<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2010-09-23</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Megan Marion</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist:
x Add TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate
xAdd DIV TYPEs, validate
xReview structure, use FRONT,BODY, BACK or rarely GROUP
xCheck PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N=""
xProof title page(s)
xCheck HEAD TRAILER ARGUMENT EPIGRAPH OPENER CLOSER SIGNED SALUTE BYLINE
xCheck ^, oe, abq, italic I / J, _Initals, space between &amp;c.
xCheck # @ -- UNCLEAR LB FIGURE
xCheck q; startq endq Q
xCorrect illegibles from proofsheet
xCheck illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs
Final validate

Corrected [ ] illegible groups out of [ ].
Converted [ ] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible".
DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B03063">
<STC T="W">E25C</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">52528799</BIBNO>
<VID>178765</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>A SERIOUS REVIEW OF SOME PRINCIPLES OF THE QUAKERS.</P>
<P>Wherein <HI>ERROR</HI> is Di&s;covered, and <HI>TRUTH</HI> Defended.</P>
<P>By <HI>P. E.</HI></P>
<P><FIGURE>
<P>VERITAS. VINCET TANDEM</P>
</FIGURE></P>
<P>Printed in the Year, 1655.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB REF="2">
<PB N="1" REF="2">
<HEAD>A SERIOUS REVIEW OF SOME PRINCIPLES OF THE QUAKERS.</HEAD>
<P>_I Do not at this time write, becau&s;e I would maintain Truth in maintaining any Sect, know|ing that there be many, in this age, who do owne, in their judgement, many parts of Truth, or &s;everall &s;ound Principles of Religion, as it were by pie&s;e-meal, who, notwith&s;tanding in many more things, if not in the mo&s;t, do erre. And therefore, as one having cea&s;ed from man, being dead to all Sects, I do, I &s;ay, I do at this time only vindicate Truth for it &s;elf, without all relation to the upholding of any Sect what&s;oever, but in &s;o far as they do owne any part of the Truth. Having premi&s;ed the&s;e few lines, I &s;hall lay down &s;everall Principles of the Quakers, and, as I propound them, &s;hall refute them: yet &s;hall I &s;peak of none of them but of &s;uch as be mo&s;t known, that they may not have it to &s;ay that I do wre&s;t their words and do belye them.</P>
<P N="1">I. <HI>That man, as a creature, is not equall with God, but as he is joyned to the Lord, being one Spirit with him.</HI></P>
<P>This is the Doctrine of <HI>Geo. Fox,</HI> as witne&s;&s;eth <HI>Ja. Nailer,</HI> in an|&s;wer to the Book called, <HI>The Perfect Phari&s;ee,</HI> pag. 4. who&s;e words
<PB N="2" REF="3">
be the&s;e, <HI>viz. &mdash; I was in the hearing of four Ju&s;tices of the Peace, where he was asked</HI> (meaning <HI>Geo. Fox) whether he &s;pake this of</HI> G. Fox. <HI>as he was a creature?</HI> i.e. <HI>that</HI> G. Fox <HI>was equall with God. To which he an&s;wered, I deny,</HI> G. Fox, <HI>he is du&s;t and mu&s;t to du&s;t, but I and my Father are one: and he that is joined to the Lord is one Spi|rit. &mdash; At which the Ju&s;tices were &s;atisfied that he &s;pake of the Spirit of Chri&s;t in him, and thereupon did acquit him.</HI> A &s;ubtile An&s;w. to an ill &s;tated Que&s;tion: for I do ob&s;erve in it much of the depths of Sa|than, whereby the Ju&s;tices were outwitted. No wonder: for in &s;tating the Que&s;tion they gave him a great deal of advantage. It doth ne|ce&s;&s;arly imply that there was &s;omething in <HI>Geo. Fox</HI> which was incre|ated, not a creature but a Creator. Otherwi&s;e to what purpo&s;e did they propound the Que&s;tion thus? Whether or not (in &s;aying that he was equall with God) did he &s;peak this of <HI>Geo. Fox</HI> as he was a creature? even as if <HI>G. Fox</HI> had been any other thing then a creature. In this I de&s;ire that the&s;e things may be ob&s;erved. Fir&s;t, that neither <HI>Fox</HI> nor <HI>Nailer</HI> do deny ab&s;olutely that <HI>Geo. Fox</HI> &s;hould &s;ay that he was equall with God: they deny not the&s;e words, only <HI>Geo. Fox</HI> &s;hifts the Ju&s;tices with his &s;en&s;e thereof as is abovewritten. Secondly, I de&s;ire any &s;erious &s;ober man what&s;oever to con&s;ider, and I leave it with him to judge (take it in the be&s;t &s;en&s;e) if any man can call the&s;e the words of truth and &s;oberne&s;&s;e, for <HI>Geo. Fox</HI> to &s;ay that he was equall with God. I appeal him if ever any Scripture-Saint &s;aid &s;o ex|cepting Je&s;us Chri&s;t, who was both God and Man. Thirdly, I de&s;ire <HI>George Fox</HI> to tell me what he meaneth by that, <HI>viz. I and my Fa|ther are one,</HI> and, <HI>he that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit.</HI> Either he under&s;tandeth it concerning a &s;ub&s;tantiall or a my&s;ticall onene&s;&s;e betwixt God and man. If a &s;ub&s;tantiall, then it is as much as if <HI>George</HI> had &s;aid that the very &s;ub&s;tance and e&s;&s;ence of God is in him and one with him. Which being &s;o, then without di&s;pute there is &s;omething increated in him; and &s;o equall with God. How&s;oever the Scri|ptures which he alledgeth will not bear him out therein. Not the former: for it only &s;peaketh of CHRIST, <HI>I and my Father are one,</HI> John 10.30. In which Chapter the Lord Chri&s;t laboureth to prove his equality with God. But will <HI>Geo. Fox</HI> make application of that Scripture to him&s;elf? he doth &s;o by comparing it with <HI>Joh.</HI> 17.21, 23. Now take notice how he confounds Chri&s;ts onenes with God, and
