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
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
Truth further Defended AND William Penn Vindicated BEING A REJOYNDER TO A BOOK ENTITULED A Brief and Modest Reply to Mr. Penn 's Tedious Scurrilous and Unchristian Defence against the Bishop of Cork Wherein that Author's Unfairness is Detected his Arguments and Objections are Answered By T. W. and N. H. They are of those that Rebel against the Light they know not the ways thereof nor abide in the Paths thereof Job 24. 13. In the Net which they hid is their own Foot taken Psal 9. 15. Printed in the Year 1700. THE PREFACE FRIENDLY READER WE Can assure thee it is not agreeable to our inclinations to concern our selves in matters of Controversie more especially in Print But the defence of Truth the Vindication of our abused Principles and Friends in general with our Absent Friend in particular c. prevail'd upon us to undertake the following Rejoynder in Answer to a Book wrote in this City Entituled A Brief and Modest Reply to Mr. Penn's Tedious Scurrilous and Unchristian Defence against the Bp. of Cork c. To which Book tho the Authour has not Subscribed his Name yet we conceive him to be Edward Wettenhall Late Bp. of Cork 1st Because we are certainly informed he ordered the Printing and caused the same to be Published 2ly It is not only called and allowed by all to be his so far as we have heard but confirmed so to be in Crying about the streets of Dublin and Cork 3ly The Book it self puts it out of Question to be his or don by a person to whom he dictated which is observable throughout the same and so particularly to be noted in the very Introduction Likewise in p. 3. speaks of a Book of W. P's then before him These Reasons having induced us to conclude him the Authour we have therefore in our following Discourse Styled him so We observe the Bp. in the Title of his Book Applies Brevity and Modesty to his own account but the blackning Epithets of Tediousness Scurrillity and Unchristianity to W. P's To which we Answer 1st That the Bp's Reply is brief we grant as we have observed and so Brief too that we shall not determin but leave it to the Reader to judge whether it deserves the Name of a Reply But if styling his Reply Brief and W. P's Defence Tedious will plead Excuse for its being so short of an Answer we allow the Bp. has made an advantage thereby 2ly As to its Modesty we will here give a few of the many Instances we could bring and let the Reader judg If charging the Quakers with Sleight Cunning Craftiness Lying in Wait to deceive a Character for the worst of men as in p. 1st If Calling the Testimony of our Friends to the Light of Christ Jesus within Men according to Holy Scriptures The Poisonous Pill of their Light within Page 13. Making W. P. a Diffuser of Poison Page 18. Charging the Quakers most uncharitably with being so intent upon minding worldly gain both Day and Night as to pass most Days in the Week without a Prayer to God either in Publick Assembly or Family page 21. Suggesting that W. P. is Popishly Affected or has a Kindness for Atheism because he is for a Free Gospel Ministry and pleads against a Compelled or Forced Maintenance for them Page 25. If these Expressions with abundance more of the same kind through his Reply too tedious to Mention here be either Modest upon W. P. in particular or the Quakers in general we are to learn what Modesty means And if the Bp. upon second consideration shall still think them so we may take leave to tell him we are no more obliged to him for his Modesty then to his Charity 3ly As to W. P's being Scurrilous and Unchristian in his Defence we say If bare charges were to pass for Proofs he might be thought guilty of both but if demonstration be required for Proofs as well as charges we appeal to the Reader and let him be judg whether they will not rather fall upon the Bp. while we believe he will find no such scurrilous and Unchristian Treatment in W. P's Defence as are in the Bp's Reply We also observe That altho the Bp's Reply is Dated Cork March 21. 1698 9. at which time he was not removed hence Yet we have no reason assigned wherefore it was not Printed or made Publick till October 1699. What Reasons the Bp. had for delaying its Publication he best knows But this we know that W. P. sailed for Pensilvania in September and soon after out came the Bp's Reply Had W. P. continued in England the delay had been no blame upon the Bp. but since the Bp. had made several personal Reflections and Charges against W. P. which none could Answer so well as himself we think he ought to have Published his Reply before W. P's departure for America since he had time enough for so doing That so W. P. might have appeared in his own Vindication and which he could easily have done had the Bp's Reply come out in due time But since the Bp. thought not fit so to do whereby this Rejoynder hath fallen into the Hands of Persons less skilful in the Defence of Truth then W. P. as we freely confess it hath and not so qualified to Treat the Bp. as W. P. nor perhaps as the