respect to its appearance in that body, was grieved by sin, and the weight of the iniquity of the whole world, with the concernment of its eternal well-being, lay hard upon him; nor was his manhood insensible of it; under the load of this, did he travel; he alone trod the wine-press, &c.-Not that we we would irrev. erently rob the holy body of whatsoever acknowledgment is justly due, nor yet separate what God joined, p. 104.-Chap. 21. A confession in particular, to Christ's redemption, remission, justification and salvation.Which was actually to the salvation of some, and intentionally of the whole world.-As there was a necessity that one should die for the people; so whoever then, or since, believed in him, had, and have a seal, or confirmation of the remission of their sins in his blood. This grand assurance of remission do all receive, in the ratifying blood of Christ, who repenting of their sins, believe and obey the holy light, with which he hath illuminated them.-Page 107. But there is yet a further benefit that accrues by the blood of Christ, viz. That Christ is a propitiation and redemp. tion, to such as have faith in it for though I still place the stress of particular benefit upon the light, life and spirit revealed and witnessed in every particular; yet in that general appearance, there was a general benefit, justly to be attributed to the blood of that very body of Christ, to wit, that it did propitiate; for however it might draw stupendous judgments

upon the heads of those who were authors of that dismal tragedy, and died impenitent; yet doubtless, it thus far turned to very great account, in that it was a most precious offering in the sight of the Lord, and drew God's love the more eminently to mankind; at least, such as should believe in his name; page 108. Doubtless, it did greatly influence, to some singular tenderness and peculiar regard unto all such as should believe in his name, among other his weighty performances; for the sake of that last and greatest of all his external acts, the resisting unto blood, for the spiritual good of the world, thereby offering up his life upon the cross, through the power of the eternal spirit, that remission of sin, God's bounty to the world, might be preached in his name, and in his very blood too, as that which was the most ratifying of all his bodily sufferings. And indeed, therefore might it seem meet to the holy Ghost, that redemption, propitiation and remission, should be declared, and held forth in the blood of Christ, unto all that have a right faith therein; as saith the apostle to the Romaus ;-because it implies a firm belief, that Christ was come in the flesh, and that none could then have him as their propitiation and redemption, who withstood the acknowledgment of, and belief in his visible appearance; page 110. Faith in his blood was requisite, that they might confess him, whose body and blood it was, to be Christ. To con clude, we confess, he who then appeared, н һ

was and is the propitiation, &c. and in him was redemption obtained by all those, who had such true faith in his blood.

Thus much, and much more which I have omitted, against deism, in that very treatise of William Penn's, to which, the book out of which George Keith, by his art of counterfeit chymistry, would extract deism, was an appendix; and yet this was not the direct subject of that treatise, but only touched on occasion. ally, or by the by: should I gather up all quo tations on this argument out of our other books; such especially as have more directly handled this subject, I might therewith fill a large volume; to prevent which, I refer the reader to my answer to George Keith's first narrative of his proceedings at Turner's-hall, from p. 33 to 63, where he may find this cavil fully confuted. Which answer to his first narrative, may serve for an answer to his other following narratives also; they for the most part, being but the scraps of his first, heated again, and served up afresh with some new garnish.

'It is observable that that book, called a Discourse of the general Rule of Faith and Life, was first printed (as George Keith in his preface to his deism takes notice) in the year 1673, which is 27 years ago, and about 20 years before he quite left us, it appears he had read it in the first impression; for making as if when he saw the last impression, he did not know but that it was a new book. So little had I read or

considered the contents of it. Both read it then, it seems he had, and considered the contents of it; and though here he would suggest he had but slightly read it, yet he would not be taken for a heedless reader, or a superficial considerer of what he reads. Now since he held the same doctrine, with respect to the general rule of faith and life, which is laid down by William Penn in that discourse, during the time he was amongst us, and pro, fessed himself one of us, as well after the pub. lishing of that book, in the year 1673, as before; and did not only openly defend and maintain that doctrine in public disputations both in England and in Scotland, after the year 1673. But no longer ago than in the year 1692, nineteen years after that book of William Penn's, called a Discourse of the General Rule of Faith and Life, was in print, George Keith in his Serious Appeal, p. 7, says, According to the best knowledge I have of the people called Quakers, and those most generally owned by them, as preachers and publishers of their faith, of unquestioned esteem among them, and worthy of double honour, as many such there are, I know none that are guilty of any one such heresies and blasphemies as thou accusest them; and I think I should know, and do know these called Quakers, better than C. Mather (against whom he then wrote) or any of his brethren; having been conversant with them, in public meetings as well as in private discourse, with the most

noted and esteemed among them, for above twenty-eight years past; and that in many places of the world, in Europe; and for these divers years, in America. I say, all this considered, how will George Keith, upon the charges he now makes against William Penn, acquit himself from having been a professed deist, all the while he was among the Quakers? Yet he himself well knows, that neither he nor William Penn, nor any of the Quakers ever were deists; ever did deny, disown, or disbelieve the coming, incarnation, sufferings and death of Christ, as man outwardly in the flesh, his resurrection, ascension and mediatorship; and he himself has undesignedly acquitted William Penn from his present charge of deism, by a story he told in his first narrative, p. 38. That upon some urging him to give an instance of one English Quaker that he ever heard pray to Christ; William Penn being present, said, I am an Englishman, and a Quaker, and I own I have often prayed to Christ Jesus, even him that was crucified. This, he says, was in the year 1678, which was five years after the publishing of that book, from which he attempts to prove him a deist; that is, a denyer of the man Christ Jesus, who was crucified. Judge now, reader, how rank the malice of George Keith must needs be, against William Penn and his brethren the Quakers, who would choose to subject himself with them, to the foul imputation of deism, though in his own conscience, he knows the