P. rejects all with scorn and vile insinuations Answ Reader be pleased to see W. P's Defence from p. 52. to 65. and whether what the Bp. saith be true or not And since the Bp. hath not answered W. P's Arguments but with reproachful words breaking through and overlooking most of the many Scripture proofs brought by W. P. to demonstrate what he and the Quakers meant by the Light and Spirit of Christ within We say since the Bp. hath so done both W. P's Arguments and such Scripture proofs lye at his door together with those we have added as a farther proof and demonstration of what we mean by the Light and Spirit of Christ within not here to mention our own experience of the virtue and efficacy thereof with the Blessed Effects which to the Glory and Praise of God we have found thereby so that if after all that has been said the Bp. shall still declare his ignorance of what the Quakers mean by the Light within 't is but too evident a proof of the little share he has in or acquaintance with it P. 12. 13. The Bp. brings in R. Barclay for a share reproaching him also with Banter and Cant about the Light within in reading which we could not without noted observation remember how ignorant the Bp. made himself in his Testimony concerning the Quakers Principles and how ready he was to charge and almost unchristian them for the brevity of Gospel Truths notwithstanding he had R. B's Apology which fully handled some of those very points he pretended to make a new discovery of and condemned in that Paper as being short exprest Yet now from the same Book he can nicely pick words here and there some of them many pages distant and put them together in expectation by abusing R. B's sense and making false constructions to serve his turn against the Quakers He tells us p. 12. No rational Man alive can make sense of what he R. B. has writ thereon i. e. Light within Answ The Bp. is here a great undertaker whilst 1st 't is impossible for him to be sure all the rational Men alive who have or may read R. B's Apology on that subject are of the same mind with him 2ly We tell him another Mans affirmative may be as good as his negative and not to mention the most rational Men there are as rational Men as the Bp. not to lessen him who can make sense of what R. B. has writ But we the less wonder the Bp. should not understand what R. B. and others have said of the Light within since he appears so unexperienced about Spiritual matters as to Revile R. B. with being unintelligible and guilty of Banter not only concerning the Light but about Spiritual senses plainly proveable by Scripture as we shall anon evince and in the mean time we shall consider the Bp's next and greatest charge in this page against R. B. which is as he says for perverting Scripture and adding a new term as he calls it namely the word Light to the Text John 3. 16. that he may says the Bp. prove Christ as a Light given to all And yet at the same time he picks out this word he takes no notice of the Multitude of Scriptures which R. B. has cited to prove the sufficiency and universality of the Light only he tells us he R. B. misapplies two or three Texts to prove this Light universal but not a word how or wherein But to the word Light 't is so plain on R. B's side as having no such perverting intention that we cannot believe but the Bp's Conscience must know he wronged R. B. in this case as well as in what follows hereafter which we shall shew only in the first place let us take the Bp. in his own way about the Light Then say we if that Text might have proved Christ a Light given to all had the word Light been there then certainly he 's proved such if we bring several Scriptures as full to the point thus John 1. 4. In him was life and the Life was the Light of Men. Vers 9. He was viz. Christ the true Light which lighteth every Man that cometh into the World What can be more plain as to the universality of the Light of Christ Again Chap. 8. 12. I am saith Christ the Light of the World he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness but shall have the Light of Life which Texts sufficiently prove that Christ is a Light to all And certainly the Bp. sought for an occasion while he pickt out that Word to Accuse R. B. tho' at the same time does not confute those Scriptures with several others brought both by R. B. and W. P. to prove the Light of Christ within unless by falsifying the sense of those Texts noted before p. 29. Now to the perversion and addition charged by the Bp. upon R. B. with much noise observe Reader the word Light is in the Thesis of R. B's fifth Proposition in his Apology where he has no less then five Scripture Texts and there is not any one of all the five laid down in the exact and full words of Scripture some of them very short as well as differing in words and in particular this very Text John 3. 16. cited by the Bp. are neither the full nor yet all of them the exact words of that Text Besides the word Light and indeed the five Texts he there gave were only a kind of References to Scriptures which proved the Argument he was upon namely the universality of the love of God through Christ Jesus who was the Light of the World and Light of Men Now we 'l grant if R. B. had laid down all these Texts as the entire words of Scripture and that he could not plainly prove Christ the Light of Men then had he been in the wrong and the Bp. in the right but since the first are not so and that he as well as we have shewn by plain Scripture Christ to be the Light of Men we think 't is but too plain the Bp. wanted an occasion while he made this one for in reading R. B's Explanation and Defence of this Proposition where in p. 81. We find the full and entire words of that Text laid down thus John 3. 