Bp. himself might expect The Bp. may be pleased or displeased with himself as he finds occasion for depriving W. P. of that service and thereby to be sure himself of an Abler Opponent But tho the Bp. should dislike us for Opponents yet we think he cannot at least ought not to blame us since Reason and Justice allows us the Priviledge to appear in our Just Vindication when we find our Principles as well as our Friends so greatly Abused Misrepresented and Reflected upon as we believe will plainly appear to the Impartial Reader they are in the Bp's Reply However notwithstanding his Treatment tho we may be plain where the Nature of his Charges extorts it from us yet we hope the Reader will find that we have not only endeavoured to carry our selves with that Moderation towards him which becomes us both as Men and Christians too But likewise as fair Opponents having designedly neither Perverted his Words nor Misrepresented his Sence so far as we understood them and whether we have thus done on our Parts or the Bp. hath done the contrarry by W. P. is left to the Impartial Reader To Conclude The following Rejoynder was Writ last Winter according to its Date at the End and as a Reason for its lying so long Unprinted the Reader may please to understand That being advised by a Friend from Dublin above Eight Months past he had sent One of the Bp's Reply's by way of Mary-Land to W. P. it gave us some hopes of an Answer thereto from himself which we greatly desired But inasmuch as some Letters hath been very lately received from W. P. and that he makes no mention
none of these are the antient common and Scripture belief what will the Bp. do then one would think one of them is the Bp's Hell and either one of these is an Article of his Belief or else he keeps the true hell to himself and was not so just as to include that in the question with the rest c. We have been the larger in this quotation to shew how ready the Bp. is to take an advantage against W. P. when he had really none 'T is plain W. P. meant By the Bp's hell that Notion which he received and holds of it and by the words keeps the true Hell to himself he with-holds and keeps back his own Notion and Opinion of the True hell and does not express it among the other Notions he gave of it so keeps it to himself not for himself But the Bp. goes on P 10 How could the Bp. more clearly have exprest Hell then by the eternity of Torments the Term there used by the Bp. and declined by Mr P. and his brethren Answ Remember Reader the Bp. would not allow W. P's implication of Faith for a profession of Faith tho' he 'll take it himself 't is true he mentions everlasting punishment of wicked men but 't is by way of Objection against Gospel Truths and not laid down by the Bp. as an Article of Faith But how has W. P. and his Brethren declined that term while they acknowledg Everlasting Rewards to those who fear God and that those who feared him not should be turned into Hell which doth imply Eternity of Torments according to the common acceptation and received opinion of most Christians as well as our selves But we must needs say we could much easier pass by this Objection in another then in the Bp. because W. P. has owned Eternal Rewards and Punishments in express words in the Rise and Progress of the Quakers P. 38. as we have before observed which Book the Bp. had so lately in his pocket But we think the reason is plain for want of occasion he will rather make then want one against the Quakers Ibid. P 10 The Bp. charges W. P. with wilfuly false constructions of and overlooking the Bp's Sense Tergiversations shifting pittiful Evasions for instance the Bp. had said they do not in their Paper own the Son of God to be so much as Jesus the great Saviour who delivereth from the wrath to come or the Christ c. But says the Bp. Mr. P. answers they several times call him Christ and admires at the Bp's palpable mistake and goes on does W. P. then know no difference between Christ and the Christ betwixt calling a Person by his Name and acknowledging his Authority Office and Benefits Thus the Bp. Answ Suppose W. P. had only named him Christ the Bp. may know if he doth not already that Christ is not strictly a proper name but an apellative it denotes the Anointed the Messiah and applicable to none besides Christ a name not given him by his kindred or the Jews read Mat. 2. 4. Chap. 16. 16. Mark 12. 35. Luke 4. 41. Chap. 24. 26. 46. Joh. 4. 25. Chap. 7. 26. 27 31 41 42. Chap. 9. 22. Chap. 12. 