<PB N="3" REF="3">
Saints onenes with him. And &s;eeing he puts no difference betwixt them, but makes application of that &s;ame very Scripture to him&s;elf, whereby Chri&s;t a&s;&s;ents his equality with God; It follows by inevitable con&s;equence, that the man under&s;tands Saints to be equall with God: Which is al&s;o evident from his own confe&s;&s;ion. For though he deni|eth <HI>G. Fox,</HI> as a creature, to be equall with God, yet he doth not deny it in re&s;pect of the Spirit of Chri&s;t in him: Whereupon he eva|ded the Ju&s;tices of the Peace, as is above-written. Notwith&s;tanding that, yet is it clear that Saints onenes with God, is nothing el&s;e but like the Husbands onenes with the Wife, or the Wifes with the Husband: as is mo&s;t evident from that other Scripture, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 6.17. he maketh u&s;e of,&mdash;<HI>He that is joined to the Lord is one &s;pirit.</HI> Would <HI>George</HI> compare this with the latter part of <HI>v.</HI> 16.&mdash;<HI>For two (&s;aith he) &s;hall be one fle&s;h.</HI> He would needs alter his mind? for the Apo&s;tle in the&s;e words alludes to that onenes which is betwixt man and wife, &s;poken of, <HI>Gen.</HI> 2.24. <HI>Mat.</HI> 19.5, 6. <HI>Mar.</HI> 10.7, 8. <HI>Eph.</HI> 5.26. And &s;o compares the onens of the Saints with God, in re&s;pect of one Spirit, with that onenes which is betwixt Man and Wife. But who can &s;ay, that the onenes betwixt Man and Wife is &s;ub&s;tantiall, and not my&s;ticall? Will any &s;ay, that becau&s;e the Scripture doth call them one, even one fle&s;h, they do make up but one &s;ub&s;tance? Is it not evident notwith&s;tanding this onenes, that they be different and di&s;tinct &s;ub&s;tances? So then, &s;eeing the Scripture likeneth the onenes of Saints with God, thereto, may not I ju&s;tly &s;ay, that as God and Saints are one, I &s;ay as they are one, &s;o they are really and &s;ub&s;tantially di&s;tinct one from another? And that the &s;ub&s;tance and e&s;&s;ence of God is not united to the creature? But if at la&s;t <HI>George</HI> &s;hall &s;ay, that the onene&s;s with God is only my&s;ti|call and vertuall, <HI>i. e.</HI> in re&s;pect of Gods acting and working in Saints, by the power of that &s;ame &s;pirit that is in him&s;elf, bringing them into a comformity to it &s;elf) then hath he nothing for him&s;elf to &s;ay, but mu&s;t needs, in every re&s;pect without all exception, deny him&s;elf to be equall with God, whether he con&s;ider him&s;elf as <HI>G. Fox,</HI> or as &s;ancti|fied by the Spirit of Chri&s;t in him: For &s;o even his Sanctification, and the Spirit of Chri&s;t in him, are nothing el&s;e, but created things. And I de&s;ire <HI>George</HI> not to think this &s;trange Doctrine: For doth not the Scripture comprehend all that is of God in Saints, under the notion of the New Creature? 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.17. <HI>Gal.</HI> 6.15. And if it be a creature,
<PB N="4" REF="4">
then is it not increated, but created. But if <HI>George</HI> be tenacious, I de|&s;ire him to tell me, What of God? What of the Spirit of Chri&s;t? did ever be experience be&s;ide that which is the New-Creature in him. Or rather I de&s;ire him to &s;hew me where the Scripture doth contradi|&s;tingui&s;h the one from the other. Yea, the Scripture doth call all the works or appearances of God in the creature, a new man, implying that as is man, &s;o it is a created thing. And therefore it is &s;aid to be <HI>created af|ter God, in righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, and true holine&s;&s;e,</HI> Ephe&s;. 4.24. So then <HI>George</HI> &s;hould not under&s;tand the Spirit of Chri&s;t to be any other ways in Saints, but in re&s;pect of the fruits thereof, <HI>Gal.</HI> 5.22, 23. or in re|&s;pect of the power and operation thereof, <HI>Eph.</HI> 3.7. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.7. The Scripture doth no where &s;ay that God dwells Bodily in any, but in Chri&s;t, <HI>Col.</HI> 2.9. I confe&s;&s;e the Scripture doth &s;peak of Gods and Chri&s;ts being in Saints, in re&s;pect of the fruits of the Spirit; <HI>viz.</HI> faith, <HI>Eph.</HI> 3.17. hope, <HI>Col.</HI> 1.27. love, 1 Joh. 4.16. confe&s;&s;ion, <HI>v.</HI> 15. and obedience, <HI>ch.</HI> 3.24. Upon which account Saints very ju&s;tly may be &s;aid to partake of the Divine Nature, 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1.4. in &s;o far as they do partake of the fruits of the Spirit, and are acted by the power of the Divine Nature. But who will &s;ay that there is not a &s;ub&s;tantiall diffe|rence betwixt the tree, and its fruit? The Sun, and its heat? Will you &s;ay that he that hath the fruit of the tree, hath the &s;ub&s;tance of the tree? Or that the &s;ub&s;tance of the Sun is in a man, becau&s;e he is made hote by the vertue of it? So no man hath rea&s;on to &s;ay that the Spirit &s;ub&s;tantially is in the creature, becau&s;e it partakes of the fruits thereof, or that God in his &s;ub&s;tance and e&s;&s;ence is in the creature, as being united to it, becau&s;e he acts in it by his Divine power.</P>
<P>Secondly, <HI>That the &s;oul is a part of the Divine E&s;&s;ence.</HI></P>
