through a glass &c.’

Answ. O strange! Hovv soon has D▪L, forgot himself? For in his quoting W▪P, he makes him to ovvn and assert, that Christ's coming was as vvell to bring the World to a more large injoyment of life [mark enjoyment of life] as vvell as power and Rightousness; But in his Note she saith, W, P▪ makes the benefit of his coming to be no more [mark no more] but to shew man more plain what he saw before &c. As if there vvere no difference betvveen seeing and enjoying. I think vvhat W. P, said in the matter is very comprehensive, as to the end of Christ's coming, to vvit, to give the World a more clear knovvledge of him, and to cause us to enjoy life by him, For I am come [saith Christ] that they might have life, [Page 33] and that they might have it more abundantly Iohn. 10. 1 [...]

And surely Christ did not intent by this, that we should have life without respect to his dying for us, and rising a­gain &c. Neither did W. P. So D. L. is here again pinched [...]oo hard, to squeeze out a Contradiction.

‘Again in p 41. he cites W. P's Address to Protestants p: 119 Let us (saith he) but soberly consider what Christ is, and we shall the better know whether moral men are to be reckoned Christians: What is Christ but meekness, justice, mercy patience, charity and virtue in perfection?’ Upon which D. L. makes this note viz ‘Tho; W. P. alle­gorizes Christ, and makes him nothing but virtues, yet his Brother G. W. tells W▪ Harwoth (as above) that Christ is something else, viz, a man, consisting of spirit soul and body, the same body as dyed &c.’

Answ. The more wickedly done then of D. L. in his p 23. very falsly to accuse G. W. of saying, Christ has not the body of man, yet now rather than he will want any thing that may make up his pretended contradiction to W. P▪ he now freely assents, that G: W. owned Christ to have both spirit soul and body, which surely make up a compleat man. And W: P's enumerating what Christ is as to virtues, and that he has all those virtues in perfection, does no waies deny him to be a man, consisting of body, soul and spirit, according to G. W: No, it was only to shew, that those who are in measure thus Christ like qualified, are not to be denyed all share in Christianity, as the book plainly shews, And though he saies What is Christ out meekness, justice &c. denies him not to be a man consisting of spirit soul and body, any more than Paul's saying, Who then is Paul? and who is Apollo? but ministers [mark, but ministers] by whom ye believed, Cor. [...]: 5, denies him self to be a Tent maker Acts 18. 3 But D▪ L ▪s design is for mischeif, and he ve [...] ­ [...]ures to act it, at what [...]ate he pleaseth.

In p. 44 he q [...]otes The Christi [...]n Quaker by G▪ W▪ p 375. as follows, viz, ‘That this th [...] tends to [...], and to [Page 34] make men Atheists, viz other mens self confidence in asserting things contrary to reason and manifest experience, and in particular, in their affirming that these self same terrestrial bodies of flesh and bones shall be made spiri­tual, immortal and incorruptible.’

‘Tis true (says G: W) Hen: More had finer and more excellent notions about the Resurrection, than many other learned men, and aimed at the truth and spirituality there of, from the vision of the holy men recorded in the scrip­tures.’

And then in order to make G: W. oppose him self, as he would seem to suppose, he offers a quotation out of p. 372 of the same book viz this manner, viz ‘ G: W. cites H: More about the Resurrection, saying, Flesh and blood can not in herit the kingdom of God; and I think (saies he) there is the same reason of flesh and bones, viz.’

I understand natural flesh and bones, not glorified. Thus he cites G: W. and then adds this Note, ‘ G: W. com­mends this notion of H: More, as savouring of truth and spirituality, and yet renders those Atheists that believe the same; for H: More does not here deny the Resurrection of the same body that dyeth, only understands it must be glorified.’

Answ. Here he has abused G: VV. by leaving out the last part of his words; for after the words immortal and incorruptible G: VV. adds, ‘and yet the same for matter and substance, which words he has skipt over I suppose because they did not suit his purpose.’

Then he saith in his note G: W. commends this notion of H: More as savouring of truth and spirituality; Whereas G: VV. says no such thing of him, as appears by Daniel Leeds own quotation before produced. It is true, he said, he had siner and more excellent notions, and aimed at the truth &c.

Which much differs from savouring of it; a man may aim at a thing, which he may never come so near to, as to [...]i [...]e of or savour. And where as he saith, H More does [Page 35] not deny the Resurrection of the same body that dyeth. Neit­her doth he shew that G. VV. does so; it▪s true, G. VV. seems to oppose the notion of the self same terrestrial body of flesh and bones being made spiritual, immortal and incor­ruptible, and yet he the same for matter and supstance [...] as now they are (which last words [and yet be the same for matter and substance] D: L. has very unfairly left out, to pervert G: W's real intentions▪ Besides, how doth it ap­pear, that Henry More doth not deny the Resurrection or the same body that dyeth; Hear what G: W. hath cited out of his works in p. 373 of the Christian Quaker viz ‘I dare challenge him to produce any place of scripture, out of which he can make it appear, that the mystery of the Resurrection implies a Resuscitation of the same numeri­cal body. The most pregnant of all is, Job 19 which later Interpreters are now so wise as not to understand at all of the Resurrection: The 1 Cor. 15, that chapter is so far from asserting this curiosity, that it plainly says▪ it is not the same body; but that as God gives to the bl [...]des of corn grains quite distinct from that which was sown, so at the Resurrection he will give the soul a body quite different from that which was buried, as different as a spiritual body is from a natural body, or an heavenly from an earthly.’ Thus far▪ Henry More as cited by G: W. in the said Christian Quaker. Now how far H: M. doth own or deny the Resurrection of the same body that dyeth, may be easily guess [...]d at, not witstanding D: L's confident asser­tion that he doth not deny it.

And now having traced and detected this dis ingenious, unfair envious and conceited man through the divers quota­tions before specified, wherein he would charge our Friends with contradictions, I think this sufficient with any reasona­ble man to invalidate the credit of the res [...]. Neither, in deed, have I all the books he offers his pretendedly con­tradictory quotations out of to examine, and he having justly forfeited his credit, in divers passages before men­tioned, I think it not worth my while to set pen to paper, [Page 36] to enervate those suppositions citations, wherein his stained reputation must be relied upon, for the faithful quoting thereof: I shall therefore only further take notice of three very obvious abuses put upon G: W. and W: P, as a corrobo­crating proof of my above charge, and then leave this chapter of pretended contradictions, and proceed to the next.

The st. in his [...]3d. page, and is this G: VV's. Nature of Christianity p. 29 Christ has not the body of man.

Answ. Now, as there is no such word, so neither can any such thing be justly deduced from what G: VV. there wrote: that subject of which he treated in that place being not at all wether Christ had the body of man or not, but about the manner of his saving and justfying men, which G: VV. would not have R. Gordon to expect, should be as he imagined in his book p: 30, viz, ‘That Christ as the Son of Mary should outwardly appear, in a bodily existence, to save:’ But here's not one word of denying Christ to have the body of man, as D: L. falsly cites him, and sure it's one thing for Christ to appear to save men by his ingrafted word, which is able to save the Soul, Iames. 1. 21, which the Quakers press people to come to witness; and an other thing to say, Christ has the body of man, outwardly to come on the last day, to reward every man according to his works, which the Quakers also believe.

Then 2 dly in the same page D: L. cites the same book in p. 41; thus, paraphrasing upon it. And in p. 41. he denies Christ's bodily existence without us.

Answ. There is no such word neither; But G: VV. spea­king of R: G ▪s pretended adoration, and claim of salvation, being to Christ, only as the son of Mary, existing outward­ly and bodily without us: ‘There upon G: VV. saith I ask him if he have so considered. God the saviour, or the Son from the substance of the Father; and then he asks him What scripture proof he hath for Christ's existing out­wardly [...]odily without us at Gods right hand.’ By all which [Page 37] it plainly appears, that G. W. only opposed those terms (viz) Christ existing outwardly bodily without us, be­cause, that would seem to exclude his being as he is God, and as he is in men; and therefore saies to R. G. ‘And is Christ the saviour as an outward bodily existence or person without us distinct from God, and upon that consideration to be worshipped as God, yea or nay. &c.’ Now though G. W. opposes R. G's. doctrine of Christ's being or existence to be outwardly and bodily without us; yet it does not at all follow from thence, that he believes, Christ hath not a body, that hath a being or existence without us. It is one thing to maintain, that Christ the Saviour of the World hath a body existing whithout us wich G. W. denied not; and another thing to hold or maintain, that that bodily ex­istence it self is Christ the saviour of the world, which (and no less) R. G 's. words seem to import. The outward bo­dily existence of a man cannot be said strictly to be the man, for them when it dies, and the bodily existence is put off, the man would, cease to be. And where it is said of Christ, that he bare oursins in his own body on the three 1 Pet. 2. 24; It might as well be said, that the body bare our sins on his own body on the tree. So that to conclude, I say it is a mani­fest falsehood in D. L, to say that G. W. denies Christ's bodi­ly existence without us. Christ's body doth exist without us: Yet that bodily outwardly existence is not the Christ, without his soul spirit and God head.

And 3 dly D: L. in p. 25 falsly charges VV: P. in these words; ‘And saies VV: P. We deny that person that dyed at Jerusalem to be our Redeemer:’ Referring to VV: P▪s Apology p: 146. Answ. These are not the words of W P, but of his Adversary Jenner cited by W. [...]. in the aforesaid book. Jenner having thrown it upon the Quakers as their principle, W. P. in answer thereto calls it a ho [...]r [...]d imp [...]ta­tion, and then acknowledges in these express words: ‘That he who laid down his life, and suffered his body to be crucified by the Jews, without the gates of Jerusalem, is Christ the only begotten son of the most high God.’ and [Page 38] though he there denies the outward person that suffered pro­perly to be the son of God, yet the stress o [...] the m [...]tte [...] [...] only upon the word [outward] by which W. P. meant his outward body; as is clear from his following words viz ‘ A body hast thou prepared me, said the son,’ then said W. P. ‘The son was not the body though the body was the sons.’ And if D. L. should say The body was the son the [...] this absurdity will follow viz Christ bare our sins in his own son (instead of his own body on the tree. And if D. L. say, the outward person was properly the son of God, and yet will be impar [...] ­tial, then let him fall upon G. K. for asserting; ‘That it is not the outward Flesh and Blood that is the man—but it is the soul or inward man that dwelleth in the outward flesh or body that is the man most properly such as Christ had from the beginning:’ As his express words are in his Way Cast up p. 102. not yet retracted. But whether he will be­lieve his peculiar friend G. K. or not, to be sure he has be­lyed W. P, as above is shewn, and it is not his pleading [...] little failure in Syntax, a thing he banteringly accuses G. W. within his book; no, nor otherwise wording the matter neither, will do, without an open and free Retraction of these his abuses.

Furthermore; having (after I had proceeded a good way in this work) met with the book called, The Quakers Plainness I have therein found fresh cause to take a little fur­ther notice of D. L's. perfidiousness, which I purpose a little more to detect before I proceed to any other matter; see News of a Trumpet Numb 5. where he hath it thus; ‘ S [...]ndy Founda. p: 15 W. P. saith In the fullness of time [God] sent his son, who so many hundred years since in person restified the virtue &c.’ Now to make G. W. cōtradict this, he quotes Quakers Plainess p. 24. (affirming that G. W. saith ‘ The title person is too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God.’

Now Reader, that thou may see how unfairly▪ D. L. hath laid down G. W. words, taken them as laid down by him­self, thus ‘ That Christ is not a person without [...]s p: 21. is [Page 39] our doctrine or phrase that I know of or remember; only that the title is thought too low and unscriptural, to give to the Christ of God, many men having gross apprehen­sions about the phrase [Person without] But Christ is confest us, both as without us, and within us.’ Well ! Where is the contradiction in all this? Why here; W. P, saies, That God sent his son so many hundred years ago in person; and G. W, saies The title [person without] is thought too, low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God. Mark, person without us, was what was thought too low to be spoken concerning the son of God, it was not thought too low for it to be said of him, that so many hundred year since he ap­peared in person: For it is one thing to say, That the son so many hundred years ago appeared in person, and another thing to say, That the son, or Christ of God is a person with­out us, especially when it is spoken in opposition to those who deny him to be within us. For though we sincerely believe Christ to be in heaven without us, yet we also be­lieve, according to scripture, that he is within us the hope of glory and that if Christ be not in us we are Reprobates.

Now whether D. L, will reckon the title [person without us] too low to give to the Christ of God or not yet to be sure it is unscriptural; For though it is clear the scripture speaks of Christ in us in more express words than it doth of Christ without us, yet we believe him to be without us also; But to sum up the matter, two omishons of D L's, in this quotation out of G W▪s book manifest his baseness as any intelligent Re [...]da [...] may observe, the rectifying of wich by inserting them very much alters the case, as [...] he leaves out the woras [without us] and 2 dly He makes G. W, to say

The title person is too low, where as his words are, The title person is thought too low, so that that qualifying word [thought] being here omitted tis unfarily done of D. L.

I come now to his secon [...] Chapterent it used Opposition [...] Unity, and having (as I hinted before) since I finished my answer to what he calls Contradictions met with G W▪s, [...]ook [...] The Quakers Plainness I shall examine the use he makes of some of it in the said [Page 40] Chapter. In p: [...]7. 48. he brings in G. W, laying down some o [...] the M [...]ggletonians false doctrines and then endeavours to shew that G W, holds the same, my present business there­fore is to shew D L's, folly in so doing.

‘The first of Muggletons doctrines that he brings out is That death took Christ's soul into it, and that Christ's soul dyed when the body dyed.’ Now to shew that we hold the same he turns us to his Numb, 37. 38, 39, ‘Where (saith he) they deny the body to be Christ, and that it was Christ that dyed—And that both body and soul was sacrifized.’ see Numb. 42.

Answ. First, If the body was properly the Christ how was it sayd, That by Christ God made the Worlds, Heb. 1 : [...] since it was many thousand years after the world was made ere Christ took up that body. 2dly If the body was properly the Christ how is it that Christ sayd to the Thief on the Cros [...] To day shalt thou be with me in paradise Luke 23. 43: Since Ioseph begged his body and laid it in a Sepulchre v. 52: 53: from whence it rose not until the third day ch. 24, v. 6, And as for their saying, it was Christ that dyed, it is no more than the Apostle saith in express, words How that Christ dyed for our esins 1. Cor: 15: 3: So that D L is as really quarrelling with the scriptures as with us. And what if G W declares, That Christ's soul was sacrifized? doth not Isaiah speak of God's making his soul an offering for sin see ch. 53. v, 10? What can be a plainer proof? Yet it doth not fol­low that his soul dyed; But if D L say otherwise, then it is he and not we that holds those Muggletonian doctrines; however I am sure we do not And so having done with this, I shall pass the rest of this chapter all is it being pretty much of a sort, and it being not my intention to answer eve­ry paragraph in the book, as I have already told my Rea­der, and given him a very good reason too, viz because I have not many of the books by me out of which he produ­ces his quotations to examine them by; neither would it be necessary if I had, since with any unbyassrd persons I must [...]eeds have spoiled his credit, in laying open the unfairness [Page 41] and forgeries he is guilty of in the beforegoing.

I shall now proceed to his third Chapter, which I find much like his former, it being grounded upon his not being willing to distinguish, in ascriptural sense, between Christ as he was from the beginning, and as he came in the body in the fulness of time.

As for what he here saith of John Whitehead, I refer the Reader to Tho. Ellwood's book, Called Truth Defended &c. p. 124.

As for his saying, That The true Chrstians believe that the true Christ hath a body of flesh and bones &c. To this I answer, That how, or after what manner, Christ's body is now in heaven I shall by no means undertake to determine' it being (I believe) a bove the capacity of us Mortals so to do: But I shall tell D. L. that he hereby brings his great friend G. K. under his censure of not being a true Christian; for G: K. expresly saith of Christ's body, that, ‘It is no more a body of flesh blood and bone, but a pure Aethereal heavenly body, see Way cast up p. 131 not retracted.’

Then, for his bantering W: P. about his calling Christ's body holy: saying ‘Can this be other than hypocrisy? "for as is noted at Numb 49 50, he holds the body to be earthly and perishing.’ I would have the Reader note, it proceeds from W: P's vindicating this saying so Jsaac "Peningtons' ‘That which Christ took upon him was but the garment of our nature, which is of an earthly and perishing nature.’

