the close of the Title page an Abominable Vntruth and that they seem to have no regard to Truth or Honesty If these be not angry words I know none But in all these five pages concerning this Charge where is a particular of any one Scripture not relating to some external part of Worship which they deny Why should you say they deny the Bible which contains all the Books This is but quibbling by which you know I may easily prove that you deny it all by denying Circumcision a part therein contained But in short Sir Be not angry for I must tell you that until all we that own the Scriptures for our Rule come to an Unity in Faith and Practice according to it and it s well known we are now far from it methinks it seems a pitiful contradiction for us to press it upon others as an easie plain intelligible and unalterable general Rule Do you think our Divisions both in Doctrine and Discipline about it do not wonderfully weaken our Commendations of it as the Evangelical appointed Rule yea in so much that Church Discipline Doctrines will hardly keep people awake while they are Preaching up even from Scripture Authority They may well say unto us Physitians heal your selves agree among your selves ye wise and Learned what is the mind and meaning of the Scriptures about which now ye dispute and then we will more willingly conform to what you call Scripture Ordinances and Appointments Lastly Sir you conclude this Charge with a palpable abuse of my words Seeing then said I the great Design of all the Scripture is to bring us to an holy life let 's bear with Opinions which we plainly see do not subvert it especially considering that we read of no punishment denounced against men for their Opinions Now can any fairly and honestly conclude from hence that I allow of wicked Atheistical and Antichristian Principles But I see you are resolved to bring me under some manner of Scandal if you can therefore in your 42d page you say I forget That Corrupt Principles lead to Corrupt Practices No I do not forget it nor do I plead for or go about to extenuate any sinful or corrupt Principle but to oppose that of Pride and Bitterness against others Demonstration is the best proof in this Case Survey the Quakers and put their Lives and Conversations into one Balance of the Sanctuary and the lives of any other sort of Christians into the other and if they be found the lighter I 'le never speak a word more for them as a People How long must we wait to know a corrupt Principle They have been among us about six or seven and twenty years and yet we see no corrupt Practices growing from their Principles Certainly were such evil Fruit as you imagine natural to the Tree we should have seen it before now for you say when a mans Conscience is debaucht we shall quickly see him a man of a debaucht Conversation The Sixth Charge is That the speaking of the Spirit in any is of greater Authority than the Scriptures To this I said and I see no cause to alter my saying that there is no Reason for this Charge to be drawn from G. VVhiteheads words For these words and greater being added to the closing of the Sentence doth plainly signifie to me that it must relate to the Influence For what doth Authority signifie without Influence Of what worth is the Authority of a Magistrate where his Commands are not regarded Now it must be the Spirit opening of our hearts as it did the heart of Lydia to hearken to the Scriptures and suffer them to have any impression upon us or Authority over us wherefore VV. R. saith well That whatever good effect the Preachers Doctrine hath upon the Soul it is wrought by those words not as they are the words of men but as indeed the words of God which effectually work in them that believe So that they must first believe them before there will be any effectual work wrought by them and this they cannot do without the inward operation and Conviction of the Holy Spirit Therefore I see no evil in ascribing the greater to the Spirit so long as they give a great Authority to the Scriptures both which G. VV. doth in his Answer cited by T. H. viz. That which was spoken from the Spirit of Truth in any is of as great Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are and greater I must put in Chapters now for Civilities sake for VV. R. catches at my leaving them out before but truly I know no difference or force depending on Chapters more than Scriptures they were Scriptures before they were in Chapters But the great Reason of this Charge is yet behind and the Apeal directing me to Dial. 1. p. 28. there I find it viz. That because the Script if diligently consulted with would deter persons from believing the Quakers feigned Revelations therefore 't is they so much endeavour to beget in the minds of men an ill Opinion of them This is a hard Censure and how he will get off I know not unless by way of supposed Consequences for I dare say they never told any man that their endeavours were to beget in the minds of men all ill opinion of the Scriptures or that they feared the Scriptures would deter persons from believing them But it being none of my Purpose to give a particular account of their Faith in this or other Points I refer those that are minded to know their Judgment about the Script to the 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th Chapters of Quakerism a new nick name for old Christianity and the Defense of it And whereas he saith a man may see how dark my Vnderstanding is that I should acknowledg G. W. ' s words and yet see no Reason for the Charge Is not the Reason of the Charge what I last mentioned as a hard Censure And indeed he that sees a Reason for that Consequence in G. VV. his words I confess sees more than I do The Seventh Charge is That is no Command from God to me which God hath given by way of Command to another neither did any of the Saints act by the Command which was to another Every one obeyed their own Command This in Substance is but the two former Charges drest up in other words For by Commands I suppose T. H. means Scripture Commands and by Saints such as are recorded in Scripture And then 't is no more than what Ben. Furly said before that there is nothing in the Scripture which he is obliged to obey because there Recorded And so say I not only because Recorded in that Book do I obey any Command but because the Spirit of God convinceth me that it is my Duty For if its very being in that book be the ground of Obedience what would become of him who should happen to have one of that false Impression whose Compositor W. R. saith was a Papist and