16. God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that who so ever believed in him should not perish but have everlasting Life Now candid Reader judg in the matter which is most obvious the Bp's partiality by indeavouring to misrepresent R. B. or R. B's intention to pervert and add a new term to Scripture when he had not the least need of it and had several other plain Scriptures to prove the point The rest of p. 12. and part of 13. is mostly a recital of pickt words here and there taken out of R. B's Apology and as we said before some far distant added together upon some of which the Bp. puts his own false constructions and
prevent the prejudices that the attempts of a course and scurrilous Pen at Dublin just before might provoke in some against us As to the points touched upon in the Gospel Truths Thus W. P. Now Reader we do not blame the Bp. barely for taking no notice of this part but we think it became him either to have disproved what W. P. here said or not continued his Reflections now in his Reply for the brevity of that Paper while he had not only the above notice but had also Robert Barclay's Apology and the Rise and Progress of the People called Quakers which fully and clearly vindicates at large some of those Tenets he now again censures as short exprest in that Paper as we shall shew in their places But the Bp. proceeds thus Ibid. 2 The first charge in his Book against the Bp. is that he did not prove such a Reader as he profest himself Mr. P. would have had him such a Reader that had rather they should be in the right then in the wrong the Bp. never profest himself such Answ How will the Bp. be able to Reconcile this to the Words in his Testimony where he says in the begining of it Friends I am such a Reader as in your Paper you desire This in Answer to Gospel Truths which desired a Sober Reader in these Words If thou hadst rather we should be in the right then in the wrong c. Manifest Contradiction But the Bp. to bring himself off goes on thus Ibid. 2 Mr. P. desires a strange partial Reader who should have more inclination and affection to the Quakers that is his Adversaries Opinion then his own or who would rather be in an Error himself then that his Adversaries should be in any Answ Is there no difference betwen desiring a People were in the Right then in the Wrong and between chusing rather that Himself were in the Wrong then his Adversaries should be so certainly a great deal and it looks as if the Bp. were hard put to it when he thus argueth Did W. P. intend or desire such a Reader as the Bp. stateth No but such an one that had rather we were in the Right then in the Wrong and explains it thus One that thought it but reasonable we should be Heard before Condemned and that our Belief ought to be taken from our own Mouths and not at theirs that hath prejudged our Cause In short 't is very plain he only desired an Impartial Reader such as the Bp. only pretended to be Ibid. 2 The Bp. tells us He neither had nor has any personal quarrel with W. P. But says the Bp. all he impleads him of meaning W. P. is his Doctrine by spreading and defending such Principles which tend to the Subverting Christianity at which no Bp. ought to connive Answ As this is only a general as well as a false charge so needs no other Answer here but a positive denial until we come to particulars where we shall see how well the Bp. will prove his Charge As to his not conniving to be sure he 's at his liberty to implead but if he should do so again we must desire him to approve himself a fairer Adversary then he hath yet appeared either in his Testimony or now in his Reply P. 2 Says the Bp. To omit things less material P. 24 He would insinuate the Bp. Guilty of Insincerity in saying it was the first time he ever heard the Quakers own the Necessity of Christ as a Propitiation in order to Remission of Sins and justifying them as Sinners from the guilt and tells the Bp. where possibly he might have read it The Bp. makes Answer thus Possibly the Bp. may have Read more then either he did or now does actually remember he never had so much as many of the Quakers Books much less has he them in his memory Answ Here is first an Instance of the brevity of the Bp's Reply while he takes a large stride from P. 20 to 24 where W. P. Enumerates and Charges the Bp. with unfair dealing by us which the Bp. passeth over without notice with saying to omit things less Material next as W. P. said so say we that 't is next to impossible it should be the first time he so heard of the Quakers since he had read R. Barclays Apology which largely treats of this head But the Bp. Confesseth he possibly may have Read more then he Remembers which seems a tacit granting the matter But suppose he did not actually remember this point can it be possible he should forget that he had Read any of the Quakers Books since he told W. P. so very lately he had Read Robert Barclay and his Book called the Rise and Progress of the Quakers the former largely and the