To which I answer, That Christ's body was a holy body ac­cording to W. P. Surely D. L. will not deny; Yet that it was the garment of our nature is not (me thinks) hard to make out: For it is said Heb: 2 : 14 For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also him­self likewise took part of the same [Mark of the same] Now how it is the same, if not of the same nature, for my part I know not; though Christ defiled not his nature [Page 42] by sin, as we have done ours, is Certain; and there fore a holy body according to W▪ P: Yet in as much as he took on him the seed of Abraham, he surely took on him our nature, unless the seed of Abraham be not of our nature, and that this is the garment which Is. P meant, I suppose D. L. will not deny : Nay the scripture saith expresly v. 17. In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethern Yet though Christ was in all things made like unto his breth­ren, though he took [...]hould of the seed of Abraham, and took part of the same flesh and blood with us, which flesh and blood of ours is surely of an arthly and perishing nature; Yet I utterly deny D: L's inference, that W: P. renders Christ's body earthly and perishing: For though he took part of the same flesh and blood with us which flesh and blood of ours (as I said) is of an earthly and perish­ing nature; yet by the mighty power of God, Christ's bo­dy was raised from the dead, and saw no corruption, and so he dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him, but he ever liveth to make intercession for us, in his soul and spirit and glorious and heavenly body.

I come next to touch upon one passage in his Chap. 4, where he thinks he hath gotten I know not what advan­tage against W: P, He cites VV: P's. Reason against Rai­ling p. 165. where D. L. saies ‘W. P. justifies and declares that he abides by there ill names given by E. Burrough, p. 30. &c. to wit, Thou Iesuit, thou Sot, thou Sorcerer, thou art a Serpent &c. And yet (saies D L) in Address to Protestants p. 242, he at once unchristians himself and all his Brethren, for so doing, for saith he, Men that call names for Religion, may tell us they are Chisti­ans, if they will, but no body would know them to be such by their fruits, to be sure they are no Christians of Christ's making.’ Upon which D. L. cries out ‘Good Reader take notice of it; Alas. how has the man forgot him self!’

Answ. Alas ! how hath D: L. abused VV: P. and his Rea­der too; For VV: P. doth not declare, that he abides by [Page 43] any ill names given by Edward Burrough: for the word [ill] is not VVill. Penn's, but added by D: L, which was ill done of him: VV: P's. words in the page quoted by D: L. being these, viz, ‘But let it suffice that Edward Burrouge gave no harder names than the scriptures by Rule allows We read o [...] dogs, bears, wosves, s [...]ine, serpents, [...]pers, foxes, childeren of the Devil and such like: And as that nature to whom they were then given, thought them hard, so doth Thomas Hicks now; But the same power that then give them, hath now used them to the same end and purpose, and I abide by it.’ Thus far W: P; where observe W: P: doth not declare that he abides by any ill names, for he useth not the word [ill] but hard names. 2dly He sheweth how such like names have been given of o [...]d [...]y good men (yea it was by the best of men) and saith, that E: B. doing it to the same end and purpose, he abides by it, and since D: L. finds fault with it, we may easily guess at his reason for so doing, viz, t was W▪ P. that wrote it; For of all the hard names his friend G: K. hath given his opposers, I cannot, if it were for my life, find that he blames him for one of them, and to shew, that not only the scriptures and our friends, as above, but that also G: K. hath given hard names to his opposers, I shall instance (for brevity sake) but one place out of but one of his books entituled, The true Christ owned, see p. 104. 105 thus ‘His false accusations; his beast with seven heads, that he hath coniured out of the sea of his trobled imagination; his Atheistical and blasphemous creed; I have proved him man i [...]estly guilty of S [...]inianisim, Ar­rianisoum, Anthropomorphitism, Muggletonism, Antichrist­ianism, and fast of all gross Atheirsm.’ Now where will D: L's sincerity and impartiality be, if he deal not with G: K, as he hath dealt with us in this matter.

Then as to what he offers to prove that W : P. unchrist­ians him self and Brethren at once, because he saith (as D: L. quotes him) Men that call names for religion may tell they are Christians if they will &c.

[Page 44] I answer Here he hath very unfairly left out that part of VV: P's. words which would unquestionably have shewn such men he there discreyd to be no Christians; For VV: P. being there treating concerning and speaking against per­secutors, he hath it thus, viz, ‘Men that call names for religion and fling stones and persecute for faith, may tell us they are Christians, if they will, but no body would know them to be such, by their fruits.’

Now these words [and fling stones and persecute for faith] D: L. hath concealed from his Reader, and I am sure, that is a worse errour than a little failure in Syntax. But by inserting them, my Reader may see what sort of men they were, whom VV: P. rejected, as unworthy of that honourable name, viz Perjecutors for faith, flingers of stones as well as callers of names for re­ligon; And it is well known, that such persecutors, in formers and others, would not only fling stones, but throw di [...]t too, and also call such names as these; You Quaking Curr, You Anabaptist Rogue, You Fanatick Dog, and the like; Now it is clear, that this was the calling names for Religion which W. P. meant, and not the calling of names after the manner as the Prophet did, when he called a sort of men, Greedy Dogs &c. nor after the manner as E: B. did, when he called such like men, Sot Sorcerer &c.

But perhaps D: L. will say in vindication of G. K, that he hath retracted the hard names by him given to his Opposers.

Answ. That Retractation is but a meer flam like some of the rest: For how far hath he retracted this? Why his words are of so large an extent, that's that I know no Professor of Christianity but both might and would say as much and yet retract just nothing at all, neither would there be any service in it in order to give the least satisfact­ion to any concerned who might suppose themselves abused by hard names published; for his retractation is only in ge­neral terms (viz ‘He retracts in general all the hard names that he hath given to such as did nor deserve them) with­out discharding any particular person or society from the [Page 45] scandal of those hard names.’ For instance G. K. in his Antichrists and Saducees detected hath bestowed many hard names upon me, as Antichrist, Saducee or rather Atheist, Bold Ignorant, Miller Philosopher &c. Now since there is great probability that he doth not mean me to be one of those upon whose account he hath retracted the hard names given; So also any of his former Opponents to whom he hath given hard names may say I know not that he means me to be one of them who have not (in his Judg­ment) deserved them, and now although he seems to make an acknowledgment and blame himself for bestowing hard names on divers, yet since he names none of those divers what satisfaction to me is his pretended retraction in this more than his charging them on me in his former, and what sincerity doth he manifest in it? For those divers he hints at either did occur to his memory at the writing of his book or thy did not: If they did, and he sincere in his pretension he should have named them; but if they did not then it is a sign he put down what he published by meer rote and in short, he had as good have said nothing about it since every particular person concerned in those hard names may say they are never the more satisfied there by and so all of them still lye at G: K's door.

Upon pruisal of his 5th. Chapter about prophesies I find not above one that he hath mentioned which hath failed: For those he speaks of who have of late prophesied against several towns and places, I never heard that any prefixed a time, nor otherwaies than upon condition, viz unless they did repent, which whether there was not so much repen­tance in so many of them as might move the Lord to a farther compassion on them is surely more than this D : L: knows.

(As for D: L's ridiculing G: VV. about his prophesie concetning G: K. viz ‘And thus saith the Lord, because thou hast poured out contempt, scorn and reproach upon my servants and people, I will assuredly pour out and bring great contempt and scorn upon thee.’

[Page 46] I answer, What farther scorn and contempt may yet come upon him, than what is already come and manifest to the world, even since those words were written by G: VV. let time shew, and daies to come make yet more manifest: For scorn and contempt is certainly come upon him, even be­yond the conceit which D. L. speaks of. And although he may slight what G. W. said of G. K, because as he saith, ‘it's The fate of all men,’ less or more; yet that's no more than those might have said, whom the Apostle compared to Jannes and Jambres, and of whom he said, Their solloy should be manifest to all men 2 Tim. 3 : 9.

In his 6. Chapter he flings out his scoffs and taunts about Infallible discerning, and in particular reflects upon our Friends about Delaware, ‘thar they want this spirit of discerning, and to prove it instances the case of Robert Ewer▪ i [...].’

Now to this I say, Though G: F. (as quoted by him) speaks of a Minister of Christ's having an infallible discer­ning of a mans state and condition, Yet he doth not say it is without any respect had to the fruit he brings forth: And (Christ saith Matt. 7: 16▪ By their fruits ye shall know them. So that I do believe, to know any mans condition without this token must be an extraordinary and particular gift of God; But by the fruits brought forth, I do believe, according to the words of Christ, people may be known, and that infallibly too, for what is short of that, is not properly knowledge, but barely conjecture. And as for Robert Ewer There was not so near an unity bewixt him and our Friends, a considerable time before that business of that Woman at Philadelphia, was talked of, as D: L. may possibly imagine; But it is not the Churches place to dis­own any Member, before proof be made, of some evil done by him or her, and to prove what I say, I hope▪ I have an Au­thor very sufficient in D: L's eye, for it is no less person than his great friend G: K. who in his late book of Retracta­tions &c. (not yet retracted again that I heare of) hath it thus in p. 3; ‘We find no warrant from scripture to re­ceive [Page 47] an accusation against any, far less a positive judg­ment, without plain evidence of matter of fact against them, by credible witnesses &c.’ Well then; so far as matter of fact was thus made appear against Robert Ewer, he was dealt with according to Gospel order too. B [...]t for D: L's telling us, of ‘Late ill example of divers of our Preachers, especially of their being unlawfully con [...]erned with women:’ He should either have let us know who they were, or else have been silent about it; for for my part I know them not, but do beleive it is a great slander.

In his p. 64. he banters W: P. for saying, ‘We ascribe not in fallibility to men, but to the grace of God, and to men so far as they are led by it :’ Here upon he makes this resiection, viz ‘Behould Reader, and note this Rhe­torick well! For are not other Professors, yea, all men in the world so far infallible, as well as Quakers.’

Answ: Yes. But does not D: L. know, that there are multitudes of men in the world, who are so far from being led by the infallible grace, or spirit of God, that they make a mock at, and deride it, and surely, such are very far from being infallibly led by it. But what need was there for D: L. to say [as well as Quakers] since W: P. according to D: L's own citation, doth not restrict infallibility only to the Quakers, but to men indefinitely, for saith he [and to men so far as they are led by it].

As for his telling, how friends admit none to travel upon Truth's acount without certificates, I think it is very com­mendable; but passing by his mocking, viz, his saying, it is to help our spirit of discerning; I take notice of what he saith of G: W. quoting him out of Quakers pla [...]nness, thus ‘We have a Record in Peoples conscience; as if there fore there was no need of a Certificate, which he Ishmael like, calls a Pocket Record.’

Answ. Though he so tauntingly, yet groundleslyt, repre­sents us to be a sort of people, who think grea [...] things o [...] our selves, as to our spiritual attainm; ants yet, I do beleive, [Page 48] our Friends do not think they have attained to a greater degree of discerning spirits, than the primitive Christians had, and the Apostle Paul intimates, their approving by their letters, such as went to Ierusalem about the Churches service, see 1 Cor. 16. 3. And the same Apostle, speaking to the Corinthians, as though he and Timothy needed nor epistles of commendation to that Church, as some others 2 Cor. 3: 1 there by intimated, that though such very emi­nent labourers needed not such commendations, yet others did. And let D. L. observe, that though G: K. in his late book of Retractations p: 3 &c, saith, ‘To know men by their fruits is a gift of the spirit and proceedeth from a true spirit of discerning, that is given universally in some measure to all the faithfull:’ Yet it seems, he him­self must have that, which D: L. calls A pocket Recerd, with him to England, and that signed not only by his own faction, but also by—perhaps D: L. knows who besides.

In p. 66 D: L. tells us ‘My old friends oft bless them selves thus, viz We are redeemed from a vain life and conversation, more than any society in Christendom; We are the only Professours of truth &c.’ And saies D: L. so saies the Pharisees, ‘We are not as other men &c.’

Answ. What then? though the proud Pharisees were boasters, and cryed, They were not as other men, &c. Yet I hope he will not say; The saints of old were Pha­risees, who said, We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness 1 John 5. 19; Yet there were some amongst them, who appeared to be very scandalous in their lives and conversations. Neither do we bless our selves, as D: L. falsly alledges, because we are in measure redeemed from a vain life and conver­sation; but it is our very principle, which D : L. cannot be ignorant of to abase self for ever, and only to bless and priase the Lord, who through his Son Jesus Christ, en­ables the faithful, to perform what is acceptable in his sight.

[Page 49] The next thing I shall touch at, is to make some small re­flection upon what he urgeth against us in his 7th. Chap­ter, under the head Of the Scriptures, though the sub­stance hath been often answered by our friends; and that very fully, in these books amongst many others, viz, The Christian Quaker; W. P ▪s. Invalidity, Reason against Raling &c. so that I shall need to say the less about it, yet I can­not wholly pass it by, because I have therein an opportunity offered of discovering his folly, as well as great envy, manifested in his so ridiculously bantering that faithfull labourer in the Lords vineyard, G. F. who I believe is now at peace with the Lord, where the wicked cease from troub­ling: and the weary be at rest; Whom he puts his profane joques upon in P. 74, as if, because G. F. said ‘Dust is the ser­pents meat, the Serpent feeds upon dust;’ therefore G. F. meant, the Serpent was literally to feed upon lime and stone houses, called Churches, and thereupon scoffingly queries; "Had not the Devil need to have strong teeth, to gnaw upon steeple houses?

Answ. O gross perverter? I remember he tells me in p. 45. that about the Resurrection I carnally apprehend G. K. Now I appeal to every judicious Reader, whether I have not more reason to say, that D. L. carnally apprehends G. F. For though G. F. tells the world; ‘Their church is dust, a heap of lime and stone gathered together; it is what is true, and obvious to every one that hath eyes:’ And though G. F. saies; ‘The serpent seeds upon dust, and that is also true,’ and according to Scripture, which saith, ‘ Dust shall thou eat all the daies of thy life Gen. 3. 14.’ Yet that the consequence is, that these two expressions, according to G. F. must be fulfilled in a literal sense, viz, that the Devil is to feed on the dust of those sort of walls; D. L. may indeed insinuate, but I know not who will be so weak as to believe him.

And now I shall desire the Reader to excuse my stepping back to p. 70, where I find D. L. falsly accusing Tho. Ell­wood of belying the Common Creed, quoting his Truth De­fended [Page 50] p. 70, on this wise, viz, ‘The common Creed (saies he) called the Apostles, Creed, saies Christ was conceived by the holy Ghost,’ Though born of the Virgin: vvhere upon D: L. saies Now pray search the Common Creed, and see if the word [though] be there to be found.

Answer. These words [though born of the Virgin] which D: L. quarrels with, are not laid down by T: E, as the express words of the Creed, but rather as explanatory in order to shew the import thereof, which was; That though Christ was born of the Virgin, yet he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and that therefore, his Generation was not by coagulation, of, and from the properties of man in Mary (as had been suggested) since Mary had not known man, but the holy child Jesus, though born of her, was conceived by the holy Ghost. And I am sure D: L. will be hard put to it, to prove T: E. a lyar in this case; he may as well prove the Apostle a lyar, in a passage Heb: 4 : 3 where he hath relation to an expression of the Psalmists, Psal. 95. 11: viz, As he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the World. Now these words [although the works were finished &c.] are not the Psalmist's words, but the Apostles, explanatory of what he had before said in the same verse, viz, For we which have believed do enter into rest: And T: E's words were much after the same manner and way of speaking, therefore how poor, mean and pitiful must it be in D: L, to employ himself, in prying into, and poring upon our books in order to find matter against us, whilest, when he has done all he is able, he can produce nothing, but such weak and silly stuff.

As wretchedly fordid and base is he in p. 71; in abusing G : W. whom he quotes thus; Counter Convert p. 26 ‘We prefer the holy Scriptures (saith he) before all the Books extant in the world. Whereupon D: L. infers thus. Now observe here hovv G: W. carries a double face to deceive his Reader, for he does not say, that he prefers [Page 51] the book called the Bible, before all books extemt &c.’

Answer. This is a most wicked and base insinuation, as if, when G: W. mentions our preferring the Scripture, he did not thereby intend the Bible. I am persvvaded, it is not only contrary to D: L's beleif, but also to his very knowledge: Besides, though other books are, and may be written, by the assistance, and from the dictates of the Spirit of God; yet that doth not hinder the book called the Bible, from having the preference, all things considered. Gold and Silver money are both stamped vvith the Kings Image and superscription, and both are allowed by him to be current Coin, yet the one is preferible to the other. And, vvhereas our Friends, amongst many other, have said, that some Scriptures are corrupted, yet that hin­ders not, but in the main, they are preferible to all other books : Gold may have some tincture of a meaner metal in it, yet in the main 'tis preferible to all other met­als.