like they were not very far from him Nothing is more common now a days than to jeer with a Question Our Saviour himself was so served Mat 26.68 Prophesie unto us thou Christ who is he that smote thee The Third Charge That Jesus Christ is not a distinct Person without us To this I said as a Motive to Moderation That because this Definition of a Distinct Person without us is not in Scripture why should we impose it on them especially considering what Reason they give for their tenderness in refusing such Expressions because they occasion people to retain mean and dark Apprehensions of God and Christ and his place of Residence W. P. Count. Christ p. 79. If W. R. fears no such Consequences let him use them without Unchristning others that do not And whereas he saith It is shameful for a Quaker to refuse those Expressions because not in Scripture while he owns not the Scripture for a Rule I say it 's much more shameful for those that own the Scripture for a Rule to impose such expressions upon others which are not in Scripture they have reason to keep you to what you call the Rule But W. R. will prove the word Person yea and a distinct Person too from 2 Cor. 2.10 where the Apostle saith for your sakes forgave I it in the Person of Christ Here a grain of his Greek might have been useful For that which the Translators according to their Judgment have rendered Person of Christ whether it may not as well be read in the sight of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in conspectu Christi or in Christs steed I leave to more able men than W. R. or I am to determine There is sixteen more pages spent in this Charg which I can account no other than a vain florish to let W. P. see what W. R. can do if he be not constant to what he has spoken For these pages are chiefly spent laying aside the quibbles about the Ass in proving the Humanity of Christ which I told him the Quakers did not deny and brought W. P. his Confession at the Barbican Meeting to prove it viz. that we do faithfully believe the holy Manhood to be a Member of the Christ of God and a little after We believe the Man Christ Jesus to be glorified in Heaven This though VV. R. cannot dislike yet he will distrust and therefore says that when W. P. has given us some infallible Demonstration that he did not speak equivocally then and not till then do his words deserve my Cognizance What Unbelief is here Nay what a strange Demand is this for one that is an utter Enemy to Infalibility in the Quakers to demand an Infallible Demonstration from them Now that must be visible or else he cannot judg of it And what visible Demostration any Christian can give which may not be counterfeted by an Hypocrite I never yet knew The truth is W. R. doth ignobly to apply Aug. words to Mr. Penn viz. They speak it with their lips they believe it not with their hearts What is this in plain English but to tell the world W. P. is a dissembling Hypocrite and his word how sincerely soever given not to be taken for truly I will not believe that mans word in Civil Affairs whose solemn publick word I cannot believe in Spiritual But that you may know this is not such a new Article of their Faith as to hear date from that Barbican Meeting hear what Edward Burrowes some years ago said in his 138 and 281. pages of his works We prize the Lord Jesus Christ as God Man and own him alone to be the Foundation God hath laid Now if this be not ground enough for Christian Charity towards them the thing I aim at God deliver me from such Judges for I know not what can be farther urged in this partiticular to induce them to it The Fourth Charge is That Christ Redeemed himself This I said was but T. H. his Consequence and I believe he thinks it natural from some of the Quakers sayings But if they disown it as we see they do and call it a gross perversion of their words why must we not believe one as well as the other and give them leave to take those words of J. N. and G. F. in a Figurative fence as well as W. R. takes liberty to expound Isa 59.16 and 63.4 by a Figure For so VV. P. saith p. 63. of R. against R. they are to be taken and there he treats at large of the Redemption of the Seed and in what fence they hold it wherein there is nothing sounds like Heathenism or unworthy of Toleration in my understanding to be sure it cannot be called their Principle that is but his Inference But I think we need say no more of their Consequencing Charge for it is so harsh and sour there 's no fear that any sober man will drink it The Fifth Charge against the Quakers is That they deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Practice unto Christians The first thing necessary in this Charge is to resolve VV. R. what I mean by VVe Vs and Our in this Discourse I Answer that now we are Charging them with denying the Scriptures I understand all of us that do own the Scriptures for our Rule And at other turns in my former book I understand all such ridged Opposers of the Quakers as for these Twelve Opinions render them as Pagans and Heathens and yet I would hope they do it from a zeal only to promote as they think the Glory of God and the Authority of the Scriptures And therefore my hearts desire and prayer for them is that they may see that this Zeal of theirs is not according to knowledge for the Nature of it is such as will directly lead them to joyn with those who when Opportunities are offered will fall to killing Christians upon a Principle of doing Christ good service Joh. 16.2 And I put my self among them though thanks be to God not inclinable to that Zeal because the Purport of the Book represents me as standing among them pleading as well as I could for a little Moderation towards the poor Quakers and not the Quakers Cause any farther than as it might admit of favourable Constructions for that End Neither can you say I am any otherwise guilty of Uncharitableness when I say let us be Charitable than the Apostle was of Cursing when he said therewith curse we men Jam. 3.9 But you 'l say the Apostle and they were Brethren but I am not in fellowship with these that now oppose the Quakers For your satisfaction in this Particular I refer you to my Narrative in Answer to the Reading Letter in the conclusion hereof and proceed to tell you that I perceive you cannot escape my Covering as you call it as narrow as it is I see it wraps you so fast that it makes you angry and call their book of the Barbican Meeting Scurrilous and