<P>I &s;hall not &s;ay that <HI>Nayler</HI> doth po&s;itively &s;ay &s;o. Yet I &s;hal leave it with any impartiall man to judge, whether it be not mo&s;t apparent, yea, or not, that this is their Doctrine, at lea&s;t his, the&s;e things being con&s;idered: (1.) Becau&s;e in his an&s;wer to the Book called the <HI>Perfect Phari&s;ee,</HI> pag. 6. he &s;ets it down as a part of the charge again&s;t the <HI>Quakers,</HI> wherewith five of the Chief Prie&s;ts dwelling be&s;ide <HI>New-Ca&s;tle</HI> did charge them, as he &s;aith: And in his an&s;wer thereto, he neither po&s;itively denieth it, nor confe&s;&s;eth it: But in &s;tead of deny|ing it, he chargeth them of pleading for &s;in, to keep the &s;oul at a di|&s;tance from God. (2.) In other things he is very plain, po&s;itively
<PB N="5" REF="4">
denying tho&s;e things wherewith he, and his are charged. Which make me &s;ay, that either he deals &s;ubtilly in the matter, or el&s;e that the charge again&s;t him and the re&s;t, is true: Otherwayes, what may be his rea&s;on of not denying this charge, as well as other things that he and his are charged with? Put it on this i&s;&s;ue, and I charge him (if there be any &s;inglene&s;&s;e of heart in him) on the behalf of the Truth, as in the pre&s;ence of God, that errour may be di&s;covered, and Truth manife&s;ted; either to affirm or deny the fore&s;aid charge, <HI>viz.</HI> That the &s;oul is a part of the Divine E&s;&s;ence, and not deal deceitfully in &s;hifting the point. (3.) He backs his an&s;wer to the charge with this Scripture, &mdash; <HI>He that is joyned to the Lord, is one Spirit,</HI> 1 Cor. 6.17. O the depths of Sathan! If there be any &s;pirituall or impartiall man, let him judge now, if this Scripture be not brought with a pur|po&s;e to deceive. Can any man &s;ay, that this is brought by him to make it appear that he denies the &s;oul to be of the Divine E&s;&s;ence? Con&s;idering how that not only the words thereof taken as they ly, without farther con&s;ideration, import the ju&s;t contrary, but al&s;o <HI>G. Fox</HI> made u&s;e of the &s;ame in proving him&s;elf to be equall with God, in re&s;pect of the Spirit of Chri&s;t in him. But if he po&s;itively confe&s;&s;e that the &s;oul of man is a part of the Divine E&s;&s;ence, then I leave it with you to judge, who know not the depths of Sathan as they do, if the&s;e gro&s;&s;e and bla&s;phemous ab&s;urdities will not follow thereupon. Fir&s;t, That the Divine E&s;&s;ence is &s;ubject to changes as is the &s;oul of man, it being of the &s;ame nature and &s;ub&s;tance. Secondly, That as is the &s;oul of man, &s;o a part of the Divine Nature is &s;ubject to be lo&s;&s;ed. Third|ly, That as the &s;oul, &s;o a part of the Divine E&s;&s;ence &s;hall be damned and tormented for ever. Be&s;ide many other horrid ab&s;urdities, con|trary to the Scriptures, which may make any ear to tingle.</P>
<P>Thirdly, <HI>That Chri&s;t is in all men, even in the mo&s;t vile among men.</HI></P>
<P>This is their common Doctrine: And therefore &s;aith <HI>Nayler, &mdash; If Chri&s;t be not in the mo&s;t vile in the world, there to &s;ee the hearts, thoughts, and intents, how &s;hall he judge every one according to their thoughts,</HI> &amp;c. &mdash; An&s;wer to the <HI>Perfect Phari&s;ee,</HI> pag. 7. To prove this he alledgeth, <HI>Joh.</HI> 1.9. <HI>That was the true light, that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.</HI> Poor creature, he is much mi&s;taken in this: He erreth not knowing the Scriptures. The
<PB N="6" REF="5">
Scripture doth expound this two wayes, Fir&s;t, In re&s;pect of the &s;pirit of man: <HI>The &s;pirit of man [is] the candle of the Lord, &s;ear|ching all the inward parts of the belly,</HI> Prov. 20.27. Whence it is evi|dent that the &s;pirit of man is not only the Lords lamp light or candle, but al&s;o that which &s;earcheth the mo&s;t &s;ecret and hidden thoughts of man. According to that, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2.11. <HI>For what man knoweth the things of a man, &s;ave the &s;pirit of man which is in him?</HI> &mdash; And thus the Lord Chri&s;t may very fitly be &s;aid to enlighten every &s;oul that cometh into the world, in &s;o much as that he creats in every one that cometh into the world a &s;pirit, which is his candle: <HI>For all things were created by him, and by him do con&s;i&s;t,</HI> Col. 1.16, 17. compared with <HI>Joh.</HI> 1.3. So then by the &s;pirit that is in man, he doth &s;earch the thoughts and intents of the heart, it being his candle. I hope <HI>James Nayler</HI> will not under&s;tand by this &s;pirit any other but that which is naturall, common to good and bad, and not that which is divine and &s;upernaturall: For the Apo&s;tle expre&s;ly, po&s;itively, and di&s;tinctly contradi&s;tingui&s;heth the one from the other, I mean the &s;pirit of man from the Spirit of God, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2.10, 11. Secondly, In re&s;pect of that which by God is written in the heart of every man that cometh into the world. <HI>For when the Gentiles who have not the Law, do by na|ture the things contained in the Law, the&s;e having not the Law are a Law unto them&s;elves; Which &s;hew the work of the Law written in their hearts, their con&s;cience al&s;o bearing witne&s;&s;e, and their thoughts the mean while accu&s;ing, or el&s;e excu&s;ing one another,</HI> Rom. 2.14.15. Whence may be ob&s;erved, that God hath put a naturall light in every mans heart and con&s;cience, by which they are not only accu&s;ed in not doing, and excu&s;ed in doing that which is contained in the Law, but al&s;o thereby are enacted to do the thing therein contained. Hence it is, that <HI>Paul</HI> in <HI>Rom.