where there is no Light to discover it; neither will his Inftances of fome who know not their Masters Will, aud know not what they do, help him at all; fince the Text plainly fhews that fuch are under an excufable Blindness. Luke xii. 48,and xxiii. 24. This might be the Cafe of Paul, before his Converfion, who, this Author fays, 'Tis plain, while the Dayof his Vifitation lasted, could ⚫ have no Light within him,' but certainly, if he had none, it was not then the Day of his Vifitation.

IF by Quaker Chriftian, P. 19, he means, fuch a Chriftian as the Quakers are, he grofly abufes them in faying: A Man may be a Quaker Christian without knowing any thing of the Hiftory of what Chrift is, and did, and fuffered,' for the Quakers are fuch Christians as not only know but firmly believe all that History, which he calls the Four Gospels. ./

Page 20. He tells us, firft, that the outward Declaration of the Doctrine of our Saviour in the Scripture is that Gofpel, which St. Paul fays is the Power of God unto Salvation, to every one that believeth, but prefently after fays, The Doctrine it felf, by the Power of the Spirit of God accompanying it is truly and properly Speaking, the Gospel. And but a few Lines after, P. 21. that Faith in a crucified Jefus without them was that Gospel : Making no Distinction between the Declaration of the Doctrine, the Doctrine itself, and the Faith or Belief of the Doctrine. For he would have any, or all of these, to be the Gospel rather than what the Text itself plainly tells us is fo, viz. The Power of God unto Salvation, Rom. i. 16. By which Power Men are created in Chrift Jefus unto good Works, Eph. ii, 10, being enabled thereby to put off concern

ing the former Converfation, the old Man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful Lufts, and be renewed in the Spirit of their Mind, and to put on the new Man, which after Chrift is created, in Righteoufness and true Holiness.

Page 21, 22, HE endeavours to prove that the Word which was in the Mouth, and in the Heart of the Romans, was not an inward Word, but Leaves unanswered all R. Barclay's Arguments on that Head, though he quotes the Place where fome of them are, viz. Apol. p. 170.

C

Page 22. He has this Query, Does not the Apostle fay of the Gentiles or Heathens, that what may be known of God, (which is an univerfal Propofition) was manifeft in them, be caufe God hath fhewed it unto them, that is, by the Light within,' Rom. i. 19? For which he cites W. Penn's Primitive Chriftianity, p. 31, 32, 71.

6

IN ftating this Question, our Opponent is un fair,

ift. By putting in, the Words Gentiles or Heathens, which W. P. ufes not, but plainly fhews that he takes the Text to mean all, both Jews and Gentiles, and therefore calls it an univerfal Propofition.

2d. By tranfpofing the Words, Which is an univerfal Propofition, from the End of the Text where W. P. put them, into the Middle of it, thereby perverting his Senfe.

IN Confequence of. which Perversions, he changes the Term what in his Question, into whatever

whatever in his Anfwer to it, as if W. P. had afferted that the Gentiles knew all that could be known. Whereas W. P's Purpose in producing the Text was to prove, that the Light in all Men doth manifest God unto them; and accordingly having cited this Text, Rom. i. 19. That which may be known of God is manifeft in Men, he alfo quotes Ephef. v. 13. Whatsoever doth make manifeft is Light. But our Author chofe rather to impofe on W. P. a feigned Meaning, than to confute his real one.

Page 23. He afferts, that It is not enough • that the Quakers own, they are bound to believe the hiftorical Truths and Matters of Fact concerning Chrift's outward Birth, and Death and Refurrection, recorded in the Scripture, when they are made known to them by the Scriptures, but he fays, they must own them 6 as effential Truths.'

We think it enough, and as much as the Scripture requires of us, to believe the Truth therein declared of, and to act agreeably, but no Belief is enough without Obedience.

SHOULD A Man fubfcribe to all the Truths this Author talks of, whether Historical Truths, Effential Truths, or Truths with any other Epithet he fhall pleafe to put to them, what were he the better? This Manner of diftinguishing Truths is not according to Scripture. The inspired Writers mention one Truth, which they treat of in a plain and uniform Method, they neither diftinguish it by Variety of Epithets, nor do they use the Word Truths at all in the plural Number.

HIS Queftion, p. 24. about Undervaluing the Light within,' for which he quotes G. Whitehead's Antidote, p. 8. We find no Foundation for there, nor know whence he has any. But his infinuating, in Anfwer to that Queftion, that the Quakers make the outward Death and Sufferings of Chrift no necessary Causes of Salvation, is very unjuft: For they do make them neceffary Caufes of Salvation, even to thofe who have not the outward Knowledge of them, as well as to thofe that have.

HIS Question, p. 25. May it not be truly faid, that the Light within is neither natural • Confcience, nor the Law of God in the • Heart of Man, nor Conscience illuminated by the preaching of the Gofpel, &c.' is directly anfwered by W. P. in the Place cited, where he fays, 'Tis that very Principle of Life and Light which illuminates the Confcience, and which was the very Spring and Force of the Apoftolical Miniftry, and of the Conviction and Converfion of their Hearers, and which opened their Hearts to receive the Gospel preached unto them..

.

Page 26. He forms this Query, What do you think of them who even worship and adore the Light within one another as Chrift and • God?'

FOR this he quotes G. Whiteheads Innocence against Envy, p. 18. who fpeaks nothing in Juftification of fuch a Practice. Nor are the Quakers guilty thereof, for they truly worship God Omniprefent, in every Place, and in every Man; but not circumfcriptively included in any

Place

Place or in any Man, His Inferences, therefore on this Head affect them not, who profefs and follow no other Light than that of Chrift. He indeed, to make them guilty of Idolatry from a Practice they never use, supposes it a falfe Light, two Words he never found together in Holy Writ: But if, as we think, we have fufficiently proved it to be the true Light, what is he, who fo grofly vilifies it?

In his long Question, p. 27. He alters R. B's Senfe, by leaving out fome Words, and putting in others. He has added thefe Words, Who

do not allow it to be God and Chrift himself;' and left out these Words, precifely taken, and feveral other Expreffions explanatory of the Terms proper Effence and Nature of God, which R. B. ufes; as he does alfo thofe of Vehiculum Dei, and real fpiritual Subftance, perhaps in Condefcenfion to Schoolmen and Criticks, to whom he might think that Way of Explanation ufeful., But feeing our Opponent borrows a great Part of his Reply to this Query from G. Keith's Standard of the Quakers examined, p. 212. Let him thence take this Anfwer; Whether this divine Influence, Ray, or Beam be a Subftance, as the Rays or Beams of the Sun are reputed by divers Philofophers to be a Subftance, I do not think proper in this Place to debate, it leading into philofophical Dif putes not fit for vulgar Capacities. A Reafon con- . clufive both againft us and our Opponent, who ventures beyond his Depth in afferting. • That it muft needs be a real material Substance if it be capable of being divided into Parts and Meafures.' We fhall therefore ask him, What does he think of Faith? which the Scripture fays, is a Subftance, Heb. xi. 1. Is it a material one? The Text is plain, That God hath dealt to every

Man