latter as fully as now in Gospel Truths owning the Doctrine of Justification Whence it follows if the Bp. had been an Impartial Reader as he pretended and one that was unwilling to represent us wrong or render us defective in our Belief he would certainly have first searched those two Books before he had made this point a new discovery so to the Impartial Reader we refer the Bp's sincerity or kindness to the Quakers herein and Proceed Ibid. 3 The Bp. tells us That he has a Book now before him Intitled The second Part of the serious Apology for the Principles and Practices of the People called Quakers by W. P. Printed 1671. In which P. 148. are these Words This namely Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us in the Words before We deny and boldly affirm it to be the Doctrine of Devils and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption which does now deluge the whole World Then the Bp. adds This the Bp. does not understand to be owning Justification by Christ he therefore now was glad to find Mr. P. more Orthodox in 1698. Then he was in 1671. Answ We would have been also glad to have found the Bp. more fair and ingenious not to say worse which it will bear then to leave out the Explanatory Part of W. P's Words which is as far Remote from a fair Adversary as an Impartial Reader Whereas had he been so just as to leave them in tho' they would not have suited the Bp's purpose yet together with W. P's plain Sense in several following Arguments would have made W. P. as Orthodox to the Impartial Reader in 1671. As the Bp. allows him to be 1698. For next to the Words i e His own Person for us follow these Words wholy without us which Words the Bp. hath wholly left out and instead of them hath substituted these Words in the Words before and the Bp. hath not only thus done but hath as we believe wilfuly overlooked since the place was before him W. P' s. plain sense and meaning in his foregoing Words in the same Page which are these For in him namely in Christ We have Life and by Faith
Atonement in his Blood And the like he hath done in what followed in the Apology which we shall presently shew But. first we shall set down the intire Words as they lye in that Apology which the Bp. pretends to cite and by which the Reader will see the Bp's great unfairness which were at first the Words of an Adversary one Jenner and cited by W. P. with other Articles thus Pag. 148. 5th That we deny Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us and therefore deny the Lord that Bought us To which W. P. gives his Adversary an Answer thus And indeed this we deny and boldly affirm it in the Name of the Lord to be the Doctrine of Devils and an Arm of the Sea of Coruption which does now deluge the whole World Upon this W. P. proceeds to vindicate his Negation first saying that his Friend and Partner G. W. in writing that Apology had already irrefutably considered the Doctrine of Justification and therefore he will not insist so much upon this Point as he had upon others and only adds some short Arguments by which he proves that Wicked and Ungodly Men while so are not in a state of Justification and Acceptance with God by the imputed Righetousness of Christ and confirms the same by several Scripture Arguments and then on the other hand shews that such only are truly justified who are obedient unto the Spirit of God by which they become the Children of God and bring forth fruits of Holiness and in confirmation hereof gives us these Scripture Texts Gal. 6. Ro. 8. Reve. 22. And after having shewn who are not and who are in a state of Justification and Acceptance with God he is so far from denying Justification by Christ that he owns ascribes and asserts the same alone to him which for the Readers satisfaction we shall cite his Words as they lie in that Apology following the above Arguments p. 149. thus We do believe in one holy God Almighty who is an Eternal Spirit the Creator of all things and in one Lord Jesus Christ his only Son and express Image of his substance who took upon him Flesh and was in the World and in Life Doctrine Miracles Death Resurection Ascention Mediation perfectly did and does continue to do the will of God to whose holy Life Power Mediation and Blood we only ascribe our Sanctification Justification Redemption and perfect Salvation Now Impartial Reader judg between the Bp. and W. P. whether W. P. did deny Justification by Christ as the Bp. would insinuate and whether the Bp. was led by a Christian Spirit while he dealt so very unfairly what if we say unjustly by W. P. in misrepresenting his Sense to make him so intend as we have before noted Now as to the Doctrine of Justification we shall not be large thereon in regard many of our Friends have treated upon that head and particularly besides W. P. in several Tracts of his our deceased friend R. Barclay in his Apology hath writ excellently and fully thereof As also that the Bp. hath allowed W. P. to be Orthodox in what is written in Gospel Truths upon that Point for these Reasons we shall be brief yet as W. P. said in 1671. so say we now that we cannot believe it other then a Sin-pleasing Notion and a Doctrine of Divels since all Men as the Scriptures tell us are to be rewarded according to their deeds to assert That Wicked and Ungodly Men while they continue so are in a state of Acceptance and Justification with God by the righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own person wholly without them which wholy excludes the Work of Sanctification wrought by the Spirit of Christ which was the Notion W. P. did briefly and Geo. Whitehead more largely dispute against in that serious Apology see p. the 37 to 40 and p. 148 and agreeable to the Quakers sense and belief in this point are these following Scriptures Mat. 7. 