</HI> 1.28. &s;aith, that per&s;ons not willing to retain this knowledge, and to improve it, were <HI>given up to fulfill their own lu&s;ts, bringing upon them&s;elves ruine and de&s;truction.</HI> Rom. 1.18, 19, 20, 21. And thus it is that the candle of the wicked is put out, <HI>Job</HI> 21.14, 15, 17. <HI>Prov.</HI> 13.9. <HI>ch.</HI> 24.20. Now as all things are crea|ted, and kept in being by Chri&s;t, &s;o every one that cometh into the world through Chri&s;t, is enlightened with this naturall light. Hence you may &s;ee how true, and in what &s;en&s;e it is true, that Chri&s;t ligh|teth every one that cometh into the world. But what is all this to
<PB N="7" REF="5">
prove that Chri&s;t is in every man that cometh into the world? The Scri|pture denyeth Chri&s;t to be in the reprobate:&mdash; <HI>Know ye not your own &s;elves, how that Je&s;us Chri&s;t is in you, except you be reprobats,</HI> 2 Cor. 13.5. Thus reprobates are excepted from having of Chri&s;t in them: And good rea&s;on for it too. Fir&s;t, becau&s;e tho&s;e in whom Chri&s;t is, are dead becau&s;e of &s;in, <HI>Rom.</HI> 8.10. But reprobates, wicked and ungodly men, are dead in &s;ins and tre&s;pa&s;&s;es. Secondly, becau&s;e <HI>tho&s;e that have not the Spirit of Chri&s;t, are not Chri&s;ts,</HI> Rom. 8.9. <HI>And tho&s;e that have not the Spirit of Chri&s;t, have not Chri&s;t:</HI> for he is the Spi|rit, 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 17. But who can &s;ay that wicked and ungodly men, repro|bate to every good word and work, that they are Chri&s;ts? and con&s;e|quently that the Spirit of Chri&s;t is in them. Thirdly, The Spirit is life, becau&s;e of righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e in whom Chri&s;t is, <HI>Rom.</HI> 8.10. and in &s;uch there is liberty, 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3.17. But who can &s;ay &s;o of men of repro|bate minds? Fourthly, The Scripture doth &s;ay that Chri&s;t is in the creature, in re&s;pect of the faith and hope of glory that is in it, <HI>Eph.</HI> 3.17. <HI>Col.</HI> 1.27. But who will &s;ay that there is any &s;uch thing in the vi|le&s;t of men. Fifthly, Per&s;ons in a carnall &s;tate are &s;aid to be without Chri&s;t, without hope, and without God in the world, <HI>Eph.</HI> 2.12. How then can it be &s;aid that Chri&s;t is in any in &s;uch a condition?</P>
<P>Fourthly, <HI>That &s;ome per&s;ons are come up out of the fall.</HI></P>
<P>So &s;aith <HI>Nailer. And this we witne&s;&s;e, and all witne&s;&s;e it who are come up out of the fall.</HI> An&s;. to <HI>Perf. Phar.</HI> pag. 6. I de&s;ire <HI>James</HI> to deal &s;ingly with me in this, what he meaneth by the fall. Either he under&s;tands the fir&s;t fall in <HI>Adam,</HI> or el&s;e &s;uch fallings as Saints are ly|able to. If the former, then it nece&s;&s;arily followeth that Saints may, and do recover them&s;elves to that &s;tate of perfection without &s;in in which <HI>Adam</HI> was created, <HI>Eccle&s;.</HI> 7.29. <HI>God hath made man upright,</HI> (or) <HI>pefect,</HI> &mdash; But &s;ince <HI>Adams</HI> fall, the Scripture concludes the be&s;t of men under &s;in, 1 <HI>Kin.</HI> 8.46. 2 <HI>Chr.</HI> 6.36. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 130.3. <HI>Eccle&s;.</HI> 7.20. <HI>Gal.</HI> 3.22. <HI>Jam.</HI> 3.2. <HI>Joh.</HI> 1.8, 10. Neverthele&s;&s;e I do own a perfecti|on (of which I &s;hall not &s;peak now) though not without &s;in. Of which <HI>Paul</HI> &s;peaks, owning him&s;elf in one &s;en&s;e to be perfect, <HI>Phil.</HI> 3.15. and denying it in another, <HI>v.</HI> 12. The latter cannot be the thing that <HI>James</HI> intends, for wicked men never knew what it is to fall &s;o, &s;eeing they never knew what it is to &s;tand before &s;uch a fall be: And &s;o they never lived nor were in &s;uch a fall. But he &s;peaks with relati|on
<PB N="8" REF="6">
to wicked mens living in the fall, which mu&s;t needs be under&s;tood in relation to that fall in <HI>Adam:</HI> for in him both good and bad did fall. But it is evident from 12. <HI>pag.</HI> and <HI>An&s;w. to</HI> 10. <HI>Po&s;it.</HI> that <HI>James</HI> doth maintain a perfection without &s;in: For as there he doth not deny it, being charged therewith as an errour, &s;o (as is &s;aid already) he main|tains a coming up out of the fall: And be&s;ide this, he charges tho&s;e as pleaders for &s;in, who maintain that there is no perfection without &s;in in this life, whereas the Scripture in the places above-cited is mo&s;t clear therein, as any man may read and ob&s;erve at his lea&s;ure: I might appeal to any mans reading thereof.</P>
<P>Fifthly, <HI>No imperfect thing can be reconciled to God.</HI></P>