Again, what a gross inference hath he drawn, from the words he quotes as Sam: Fisher's viz ‘That were their transcriptions and translations never so certain and entire, by answering to the first original Copies, yet are not capa­ble to be to all men any other than a Lesbian Rule or nose of wax; Whereupon D: L. saies, Mark how he affirms, That if the Scripures were never so true, yet they are ca­pable of being no other than a nose of wax.’

Answ. Mark how D: L. belies his own quotation, i [...] his pretendedly marking S: F's words; for the quotation himself offers, saies of the Scriptures, That they are not capable to be to all men any other than a Lesbian Rule or nose of wax: But in his mark, to render S: F. odious, he makes him affirm, [...]hey where capable of being no other than a nose of wax. Oh Infincere man! Can he be so ignorant, as not to know the difference betwixt saying, The Scriptures can not be to all men of service (which was S: F's meaning, in as much as multitudes of mankind never had heard one word of them) and his own saying; That they [Page 52] are capable of being no other (indefinitely) than a nose of Wax.

Well! upon this perversion of the above quotation D: L. comments, saying; ‘Now I dare affirm, there is no sort of people else in Cristendom, except Papists, will speak thus of the Scriptures. But experience tells me, That all sensible Christians who protest against this Popish prin­ciple, cannot but have an evidence in themselves to the worth and purity of the Scriptures &c.’

Answ. And what of all this? The question is not a­bout what evidence sensible Chistians have of the Scriptures; nor whether they are to them as a nose of wax; But cheif­ly, about what they are to half the world, which have them not. And what service they can be of unto such, D: L. were best to inform us, if he can.

In p. 75 D: L. saies; ‘But before we conclude this head, take one verdict more from W: P's Spirit of Truth p. 38, The Scripture (saies he) is much like the shadow of the true Rule. Now all men know, That the shadow is a vain empty uncertain thing &c.’

Answ. That's D: L's great mistake; For Paul, who said Heb. 10. 1 The law having a shadow of good things to come, surely did not count the law, a vain, empty and uncertain thing. And in chap. 8. 5, speaking of the Priests who offered gifts according to the law, saies, That they served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things; [...]h [...]n surely, those things, which by Gods own appointment, served to the example and shadow of heavenly things, were not vain, empty or uncertain; consequently, it may be easily seen, that this observation of D: L's is both vain and empty.

I am now come to his 8th Chapter, entituled Of Ma­gistracy and Government; to which I shall give a little touch, and begin where he begins, with a passage he quotes out of Samuel Jenings's State of the case p. 73. viz ‘Magistracy and Government we alwaies owned to be the Ordinance of God.’ To which he objects in p. 78. [Page 53] thus ‘Now observe here S: Jenings deals deceitfully and dishonestly in pretending to be what they really are not.’

Answ. A high charge indeed! and that too to be foun­ded upon such an honest and innocent expression; For what though (as D: L: quotes him) W. S. saith, ‘We own Government and Magistracy that stands in the power of God, and executes true Judgment within the gates, casting down sin and evil doers, and setting up Righteous­ness, and those that walk therein?’ Yet it doth no waies follow, that therefore we ‘own no Government to be such’ (so as to be subject to them in all things, by yiel­ding either active or passive obedience to their commands) ‘out the Government of those who witness Christ to rule and reign in them,’ as D. L. asserts: For both William Smith's, and the rest of our friends practice, in general from the beginning, hath proved the contrary; they ha­ving therein followed Scripture precepts, and the examp­les of the Saints of old, in owning Government and Ma­gistracy to be appointed of God, and that to them sub­jection was due, as aforesaid. Yet surely none vvill think; that they so ovvned them, as to ovvn that in them vvhich vvas corrupt : No, they vvere so far from that, as they did not spare to tell them of it; Isaiah saies, Thy Princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves, &c. see ch. 1 : 23, and Ezekiel saies ch. 21: 27. Her Princes in the midst Thereof are like wolves ravening the prey, to shed blood &c. But to sum up the matter; if D. L. ovvn such a Government as W: S: speaks of, it is so far vvell; hovvever, vvhether he do or no, it is such an one as the God of Israel, the Rock of Israel instituted, 2. Sam. 23 : 3. vvhen he spake by his Servant David on this wise; He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. And if D. L. do own such a Government, then I would ask, whether he cannot say also with S: I: That he owns Magistracy and Government to be an ordinance of God, and yet justify the aforementioned Prophets, in so smartly reproving the Princes of their People? and [Page 54] next, whether in so doing, he would, or ought to be ac­counted one that pretends to be what he really is not? Let him well consider this.

As to what D: L. produceth against G: F, out of a book entituled, Papers given forth to the heads where­in, amongst other expressions, D: L. makes G: F. to say; ‘They are out of the Life and Power that make such work for an Earthly King, and Earthly Powers.’

I Answer. Though I know not that ever I saw the book he refers to; yet it really seems to me, to be written upon the occasion of so much contending, fighting, killing and destroying one another, in striving who should [...]e upper­most, in and about the time of the civil Wars. But that this contradicts W: P, or that W: P. contradicts this, by his peaceably obtaining a grant from the King, of the Government here, as D: L. seems to insinuate in these words, viz; ‘ Come mark that W. Penn, with they industry, in getting Grant after Grant for Kingly and Earthly power Is quite wide or the mark; they being no waies parallel;’ For W. P. made no such work to obtain his Grant. (As G: F. con­damnes in the above cited passage) Then pray observe how false he is, in thus telling W. P. of his getting Grant after Grant for Kingly power; where, as if he had Kingly power, surely he would be a King, at least his power would not be subordinate to the Kings, which it is well known W. P's. is.

It is from the like ignorance or worse, that he makes such an use as he does, or W. P's. words, quoted by him out of Address to Protestants p. 334. thus, ‘If we will give ancient story credit, we shall find, the wordly weapons were never employed by the Christian Church, till she be­came Worldly, and so ceased to be truly Christian &c.’ Up­on which D. L. saith: ‘I Confess, had not ancient story in­formed me, that all Christian Societies have apostatized, when they grew numerous, I should have admired at this Passage, that the same W. P. should in so few years after he Wrote it; not only fall into that Apostacy himself, but also draw many more with him.’

[Page 55] Answer: But pray What is the Apostacy, vvhioh D. L. accounts, that W. P. and those many more drawn in by him, are fallen into? Why the most I can make of it is, That People are so sar degenerated from Christs commands given to his followers, viz to let the Tares grow up with the Wheat, &c. that they who now pretend to be his, do not make use of worldly weapons, so much to pluck up the tares, as the good wheat, as the divers Persecutions of late years can testifie. And that this was it that W. P. meant, by their making use of worldly weapons, is clear, from the very subject matter he was upon, and treating about in that place. Now if W. P. hath never done so, as I beleive he never did, then to be sure, in that respect he is clear from being an Apostate.

And since D. L. is so well informed, that all Christian Societies have Apostatized as they grew numerous; surely, the Church of England having grown very numerous, they must needs according to D. L. be apostatized also: and yet in his Almanack for the year 169: he prays, that she may be a blessing upon Philadelphia; As if an Apostate Church could be a blessing upon any place.

Then whereas he observes, that Antient story hath in­formed him, that all Christian Societies have apostatized, when they grew numerous: I shall now observe likewise, and put him in mind too, how the scene is altered; and that modern story can now inform him of a Society of People lately founded in Pensilvania, and his great Friends who (like those that antient story informs us of, though they were apostatized from the light, life and spirit of Christ; yet would still retain to themselves the honourable name of Christians; so those of this nevv Society) though they were gone from the unity and socjety of the people cal­led Quakers, at the first, would by all means value themsel­ves much, upon their retaining that name, and that forsooth of the most pure and most primitive sort too, and therefore must be distinguished by the name of Christian Quakers. That these are so apostatized, within the space of about [Page 56] seven years, notwithstanding their not growing numerous, that scarce any of them will own the name; But like Ba­bels Builders are strangely divided amongst themselves; and truly look upon it as a judgment befallen them for their lofty tower building: some being gone to the water, viz some to dipping one another; and some to sprinkling with the old popish Ceremony of God-Fathers and God▪Mothers: some staying at home, and leaving all Christian Societies: others running into strange notions, as that there are two Gods, and that one of them dyed &c. Some (though very few) now and then keeping a meeting, possibly pretty near the manner of their primitive practice. And Thus is the Lan­guage of these Babel Builders confounded, and themselves scattered abroad, so that they have already almost left off to build the City and the Tower. God grant they may be a war­ning to all others, for the future.

But to wave any farther digression, I come again to the point, and do say, That as it is clear, that what W. P. wrote there, was intended against those who used such like worldly weapons, in the carrying on of Religious mat­ters: So it is also clear, that he never thereby meant to insi­nuate, as if Christ upon his coming into the world, or offe­ring up himself, had put an end, or commanded an end to be put to all outward Government in matters Civil: For in the same page, W. P. intimates; ‘That Christ came to reform the lives of men, and to make them better sub­jects to obey Cesar &c,’ So that if subjects be owned, Princes, &c. must be owned likewise; And seeing W. P owned, that Christ came to make men better subjects to o­bey Cesar, by consequence he must needs have owned, that Christ did allow of a Cesar to command such obedience; And I dare say, Whosoever shall read that, or any other of W. P's, books, shall find nothing to the contrary: But for him to charge W: P: with Apostacy, because of his being concerned in civil Government, is preposterous; and I further say, for Friends to be concerned in the civil Go­vernment, is no waies inconsistent with their antient [Page 57] principles, or practice either, when they have been called to it by Authority, without an oath: therefore D: L's. insi­nuation against W: P: and us, as if we were ceased to be Christ­ian, because concerned therein, is groundless, and a meer begging of the Question.

Another fling D. L. has in this 81st pa. against W: P, as follows, viz ‘But some think W: P : has wit enough to make out to all that see with his eyes, that the sword of the Magistrate viz Constable's staves, Sheriff's weapons, Stocks, Prisons and Gallows are not worldly weapons, out spiritual weapons, when used by Qua­kers.’

Answ. An idle story : One would think he were violently seized with the itch of scribling, For where did W : P: ever take upon him to prove or make out to any man any such thing? Besides, I never urderstood, that a Constable's staff was counted a weapon, he being but a Civil Officer, and his place to keep the peace; but rather that it is a mark or badge of his office, whence it is common with people, when a Constable comes to serve a Warrant upon any person, and brings not his Staff with him to ask him, where it is? And I my self was once a Sheriff, but neither before, then, nor since, did I ever understand, that such a thing as a weapon, peculiarly belonged to, or was essentially need­ful in, the due execution of that Office. Then as for Stocks, Prison and Gallows, he may call them weapons if he please, but for my part I do not think them so; much less that they come under the Apostle's denomination of car­nal, when he saies 2 Cor. 10: 4, The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty trough God to the pulling down of strong holds &c. For the weapons which the Apostle here opposes to carnal, being such wherewith they pulled down strong holds, seems to me to allude to such outward wea­pons, with which the warriours of old did sight, and pull down outward strong holds; Consequently, did not allude to the strong holds themselves, which (in a sense) Stocks and Prisons are. So then, where the Apostle speaks of the [Page 58] weapons of their warfare not being carnal, he cannot thereby be supposed to intend or allude to stocks, prisons, or the like, but rather to those weapons, with which they of old used to pull them down. As for his sly insinuation a­bout W: P's making out to the people, that Stocks, Con­stable's staves, Prisons, Gallows &c. are spiritual weapons, when used by the Quakers; I shall only say thus much, I can not think, but that he knows better, than he writes, in this Case, as well as in many other matters; and surely the greater will be his condemnation in the great day of Account, which they (though falsly) so much accuse us of denying.

In his 9th. Chapter, entituled Of Persecution, and Pro­secution, the first thing I shall take notice of, is the great Adoe he makes, about some of his Friends in Pensilvania, being called to account for belying and abusing the Magistrates, and Authority of the place, pretending it was for matters purely Religious, and therefore being only a Religious difference (as they falsly alledged) they ought not to have been troubled for it, and the like; which I have partly an­swered in Modest Account, from p : 39 to p: 43. Yet when G: K: got into England, and into the Bishop of Londons favour, how quickly did he himself there fall to that work really, which but a little before, he had falsly ob­jected against others in Pensilvania, by instigating, stirring up and endeavouring to prevail with Authority in England, to give order, not only to enter into our Meeting houses; but also to search for our Books, and when found, to have them diligently searched and examined by the most pious and judicious and if found guilty of vile and gross errours of which, no question, but fle and the Clergy must be judges) to suppress them by publick Authority; and that for no other reason, but pretended errours in doctrine contained in them? And now if this do not arise from a Spirit of Persecution: I know not what doth; for preten­ded errours in Doctrine, have been the chief arguments al­ledged, for stirring up all the persecutions, which have [Page 59] insested Cristendom, for about these 100 Years. Let us also consider, what may be the effect of such a work, if G. K. could but obtain his end, in having his proposal effected; Why then, it would be but getting some such persons, as perhaps himself, and chief friends shall call pious and judicious to fall to the work, and the business might soon go on briskly : And then our peaceable Meetings, and by conse­quence the Nations peace in some measure, would be disturbed again; our Shops and Houses might with violence be entered into, and the Booksellers might possibly have many hundred pounds worth of books seized at once, with­out any evil committed by them, as well as without tryal, before either Iudge or Iury, except G: K: and such as he shall call pious and judicious. So that this Suffering propo­sed by him, would not be on a like ground with their pre­tended suffering he complains of here, viz, for calling a Governour Impudent man, telling him, He was not fit to be Governour; for belying Magistrates (as they did here) in print, about their proceedings in the administration of Justice, also for falsly insinuating against Magistrates, that one was so drunk, that he was fain to be carried to bed; and that another was so drunk, that he could scarce ge [...] over the ships side he was in, with such like stuff, which G: K: and his company here (in their impetuous heat to vent their malice on some then in authority in this place, and to render them as odious, as well they could) did not stick to publish, to their great abuse. But alas ! the case (on such an occasion as aforesaid) would be far otherwise with the Quakers in England: For having no such like things as these, justly to lay to their charge there, their suffering would be only on the score of pretended errours in Doctrine, which (as I said) is the common pretence of most Persecutors. Yet since D: L: and G: K: flout so much at infallible descerning, I would ask them, Upon what pretence they would undertake to pass judgment upon our books? If they say, by the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, Who then (say I) must be Iudge of the Comment? For [Page 60] it is about that, that Persecutors generally differ with the Persecuted. Therefore were D: L: sincere and impartial as he pretends to be; since he takes upon him to inveigh so much, against the pretended persecution of those here, why should he be so mute, as not to rebuke, or so much as take one word of notice, of G: K's real endeavours to stir up those in Authority in England, to a real persecution there: Since (although the book wherein those passages are contained, was published before the Retractation book came forth, yet) he hath not (there in) retracted them : And yet D: L: pretends, he would have taken in G: K's books, together with ours, if he had not rertracted hi errours: but his Cloak is too short, and his covering too narrow, to hide his exceeding great partiality under, as in several places of this book I have shewn, particularly in this e [...]se.

The next thing I shall take notice of, is his mentioning our Friends ancient Testimony concerning bearing injuries, so as being rev [...]led not to revile again; and also their cry­ing against those who caused people to be put in prison, and took away their goods upon a religious account, and the like, comparing it with George Keith, Thomas Budd, John Mc Combe, William Bradford and Peter Boss their being called to account for their abuses to the Government, see p: 81 to 86. Now this is fallacious, for they hold no parallel, and therein at most he doth but meerly beg the Question, they being not called to account about any Religi­ous Difference, as I have already shown.

For I do believe, had any other Persons (though they had been such as had never in the least differed with us about Religious matters) done as G: K: and his Company did, they would not have escaped the notice of the Govern­ment, any more than G: K: &c. I would therefore have them, and all others, duly, and in sincerity and truth, weigh this matter in the right ballance; for although our Friends have testified, That we ought to bear injuries &c. and accordingly have born the injurious Revilings, Impri­sonments [Page 61] and Spoiling of Goods, acknowledging it our Principle so to do, when inflicted on any of us for Con­science sake; Yet on the other hand, we alwaies owned Magistracy to be an Ordinance of God, and that it was for the punishment of evil doers, and to preserve mens Lives, Liberties and Properties; see Edward Burroughs's Works p: 784: 785. And likewise it hath been the practice of our Friends from the beginning, to endeavour to recover their just Rights, by due course of Law from those who were not under the regulation of our Church discipline, nor would otherwise be perswaded to do the thing that was just and right, notwithstanding D▪ L's undue and strained construct­ion of our words relating to bearing Jnjuries &c.