21 22 23. so 1 John 3. 8 10. Rom. 6. 16. 2 Cor. 5. 10. James 1. 15. Heb. 10. 35. In short altho' we firmly believe and which W. P. and G. W. hath asserted that only Jesus Christ is our Justifier yet we do not believe any are truly justified in the sight of God but such who yield obedience to the Spirit of Christ in themselves by which they come to do the will of God and thereby come to obtain the benefit of what Christ fulfilled in his own person without us in concurrance whereunto we have these Scriptures 1 Cor. 6. 11. Titus 3. 5. Rom. 8. 1 2 11 13 14. Heb. 5. 9. and 12. 14. Gal. 6. 7. 8. Now to draw toward a conclusion upon this head Having proved from that serious Apology in 1671. That W. P. did ascribe our Justification only to Christ and our Reconciliation with God to faith in his blood But grants the benefit of it only to such who obey the Spirit of God in themselves Let us now see whether he be not of the same mind and hath aserted the same Doctrine in 1698. which the Bp. commends as Orthodox Thus Gospel Truth IV. That as we are only justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation and not by works of Righteousness that we have done so there is an absolute necessity that we receive and obey to unfeigned repentance and amendment of Life the holy Light and Spirit of Jesus Christ in order to obtain that Remission and Justification from Sin since no Man can be justified by Christ who walks not after the Spirit but after the flesh for whom he sanctifies them he also justifies and if we walk in the Light as he is Light his precious Blood cleanseth us from all Sin as well from the pollution as guilt of Sin Rom. 3. 22. to 26. Chap. 8. 1 2 3 4. 1 John 1. 7. We will not spend farther time to comment upon the matter to shew how agreeable W. P's Belief was in 1671. to what it was in 1698. being so very plain that it would be but time lost so to do and therefore we leave it with the Impartial Reader Again the Bp But says W. P. if the Bp. commends their believing in Christ as a propitiation for Sin he ought not to have censured them as short in any fundamental Article of Christian Religion for that all the rest follow from or are comprehended in this p. 25. 26. truly says the Bp. he ought Answ Here again we must charge the Bp. with unfairness in laying down words directly as W. P's in a Different Character the better to make them appear to be his and foisting in several that are none of his the Bp. Cites p. 25. 26. First Impression for these words and therefore we will lay down W. P's words in these two pages from whence the Bp. pretends to take them and then let the Reader judg in the matter Thus W. P. p. 28.
satisfied most or all of his Objections if he vvere not resolved rather to represent us vvrong than right vvhich vve must needs say doth but too much appear in his management tovvards us But farther as to Implication of Faith since the Bp. can produce no Confession of Faith extant so compleat and full that nothing is left to be made out by Implication he might have shevved so much candour as to have given an equal allovvance at least to this short Declaration vvhich vvas not vvrit as W. P. told him in the Preface to his Defence for an exact and compleat account of our Belief as he vvould to any of those Creeds or Symbols of Faith which himself or the Church he is of embraceth which had he done he could not have charged our Confession touching the Beeing of God with imperfection because there is not in it a word of God's creating the present World or supporting it by his Providence or concerning Himself about the inanimate part thereof with a multitude he saith of other particulars for in which we pray of all the Creeds which the Bp. holds Authentick is this multitude of particulars exprest in the first Article touching the Beeing of God without implication If we look into that which bears the name of the Apostles Creed the first Article is delivered thus I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth what one word is here of supporting the present world by his providence of concerning himself about the inanimate part of it or of the Bp's multitude of other particulars Are not all those to be made out by implication in this the most celebrated and best Creed extent Again Is there one word in that Creed concerning the Intercession or Mediation of Christ for his People It is said indeed he ascended into Heaven and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty and that from thence he shall come to judg the Quick and the Dead But that sitting at the Right Hand of his Father he makes Intercession for his People tho' it be certainly true Rom. 8. 34. Heb. 7. 