<P>So &s;aith <HI>Nayler. &mdash; That no imperfect thing can be reconciled to God, is plain in Scripture. An&s;w.</HI> To <HI>Perf. Phar. pag.</HI> 9. Though this be not &s;o gro&s;&s;e as the re&s;t, yet it is as &s;trange and unrea&s;onable as any of them: For in rea&s;on the contrary is true; <HI>viz.</HI> That no per|fect thing can be reconciled to God. And that becau&s;e as a thing is perfect it needs no reconciliation, even as the whole needs no Phy&s;i|cian, and where no Law is, there is no tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion. A reconcilia|tion doth nece&s;&s;arily pre&s;uppo&s;e enimity and di&s;cord; which is never without offence either on the one part or on the other. Now it can|not be &s;aid that a perfect thing, as it is perfect, is guilty of any offence; and &s;o cannot be at enimity with God, as it is perfect: And con&s;e|quently in &s;uch a ca&s;e, there is no place for reconciliation, as being that which it needeth not. Will you &s;ay that two per&s;ons who were never di&s;corded, and never did offend one another are reconciled? No verily: But on the contrary, that &s;uch are reconciled one to ano|ther, who formerly becau&s;e of offence, on the one part or other, di&s;corded, and now are agreed. So that reconciliation is among ene|mies, and not among friends, betwixt the party offending, and the party offended. The party offending is man, on who&s;e part the of|fence is, and the Party offended, is God, becau&s;e of &s;in on mans part: And being &s;infull, offen&s;ive, and imperfect, Chri&s;t reconciles him to God, according to that, <HI>Rom.</HI> 5.10. <HI>For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.</HI> &mdash; This recon|ciliation is, as we were enemies, as we &s;tood in need of a Mediator, of a Reconciler, of a Dayes-man. And &s;o the object of this reconciliato|ry grace, is we enemies, without Chri&s;t, without hope, and without
<PB N="9" REF="6">
God in the world; and &s;o imperfect. But being reconciled, we are perfected through his grace, being compleat in him, <HI>Col.</HI> 2.10. For the Lord Chri&s;t reconciles enemies, even &s;uch as be imperfect, <HI>that he may pre&s;ent them perfect before God, without &s;pot and wrinkle, Col.</HI> 1.21, 22. Therefore I conclude that that which is imperfect can be re|conciled to God, and is plain in Scripture.</P>
<P>Sixthly, <HI>That Je&s;us Chri&s;t is the only light, and no other light be|&s;ides him for &s;alvation.</HI></P>
<P>So &s;aith <HI>Nayler, &mdash; Je&s;us Chri&s;t is the only light, and there is none be&s;ides him to guid to &s;alvation. &mdash; An&s;w.</HI> to <HI>Perfect Phari|&s;ee, pag.</HI> 12. Where al&s;o he &s;aith, <HI>that this light &mdash; needs no out|ward light, and di&s;covery.</HI> Thus he affirms that Chri&s;t is &s;o the light to &s;alvation, as if it did exclude all other light be&s;ides. But I would have this poor blind creature to ob&s;erve, that the Scripture calls Chri&s;t <HI>the light, (i. e.</HI> by way of eminency) <HI>Joh.</HI> 1.8, 9. and it &s;elf <HI>a light, P&s;al.</HI> 119.105. 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1.19. as being &s;ubordinate to <HI>the light.</HI> And thus the one doth not exclude, but include the other.</P>
<P>Seventhly, <HI>That</HI> Adam <HI>in the &s;tate of innocency was not under the Covenant of Works.</HI></P>
<P>Becau&s;e that &s;ome Prie&s;ts in, and about <HI>Newca&s;tle,</HI> &s;aid, and wrot, that <HI>Adam</HI> in his innocent &s;tate was under the Covenant of Works. Therefore <HI>Nayler</HI> checks them: Giving this as a rea&s;on, <HI>Becau&s;e</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>the Law wherein is the Covenant of Works was added af|ter, becau&s;e of the tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion. An&s;.</HI> to <HI>Perf. Phar.</HI> pag. 10. But they poor creatures (as all of them are) being as ignorant, or rather more then he, in propounding the thing loo&s;ely, give him much advantage in the matter. But to vindicate the truth, I &s;hall offer this di&s;tinction. It can not be &s;aid, that <HI>Adam</HI> in the &s;tate of inno|cency was under the Covenant of Works, as being under a Law: <HI>For where no Law is, there is no tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion, Rom.</HI> 4.15. Yea, and <HI>the Law is not for the righteous, but for the rebellious,</HI> 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.9. And &s;o in this &s;en&s;e it is true (as <HI>Nayler</HI> hath minded) that the Law was added becau&s;e of tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion, <HI>Gal.</HI> 3.10. Notwith&s;tanding, <HI>A|dam</HI> was under a Law from within, <HI>i. e.</HI> he was &s;ubject to the Law within him, he him&s;elf being a Law to him&s;elf: For God having made him perfect, <HI>Eccl.</HI> 7.29. put the Law in its eminency and perfection in him, which in the relicts and tincture thereof is in all men by na|ture,
<PB N="10" REF="7">
<HI>Rom.</HI> 2.14, 15. being a Law to them&s;elves, do the things con|t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="4 letters">d in the Law. And the Lord, to make him the more &s;en&s;ible of this Law within him, did not altogether leave him void of a Law from without, in commanding him to eat of all the trees in the Garden, ex|cepting that of the tree of the knowledge of good and evill. Which through covetou&s;ne&s;&s;e, the root of all evill (a breach of the 10^t^h^. Command) he brake, in coveting the fruit of the Tree, and being de|&s;irous to be like God: In doing of which, he lived, and tran&s;gre&s;&s;ing of which, he died. Whence it is evident, that in a right &s;en&s;e <HI>Adam</HI> was under the Covenant of Works.</P>
<P>Eightly, <HI>That the Scripture is not the Word of God.</HI></P>