And whereas in his p: 82 he gives us a quotation, said to be taken out of Sam. Jennings his State of the Case, p. I know not what, which he makes to speak to this purpose viz That they could do no less than prosecute, and fine G: K: and T: B: without the violation of their Trust to the King.

I answer, Since he hath not mentioned the page, I can­not tell wether or no he hath laid down S. J's words fair­ly; he is not a man fit to be trusted in such cases, for rea­sons already shewn: But be it as it will, it appears from D. L's citation it self; that it was not self revenge they sought, but to prevent the violation of their Trust.

And therefore D. L. had no manner of ground, to caution our Preachers to keep their Hearers from reading that part of Robert Barclay's Apology, which he hath quo­ted in his p: 89; For R. B. is not there treating at all of Civil Government, but of Revenge and War, as his express words are, and therefore he complains that ‘The Christi­an world is fallen in to contempt of Christ's Law, not only as to oaths, cursings, blasphemous prophanations and horrid perjuries; but also, how the world is filled with violence, oppression, murthers, ravishing of Women and Virgins, spoilings, depredations, burnings, vastations and all manner of lasciviousness and cruelty.’ But not one [Page 62] word hath he against the Civil Magistrates appointing the just Laws to be executed upon Evil doers; nor that it is unlawfull for men to recover ther just Rights, by due process, according to the just and equal laws of the Go­vernment, under which they live. And as I could produce several instances out of our ancient Friends writings, to prove, that from the beginning, it was against our Prin­ciples to be concerned in outward Wars and Fightings; So I could also produce divers instances, that from the begin­ning it was not against our principles to be concerned in outward Government. I shall at present only mention two.

First, Edward Burroughs, in his book entituled A just and righteous Plea, presented to the King of England &c. declares to the King and Council, in the name of the Quakers, as may be seen in p. 784. 785 of his Col­lection (hinted at above) that, ‘We do acknowledge Go­vernment and Rule and Magistracy to be an Ordinance of God, ordained and instituted of him, to be exercised among the children of men. And we beleive there ought to be Rule and Government and Authority, exercized and execu­ted in every Kingdom, Nation, City and Country, for the end aforesaid; to wit, that Evil doers may be made afraid and corrected, limited, restrained and subdued, that sin and transgression may be suppressed, and truth and righteousness promoted, and them that do well praised, and strengthned. And this is the very end of outward government of Kings, Princes, or other amongst men upon the Earth; even that the outward man may be kept in good order and subjection, in his conversation in the world, and may be limited and restrained, from all wrong doing or speaking, against his Neighbours Person or Estate; and if he do, he is punishable by such just Authority. 2dly. The exercise and execution of this just Go­vernment over the outward man, as afore described, ought to be committed into the hands of saithful, just and upright Men, such as fear the Lord, and hate covetous­ness, and every evil way, and not to drunkards, lyars, [Page 63] covetous or evil minded persons, ambitious or vain glo­rious persons, in any Nation &c.’ ‘And in p. 751. he hath it thus viz I have before mentioned, what kind of Rulers and Governours we would have; even such as are just men, and men of Truth and Righteousness, that hate covetousness and every evil way, and such are of us &c.’ [Mark such are of us].

The second is Richard Hubberthorn, who was also an ancient Preacher and Writer amongst the Quakers, and who (as did also Edward Burrough) dyed so long ago, as in the year 1662. In his discourse with King Charles the second, the King asked him thus, as may be seen in the: printed account p. King. ‘How do you own Magistrates and Magistracy? R. H. Thus we do own Magistrates. Whosoever is set up by God, whether King as Supream, or any set in Autho­rity by him, who are for the punishment of evil doers, and the praise of them that do well, such we shall sub­mit unto, and assist in righteous and civil things, both by body and estate; And if any Magistrate do that which is unrighteous, we must declare against it, only submitting under it, by a patient suffering, and not rebel against any, by insurrections, plots or contrivances. King: Then the King said, That is enough. Now in this discource there are two things observable; First, That we owned Magistra­cy &c. and Secondly, We then declared, We should submit to them, and assist them in righteous and civil things [Mark assist] both by body and estate.’ So that here we see he declared, we could assist the Government in righteous and civil things, not only with our Estates; but also with our Bodies: therefore, so to do is not contrary to our ancient Friends Testimonies.

In p. 85. mentioning Peter Boss's tryal, he has a fling at David Lloyd; on this wise ‘In the tryal of which (saith he) D. Lloyd, being Attorney, pleaded for S. J. and read a case out of an old Law book, to this effect, That though [...]t Bishop was seen to be drunk, yet he was not to be reproved.’ In answer thereto, David Lloyd denies, that he brought [Page 64] any such instance, or that he so much as knows of any such case in any Law-book whatsoever.

In p. 86. he gives us a pretended speech of Arthur Cook's on this wise, viz; ‘Well, seeing Friends that you are not like to agree, you are absolved from your Test (or Oath) and are discharged; and we wil have another Jury that shall agree, and find the bill.’ To this, Arthur Cook and others then concerned, whom I have discoursed with, say, that No such expression dropt from him, so far as they can recollect; But that he did deliver his opinion; That seeing the Jury could not agree, another inquest should be awarded, as the law in that case directs. So that I have sufficient reason to conclude, that this great noise, is no other than a false, as well as base insinuation, against both the Court and Arthur Cook, in order to represent them all, to be such manner of persons, as were resolved to have the bill found in that case, right or wrong.

In p. 87. mentioning a law made in England; ‘That no Quaker or reputed Quaker shall serve on any Juries, or bear any Office or Place of profit in the Government; he makes this reflection,’ ‘They may see what their ill man­ners in Pennsilvania has brought on them &c.’ To which I answer, This I take to be as idle an insinuation, as any one in his whole book; As if the clause, in that Law made in England were added, because of G. K. Peter Boss &c. their being prosecuted here, a very silly groundless story.

In p. 88. he publisheth a letter (or at least part of one) in the name of G. F. relating to a book of Tho. Budd's. Now that letter I know not that ever I have seen, therefore, for divers reasons before given, I shall not credit his quo­tation, so much as to take any farther notice of it.

In p. 90. he produceth a quotation, said to be taken out of Richard. Hubberthorn's. Works, wherein the said R. H. blaming a Priest, saith, ‘Thou dost allow of going to Law which the apostle did not &c.’ Now to what end should he produce this against us? The most probable sense and in­tent [Page 65] of Richard Hubberthorns words, being, to set the A­postle's doctrine over the Priest's head, in reproof of the common practice of rheir Church Members going to law with each others, allowed by the Priest, and that be­fore those, who in the Apostle's sense, might be termed unjust; the Apostle's drift, being to prevent Brother's going law with Brother, and to reprove therefore: A practi­ce, which the Quakers allow no more of now, than they did in the beginning.

I am now come to his Chapter 10th. entituled; Friends suffering, to be recorded by London Meeting; Which mostly concerns those of West farsey side to speak to, which they may do, if they see any need for it, and if they do, it may be added in a Postscript, where also I intend to publish John Wood's vindication of himself from the as­persions cast upon him in this chapter, testefied both by himself and Neighbours. Only something of what he saith about Ralph Ward, I shall take notice of in the next plase which take as follows. In his p. 92. 93 he hath it thus. ‘In the years 1694 and 95 Ralph Ward, a poor friend at Philadelphia, was several times fined for conscientiously refusing to serve on Iuries, and had goods taken from him to the value of 4. L. 6 of which he complained to the Go­vernour and Council, but had no releif. The Members of Counsel present were S. Carpenter, S. Richardson, A­mortis, C. Pusey, D. LLoyd, all Quakers.’

Answer. This is very silly, like the rest of his stuff : For first, Though those members were present at Council, yet if they would, they could have granted him no releif, without the consent of the Governour, who was no Qua­ker. 2dly. Whether the Governour, and all the Members of Council, had been Quakers or no Quakers, yet they could not have releived him; because, the Laws of this Govern­ment impose a fine on all that shall refuse to serve on a Jury, which laws (according to the orginal frame of Government, and Constitution of this place) the Governour and Council are to take care that they be all duty and diligently executed; therefore consequently are not to be violated by them. 3dly. Though [Page 66] there might be so much goods taken from him, as might amount to the value D. L. mentions, yet so farr as it did ap­pear to us the Sheriff was alwaies very ready to deliver him the overplus of his fine. However, me thinks any man, though never so conscientious, should in no wise object scruple of conscience, in relation to serving upon a Jury, thiir cheif office, being, to find out the truth ar faelsehood of any matter brought before them, or what any of their own Members may inform them of.

For as to what any man may suffer, either in Cases Criminal, or Civil after the Iury have found aainst him, it is the busi­ness of the Law to direct, and of the Iudge or Iustice, to pronounce the Iudgment of the Court.

His 11 Chapter Of Swearing he begins thus, viz ‘In W. Penn' [...] book called, Reason against Railing, p. 41. the question is put thus, How could you know that swearing in any case were unlawfull, if it had not been written, Swear not at all? Is not then the Scripture your Rule in this Case? W. Penn there answers, This shews the ignorance of Tho : Hicks in the writings of the best Gentiles, and his acknow­ledgment of the lights sufficiency, in case we are able to pro­ve swearing disallowable before Christ came in the flesh. The seven wise men, (saith he) famous among the Greek [...] 500 years before Christ came in the flesh esteemed swearing but a remedy against corruption.’ Upon all which D: L: ‘Comments thus Now observe, does not this plainly shew, that they held swearing not only allowable, but also good to be used &c.’

Answ. No it doth not, For though they esteemed it as a remedy against corruption, yet it follows not from thence, that they esteemed it good to be used. For, to make a law to massaere all the Iews, Papist, Maggletonians &c. in the Kings dominions, who spread up and down their corrupt doctrines therein, would be of as tendincy to remedy that corruxtion; yet it would not be good to be used : To hang men for telling lyes against their honest Neighbours, or others would (doubtless) remedy that corruption, as much [Page 67] as wearing would he a remedy giving against in false eviden­ce; yet that would not he good to be used, and indeed I know not whatis better to be used, to prevent false speaking, than to keep close to him who is the truth it self, and who hath commanded us not to swear at all.

D: L: proceeds in his p : 98 asking ‘Was not W: P: dotish when he brought this instance to prove the light in sufficient &c.’

Answ. Why Dotish? Doth it not prove clearly enough, that the light shewed them, that to falsifie their words was corruption? Why not sufficient then, to shew them, that unless they kept to their words without any oath whatsoewer, it was corruption also?

He queries farther thus, viz, ‘Was it likely that the light or law in the best Gentiles would forbid all swearing at the same time when the law (outward) was in force, that allowed and commanded swearing?’

Answ. Why not? For the outward law, under that dis­pensation, allowed of hating enemies Matt. 5. 43. and of wars and fightings; but it is evident, some of the best Genti­les at the same time did not; but were taught more evangeli­cal precepts, to wit of loving enemies, and ceasing from wars and fightings; of which I shall give one or two instances,, cited in G. K's Universal free grace of the Gospel; see in p. 126 the advice of Dindimus King of the Brachmans to Alex­ander the great, viz ‘To cease warring against men without : and engage himself in another warfare, against then, nemies within himself; his lusts, his affection, his desires if he desired to be rich: indeed and to be a true Victor-assuring him that all his power, all his hosts, all his riches, all his pomp, would at last not avail him any thing; But (saith he) if thou wilt hearken to my words, thou shalt possess of my goods, who have God to my friends, and whose inspiration I injoy within me. Thus thou shalt overcome lust the mother of penury, which never obtains what it seeks. Thus thou shalt, with us, honour thy self, by becoming such as God had Created [Page 68] Then next as to loving enemies, which the law allowed to hate see p. 133. how Lycurgus that famous Spartan Legis­lator, who, for making wholsom laws to reduce his people to good manners was hated and stoned, and among many other insolencies sustained, had one of his eyes smote out, with acudgel, by a certain young man called Alexander, for which he being appreherded, and com­demned to dye, Lycurgus redeemed him, took him as a friend into his own house, and there taught him to live well, so that it's said he became a good man.’ Much more might be mentioned, which though the outward law, under the legal dispensation, allowed and commanded oth­er [...] to the Iews; Yet G. K: himself saith p. 124 of the same book ‘That that in them (the Gentiles;) which taught and enabled them to obey the truth in these things, was supernatural and Evangelical.’

Well in p. 99 he alledges, that ‘To say, Isolemnly promise to declare in the presence of Almighty God &c. is a calling upon God to be a witness to the truth of the testimony given &c.’

Answ. Whether it be so or not, yet it is not swearing by God, or by any other thing. Neither is the practice of our Friends in America, in Courts or otherwise, contrary to the primitive principles of our Friends, as mentioned in their writings; which since D. L. is so good at searching, let him satisfy himself, if he please; where he may find sufficient to clear us, from his false charge of Apostacy, objected against us.

In p. 99. 100 he saies ‘In their Courts about Delawire I have seen Quakers give and command the Englesh normal oath to be given to those that were not Quakers. And men­tioned Dev. L Loyd as a person gulty of the charge.’

Answ. It is admitable, how a man who pretends to write by a motion heavenly, can have the face thus to bely [...] men However Let him see to the proof of the truth of this accusation, lea [...], it he should happen to be called to an ac­count for it in time to come, he might happen to fall under [Page 69] the temtation, of adding another [...]ve to all the rest, by miscalling such a prosecution, by the name of persecution. B [...]t to sum up the matter, the law is good, and was made for Lyars, as well as for perjured persons, see 1 Tim 1. 10 and David L Loy [...] [...]t [...]rly denies his change.

His 12 th Chapter entituled Of [...], Swearing and [...]aying Tythes, n [...] begins with a notorious falshood, in tel­ling of which, he is [...]ain to beg the question too, on this wise viz ‘The Quakers having denyed Jesus or Nazareth to be the Saviour of the world, and to be in heaven glori­fied in the true nature of man both in their antient books, as is before shewed’ (this is false; for our books sufficiently shew the contrary) ‘and now being charged with the same, and one persons so accusing or charging them having pro­ [...]ered to prove the same upon them at any publick meeting they shall think sit to apoint, yet they refuse to hear with in t [...]ear &c.’

Answ. And why a publick meeting? Hath not late ex­penence shewn the little service there is in that? There­fore, since they have of late, by their numerous prints, ende avoured to the utmost of their power, to prove this upon us, although to no purpose, as by our friends ans­wers from time to time it may be seen; and seeing they are so uncharitably hardned against us, as that nothing of our explanations of such passages as they have round fault with, nor our solemn conse [...]on to the Lord Iesus Chri [...], both within us [...]nd without us will suffice : What hopes can we have, that publick meetings should have better sucess. Neither would the most publick meeting that could be gathered, e [...]ear so effectual a way for us to clear the th [...]th we profess and our selves, from the false charges published in print, by them against us, and disp [...]sed abroad into so many places of the world, as our publick answers, also in point, are, or may be.

But that it may be seen, now wicked this D. L. is, in thus [...] us; himself in the mean time knowing [...] contrary, I shall now transcri [...]e a passage or two, [...] [Page 70] he himself hath cited, out of the writings of G. White­head. and T. Ellwood. who are known to be Authors appro­ved amongst us. D. L. in his p. 22 and Numb. 33 hath it thus; Answ. to Dr. Lancaster, by G: W: and six other, ‘We sincerely beleive in Iesus Christ, both as he is true God and perfect man; our Immanuel and Mediator; and as in the fulness of time he was conceived by the holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified and put to death, was buried, rose again, and visibly ascended into hea­ven—And that this same Jesus Christ that was crucified, shall so in like manner come (as he was seen to go in to heaven) at the last and great day of Judgment’ The next I shall puoduce is a passage of Tho, Ellwood's, in his Further Discovery, in answer to G: K, p : 72, G: K: alledging, that ‘This gross and vile errour, that Christ is not to come without us, in his glorified body to judge all mankind,’ I find too many in England guilty of T: E: saies, ‘I esteem as a vile slander, if, by many he intend many of the peo­ple called Quakers:’

And now, since I know they are apt to tell us, that these kind of confessions we had never come to had not G. K. driven us to it; and that we now preach Christ but of envy to G: K, because we would render him a false accuser &c. I do say, as this is very uncharitable, so I shall make it appear to be very false, by D: L's own Citations. For 2. 1st in p. 23 he cites G: W's answer to W. Haworth, p. 23 (wrote I suppose above 20 years ago, thus) ‘Christ did rise in that body where in he suffered, and in the same assended in to the heavens—and it is so far circum­scribed in the heavens as 'tis capable of and as is proper to it; and though it be spiritual and glorious, yet a body, and therefore not in every place where God is.’ Likewise in sin p 12 he cites Foundat. of Tythes p 238 240 by T. Ellwood thus, viz ‘Nor do the Quakers ascribe salvation to the following the light within, but to Christ Iesus, to whom the light leads—If any one expect remission of sins by any other way than by the death of Christ useless tenders the death of Christ’ [Page 71] Thus far out of this very book of D: L's, as quoted by himself, out of our friends former Books.