25. is not exprest in that Creed but left to be supplied by implication Yet again the Attributes due to God even those which the Bp. says Christianity teacheth of him where are they in words exprest in that Creed Is there a word there of his Omniscience his Omnipresence his infinite Goodness and Love to Mankinde his Justice Mercy c. Will the Bp. allow these to be made out by implication or would he have them left out and disbelieved altogether By these Instances the Bp. we hope will see how much his desire of a blow at W. P. and the Quakers made him mistake when he said p. 4 5. What an easie prevention of all this Imperfection and uncertainty had it been for W. P. and his party to have said I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth since that without the help of Implication falls very much short of delivering what he says Christianity teacheth of God To which he adds but this had been confessing an Article of Faith in a way beneath their Light we say no more but that this is a Scoff beneath the gravity which the Bp. pretends to and was expected from him But we must take leave to tell him that by his rejecting that Paper called Gospel Truths and unchristianing us for our shortness in not expressing in that Paper all that Christianity teacheth and that is to be believed concerning God Christ the Holy Ghost and other Articles of Christian Religion he has given a deep wound to the common Creed called the Apostles and to all the Creeds in the Christian World and struck a very bold stroke towards unchristianing all Christendom But in this we think the Bp. the more to be blamed in as much as when he writ this he declares he had before him a Book of W. P's Entitled The second part of the serious Apology for the principles and practices of the People called Quakers Printed in the Year 1671. in which he might and could scarce but see a more full Confession of Faith concerning the Essentials of Religion God Christ and Holy Spirit We say he could hardly miss seeing this for he took and that most falsely as we have shewed before a quotation out of that Book in p. 148. and this Confession which we now mention is in page 149. and the pages lye open together so that both are alike exposed to the eye at the same time This Confession is in these words We do believe in one only Holy God Almighty who is an eternal Spirit the Creator of all things We would gladly know whether this be not as full as express as comprehensive as the first Article in that which is called the Apostles Creed which says only I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth It follows in that Book of W. P's And in one Lord Jesus Christ his only Son and express Image of his substance who took upon him flesh and was in the World and in Life Doctrine Miracles Death Resurrection Ascention and Mediation perfectly did and does continue to do the will of God to whose Holy Life Power Mediation and Blood we only ascribe our Sanctification Justification Redemption and perfect Salvation Here is a full Confession both to the Divinity and Manhood of Christ his Birth Life Doctrine Miracles Death Resurrection Ascention and which the common Creed mentions not his Mediation Then for the Holy Spirit whereas the Creed has only I believe in the Holy Ghost W. P's Confession is more full in these words And we believe in one Holy Spirit that proceeds and breaths from the Father and the Son as the life and virtue of both the Father and the Son a measure of which is given to all to profit with and he that has one has all for these three are one who is the Alpha and Omega the first and last God over all blessed for ever Amen This we suppose the Bp. will acknowledge to be a more full and plain Confession then that which is in the Common Creed called the Apostles with respect to the proceeding of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son not touched in that besides what is said in this concerning the great mistery of the God-head one in three and three in one commonly exprest by the word Trinity of which that Creed called the Apostles is wholly silent Now since the Bp. acknowledges he had that Book of W. P's then before him out of which we have recited this Confession which in many material parts is so much fuller and larger then that the Bp. directs to how unfair and how disingenious how uncharitable is the Bp. towards W. P. and us to censure and unchristian us for a pretended shortness in the wording of some of our Principles and that too after W. P. had told him in the Preface to his Defence that
divine and supernatural Faith as doth most plainly appear not only from the Text but also from the context as we have shewn Thus Reader see how the Bp. has mistaken plain Scripture no wonder then if he mistake us c. The Bp. proceeds P. 5. Again saith the Bp. The acknowledging of future rewards and punishments no more infers the resurrection from the Dead or eternity of Torments to the Damned then any of the former points imply what W. P. would have comprehended in them Answ If they imply but as much we shall easily clear our selves from the Bp's suggestions of Heathenism or Sociniasm for we think the other points are plainly comprehended as we have above shewn so by this rule there needs no farther return to that to an unbyassed Reader However we will attend the Bp's Arguments who proceeds to tell us of one Synesius a Christian Phylosopher to say no more who profest he could not believe the resurrection of the Body and of Origen and the merciful Doctors who believed future rewards and punishments yet believed not eternal torments it had been necessary therefore saith the Bp. for him i. e. W. P. and