<P>So &s;aith <HI>Nailer. Now if the Scriptures be the Word which had their beginning &s;ince all were made, and did not become fle&s;h, then there are two Words of God. Now prove that in Scripture; Or that the letter is called the Word in plain words, and the Apo&s;tle cals what he wrote a Declaration,</HI> 1 Joh. 1.3. An&s;. to <HI>Perf. Phar.</HI> pa. 15. where he al&s;o &s;aith that Chri&s;t is the Word. In an&s;wer to which, I &s;hall de&s;ire this man with me to ob&s;erve, that the Scripture doth no where call Chri&s;t the Word, though it be &s;o tran&s;lated. The Scriptures that &s;peak of this are in <HI>Joh.</HI> 1.1. 1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 5.7. <HI>Rev.</HI> 19.13. Where Chri&s;t (as it is in the Greek) is called, <GAP DESC="foreign">. Which ought to be rendered, <HI>The Rea&s;on:</HI> for I have not only found it &s;o accented, (in the correcte&s;t Greek Copie that, to my knowledge, is extant in the&s;e times) as it im|ports &s;uch a &s;ignification, but likewi&s;e it is more then evident that Chri&s;t very pertinently and ju&s;tly may be called, <HI>the Rea&s;on.</HI> And that becau&s;e he is the very cau&s;e, ground and rea&s;on of all Gods actings and manife|&s;tations toward the creature. If it &s;hould be asked, What is the rea|&s;on of Gods electing us? The an&s;wer is, Chri&s;t is the rea&s;on thereof, <HI>Eph.</HI> 1.4. Or what is the rea&s;on why we are redeemed? <HI>An&s;.</HI> Chri&s;t is the rea&s;on thereof, <HI>Eph.</HI> 1.7. Or what is the rea&s;on why all things are created, con&s;erved and kept in being, enemies, yea and all things are reconciled to God? <HI>An&s;.</HI> Chri&s;t is the rea&s;on thereof, <HI>Col.</HI> 1.13. to 21. <HI>Rom.</HI> 5.10 In a word, he is to us, all, in all. And therefore the Cau&s;e, the Ground, the Rea&s;on of all things to us. Moreover, is it not more agreeable to the nature of Chri&s;t, I &s;ay, to the nature of Chri&s;t, to be called the Rea&s;on, than the Word? Rea&s;on is a &s;ub&s;tan|tiall thing, having words as its fruits. Look &s;eriou&s;ly upon the words
<PB N="11" REF="7">
as they are in them&s;elves, and you will find th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> more pertinent and &s;ignificant to expre&s;&s;e the natu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> other. Yea <HI>John,</HI> having called Chri&s;t, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> <HI>things were made through him, and without him w<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> made that was made,</HI> Joh. 1.4. Clearly implying him <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> of all things, why they are created and kept in being. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> that God <HI>is well plea&s;ed in him,</HI> Matth. 3.17. as find <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> him, why God is well plea&s;ed in him. And thus it is that <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> enough of rea&s;on in him, why all things &s;hould be for him, and <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> him: for in him is all fulne&s;&s;e, and in him dwelleth the fulne&s;&s;e <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> God-head bodily, <HI>Col.</HI> 1.19. <HI>ch.</HI> 2.9. And thus, as Chri&s;t is the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters">+&s;on, we may therein clearly &s;ee, what God in Chri&s;t is. And whe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> <HI>Nailer</HI> &s;aith, at lea&s;t, avoucheth that, from plain Scripture, it can<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters"> be proved, that the Scripture is the Word of God. Give me leave t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters"> &s;ay, he is mi&s;taken: for &s;aith <HI>Peter, The Word of the Lord endureth for ever: and that is the Word which by the Go&s;pel is preached unto you,</HI> 1 Pet. 1.25. I deny not but Chri&s;t is preached by the Go&s;pel: ne|verthele&s;&s;e Chri&s;t is preached by words, in the preaching of the Go|&s;pel: <HI>for holy men of God &s;pake as they were moved by the Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> 2 Pet. 1.21. Which words are the prophecy of the Scripture, <HI>v.</HI> 19, 20. And &s;o this Prophecy of the Scripture, being that which was preached by the Apo&s;tles to the Saints of old, it mu&s;t needs be the Word of God, &s;eeing that is called the Word of God which the Apo&s;tles prea|ched to them. Again, I may &s;ay truely that tho&s;e poor creatures do erre, not knowing the Scriptures: for through their ignorance they doe confound things that differ. Their conceit is, that in this place by the Word is under&s;tood Chri&s;t, becau&s;e el&s;ewhere he is called the Word, according to our common Tran&s;lations. Give me leave to tell them, that there is a great difference bewixt <GAP DESC="foreign">, as it is in this of <HI>Peter,</HI> and <GAP DESC="foreign">, as it is in the places above-cited: For as the one doth properly &s;ignifie the Rea&s;on, &s;o the other doth properly &s;ignifie the Word. Neither can they produce me one Scripture where Chri&s;t is called <GAP DESC="foreign">, as I can produce concerning the words of the Go&s;pel, namely, <HI>Joh.</HI> 6.63. It may be they will call this Colledge &s;tuffe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> But truly I mu&s;t needs &s;ay, that in this I do &s;peak pure Scripture, as it was written by the Apo&s;tles: whereas they implicitely &s;peak no more but other mens tran&s;lations. But I admire why they &s;ay that the Scri|pture