‘Likewise G: F, one of the most antient as well as most ominent of the Quakers, in his Iournal, p 358, hath it thus We do own and believe in Jesus Christ, his beloved and only begotten Son, in whom he is well pleased; who was conceived by the holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, in whom we have redemption, through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins—And we do own and believe, that he was made a sacrifice for sin; who knew no sin neither was guile found in his mouth. And that he was crucified for us in the flesh, without the gates of Ierusalem; and that he was buried, and rose again the third day by the Power of his father, for our justifiation : And we do believe, that he ascended up into heaven, and now sitteth at the Right hand of God &c.’ This have I produced here (omitting a great number more of testimonies which might be offered to the same effect) to shew, first, D. L's unreasonable perridiousness, in his thus knowingly ac­cusing us falsly. 2dly. To manifest over his head, that we do not deny, but really own Jesus of Nazareth to be the Saviour of the World, and that he is true God, and perfect man.

And now I am speaking of these things, I think it not amiss, to clear our Friends from alate false accusation brou­ght by G. K. and his company against them, which is; That we own no other resurrection, but what is witnessed in this life, or the new birth; or that we get the resurrect­ion fully immediately after death &c. But to shew the contrary of this I shall bring, 1st. Tho. Ellwood's Further Discovery p. 72. in answer to G. K. thus, viz He says, Many hold, to my certain knowledge, That the Resurrect­ion is the new birth, and nothing else: Others say, Im­mediately after death we get the Resurrection fully. If many by [...] that hold thus, he means many of the People called Qua­ [...]ers, I neither own nor know any that hold such doct­ [...]ines. 2dly. Likewise in the book called the Christian [Page 72] Doctrines &c. by G. W. and others, it is thus expressed viz, ‘We sincerely own, not only a Resurrection in Christ [...] from the fallen, sinful state nere; but a rising and ascend­ing into glory with him hereafter, that when he at last appears, we may appear with him in glory Coll. 3. 4. &c.—at the last trump of God, and voice of the Arch-An­gel, the dead shall be raised incorruptible. The dead in Christ shall rise first 1. Thess. 4. 16. &c. Thus far G. W.’

And now again, least they should (as lately they have done) still tell us, we have learned this out of late, or that vve have been of late forced to it by G. K. I shall therefore shew one or tvvo plain proofs to the contrary. First from Edward Burrough who died in the year 1662. vvho in his Works p. 440. speaking concerning the Resurrection, ex­presseth himself thus viz ‘And vve believe, even that he that vvas dead, is alive, and lives for evermore; and that he cometh, and shall come, to judge the vvorld vvith righieousness, and all people vvith equity, and shall give every man according to his deeds, at the day of judgment, vvhen all shall rise to condemnation, or justi­fication, he that hath done good, shall receive life, and he that hath done evil, to everlasting condemnation.’ In the next place I shall produce a quotation out of an antient book of Stephen Crisp's, entituled, A plain path way opened to the simple hearted, for the answering all doubts and ob­jections, &c. vvhere in his p. 12. he speaks thus concern­ing the Resurrection, viz, ‘For he that knovvs a death and Resurrection after this manner; to be dead to sin, and to be risen vvith Christ Jesus in the nevv life, even vvhile they are in this earthly tabernacle : before it is dissolved, such will never question their appearing at the Iudgment seat of God, after it is dissolved; but do believe it with joy and gladness, and have a fervent hope concerning the Resurrection of the dead, and have their expectation unto God in that matter, that he will according to his promise raise them up at the last day, and will give unto every [Page 73] Seed his own body, even as pleaseth Him, and the crea­ture is not carefull then about such foolish questions and doubts, as to inquire about what manner of body God wil give them; but leave it to the Lord, in full Faith, that he will raise them up according to the Scriptures.’ Thus far S. C. And now lastly, what Authors shall I bring, to convince these our new opposers, that we do not deny, but own the Resurrection, according to the Scripture? Surely, none more fit, than their great, original Sect Master G. K, who in Presbyterian and Independent visible Churches &c. not yet retracted, which was written but in the year 1689, p. 3. 4, in answer to Sam. Norton's charging us with deny­ing the Resurrection of the dead, saith thus, viz, ‘That they deny the Resurrection of the dead, this is also a most false charge, which they can never prove; but because we deny their carnal conceptions of the Resurrection, and hold us to scripure words, which is most safe, therefore they have so belyed us. And for the more satisfaction of the Reader (saith he) I refer him to a little book, called Truth's Principles published by some noted men of the Quakers. In which book, it is expressly affirmed, That we, to wit, the Quakers, believe that the same bo­dy which is laid down shall be raised up at the Resurrecti­on of the dead, as much as a natural body can be the same with a spiritual body, or an earthly body can be the same with a havenly body, according to the Scripure testi­mony; It is sown natural but raised spiritual: And the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is an­other.’ And this may satisfy any sober enquirer &c. Thus far G. K. To all which I say though this was so lately cited by G: K, out of a former book of our Friends, and laid down by him, as one of our principles, which he courts might satisfy any that inquires in sobriety; Yet, it seems, it will not satisfy him now, for which I fear the chief reason is, for that he himself is gone into Apostacy and bitter enmity.

Having a little digressed upon this occasion, I now return to D: L's 12 th. Chapter, where I find him in his p. 103, [Page 74] a Hedging against [...]. Dickenson and S. Jenings, in particular, as follows [...]. Where fore some preachers particularly [...]. Dickenson and S. Jenings have now found out a new argment to prove to their he nearers that they are indeed balyed (viz in being accoused for denying Jesus of Nazareth &c. as before mentioned) and that is, ‘That their refusing to pay Tythes, to fight and to swear, are three proofs that they own Jesus to be Christ, and therefore they are falsly ac­cused :’

Answ. Though hereupon he vaunts at no small rate, yet all proceeds from a grand mistake, at best: For neither they nor we do say, that our refusing to pay Tythes : to fight and to swear, are proofs of our owning Jesus to be Christ, but the reason for which we refuse to pay Tithes to fight and to swear, and our suffering so deeply on those accounts, is, because weilest Christ was in the flesh, he for [...]ade, and at his offering up himself, he put an end to these things; and yet our thus refusing to comply with, those things, because of his commands and prohibitions then given, is a good proof, that we own Jesus to be Christ: Did not Paul bring such manner of reasoning, to prove his hope and expectation of the resurrection of the, dead? see 1 Cor. 15. 32, where he said, If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth [...], if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. Even so may we say; If Jesus be not the Christ, that offered himself up, and put an end to the ceremonial law of Twthes Let us pay Tythes and keep our selves out of prisons, and our goods from being spoiled. Oh! but this we can not do, because our souls are satisfied, that Jesus is the Christ, and hath put an end to these things.

In the next place, he falls [...]oul upon us about Govern­ment matters. He begins first with West Iersey, the Pro­vince he lives in; but with what truth he relutes things as done there I refer to them selves to answer, if they think it worth their while.

But since in his p. 104. 105 he pretends to give a relation, [Page 75] with reflections, upon some affairs relating to our Govern­ment of Pennsilvania, I shall not pass over that, but detect his abuses of us therein. He hath it thus, viz, ‘Next, let us step over into the Government of Pensilvania, where in the year 1695 we find Coll. Benjamin Fletcher. then Governour of that Province, pressing upo the Assemb­ly to raise a fund for his Majesties service to wards secur­ing the Province from the French and Indians, but this they could not do, No, it was against their tender conscien­ces, contrary to their antient testimony and principle; and so no fund was raised.’

Answer. This is not so, for Governour Fletcher's power here, expired before any Assembly sate, or was so much a cho­sen in the year 1695. Neither did he in 1694 press the Assem­bly, to raise a fund, towards the securing the Province from the French and Indians: So that allowing his one years mistake, as to time; yet his charge in the main is utterly false. Neither was the reason why no mony was [...]eised then, because we pladed (as be falsly incinuates) it was against our tender consciences; for at that time the Assembly was satisfied, they had a very reasonable and sufficient plea, for their not complying with his desires, without alledging matter of Conscience in the Case.

He goes on saying, ‘But the next year W: Penn got the Government into his hands again, and then the Assembly meets again, and now they must do something towards maintaining the Frontiers at Albany, or lose their beloved honour of having the Government : for the Queen had com­manded it and W: P: had engaged to comply therewith.’

Answ. A very idle story; for though the Queens com­mands to all the Neighbouring Colo [...]ies, as to maintaining in part the frontiers at Albany, affected us amongst the re [...]; and though, for Conscience sake, the Assemblies here could not performall things therein mentioned : Yet it does not all follow from thence, that the Assembly must therefore lose their share in the Government. Had they not the same power of Government [Page 76] under Governour Fletcher, as now, they have? Yes surely; Neither was the maintaining any thing of the frontiers at Albany, a condition of our Proprietary [...]s original grant, or his restoration either. However I shall venture to say (as knowing these matters better than D. L.) That the Assembly's here, during the war, were very respectuall at all times to the Queens commands, and so for as their Religious persuasions would admit thereof were ready to perform them. But what ashame is it for this D: L: to insinuate as it we so much loved the [honour] of having the government in our hands, as that for he saker thereof, and to keep that up, we would not stick to act against our principles. Whereas I would have him to know, we were never so fond of it, as, I am credibly informed, he is Who, notwithstanding his parties exclaiming against us for these 5 or 6 years past, as not living up [...] the Gospel dipen [...]tion, because we were concerned in Worldly Government, yet when an opportunity or a place in the Government; of West Jersey lately presented (whether for the sake of honour, or revenge, or both I know not) he presently falls in with it, imbraces it, and becomes a Iustice of the peace; and then who but he for being concerned in Worldly Government, and it's beloved honour too, such as it is; hough, how far his accepting of a Commission at that time, tended to the subversion of the oirginal rights and priviledges of the people of that Province (I suppose) he could no waies be ignorant. Besides me thinks it looks poorly, meanly and pitifully in him, to accept of a Commission, especially upon such a foor as he did, so soon after his, Keithian company had so much exclaimed against others, and given caution to all professing the truth, and who were in scorn called Quakers &c. That they should not be concerned in Worldly Government; They were not to be Iudices, Sheriffs nor Constables; nay nor Iury-men neither, in any criminal cases, see their book en­tiruled, A Testimony and Caution &c, p 1 and 2, which was given forth from their Monthly Meeting at Phillip [Page 77] Iames his house in Philadelphia in the year 1692. I say that he should accept of, and imbrace a Commission, espe­cially upon such a foot, as he did, after their having thus exclaimed against others, for acting in the like capacity, tho upon a basis that is just and right, and upon a foot that is firm and honorable, is a great argument to me, of his insincerity and perfidiousness.

He further saith ‘Well, to work they went, and soon [...]ound a new name for their Act, and then couragiously raise three hundred pounds for the Indians at Albany, and [...] Da. L Loy [...] is sent to New York with it, to pay it to Governour Fetcher, for the use aforesaid; for now it was not against their tender consciences, why so? because they had Otherways worded the Act, yet intended it for the [...],’

Answ. This is also false; for, first, It was not the next year that any was raised. 2 dly What was done afterwards, was to relieve the Indians, in habiting beyond Albany, who where at peace with the Crown of England, and having been rob [...]ed by the French &c. and o [...]ed to desert their dwellings, were lest in great distress. And it is well known to some here, that if the Assembly at that time, had not agread to have raised mony for them, by law there was an Es­say intended to have been made, to have raised a sum for their relief, by charitable subscriptions, after such a like manner, as there was some raised here; for the relief of the distressed English in New England, and who were under almost the like circumstances, as the Indians were, and which I sup­pose D: L: was not ignorant of; therefore hi [...] flout of Other­wise wording the Act, and yet intending it for the same use, is [...]tterly false; neither hath he so much as at­tempted to produce any proof of it, but unfairly imposes upon his Reader, without it. As he also does, in what he aim concerning W▪ P's ingagement. Then, as for what he saith about David L Loyd, whom he (Ishmael like) calls St [...]rcht Da: L Loyd that he was sent to New York with it, is also false : So that there is little else in this whole pa­ragraph [Page 78] but lyes and false hoods. I shall further add before I leave this head: that either D: L: had seen the proceedings, Resolves and Acts of these Assemblies, before he wrote his book, or he had not seen them. It he had seen them, the more base man he, thus, contrary to his own know­ledge, to misrepresent them. If he had not seen them, then may the Reader easily observe, at what a sandom rare, he ventures to bespatter us; as also it may be percei­ved, that as his proceedings therein could not he honest and sincere, as he saies they were, so neither could they proceed from a motion heavenly, as in his preface he pre­tends to.

But this mischeif maker doth not end his envious lying here, for in the same page, speaking of one Babit and his company's stealing a sloop from Philadelphia, saith thus; ‘Upon notice of which the Quakers very speedily got a company of men together, searcht the Town for arms, supplied them with gunns, swords, powder and lead and gave them a Commission, and hired them for 100 L. to recover the sloop from said Privateers, which they did, and Sam. Carpeter paid down the 100 pound to the men, and the Assembly has since voted it to be a debt of the Province.’

Answ. Possibly some may think this to be a very strait story, and as certainly true, as he is cofidently false in it. As first, his affirming that the Quakers searcht the Town for arms, this I am credibly informed is false, and that it was not the Quakers who did so, but others. 2. dly Sup­plied them with guns, swords &c. This was not likely to be true; for, though perhaps, there might be here and there one, that had a fowling piece (not that I have cause to sus­pect, that any person furnished them with so much as one) yet, I question whether they had any swords at all, to furnish them with. The 3 dly is a third lye; For he saith, they gave them a Commission, which was not so, but a Warrant, to bring them back to justice in their own way, they being nor Friends that went by virtue of that Warrant after them.

[Page 79] Then he adds and hi [...]ed them for 100, pound Where [...] this was not to neither; it is true, after the men that follow­ed them were, agreed to go, and in order thereto were got into the boat; Sam. Carpenter, to incourage them, called to them, and promised to give them 100 pound, if they would bring back the sloop and men. And if Sam. Carpenter was to blame in it, why did not G. K. instead of commending him and other's, for what they did [...] deal of with Samuel about it, and say his evil actions (i [...] they were [...]) before him, in order to have recovered him? [...] not a word of that then, it was Den Samuel with him man months after that, after till he began to differ with, seperate from Friends; and then Samuel not joyning with him, he spared him no more than others. Moreover, whereas D : L said, Sam: Carpenter paid down the 100 pound, and that the Assembly have since voted it a debt of the Province; Now this is not so neither, for there was no such sum voted; but the man will be medling with things he knows nothing of. Then, as for his saying, that it was those whom the Quakers got to gether, and furnished with guns and swords and who had Commission, and were nired for 100 pound to do it, that recovered the sloop; here in it as worth one's observation, how prettily he contradicts his friend G. K. in the matter; who saies, ‘It was Peter Boss and one or two more vvith him, that retook the sloop, having neither gun, svvords nor spear,’ see Antichrists and Sad [...]cees detected p. 7. Yet in their Appeal to the Yearly Meeting in 1692, G: K: among others, saith as [...]. L. here saith, as to those vvho took the sloop. Thus tho [...]gh they [...]oth be [...]n false vvitness, yet their witness a­grees not together.

I shall next take notice of a passage of his relating to Tythes, which may be seen in his p 107 thus ‘I know none in Christe na [...], no, not the Priests themselves but they will deny that they take Tythes as Tythes, but only as ma­ [...]re [...] to preaching, and not as any other part or the [...].’