his Brethren explicitly to have declared their belief of these main Articles the Resurrection and eternal Torments even among the Truths chiefly believed by them that we might have known the Quakers to be neither Heathens nor Socinians in these points which herein it is plain they may be notwithstanding their belief that God is a rewarder of them who seek him Answ Synesius was not only a Christian Phylosopher but a Bishop too which we suppose the Bp. was willing to hide with his Parenthesis to say no more the story we have in Evagrius Ecclesiastick History Lib. 1. C. 15. The old Edition tells us he could not believe the resurrection of the flesh how stated to him we have no account but if in so gross a manner as some have done it in our days we cannot wonder he did not receive it However tho' he did not receive the vulgar opinion for so we have it in Vallesius his notes in the new Edition Yet we find the Christians in those times viz. about the Year 412. perswaded him not only to be Baptized but to take upon him the Office of a Bishop and he did so whence we observe that the vulgar opinion or the Doctrine of the resurrection of the Flesh was not then held so Essential to the Christian Religion but that a Man might be both a Christian and a Bp. too tho' he neither did nor would believe it But to proceed what ever opinion in reallity he held or others did or do believe is nothing to us we are not accountable for their Faith but our own 1st then then As to the Resurrection from the Dead we have always believed and owned it by word and writing according to holy Scripture and which was again fully owned by W. P. in his Defence p. 47. 48. Where he also shews 't was sufficiently implyed in Gospel Truths by future rewards and punishments And so say we too otherwise we must disbelieve the immortality of the Soul and believe that it dies with the body which we firmly deny 2ly As to eternity of Torments to the Damned we have likewise also stedfastly believed it and W. P. in his Defence p. 43 44. hath shewn it is fully implyed in Gospel Truths which we will not farther enlarge upon here because we will cut short and tell the Bp. tho' we will not downright charge him with Insincerity what ever it deserves yet we think we may safely with great partiality to charge us with shortness in this point while he had in his possession before his Testimony or Reply was writ a Book called the Rise and progress of the Quakers which in page the. 38. hath these words This leads us to the acknowledgment of Eternal Rewards and Punishments for else of all People certainly they i. e. the Quakers must be most miserable who for about forty years have been exceeding great sufferers for their profession c. Now for the Bp. after this to make this objection against us looks indeed very strange and to be sure like one that was willing as W. P. says to represent us wrong rather then we should be in the right But farther as to Eternal Torments tho' what is said before is sufficient yet we cannot but observe how unreasonable the Bp. is to Quarrel with us for not expressing that as an Article of Faith which is not expressed in his own Creed if that called the Apostles be his for what word in the Creed is there of Eternal Torments 't is indeed said therein I believe the Life everlasting but not a word of Punishments being everlasting If the Bp. say that the reward of Life to the Righteous being everlasting implies the punishment of the Damned shall be everlasting may we not then with a great deal of reason return his own words p. 3. and tell him Thus much as to that point once for all Implication of Faith is not a profession of Faith at least ought not to be claimed by him that will not allovv it to others Again How hath the Bp. caught himself in his own Trap for while his own Creed is silent in so main a point as Eternal Punishments as he tells us that is which way will the Bp. Extricate himself and his brethren to give him his own phrase from being suspected to be either Heathens or Socinians in that point If he say that this which he calls a main Article is explicitly declared in some other Creeds or Declarations of Faith the Answer is So are they also in other Books and writings of ours and if the Bp. would have given to others the same measure he takes himself he might have forborn this unnecessary wrangle The end of p. 5. and most of p. 6. is about the Trinity in which point we find the Bp. still resolves to have us short and imperfect tho' it be by telling of us again much of it word for word as he did in his Testimony Thus 1 John 5. 7. Is not saith he the summ of what the holy Scriptures teacheth nor a sufficient confession of Faith of the holy Trinity Then adds He meaning W. P. insinnuates which is utterly false that the Bp. slights that as a by passage or of little credit upon which the Bp. appeals to his own Paper then tells us of the Nicene Creed and Thirty Nine Articles then to W. P's demand from the Bp. of the occasion of the Apostles speaking as he did 1 John 5. 7. the Bp. returns thus The Bp. answers out of Vers 1. 5. It was to prove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and after some more to the same purpose the Bp. concludes that paragraph saying p. 6. This was his purpose i. e. John viz. to settle the Believers Faith in Christ and not fully there to declare the Doctrine of the Trinity