<PB N="12" REF="8">
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters">f God, &s;eeing it is not only given by Divine <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> 16. of no private interpretation, the holy men <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters"><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters">en it, as it was &s;poken in them by God, 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> it is called the foundation of the Prophets, and A|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> 20. as being the ground of our faith. Which made <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters">at he hoped and tru&s;ted in the Word of the Lord, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> 130.5. Thus it is plain in the Scripture, that the Scri|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> only a Declaration of the will of God, but al&s;o the Word <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"></P>
<P><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters">hly, <HI>That it is not lawfull to call any &s;ingle per&s;on any thing but <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span">, or Thee.</HI></P>
<P><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters">his is known by all, to be one of their principles, as is evident from <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> their deportments. And for this they &s;ay, that all the Saints in Scripture did write and &s;peak &s;o in all their writings and &s;peakings to &s;ingle per&s;ons, and no otherwayes. But I may &s;ay, that they need not put &s;uch a &s;tre&s;&s;e upon this, as if it were &s;ome ab&s;olute di&s;tingui|&s;hing character of Saints, to &s;peak, and write &s;o: For this is al&s;o mo&s;t &s;ure, that all carnall men we read of in the Scriptures, in &s;peaking, and in writing, whether to Saints, or to one another, did &s;peak and write &s;o to &s;ingle per&s;ons, as any man may ob&s;erve in reading the Scriptures. The rea&s;on of it is at hand: Becau&s;e the Hebrew and the Greek (in which the Scriptures were fir&s;t written) are regular Languages ob&s;er|ving the propriety and rigour of con&s;truction: And therefore to have &s;poken or written to &s;ingle per&s;ons, but in the Singular Number, it had been barbarous and non-&s;en&s;icall. Hence it is that all Epi&s;tles in Latine among very Heathens to &s;ingle per&s;ons of what&s;over rank is &s;o. Whereas the propriety of our Language is of a larger latitude: So that tho&s;e words which are tran&s;lated Thou, or Thee, might very well have been rendered You. And had it been done &s;o, I que&s;tion much if any of tho&s;e poor creatures &s;hould have had the wit to put any difference in the matter. Be&s;ides, do they not know that <HI>Mary</HI> called Chri&s;t Sir, or Lord? not knowing but he had been the Gardiner, <HI>Joh</HI> 20.15. She was one of Chri&s;ts Di&s;ciples at this time: and they them&s;elves pretend to no more. Yea, it is &s;aid that &s;he loved much, becau&s;e much was forgiven her: A greater te&s;timony and approbation then is either &s;een or read of them. Moreover, <HI>John</HI> in writing to, and of one, calls her the E|lect Lady, which may be al&s;o tran&s;lated the Elect Mi&s;tre&s;&s;e. Whence
<PB N="13" REF="8">
I ob&s;erve, that it is lawfull to call a man Sir, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> Lady, or Mi&s;tre&s;&s;e. How often do we read <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> great men, call them Lord, King, and &s;uch like. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> mo&s;t excellent <HI>Theophilus,</HI> and <HI>Paul mo&s;t powerfu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters"></HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters">+&s;lated) mo&s;t noble <HI>Fe&s;tus.</HI> And therefore I may ju&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> lawfull to &s;peak otherwi&s;e to &s;ingle per&s;ons then as is <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters">+&s;tome of the <HI>Quakers,</HI> in &s;aying <HI>thou,</HI> or <HI>thee.</HI></P>
<P>As for their quaking and trembling, I &s;hall only &s;pe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> by the way, owning quaking and trembling in a Scripture <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> is, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 119.120. <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 66.2. <HI>Hab.</HI> 3.16. <HI>Phil.</HI> 2.12. and <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> other Scriptures be&s;ide, of which po&s;&s;ibly I could &s;peak as m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> more then they, in my experience, though I cannot endure to <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> publick theatre thereof, as they do.</P>
<P>Tenthly, <HI>That it is not lawfull to &s;alute any by lifting the Cap, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> bowing the Body.</HI></P>