[Page 80] Answ. It may be so; For what other part of the Ceri­monial Law did Tiths belong to, except to give part to the Stranger, the Fatherless and the widow; tho that part our Priests do not care to perform, to be Sure. But [...]ee D. L. says, he knows none that say, they take Ti [...]s as Tiths, I shall take Leave to tell him, That he seems to have pored so long on G. [...]'s. Great Mystery &c. as to have bemudl'd himself, or dull'd his sight, else he might have there seen, and so have known, That the Priests take Tyths as Thyths; for which I referr him to the fol­lowing Passages. First in pag. 87. G. F. quotes the ex­pression of a Priest thus, ‘The Lord hath given Tyths for the maintenance of the Ministry of this Nation.’ And a littte lower he saith. ‘The Priesthood is Changed, but not the Tyths abolished by the coming of any Substance. Secondly in Pag. 245. he quotes Gawin Eaglesheld Thus The Law is not changed that gave Tyths &c.’ Now I hope from henceforth D. L. may be satisfied, That the Priests did not deny their taking Tyths as Tyths; Besides, to talk of not taking Tyths as Tyths, is Just as good sense, as to say, D. L. dos not tell Lyes as Lyes. But it is yet further observable, That D. L. ackowledged That Tyhts for the Maintenance for Preaching, being part of the Ceremoniall Law, and consequently put an end to by Jesus Christ's. Of­fering up himself; And that being the chief Cause why our Friends refuse to pay them, must needs be an Argument to any sensible Man :s understanding, That we owne Jesus to be the Christ And we know the Apostle saith, The Priest­hood being changed there is made of necessity a Change also of the Law Heb : 7: 2.

I shall now proceed to his 13. th Chap: about Miracles, wherein he seems resolved to Act the part of one that would be Retrogade to any thing acted or done by a Quaker, espe­cially if he thinks he hath found out a way to redicule it; thereof I think I shall not need to say much to it only some passages I shall hint at as followeth. He begins his Cavills against some passages in G. F's Iournall to which I need [Page 81] say no more than thus; That I am satisfied, That where at any time G. F. in his Journal hath mention'd any Mi­racle, which God had wrought by him; the Intent was not to set up of applaud the Creature, nor to boast of the work, but to give the praise and honour to God the Worker, to whom it belongs.

As for what he saith in pag. 110; about G. F's. being call'd The Father of many Nations &c. I answer, thus hath been Answer'd so often already, particularly by W. P. in Judas and the Jews &c. and in Invalidity &c. and that to my satisfaction above twenty years ago, that I shall say no more of it in this place, than to re [...]er the Reader to the Books, for his satisfaction al­so.

A little lower in the Same page, he Insinuates, that G. F. should pretend to the Gift of Tongues, to Interpret all Languages: which I am perswaded he shall never be able to make appear; But if he can, let him.

In pag. 111. He pretends to object something worse a­gainst G. F. which, take as follows. ‘But which is yet worse, if true, I have seen a sheet, called, An Essay, &c. lately put out by one T. C. wherein he shows that G. F. in answering Priests and Professor's Books, falsly quoted their Words and perverted them, &c. Which he would have W. P. to appear and clear G. F. from &c.’

Answ. If there be such a Book written by T. C. so ac­cusing G. F. I question not but it is, or will be Answer'd; in the mean time, I will assent to D. L's. saying, if true it must needs be judged wicked &c. But I shall likewise add, if it be false, the reporting it must needs be wicked, in his Author T. C., and Idle and wicked in himself also, thus to repeat it, only upon the uncertain report, of such an open and unwearied Enemie of G. F. as T. C. hath been known to be for many years.

In pag. 112. 113. he raises a mean Argument out of a [Page 82] quotation he produces out of G: W's book, Intitul'd Qua­kers Plainness. pag. 14. on this wise ‘It seems—they have how lost this [visible miracles] and other Evidences of the Spirit, if ever they had them; [...]or he there says, and what if God will not bestow such Gifts and Signs now, must we therefore be no Christians? &c.’

Answ. D: L's conclusion will not hold; first, G: W: did not in the least grant, that God would not bestow such Gifts now, but only askes, what if He will not? se­condly, but if he had granted it, it does not therefore fol­low, that the Quakers had lost other Evidences of the Spirit; for surely the Spirit of God witnessing with our Spirits, that We are the Children of God, may be known now, as well as of old; and this can never be without such suit­able workes, as may be sufficient Evidence (to the People of God at least) that they are the Children of God, whether the Lord be pleased to bestow such Gifts, as were allways perculiar to few, or not. And to such as had such Gifts be­stowed on them, Christ Said. In this rejoyce not, that the spi­rits are subject unto you: but rather rejoyce, because Your names are written in Heaven Luke. 10. 20.

His 14. Chapt. Intituled, Of Life and Doctrine, he be­gins with a Base Insinuation (viz) ‘Much more than for­merly do my old Friends the Quakers cry out, This Life is the Onely thing that is our all in all; 'tis no matter for Doctrine or Knowledge in this or that Principle; away with Creeds and points of Faith, so that we feel Life in our Bosoms, and flowing from Vessel to Vessel.’

Answer. Herein D. L. shews himself to be a more than Ordinary Scoffer, a Mere Ishmaelite, and a false Insinuator, as if we opos'd Doctrine relaing to, and knowledge in the things of God, to the Life that we feel many times in our Bosoms. O ungodly man! Let him prove if he can, that ever one owned amongst us, thus expressed himself. But by his thus flouting at us, about the feeling of Life a­mong us; it's to be feared (if ever he knew what it was) that he is now much degenerated, and far gone into the state of those, [Page 83] of whom the Apostle speaks, who were Alienated from the Life as God and past feeling Ephes. 4: 18, 19. And tho in his pag : 115, he Compares (in some sense) our Friends Testimonies, with an affecting sermon of a De­bauched Priest, which caus'd weeping eyes on every hand: yet his Comparison will prove but lame; for since we read, that Sathan himself is transformed in to an Angel of Light 2. Cor: 11 : 14. is it therefore a great wonder, that his ministers should be sometimes transformed, in to the Li­keness of ministers of Righteousness. But doth not this as much reflect upon Peter's preaching, mentioned in [...]s 2; where so many were pricked in their heart, in so much that they said unto Peter and the Rest, What shall we do? And might not such as D. L. with this kind of Arguing, as well have Incens'd the minds of the People, against what the Apostle delivers, when, speaking of the power­full effect their Ministry had upon the people, He saies, But if all Prophecy, and there come in one that believeth not or one unlearned [mark unleaned] he is Convinced of all, he is Iudged of all: and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face, he will wor­ship God and report that God is in you of a Truth. 1. Cor. 14. 24, 25. And doubtless were those hearers now alive D. L. would say of them, as he does to us; ‘Even such is the Devo­tion of all Zealous (but Ignorant) people.’ Yet of this we are well assured. That tho' God gives the Increase upon the Labours of his Ministers, and that Paul may plant; yet there are also Apollo's that water, as truly now, as of Old.

As for what he saies of Thomas M [...]sgroves Preaching at many Meetings about Delaware, ‘That the flesh of Christ was a Constant enduring Paitence, and his blood a Lively operating Spirit of Life, or Divine operating Living Lo [...]e’ I Answ; I have been at many Meetings with him, but never heard any such thing as D. L. expresses (as I remember) from him, nor of him before, neither can I hear, upon In­quiry, of any one that ever heard him speak so.

I am now come to his 15 th. Chap. 1. [...], Sabbath [Page 84] day wheel turn'd round; where, speaking of some Quakers formerly having opened their shops, & followed their usual employments, on the first Day, both in Old England & elsewhere, he Crys out: ‘But behold how the wheel is now tur­ned! for the Quakers at Delaware being the Commanding Party of the Assemblies, have lately made Law to prefer the first Day before others, calling it the Lord's Day &c.’

Answ. We never preferr'd the first day above others, for any holiness in it self, as a day: Nor do we commonly call it the Lords Day, though in the Law, he mentions, we used that Word as the most proper of those that are generally given to it, to explain more clearly to all what was meant by the preceeding word the first day, But if D: L: will have the Instance of two or three, who in the Beginning opened their Shops on a first day, to be a proof of our Degeneracy, because none do so now: we may, certainly, much more rea­sonably alledge the Practice of all our Friends from the be­ginning, except those two or three, in keeping their Shops al­wayes shut on that day, till this very time, as a stronger Ar­gument to prove, we are not degenerated in that point. The occasion of making that Law, he hints at, amongst us will be best spoken in its own words as follows To the end that Looseness, Irreligion & Atheism may not creep in, under pre­tence of Conscience in this Province: Be it enacted—That ac­cording to the Example of the Primitive Christians, and for the Ease of the Creation, Every First day of the week (called the Lords day) People shall abstain from their usual and common Toil and Labour, that whether Masters, Parents, Children on Servants, they may the better dispose themselves to read the Scriptures of Truth at home, or frequent such Meetings of Religious worship abroad, as may best sute their respective Perswasions. And truly notwithstanding the Clamor D. L. makesabout it now, I love Clamor so little, that I should not have been vvilling to have ventured, made anexchange vvith him, for the Clamors he vvould have made, if there had been no Lavv at all made here about it : For, I see, there is such a Spirit enter'd him, and others of them, that vve must never expect to tread such [Page 85] such stepps, as will prevent their finding fault with us.

In pag. 119. he brings in G: W: querying thus, ‘where dost thou read in the Scrpitures, that men must do no work on the first day of the week?’ Now to this I shall say, That G: W: propos'd this Querie, to one who ac­counted the first Day, the Sabbath day, and that it was a sin in it self to work thereon, which we say it is not, there being no Command of God to be produced, requiring it so to be kept. But, as it is no sin to work on that day; so it is no sin to abstain from work on that day: for if it had, surely, the Primitive Christians would many times have sinned, in meeting to gether on that Day. It is no sin in it self, for the free People of West Jersie, to Chuse their Magistrates and Officers, on another Day; and in another manner, than by their Laws and Constitutions is appointed: Yet, inasmuch as it is no sin, to Chuse them on that Day, and in that manner, and it being according to their Law, and the Peoples Rights and Priviledges, it ought to be kept (Let D. L. take notice of that) and so it is in the Case of abstaining from Labour on the First Day of the week.

In pag. 120, he produceth a Prophecy of W: P: against J: H, which he would have to be false; but not withstanding his pretending, he allwayes believed plainness and honest sim­ple hearted dealing to be best; Yet, rather than he will loose the Advantage, of making W: P: look like a false Prophet, he hath Crastily, as well as knavishly left out those words, which would have show'd, that the Prophecy vvas but Conditional, although (as laid dovvn by D. L.) it's abso­lute. For proof whereof I shall transcribe it, first, as cited by D. L. and then as publisht by W. P.—D. L. bath it thus; ‘ So sure as God Liveth—the Lord will make thee an example of his sury, and thy head shall not go down to the Grave in peace and by this shalt thou know (says he) that not a Lyning nor Delusive, but a true and Infalli­ble spirit hath spoke by me:’ See Reason against Railing pag. 181. Now vvhether W. P. did not there bely the spirit of God? For I do understand that P. H. died at Peace in [Page 86] his bed, and with great satisfaction. Thus far D. L. Now hear the passage as it comes from W. P. ‘As sure as God liveth, Grear will be the Wrath that shall follow Thee! Yea, God will visit for these unrighteous dealings, and I testifie to thee from God's living spirit, if thou desist not, and come to deep Repentance, the Lord will make thee an example of his fury &c.’ Now observe these words [if thou desist not and come to deep Repentance] D. L. hath (far unlike to a man that loves honest simple hearted dealing best) very dishonestly left out, because it render'd the Prophecy but Conditional, which Conditi­ons, if perform'd, render also the Prophecy nevertheless true, tho' the Iudgment did not come upon him. Now desist, I do believe, he did; and whereas D : L : says, he un­derstands he dy'd at Peace in his bed, and with great satis­faction: I may possibly as truly say, he repented of his so Grievously abusing our Friends, before he Dy'd; for I have been told so, by full as credible an Author [I suppose] as D. L 's was: but to say he dy'd with great satisfaction, if D. L. mean without Repentance, I am satisfied his state could be never the better for that: For altho' he might reck­on us no Christians (as Indeed he did) and so without the Pale of the Church; yet he ought to have walked honestly towards them that are without 1. Thess. 4. 12. which T. H. did not do by the Quakers, but by his misrepresenting them to the world, in his Dialogues, he did certainly do very dishonestly by them, in giving those for the Quakers Answers, and saying, they were no other but what the Quakers give both in words and practice; see Dialogue pag. 163, which he could never prove to be such; But (to my knowledge) when call'd upon for his proofs, us'd pitiful shirts to evade them, and at last wholely absented himself from the Meeting appointed for tryal thereof. And that the Reader may see I do not misrepresent T. H. now he is Dead. I shall recite a few of his questions, and also what he gives for the Quakers Answers, and says it's no other than what they give forth &c. see his pag: 72.

Question. Are you then as perfectly happy, as ever you expect to be?

Answ. We Witness Perfection.

Q. What proof is that to another man?

A. We say we witness it; is not that proof Sufficient?

Q. But what if I believe otherwise?

A. We shall not spare to Stigmatize, and Comdemn that person, that questions the truth of our sayings.

Q: Will this Convince me, or any other of your Perfection?

A: Tho' it do not; yet thereby we shall render you so odious to our Friends, that they will believe nothing that is spooken by You against us?

Q. Then may I not conclude, that the Reason whey you so freely rail against, and reproach your Opposers, is only to se­cure your Credit with your own Procesytes?

A. I cannot deny but that there may be something of that in it.

Q. Will you be so liberal of your Revilings whether your Ad­versaries give Occasion or no?

A: It concerns us to render them as ridiculous as we can &c:

Q. But doth not this Signefie a very dishonest and malicious mind in you?

A. We care not what you think, provided our Friends think not so.

This, with a great deal more that might be mention'd, was contained in the Book, which, as he was never able to prove, to be as he wroet; so let every Impartial man Iudge, whether these were like to be the Quakers Answers, or no, and if notwithstanding all these Grievous abuses of us by Th. H, he could lay down his head in peace with the Lord (which doubtless was the Peace intended by W. P.) without repentance; I think people need not much mind that Command of our Savour, As you would that men should do to you, do you also to them likewise Luk. 6. 31. Which I would have D: L: to mind.

As for D : L's Appendix, I see little need to speak to it, the most of it being very much like his other rambling stuff, up [Page 88] and down throughout his whole Book; yet not willing wholely to pass it by, I shall make some few Observations, as followeth :

In his pag : 129 : under the head Of infallibility, He quotes a passage out of G : W's Voyce of Wisdom pag : 33. That they, that want Infallibility, are not true Ministers : Now, several of the Books he quotes I want, and this among the rest: Therefore, whether this be fairly quoted or not, I know not; Yet I believe the thing to be true (viz) That where any Minister, is not Infallibly assured, that what he ministers to the People, is from the movings, and gui­dings of the holy Spirit of God, so far he is not a true Mi­nister; If any man speak, (saith the Apostle) let him speak as the Oracles of God 1: Pet: 4: 11: then to be sure, it must be from the Spirit of God, which is Infallible: And as God's Spirit is Infallible, so are it's teachings and guidings:

Now, that G : K: (as well as G: W: &c:) hath wrote in defence of Infallibility is clear; for in his Book, Inti [...]led Divine immediate Revelation &c: p: 13: [not retracted] we have it thus, ‘We place not an absolute Infallibility upon any person or persons whatsoever, but we say, the spirit of God in all it's Leadings, Teachings, and Motions, is Infallible, and men onely Conditionally, so far as they receive, and are in unity with those Leadings, Teachings, and Motions, are Infallible: We say further, that every True Christian hath an Infallible Knowledge and Faith, of all such things as are absolutely necessary to salvation; But as to other things he may Err, if he be not watchful to follow the Infallible Guidance of God's holy Spirit : But if this Author thinketh, he has no Infallible Faith or know­ledge of any point of Doctrine, he is a mere sceptick and unbeliever: for all true Faith is Infallible; That which is al­lible is but mere Opinion; and Conjectural :’ Likewise in his Help in time of Need he saith ‘Are not ye as bad, (meaning as had as the Papists) who openly affirm, that ye are hot led by the Infallible Spirit, and consequently not by the spirit of God:’ Now here we see, that G : K: ownes Infallibili­as [Page 89] well as Friends, viz. So for as they are led by the spirit of God, and no Farther. And if D. L. be as I [...]p [...]rtiall as he pretends to be, since he hath in his p. 62. and 64. so much ridicul'd W. P. about this very matter, which is exactly according to G. K's. own sentiments in the point, how can he let G. K. escape his censure, or else send to him to retract it; But doubtless he had better let it alone, least by undertaking to mend one hole, he make two; For, in the Retractation Book it self, G. K. saith ‘He is no sceptick in Religion, but that he, and all sincere Christians, hath an Infallible Faith and perswasion, in things, Relating to the Fundamentall and Essential Doct­rines of Christianity.’

In his foresaid p. 129. He offers a quotation, out of Win P's. Rebuke to twenty one Divines p. 22. thus ‘We are horribly abused in saying, We pretend all our Ministers to be Infalible.’ Now I am sure D. L. hath horribly abused W. P. in this matter; for he hath left out the explanatory part, which is this ‘We ascribe not an Infal­libility to men, but to the Grace of God; and to men, so far as they are Led by it.’

