O awake then, awake out of the fleep of this world! Behold the Judge is at hand, and the midnight cry is coming upon you as a thief in the night. Prepare, prepare, or you are excluded for ever! And remember, falvation is from fin, or it will never be from wrath: fo faid the angel, "Thou fhalt call his name Jefus, for he fhall fave his people from their fins :” for it is the "pure in heart that fee God; and nothing "unlike him can pleafe him, and lefs live with him for " ever."

The eternal God reach unto you by his powerful Spirit, break your peace in the broad way, touch you deeply with a sense of your disobedience to him, give you true contrition and repentance, and create in you a "clean heart," and renew a " right fpirit" within you to conclude, make you holy, make you zealous, and make you charitable; that you may do, as well as fay, and not only profefs, but poffefs, the truth of the living God in your inward parts; that pearl of price, that hidden and eternal treasure. So fhall you know that the times of refreshing are come from the prefence of the Lord, and that the kingdom is again restored unto Ifrael! ISRAEL, the Prince of eternal peace, who hath prevailed with God for man; whofe fcepter is "a fcepter of righteousness, and of whofe dominion "there fhall be no end." So come, Lord Jesus; come quickly. Amen.

Written, in behalf of the faid people, for the information and good of all, by

WILLIAM PENN.

A REPLY

REPLY

TO A

PRETENDED ANSWER,

BY A

NAMELESS AUTHOR,

то

W. PENN'S KEY.

IN WHICH

The PRINCIPLES of the People called QUAKERS are farther Explained and

Confirmed.

TH

By W. PENN.

Published in the Year 1695.

HOUGH I fubmit to controverfy as my drudgery, not my pleasure, otherwise than as it is my duty; yet, I cannot but fay, I am glad that the publick contradiction of a nameless author, to a small treatise of mine, called, A Key, clearing our principles from vulgar apprehenfions, gives me farther occafion to declare and justify them to the world: in the doing of which, I fhall endeavour, with God's affiftance, fo to govern my

C 3

self,

felf, that my antagonist fhall fee it has not been in his power, with all his fcornful and abufive treatment of me, my friends, and our holy religion, to provoke me to any other towards him, in my reply, than what is fuitable to Chriftianity; whilft with great levity and prejudice, he will by no means allow us to be Chriftians.

My reply will be fhort, but I hope clear and fatiffactory; in order to which, I fhall obferve this method:

I. His mistakes in point of fact, and the ufe he would make of them.

II. His infinuations and infincerity.

III. His abufive terms and taunts upon us.

IV. His pretended anfwers and interpretations of fcripture. And,

Our principles, fo far as declared, and by fcripture defended in the KEY, maintained against the attempts of this author, and farther explained and confirmed for a publick good.

I.

His mistakes in point of fact, and the use he would

make of them.

He begins his answer with a paffage merely perfonal, and not at all relative to the nature of the discourse, viz, about a pamphlet, writ in defence of the bill for excluding the duke of York, intituled, "A few words "about the touchy point of fucceffion:" teaching the parliament, That when they had made firft an addrefs to the duke to relinquish his right to the crown; if he refused, then (but not before) they might not only justly, but civilly exclude him by act.When,' (fays he) I had perufed this piece, without judging the • merits of the cause, or the witness of the argument, • I concluded that W. P. was then a man principled for the civil liberties of his country.'

Answer,

Answer. But if I may be fo bold with this author, pray, why then principled for civil liberties, and not afterwards? And why this upon me at all? But why at this time, and upon this occafion, of fo differing a nature, to be brought in by head and fhoulders, as the proverb is? But what if I never writ fuch a pamphlet? (as to be fure I did not) What is to be faid to, and of, such an author, in fuch a cafe, and in fuch a time, and to a man under my circumstances? Let him know then, that I did not only never write fuch a pamphlet, but I am fure that I do not remember I ever read one of fuch a title, or heard of it; nor was I of that principle, and therefore I return the civility of his conclufion to him again; for, I thank God, I was always fo much for civil liberties, that I thought no man ought to lose them for his religious principles. And farther, that they were never to be fecured by this or that man, but by a good and equal conftitution of government; as fome papers by me, which I writ at that time, as well as divers perfons yet living, of good reputation, can evidence for me.

But his next paragraph explains the matter; wherein he fpeaks thus: I could no otherwife reconcile the folly of his prevarication in the late reign, than by imputing them to his intemperate zeal for a boundlefs liberty of confcience, according to the doctrine of king James's declaration.'

In this he would be charitable, but let him first be juft: if there were no prevarication, then there is no need. of an intemperate zeal for liberty to fhadow or reconcile them to any former principles. And I am fo much a friend to him and his brethren, that I wish them free from all intemperance, and prevarications too, and that in all reigns. And if it be poffible, or worth while, to reconcile him better to my conduct, let him peruse my "Great Cafe of Liberty of Confcience," printed 1671, and my "Letter to the Eftates of Embden, 1672," and my "Prefent State of England, 1675," and he will find I was the fame man then, and acted by the fame principles. Not more intemperate in the reign that favoured

it, than in the reign I contended with, that did not favour it and no man but a perfecutor, which I count a beast of prey, and a declared enemy to mankind, can, without great injuftice or ingratitude, reproach that part I had in king James's court: for I think I may say, without vanity, upon this provocation, I endeavoured at leaft to do fome good at my own coft, and would have been glad to have done more: I am very fure I intended, and I think I did, harm to none, neither parties nor private perfons, my own family excepted: for which I doubt not this author's pardon, fince he fhews himself fo little concerned for the mafter of it.

Page 8. Our adverfary miffes again notoriously in point of fact, when he charges me,Of revenging myfelf upon J. Faldo and T. Hicks, for baffling of me twenty years ago.'

Answer. I had no revenge in my eye when I writ that KEY; for it was writ in pity, not in anger; to inform, and not to be revenged. I muft beg my reader to perufe it, who then can beft judge if it taftes of that rank fpirit, and what fpirit this man is of, that fhews fuch indignation at it; as well as fee how meanly he has performed his pretence of an anfwer, that meddles not with a twentieth part of it, though on different fubjects.

It is not in my nature to remember injuries twenty years ago, though this man commits them unprovoked: nor had I any temptation to it, fince I had all the fatisfaction I could defire, but their converfion. Concerning the first, I must refer myfelf to impartial readers; and of the laft, the famous Barbican and Wheeler-street publick difputes do give this man the lie. For at the laft, T. H. did not appear, and at the first he fhrunk away. And if ever any fuch publick difpute determined with a vifible advantage on either fide, the impartial, not of our communion, gave it us. And for the encomium he bestows upon them, with the poor Indian, that defired not to go to heaven, if the cruel Spaniard went thither, I muft fay, Let not my foul

go