<P>This likewi&s;e is publickly known to be one of their principles, which is not only again&s;t Scripture practice, but al&s;o Scripture precept. That it is commanded, See 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 3 8.&mdash; <HI>Be courteous,</HI> which is not courte&s;ie by way of charity properly &s;o taken (as one of them&s;elves did once in|&s;inuate to me) but courte&s;ie by way of humanitie and civilitie: For the word in the Greek doth import no le&s;&s;e then courte&s;ie as it is com|monly taken and given among men. Be&s;ide, the &s;ame Apo&s;tle exhorts them to charity in a command di&s;tinct from this, 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 4.8, 9. But will nothing plea&s;e them? unle&s;&s;e both commands be one. Be&s;ides, the Lord Chri&s;t exhorts and commands his Di&s;ciples in &s;ending them forth to Preach, to &s;alute every hou&s;e they came into, <HI>Matth.</HI> 10.12 The word in the Greek doth import &s;uch a &s;alutation as is commonly u&s;ed among men: And therefore heathen Writers do make u&s;e of the &s;ame word to expre&s;&s;e the &s;ame thing. And con&s;equently this &s;aluta|tion mu&s;t needs &s;peak &s;omething el&s;e then their &s;peaking of peace to any hou&s;e they entered into: though <HI>Nayler</HI> will have it otherwi&s;e. Yea the Lord Chri&s;t will have his Di&s;ciples not only to &s;alute their brethren, but their enemies al&s;o, <HI>Matth.</HI> 5.47. where the word in the Greek is one and the &s;ame with that of <HI>Matth.</HI> 10.12. Whereby Je&s;us Chri&s;t not only cautions his Di&s;ciples of partiality in their &s;alutations (as <HI>Nai|ler</HI> him&s;elf &s;aith) but likewi&s;e will have them to &s;alute both friends and foes: For in the foregoing ver&s;es, he exhorts them to love their
<PB N="14" REF="9">
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> toward them, as in ble&s;&s;ing them, praying <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> good; and &s;o among the re&s;t, in &s;aluting them. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> could they have manife&s;ted their love in this mat|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> their friends more then their enemies? Again, if <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters">d <HI>Nailer</HI> doth) that Chri&s;t only forbids partiality <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters">nd doth not allow the ordinary &s;alutation among men; <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> as ju&s;tly &s;ay that the meaning of the&s;e words in the fore|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> <HI>ye love them who love you, what reward have ye,</HI> is <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> Chri&s;ts cautioning his Di&s;ciples of partiality in their love, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> allowing them to love, whether tho&s;e that hated them, or <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> at loved them? I leave it with any rationall man to con&s;ider <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters">ner the one doth not follow as well as the other: And as for <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters">ture practice, it is mo&s;t frequent in the Scriptures. So <HI>Abraham</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters">wed twice on end to the Children of <HI>Heth, Gen.</HI> 23.7, 12. Of the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters">owing and obei&s;ance of others we read al&s;o, as of <HI>Jacob,</HI> Gen. 23.3. <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> Exod. 18.7. <HI>David,</HI> 1 Sam. 20.41. <HI>Abigael,</HI> 1 Sam. 25.41. and &s;everall others that might be named. O! but &s;aith <HI>Nailer,</HI> this was their &s;in, even as <HI>Jo&s;ephs</HI> &s;wearing by the life of <HI>Pharaoh,</HI> and <HI>Davids</HI> faining him&s;elf mad before <HI>Achi&s;h:</HI> For it cro&s;&s;eth a command of God which inhibites a bowing down to the creature, <HI>Exod.</HI> 34.7. <HI>Deut.</HI> 5.9. But truely he is very far mi&s;taken: For the&s;e Scriptures do only forbid a bowing down to the creature to wor&s;hip it as God, as is mo&s;t clear in the Text. And &s;o it re&s;ts upon him to prove that bowing to the creature by way of courte&s;ie and civill re&s;pect, is a wor|&s;hipping of the creature as God. And whereas he alledgeth it to have been the &s;in of the&s;e Saints abovewritten, and of others to have done &s;o, it is &s;ooner &s;aid thou proved. I de&s;ire him to let me &s;ee in all the Scripture one &s;in &s;o frequently acted by Saints, as this is, if it may be called a &s;in. Not <HI>Jo&s;ephs</HI> &s;wearing by the life of <HI>Pharaoh,</HI> nor <HI>Da|vids</HI> faining him&s;elf mad before <HI>Achi&s;h:</HI> He cannot &s;how me that either the one or the other is acted again and again by Saints in the Scripture, as bowing to the creature is. So that not only their practice, but al&s;o the frequently thereof doth aboundantly plead for the lawful|ne&s;&s;e of it.</P>
<P>Now to conclude the whole matter in few words (having but little time to &s;pend in the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e, being confined to a few lines) I do conclude them to be <HI>the Man of Sin,</HI> of which the Scripture &s;pea<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="3 letters"></P>
<GAP DESC="missing" EXTENT="1+ pages">
<PB REF="9">
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