Tho I want severall of the Books, quoted by him, in that part under the Head of Temporizing; Yet I shall speak a little to it, to show what a medling Man he is.

He begins it with a Passage, he says to be Geo. F's. ta­ken out of a paper Intituled, To the Parliament of the Co­mon Weal &c. ‘Thus, Let all those Abey Lands that are given to the Priests, be given to the Poor of the Nation.’ To which he opposes a Passage, out of W. P's. Preface to his Perswasive to Moderation ‘Thus Far be it from me to solictit any thing in diminution of the Just rights of the Church of England; Let her Rest protected where she is.’

Answer. I cannot see, how G. F's. Advice to the Parliament, about bestowing abby Lands upon the Poor of the Nation, of W. P's. moderation, in not soliciting, for any [Page 90] Dimin [...]tion of the Church of Englands Just Rights; can he said to be either [...] or Contradictory. For vnless he can prove all those Abbey Lunds, that were given to the Priests, either in the year 1659. the time of the Date of that Book or before to be, it that time, the just Rights of the Church of England, it will not do any of his busi­ness at all. For the Church of England hath her Rights, in such suspects derived from the Authority of the Nation [...] And so, that which may be termed her Rights under one Authority, may not under another; for I suppose they are not n [...]red any to [...] as Alterable as the then present Authority still pleased, Else how should they be now Imagin'd to be one Church of England's Rights, and not Rather the Church of Romes? Besides, how comes W. P's. moderation toward the Church of England to be Constru [...]d Temporizing under the Reign of a Popish Prince.

He proceeds to Cavil against W. P. and offers a Quo­tation out of England's Interest Pag. 36. in these words, ‘We say Holy Writt is the Declared Fundamental Law of Heaven. whereupon D. L. says Note, how W. P. Con [...]ounds himself or deceives his Readers, or both, for in his Rejoynder (as aforesaid) he takes up severall pages [...] prove the Scripture Corrupt and uncertain, so much slighting, it that he terms it J. Laldo's uncertain Word of God, pag. 39. and yet here calls it, The Declared Fun­damental Law of Heaven.’

Answer. What W. P. saith in Englands present Interest; as here cited by D. L. is either true of false, if D. L. will say it's false; he Contradicts the Protestant part of the Christian World; who hold and have declared holy Writt to be the outward Rule both of faith and Life, and if D. L. says it's true, then he says as W. P. says: besides W. P. did not lay it down as his own Judgment onely, but as the belief of the Protestants in General whom he was then personating, in opposition to the Popish Arrogancy of As­suming a Power, to impose upon People in points of Re­ligion, tho' Contrary to Scripture and Reason. And [Page 91] whereas W. P. says, some scriptures are Corrupted, Let D. L. deny that, if he can, his friend G. K. ownes it, as I have allready shewn: but who vnless a prejudic'd Ad­versary would find fault with two such Expressions, which he himself cannot deny to be true, and almost all Christen­dom do own, and yet surely they do not mean that corrupt part, to be either holy Writt, or the Fundamental Law of Heaven. But how D. L. comes to be so sensless, as to bring in this, under the head of Temporizing, I must Confess he is wiser than I, or I beheve himself either, that can tell.

Next in his page 131. he cites an Epistle of E. Burroughs, bearing date 1661. as follows. ‘Keep close to the Lord, and to the measure of himself, made manifest in your own hearts; for unto that you are directed, in the begin­ning, and in it is your safety and preservation to the end, but says, D: L: afterwards, W: P: controules this plea of E. B. in his Brief examination pag. 11. saying, The Enemy Is at work to scatter the minds of Friends, by that loose plea, viz. what hast thou to do with me? leave me to my freedom, and to the Grace of God in my self &c.’

Answer. To keep Close to the Lord, and to the measure of himself in our hearts according to E. B. is too good Counse to be disputed against. But now here we may see, what need there is of having the Books on both sides, to examine D. L's. quotations by: for who not knowing the occasion of W. P's. Writing thus, (as D. L. has Cited him) but would have thought he had thwarted E. B. Now, tho' I have not the Book by me, yet I pretty well remember the Subject of it which was to shew, what was real spiritual Liberty, and what was then onely pretended as such, and was Chiefly levelled against a Faction, stirred an at that time, by John Story and John Wilkinson; who did not onely oppose the Women, in their Meetings of Service (which D. L. saith are certainly of service p. 66.) in deeds of Charity and Hospitality; but also, to escape sufferings, would Drop the Testimony that they came forth with, in [Page 92] the beginning (which as D. L. saith was in Life and Power) Now as some of old [...]urned the Grace of God into La [...]ci­viousness, Jude. 4. so these turned from that grace which had called them, and brought them forth in life and pow­er in the beginning and [...] the liberty of the spirit [...] liberti [...] [...] in the flesh, of shunning the cross, and [...] which they came forth in, when they came forth in life and power, much like those with whom Paul was excercised, when he thus expostulated with the Galathians viz. Are ye so foolish? hav­ing [...] made perfect by the flesh? Have ye [...] [...] in vain? Gal. 3. 3. 4. And although Pau [...] commended the beleivers to God and the word of his grace, Acts 20. 23 telling them; it was able to build them up, and to give them on inheritance among all them which are [...]: Yet he did not think that inconsistent with his telling this Church who seemed to lean to circum­cision, on the account of avoiding persecution, see ch. 5. v. 11. If ye be circumcised, Christ shalt profit you nothing v: 2. For he was so Zealous in the case, as to say; I would they were evencut off which trouble, you v: 12. Now, might they not have said to Paul, Thou hast commended us to the grace of God; Iames hath sold us, The engrasted word is able to save our souls, Iames 1. 21, and Iohn saies, The anointing which ye have received of him, abideth in you: & ye need not that any man teach you: But as the same anoin­tieg teacheth you of all things 1 Iohn 2. 27. Canst not thou therefore leave us to our freedom therein? It may be we think it best to be circumcised &c. But can any think, that such a kind of a plea, would have recommended them any thing the more to the Apostles, as men of truth, and of a found mind? Surely no It is true, Paul told them, [...]e have been called unto liberty; but he also added further, Use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh Gal. 5: 13. And that hath been our Friends care with those people for which they have made so much a do.

In p. 135 he finds fault with some Quakers for praying [Page 93] for King Iames, with is so far from being condemnable, that it is very agreeable to the Apostles exhortation 1 Tim. 2. 1. 2 That inpplications, prayers, invercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men: For Kings, and for all that are in Authority. But (no doubt in his fancy) to hit the Qua­kers home, he saies; ‘As affectionate as they were to King Iames, they could not by their prayers mark how he scoffs at prayers) help him in those troubles that follow­ed, nor did they by their spirit of discerning tell him of it before hand &c.’

Answ. A very foolish observation, and a sort of an Athel­stical taunt! I do tell him, that as the Quakers are no un­seemly bo [...]ssers of what they can effect by their prayers; neither is it my design to compare them with the Apostles: Yet this scoffing re [...]ction, may (if he dare make so bold with them as well affect the Apostes, as the Quakers, who prayed for Kings, and all that were in Authority, and exho [...]d the beleivers so to do, and yet how many troubles did the [...]ings and Governours in their daies undergo, and perhaps, many [...]im [...]s it might be for their good too. Then, [...]s for a spirit of discering, I deny that ever it was the Qua­kers principle, or indeed that they are so conceited, as to Imagine, much less to declare, that they can alwaies di­scern, beforehand, what particular troubles, Kings and Princes, or any others shall meer with in this world. To pray for them is but our Christian duty; but as for what troubles they may here after meet with, God who only is omni—scie [...]t knows and none else, unless, at any time he is pleased to reveal it to any particular person or persons. But to bring the matter a little the more home upon D. L. I shall produce an example of one of his great friends ap­plicable to this case, which take as follows; I remember when a paper was published by Authority at Philadelphia, to shew among other things, that G: K: had traduced the Magi [...]racy and Authority of this place, we were told, that G: K: went on the same day to the Barbadoes house, where a­mongst a mixt Auditory, he read an answer pulickly to the [Page 94] said paper, and when he had done (possibly that he might be thought not to disown Authority) went to prayer, wherein he prayed for King William and Queen Mary. Now what would he or others have said, if we had flou­ted at him as D: L: does at us, and told him, that by all his prayers he could not help the King and Queen out of the great troubles which they were then, and continued many years after to be involved in nor could he tell before hand of the Queens death &c. But thanks be to God, he hath tought us better ways to answer those who oppose the truth, than such sorroy ones as this our Adversary makes use or against us.

He proceeds thus, But rather that he was secure and got through all his troubles.

Answ. By what D. L. himself hath cited of their words, it pleanly appears, that it was only such troubles as he had then already met with, particularly in Scotland. And thogh they might use the words [all his troubles [that does not alwaies conclude past, present and to come, neit­her did it at all in this case, any more than Paul's saying (after he had mentioned the troubles he had met with at Antioch, [...]conium and Lystra thus) But out of them all the Lord delevered me doth imply, that he should meet with more. Furthermore, the Apostle speaking of the troubles he met within Asia, saith, For we would not, Brethren, have you ignorant of our, trouble which came to us in Asia that we were pressed our of measure, above strength, in so much that we despaired even of life: Bu [...] we had the sentence of death in our selves, that we should not trust in our selves, but in God which raiseth the dead. Who delivered as from so great a death, and doth deliver: in whom we must this he will yet delive us, 2. Cor. 1. 8. 9. 10. Yet at last he was put to death at Rome.

In the next place I shall take some notice of D. L. [...]. [...]. ‘In his p. 137. 138. he asks, Why this fol­lowing doctrine, so frequently preached formerly by an­cient friends, is how let fall, and nor preached by any of [Page 95] you, viz I the Light will overturn nations, Kingdome and Gathered Churches &c.’ and citing many books as News out of the North &c: p: 15. ‘ I am the same door that ever was (says G: F: the same Christ, to day, yester­day and forrver &c.’

Answ: This is but a meer begging the question: For as he hath not proved, so I deny, that the doctrine of the fight was frequently preached by antient friends in those terms: And as for those words in the above cited News out of the North; with several others cited [...]y him, I can­not sufficiently speak to them [...]auing not the books, and by what is before written, it is easy to see, that he ought not to be trusted in his quotations, he is so exceedingly perfidious in them: As a farther confirmation of this charge, I shall produce another proof as follow­eth.

I happening to have one of the books he cites in the a­bovesaid page, viz G. F's Great Mistery, out of which he pretend to produce a quotation, thus, ‘And tho that same spirit that raised Iesus from the dead, is equal with God viz. the holy Ghost,’ see Great Mistery p 66: 127 I dilli­gently searched both those places, and do affirm, there are no such words to be found in either of them: But I find in p. 127 that a Priest charged G: F: with professing equality with God, whereupon G: F: tells us that the Assembly of Divines in their Catechisia, say, The holy Ghost is equall in power and glory with the Father. ‘Now (saies G: F:) eve­ry one that comes to witness the son of God, and the holy ghost, &c : by your account they witiness that which is equal in power & glory with God, and that his words were spoken beyond all creatures & out of all creatures, that he did not say G: Fox:’ Now is it not as cleare as the sun, that D: L: hath again grieviously abused both G: F: & also his Reader: For it is one thing to witness the holy Ghost wich is equal in power and glory with the Father to be in us (according to G: F: even beyond unterance; and another thing to profess our selves equal with the Father Son or holy Ghost [Page 96] either, as this abusive D: L: would render us.

In p: 138: 139: he asserts this falshood, viz, ‘'Tis the faith or belief of all your preachers in general▪ That when you preach or pray, 'tis not you, but Christ in you that prays: I prove this to be your belief by these two reasons: First, You do never in your meetings pray for pardon or forgiviness of sin (Not that I have heard in twenty years due attendance) for seeing 'tis Christ in you that prays, there is no need of it, he being without▪ sin.’

Answ: He may as well charge all those holy men of old, who have prayed to God, and yet heave not in all their prayers asked pardon for sin, with the same as he falsly charges us with here, viz, with believing, that it is Christ in us that prays: And in order to prove, that what he objects against us, was not the common practice of the primitive Church, I shall produce an example, which at this time occurs to my mind, as it is related Acts. 4. 24. to 31. where we find that the Church then assembled together, lift up theie voices with one accord in prayer to God; in which prayer there is not one word of confession of, or begging pardon for sin: And if D: L: be so blind, as that he can perceive no difference or distinction to be made, between Christ by his spirit helping our infirmitie's, in our prayers, which we say he doth, and without which we cannot pray as we ought see Rom: 8: 26: and saying, that 'tis Christ in us that prays, which we say not; we cannot help it: Then what, or how due his attendance hath been, for twenty years, I know not, but sure I am, I have heard earnest cryes and servent supplications put up to God in our publick meetings, for pardon and remission of sins, many times in less than ten years.

‘His second reason is this You do not pray to Christ▪ becaiuse it being Christ in you that prays, it is absurd for Christ to pray to himself.’

Answ. This is again a meer begging of the question▪ for we say no such thing, as that when we pray, 'tis [Page 97] Christ prays in us; but as above 'tis Christ by his spirit that assists his children in their prayers, who said, Without me ye can do nothing John 15▪ 5.

He continues in his p. 139. to cast many unjust reflections, upon us, in relation to these two heads, of not praying for▪ pardon of sins, and not praying to Christ at all; which is partly answered already, but in order to the more full clearing the latter objection, I shall take notice of one passage more in the same page. After he hath opposed the Apostles, Saints and Martyrs to us, he concludes that paragraph thus, viz, ‘Both Apostles and other Christians frequently prayed to Jesus Christ, as well as to God the Father.’

Answ. This affects not us at all, as to what he infinu­ates, that we do not pray to Christ, because it is neither against our principle nor practice, and if he will not believe us in relation to this assertion, yet methinks he might credit his Friend G. K. in the matter, who in p. 121. 122. of his Way cast up saith; ‘He hath not only himself done so; but also hath heard others expresly naming the words Jesus Christ: Although (saith he) when we express not these words, yet if we pray by the movings of his li [...]e and Spirit, we pray in the name of Jesus &c.’ And he farther saith; ‘I have heard expresly such petitions put up in our prayers at our meetings unto Christ, as, Jesus son of David have mercy upon us. O! thou blessed Jesus that wert crucified and dyed for our sins, and shed thy pretious blood for us, be gracious unto us—O! thou our mercifull High Priest, whose tender bowels of compassion, are not more straitned, since thy ascension, but rather more in­larged—Thou art our Advocate and Mediator in heaven with the Father, our merciful▪ High Priess—Thou blessed Jesus, thou know [...]st our most secret desires and breathings, which we offer up, into thee, in the inab [...]ngs of thy blessed [...]ife and spirit, that thou maist present them unto thy Father▪ and our Father, that in thee we may be [Page 98] accepted, and our services also; and for thy sake, our defects and short comings, our sins and transgressions, that we have committed may be forgiven us. These and such like expressions, frequently used by us in prayer, both in secret and also in publick, in our assembly's, plainly demonstrate, that we worship and pray unto the Mediator betwixt God and man, the man Christ Jesus.’

Thus far G. K. All which affords us matter sufficient a­gainst D. L. in relation to his false charges, and unjust insinuations against us. As first, Whereas in p. 102: he saith, we deny Jesus of Nazareth to be in heaven glorified in the true nature or man: Here G. K. saies: He hath heard expresly such expressions to Jesus, and that they are frequently used by us in prayer, as, Thou art our Advocate and Mediator in heaven with the Father, Our merciful High Priest, and which (saith he) plainly demon­strates, that we worship and pray unto the Mediatos betwixt God and man, the man Christ Jesus.

dly 2 That twhen we pray, we do not pray to Christ, as D. L: charges us in his p. 139: Whereas here G. K. confesseth, that we frequently pray to Jesus expresly, and that as he is in heaven our Advocate and Mediator, the man Christ Jesus &c.

And 3dly. That we frequently pray, that our sins and transgressions may be forgiven us; expresly contrary to what [...] L. falsly alledgeth against us in the aforesaid page Now either it is true that G. K. hath heard these expressions, and that they have been frequently put up by our Friends in prayer; or it is not true. If it be true; then is D. L. by G. K's own free confession concerning our practice a false accuser of us. If ir is not true; then will it fall heavily upon G. K. not as a thing that he hath been mistaken about in point of opinion; but as a thing he has published against his own knowledge and conscience, in pretending that he heard such expressions, and that not now and then only; but that they have been frequently used in our prayers. Neither do I know how G. K. can retract these testimonies concerning our friends when they [Page 99] pray, without giving the down right lye to himself For it is not a little otherwaies wording the matter; nor pleading a little failure in syntax; nor any curious wire drawing neither, that will help either of them out at this dead lift.