left out NOT in the 7th Commandment How should he know it was false Printed supposing he could have no other to correct it by Must not the Spirit or Light within be minded in such Cases Yea or the Man 's undone But a little more to this Charge wherein I said there is no great danger because it 's stated so in general that it may admit of good or bad particular Applications And for proof I shewed several particular Commands from God to others which did not concern any man now And several which concerned every man Neither did I ever hear a Quaker say That not any one of the Commands in Scripture concern them though W. R. saith it 's manifest they say so p. 47. If T. H. had told us what particular Commands they deny'd the work had been more easie and plain to reconcile But I observe all the Charges against the Quakers concerning the Scriptures run in a general way I wish it be not to stop the mouths of all others from speaking a word in their behalf I am sure it is not fair Had they been charged with owning Childrens Baptism perhaps some Presbyterian might have put in a word for them Had they been charged with denying Tithes some Baptist might have helped them before now If for denying Laying Hands upon all to be fundamentally necessary to Church Fellowship it 's probable J. I. himself might have assisted them in this or in opposing the Saterday Sabbath or in maintaining their Doctrine of General Redemption But now they being accused for denying Scripture for their Rule all we which profess the Scripture to be our Rule though we are divided into SIX several Churches and all differing so much in Doctrine and Discipline that we do not own one another as true constituted Churches yet we are all stirr'd up by this general Charge of denying Scripture and Gods Commands to fall upon them And if the Quakers were all supprest or banisht whose turn of all the Six would be next I know not but of this I am confident That the same Spirit which thus persues them will not let others be quiet when they are gone Strange that we cannot make better use of our time But W. R. puts some more Queries to me also under this Charge about the Scriptures How they can know swearing to be a sin or how they can try Spirits without them To both which there hath been enough said at least to beget Moderation if not Satisfaction by VV. P. in page 96. of Wisdome Justified c. And in his Rejoynder in defence of Quakerism a new nick Name c. the first part of it being almost all about the Scriptures The Eighth Charge That Justification by that Righteousness which Christ fulfilled for us wholly without us is it Doctrine of Devils To moderate this Charge I offered two things to be considered 1. The Greek word which generally in the New Testam serves for Justification and Righteousness which are both Latin words themselves in English habit and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serving for both I said that to be justified was all one in my understanding as to be made Just or Righteous And this W. R. himself confirms out of Mr. Leighs Critica Sacra for he saith The word must be understood to respect that Integrity Holyness and Innocency of the Souls of Good men by which they live a holy Life and please God which in substance is what I said before and W. P. before both of us viz. to be made Just or Righteous But saith W. R. this cannot be done without their persons be first acquitted of their former Sins by the Justification they receive from Christ through believing which in plainer English is all one as to say This cannot be done before it be done In the next place W. R. falls to distinguishing between a Legal Righteousness an Evangelical Righteousness and thirdly a Righteousness which Christ fulfilled for us in his own Person wholly without us The first he saith is a perfect Obedience to all God requires at all times both in thought word and deed But where this is called a Legal Righteousness I know not I think the Gospel requires as perfect obedience as the Law and more strict as in Mat. 5. But Secondly W. R. 's Evangelical Righteousness is only a sincere endeavour of the Soul to do all that God requires although by reason of the pravity of his Nature he cannot uttain it Is not this plainly to say that God requires us now under the Gospel to do that which he knows we cannot do This made the Slothful Servant say Mat. 25. that he was an hard Master But Thirdly he has distinguished out another Righteousness which Christ fulfilled for us which it seems cannot properly be called Legal or Evangelical But what he means by all this I know not unless he would bring us to expect to be justified by such a Faith as is without works and that I hope he will disown and if so all these Distinctions will vanish of themselves and that I believe they do as fast as they are Preached being so intricate and hard to be understood that I know not how any man can tell how to regulate his Faith or Life according to them The Second thing I propounded to moderate this Charge was these words wholly without us which I said might very well satisfie us that the Quakers levelled not at Scripture Justification but at our conceits of it of which I see W. R. takes no notice And no doubt he saw cause for it For wholly without us must either in this point of Justification signifie wholly without our Faith or wholly without our works or wholly without both And where the Scriptures account any one a justified Person wholly without both or either of these I know not But for as much as W. P. hath already treated so largely upon the Doctrine of Justification in his 8th Chapter of the said Rejoynder I do hereby desire William Russel to go thither to satifie himself about their Faith in that matter As I told him at first I intend not a Dispute much less a Quarrel about words if any thing I have said will but put the least stop to Carears of that Nature I have all the Reward I look for The Ninth Charge is That Justification is by Works This I said is almost yea I might have said altogether of the same nature as the former And it 's a great deal of pity to Heathenize men for Preaching up good works especially in an Age when they are so scarce To which W. R. _____ replies Rarely well guest Is T. H. finding fault for Preaching up good works But W. R. might not I have said the same to T. H. his 4th Charge That Christ Redeemed himself Rarely well guest was that ever the Question did the Quakers ever say so in terminis much less in T. H. his sence but I like none of this upbraiding braving Language Certain it