‘As to his charge upon G. W. in p: 140. That of late years—in answering books—he has not taken▪ notice of scarce a twentieth part of a book, but onely sends out something, and to please—people and that they may have something to say, when people cry, where is the answer to such or such a book.’

I Answer, First, he should have told us what book that is which G. W. hath given as a full answer to a Book, and yet scarce that twentieth part of the book taken notice of, or else to be sure he doth nothing to the purpose. 2dly. There may be the same reason shewed by G. W, why he took no notice of many particular pass ages in some certain books, which he hath answered, as G. K. shewed, why he did not answer to many things in Cotton Mather's book, see his Serious Appeal p. 8: thus, ‘Because Cotton Mather had not distinctly answered my former book against him: As also that the said Mather's book was filled with manifest falshoods, perversions and abuses, sufficiently replyed un­to, partly by others, and partly by me (sath he).’ Which may serve for an answer to D. L. in relation to G. W's. late answers to Opposers (especially Backsliders and Apostates) books.

At the latter end of the book D. L. publishes a letter, said to be sent to him by a person of note. Now whoever this person of note be, as I know not; so I matter not; but however, A person of note I will grant him to be, in that he so abominably abuseth both the Quakers and his Reader, and like a man infatuated, imposeth such palpable false­hoods upon them, or which I shall take some notes though he has deprived me of the opportunity of taking a note of his name.

First. ‘That the thoughts of the suddain stop the [Page 100] Philadelphia Quakers met with, when they were so not it persecuting G. K. and his friends, may in some degree check them, and hinder them from doing what otherwaies they would p. 142. 143.’

Answ. 1st. That which they call persecution was not so, but only a calling them to account for their abuses to Aut­hority here, as may be seen in the book called A Modest ac­count &c. And 2dly. It is false, that they met with a suddain stop when they were doing of it. For our friends were in the Government move four months after the tryal and fining of G. K. &c. In all which time, I do not re­member that any of them were so much as examined upon any account whatsoever by the Authority of the Place▪ and possibly if they had not given fresh occasion, there might have no more [...]e [...]n said about it to this day▪ For that business was not so delightfull to those then in Authori­ty as he and others may imagine.

2dly. He imposes upon his Reader a kind of a miracle▪ in these words ‘Since I was with thee at Burlington in 1692. I have thought that God Almighty was then fitting thee for some purpose, because of the suddain and mira­culous recovery▪ in great Part, of thy speech, from the extream impediment of stammering, which thou had when I was with thee two years before; and I remember I heard thee then say, thou hadst it from a Child &c.’

Answ. In this observation of this person of note, I note two things observable 1st. Though I know not that I ever saw D: L: yet by what I have heard, it seems to be the greatest miracle of the two, that he should be thus recovered of his flammering tongue, and yet his Neighbours and others who often converse with him, know nothing of is 2dly. ‘After this person had told D: L: that in this book, he had discovered and laid open the Mystery of iniquit [...] more clearly than he had seen it done by any other: for which he prayed God of his bounty to reward him &c:’ he tells him as above, that Since he was with him at [Page 101] ‘ Burlington in 1692. he had thought that God Almighty was fitting him for some purpose, because of the suddain and miraculous recovery of his speech &c.’ As if God had intended him for some great work to be performed with his tongue; Wereas the great work that has appealed (whe­ther it [...]e the work of God or the Devil, let the Reader judge) has been the writing of a [...] and [...]ous and reproach­full books, all which might have been done, if his speech had been so totally taken [...]om him, as that he could not have spoken one word.

2dly. He falsly as well as without proof asserts these falshoods ‘Such things as are indeed fundamentals of the Christian Religion▪ they account ni [...]iries, circumstantials, and smaller matters, and care not how confusedly they preach them. But what are really circumstantials or smal­ler matters, as Tythes, Mint &c:’ (and not of necessity for a Christians practice) they make the Fundamentals of their Religion. All which suggestions I deny as f [...]lle, and had he but a name, I should require him to prove them.

4thly As groundless as well as proofless is his insinua­tion, ‘That it seems Pe [...]ple may sing the Quakers writ­ings, but not David's, by their allowance.’ For we allow the singing of David's Psalms, full as much, to say no more, and in as true a sense, as the singing of Quakers writ­ings▪ but we see no service in either, to be sung in that formal way, as is commonly and customarily used amongst people.

5thly ‘His flurt about bowing the body, to which he joins, that of the Quakers in England, that live in great Towns and cities, Causing their apprentices to stand bare headed before them &c.’ I shall take no farther notice of than to tell him, If he had named them, and proved his charge, perhaps he might have received a farther answer to it▪

6thly His story about Walter Clark, Walter Clark denies▪ as stated by him; so that I cannot but esteem him false and abusive in this also. To which I may add, as all of a piece, his envious reflection surmised after this manner, viz. ‘I [Page 102] question whether ever they [...] be able to wrestle down the wordly Governours with only little guns, till they get great ones. Scoffingly infinuating, as if we were for throw­ing down wordly Governours with guns.’ A notorious sl [...]ander.

7thly ‘He taxes W. P. with Boeing turned Painter and seems to charge him, with denying, that G. F. was a shomaker; because in his preface to G. F's Iournal, he declares his outward vocation to be a shepherd.’ As i [...] it were impossible for him to have been a Shepherd and a Sho­maker both; which if this scribler imagines, I would que­ry, how his esteemed Friend D. L. came to be a Surveyor and Planter, as well as a Iustice of the Peace and Almanack­maker, which are four vocations to the others two.

8thly ‘His story of G. F's having the midwife so long attending on his wife, expecting her delivery of some child of wonder (she being near 59 years of age) bu [...] at last brought forth no child, and the midwife dis-mist.’ And the reason he pretends to give why this was not put in the Journal, viz, ‘It would be enough to give the lye to his pretended spirit of discerning.’ I beleive I have, heard the [...]ruin of, from as credible an Author, and from one that know the businese, perhaps better than this person of note, or any that informed him; who told me, that G: F. never did beleive that his wife was with child, and consequently did not expectea child of wonder. Neither would the inserting the thing in the Journal, as it really was, have given the lye to the spirit of discerning, G: F: was endued with.

9thly As to his saying, I dare engage the Quakers will never print a Collection, of them [G: F's] He had books best have a care what he ingages upon it, least if he live a few years longer he lose his ingagement.

10thly. What he produceth out or Edward Burrough's Works about the sufferings of Christ, as to the substance of it, hath been answered by our Friends already, particularly by G: W: in his book called A Sober Exposti [...]l [...] [...] &c. p. 65.

11thly. ‘He saith, Their books of controversy are so stuit with gross lyes, grand forgeries, wicked perversto [...], false insinuations, and shamefull calumnies, as are the the late books of S. Jenings, T. Ellwood, the Pening­ton's, G. Whitehead; C: Pusey and others &c.’ To which I shall onely say, These are very high charges; but the proofs not made to appear, and therefore refer the Reader to the books of the Friends mentioned by him, both their answers to G: K: and Reply's to G: K's: answers to theirs.

12thly. As to his saying, ‘They thrust in the Revolution of souls into the present controversy, though it be no part of the Controversy.’ I answer. If G: K: will limpose such doctrines upon us, and controvert such points with us, as he cannot (at least toour understandings) make our without introducing this notion of the Revolution of souls; This very practice makes the said notion become a part of the Controversy. But that G: K: hath so done, is made appear, in the book stiled▪ A Modest Account &c. therefore the Revolutions is part of Controversy.

And now being about to conclude, I shall take notice of an expression of D: L's: in his p. 140, which is this, ‘Now I sincerely profess, that I have done nothing herein but with an honest design, not having wilfully or know­ingly wronged either books or Authors, in any one passa­ge.’

Answ. Therefore I having detected him, and hereby given him to know, that he hath wronged both books and Authors, and that in many passages, he ought now to acknowledge it: For i [...] we could believe his design to be honest and sincere; yet we must needs conclude, that he has wofully misi it in the management; and to make it the more observable to the Reader, as well as to himself, I shall here present to his immediate view a summary collection of a few of the many which might be produced out of this book, he is chargable with▪

[Page 104] 1st. false it is which [...]e [...]ites cut of p. 66. and say of G. F's Great Mislery in his p. 138. viz. ‘He that hath the same spirit that raised Jesus from the dead is equal with God &c. For there is no such thing to be found in either page.’

2dly. False it is which he objects against G: W: in his p▪ 30▪ where he affirms, that ‘ G: W: quarrels with the word God▪man’ For according to the place he refers to as cited by himself, G: W: speaks thus ‘As for those expressions God-man being born of Mary, we do not find them in the scriptures, nor do we read that Mary was the Mother of God, but in the Popes Canons &c.’ So that the word God-man is not what G: W: objects a­gainst, but God-man born of Mary; which much alters the case, for to say, God as well as man was born of Mary, was too like the Pope's calling Mary the Mother of God▪ For that which was conceived in her was of the Holy ghost but not the Holy Ghost. Matt. 1 : 20.

3dly. False it is which he quotes in the same page out of G : W ▪s book stiled Quakers Plainness, viz, ‘That Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, That he is God man, &c.’ Whereas there is no such thing said there for G: W: in that place giving some account of our saith, saith, ‘Which is that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, and that he is God▪man the son of God; yea and God manifest in the flesh &c.’ But not one word of his being God-man. No, it only looks like a trick of D: L: to render G: W: opposite to himself in relation to the former passage, pos­sibly thinking we were so ignorant, that we could not find out these his unfair and unjust dealings. For that which G : W : makes two words of, with a right distinguishing, stop D: L: makes but one with a dash between, thus, God-man, without any distinguishing stop as G: W: hath it thus, God-man.

4thly. False it is that W: P: (as he affirms P: 5:) says▪ Sandy Foundation p: 14. If the only God is the Father▪ [Page 105] and Christ be the only God, then is Christ the Father which is ridiculous and shamefull.

5thly False it is that W: P: says (according to his quo­tation p. 6. out of Sandy Foundation p. 22) that ‘Christ could not pay what was not his own [debt].’

‘ 6thly False is his assertion in the same page that W: P▪ holds, that Christ had a debt of his own to satisfy to God.’

7thly False it is which In p. 14. he pretends to cite out of G: W▪s Christian Quaker p. 212, ‘That we plead for the Righteousness of a creature [i. e. Christ as man] or mans own righteousness.’ For there is no such word as [Christ as man] as I have a fore shown.

8thly False it is which he produceth p. 23. as an expression of G: W's in his Nature of Christianity p▪ 29, viz, ‘Christ has not the body of man.’

9thly False it is which in the same page he alledges a­gainst G: W, viz that ‘He denies Christ's bodily existence without us.’

10thly False it is which he offers in p. 37. as W: P's San­dy Foundation p: 21. Christ as man was finite, viz▪ came to an end. For these words, viz : came to an end, are not W: P's.

11thly An abominable falshood it is, that in Sandy Foun­dation p. 20. W: P: calls Christ, The finite and impotent creature, see p. 38. and many other places of his book.

12thly False it is which in p. 40. he says of W: P, viz ‘But VV: P: makes the benefit of his coming to be no more but to shew man more plain what he saw before as through a glass.’ It being also contrary to what he himself hath cited as his words in the same page.

13thly False it is which he asserts in p. 102, viz, ‘That the Quakers▪ have denyed Jesus of Naeareth▪’

14thly False it is which he affirms in p▪ 139, ‘That we do not pray to Christ▪ and as false;’ ‘That we never in our meetings pray for pardon or forgiveness or sin.’ His Friend G: K's acknowledgment concerning us, as a fore cited, shews the contrary in both respects.

[Page 106] Thus have I collected some of the p [...]lpable lyes and fla [...] hoods he is guilty of, as by the books which I have by me cited by him may appear; what more there might be found especially if we had all the books he mentions to inspect and examine, can only be guessed at at present, by what I have [...] in those books which I have examined.

As for what untruths and falsehoods he has in p 94 and 95 told of John Wood, the said John Wood's own vindicati­on with certi [...]tes under his neighbours hands, as also his abuses put upon some others of his Neighbours in his own Province of West Jersey in relation to the mi [...]ating of some publick affairs; may be made to appear in their appear col­ours in their Postscript.

And now Reader, Is it not strange that alter all this D: L: should be so confident, as to call upon Sam. Jeninges John Simcoc [...], John R [...]d [...] &c. to come forth and appoint a publick meeting, to prove our charges in the face▪ of the world, of their abusing us and our books in falsly citing passages but of the same, and wronging their sense. Whereas in this very book of his he is guilty of such abundance of it▪

But D. L. rests not here; for in p 141 he manifests, his impudence yet farther in these expressions, ‘Therefore I▪LL give the world a sign, by which they may know that you do not only abuse, bely & charge us falsly in this case▪ But also, that your own consciences tells you that you are, guilty of so doing. The sign is this; If you know and are conscious to your selves that you have and do so bely us, &c. then you'll not come forth, according to this propositi­on; But if you find you can get the least advantage of us, by out witting or otherwaies wording the matter (th [...] with never so much falsity) then you'll come forth, and [...]e glad I give you this opportunity.’ And by this sign shall you be proved.

Answ. it is easier to prove, this his sign to be a sign of his guilt confidence and impudence, than a sign of what he wo [...]ld pretend to make out by it▪ for this sign fails in▪ all it▪s marks, as thus; [...] we were guilty of abusing them, [Page 107] it doth not at all follow, that therefore we would not come forth according to his proposition: For the same spirit which leads men to wrong and abuse their neighbours, may make [...]hem so confident, as to come forth with open face, to en­deavour the justification thereof, especially when called upon, and when the case is as this is, viz, that no corporal or peculiary punishment is like to ensue. This pl [...]inly appea­red in the case of Tho. Hicks, who though he had so abu­sed the Quakers, as is before shewn, yet had the confidence to come forth at the first meeting to justi [...]e it. 2 dly It like wise appears as plainly in this very case of D: L's; who not withstanding his many abuses put upon us in this his book, yet in the same he hath the confidence to challenge a meeting with us, to put us upon proof of what is so plain­ly made appear above. Therefore this is no infallible sign of our being guilty of his charge, that we came not forth according to his proposition. And then the other part of his sign, relating to a supposition of our coming forth, is as evidently fallible; for we have got, not only a little, but a great deal of advantage against him, and that very simply too; not only without any falsity, but also without strain­ing matters beyond what they will naturally bear, and yet he may see we do not come forth according to this proposi­tion; and therefore both his signs are fallible, and not to be needed, unless it be from them to make an observation▪ how strangely men are infatuated, who draw back from, and rise up against the truth.

Well, now I shall give D: L: and the world a plain and argumentative sign, whereby he and they may know, that he himself▪ hath abused both the Quakers and their books; which is this. If D. L. have given that for the Quakers words in their books, &c. in order to render them and their books odious thereby to the world, which is not in their he books, then he hath abused the Quakers and their books: But so hath D▪ L. done, as I have herein plainly manifest­ed, particularly in the summary collection of his false­hoods; Therefore he hath abused the Quakers and their [Page 108] books. The first proposition I suppose he will not deny, and the second he may see (if he be not blind) as plain as his face in a glass, The conclusion then must needs be that D. L. hath abused the Quaker [...] and their books. The evil of which (I can sincerely say) I heartly desire he may come to a sense o [...] and true repentance for, before it be too late.

And now, if not withstanding what hath been here so plainly manifested, of D: L▪s abusing our [...]riend [...] and their writings, any shall yet be so exceedingly prejudiced against us, as not only to continue to vindicate him in such an evil work, but also to bestow such large encomiums on him, as some have done, both by word of mouth and writing, as well in verse as prose; We can then do less but conclude that i [...] proceeds not from any Christian like desire to stand in defence o [...] the truth▪ but that it is meer envy and pre [...]di [...] ag [...]in [...]t the doctrine, way and practice which we pro [...]ess and are found in, as well as against us their honest and pea­ceable nighbours, which own and profess them, that hath done, and doth animate them to such proceeding. Which if they sh [...]ll yet continue to do, as sure as truth is Truth, and falshood is falshood, i [...] so [...]oing they can never please God who is just, nor obtain credit with any impartial man of right understanding▪ Therefore if after all they do or shall continue to vindicate him as aforesaid, we can then do no less than look upon them to be such as are here described; and so as I sai [...] ne [...]r the conclusion of my other book, with the same expre [...]i­on I shall conclude this, viz; We must leave our cause with God who judgeth righteously▪