34. In these with many other places of Scripture 't wil plainly appear that it would be incongruous to understand the name Christ otherwise then as an apellative deciphering his Office and Qualification viz. the promised Messiah and not a proper name which Jesus was and common to him with others but none was Christ but himself so that the very naming the Word Christ implies the anointed Saviour and Redeemer the Messiah that was promised and came from God But farther What can be more unfair and trifling then this of the Bp. thus to charge W. P. For first Gospel Truths besides calling him Christ no less then Nine times doth own several of Christs Offices proper only to the Christ If there were any room as there is not for the Bp. to suggest W. P. could possibly mean any other then the Christ of God and particularly besides others that he is the Propitiation for the remission of Sins and Justifyer from the guilt of Sin and besides that Paper hath several references to Scriptures concerning the Christ And now as to W. P's Defence pray Reader see from p. 34. to 39. where W. P. fully again owns the Christ and Jesus Christ the Word made Flesh the beloved Son of God the only begotten of the Father c. And yet for all this the Bp. is so unfair as to continue this Objection and pick out words from W. P's Defence to suit his turn leaving out what explains them but thereby his charge upon W. P. must fall upon himself viz. pitiful shifting Evasions with willfully overlooking his Sence certainly if this be fair dealing we are to learn what it means But to the next P. 10. The Bp. goes on thus Again the Bp. requires them to embrace profess the entire Christian Faith in the points wherein he has shewn them defective that is as he proved in above two thirds of the Creed W. P. says the Bp. Answers it would have become the Bp. to have told them what he would have them believe could the Bp. have spoke plainer then he does when he names the Articles of the Creed which Mr. P. says he holds therefore knows Thus the Bp. Answ The Bp. who cry'd out against shortness and imperfection ought not to have been guilty thereof himself for we can find no such words in his Testimony as Creed or Articles of the Creed but perhaps he 'll say they are implied a thing he will not allow in W. P. when he says thus in his Testimony There is not One Article of our common Twelve you have owned entirely and Eight if not more of them you have totally suppressed or waved If this be not what the Bp. means by the Creed we cannot find another like it to his purpose in all his Paper But W. P. says he holds the Creed therefore knows it does he so and the Bp's Conscience we think must know W. P. and the Quakers owned Articles of Faith more largely worded then in that brief Paper since he had R. B's Apology and the Rise and Progress of the Quakers And therefore why should the Bp. censure and raise objections to such Articles But now suppose W. P. should guess at what the Bp. meant by the common Twelve we suppose the Bp. will not say that Testimony was calculated only for W. P. but the Quakers in general as well as others why then might not W. P. with a great deal of reason tell the Bp. it became him to be more explicit since no doubt many thousands of People besides the Quakers did not understand what the Bp. meant by the common Twelve and therefore the Bp. who would almost unchristian the Quakers for not being more expressive upon the Articles of the Creed ought not to have been so short himself but according
abuse of Religion not to be endured expressions highly savouring of scorn and contempt we pass by as the effect of too much warmth P. 11. The Bp. tells us that W. P's Censures of him savours of nothing but the height of Spiritual pride and uncharitableness as that the Bp. feels no share in Christ the glorious light of Men that he wants acquaintance with the Spirit of God in his Worship Answ This Reflection of Spiritual pride and uncharitableness upon W. P. we will pass by here and refer the Reader to what follows to judg whether it will not thence appear true what W. P. hath said of him And 1st we begin with what the Bp. says of the Light within being one of the main points as he tells us that threatens doing hurt in W. P's whole Defence And thus the Bp. begins Ibid. 11. The Bp. did say and stands to it he knows not what to make of the Quakers Light within Then say we W. P's opinion of the Bp's feeling no share therein must be true nor will his calling of it the Quakers Light serve his turn since the Quakers never called it their Light nor owned any Other Light then the Light of Christ for their guide and which the Scriptures so abundantly testifie unto and W. P. hath very plainly and fully shewn But the Bp. goes on But as to the True Divine Light or the holy Ghost convincing people by the holy Scripture applied to Conscience of Sin of Righteousness and of Judgment to come the Bp. acknowledges it and blesseth God for his share thereof Answ As we said before we never meant any other then the true Divine Light or holy Ghost which we say doth inwardly convince of Sin reproves for it and by the discovery of which we savingly come to know the things of God and is the principal agent and foundation of our conviction and by which the holy Scriptures are made beneficial unto us If the Bp. mean thus by the above words we agree but if he mean as his words seem to us to import that the Scripture is the first Agent and by which as the cause we are convinced by the Light or Spirit we must dissent from the Bp. herein and that the Bp's meaning is such we are the more confirmed therein by what he saith in p. 23. viz. that people are now made holy by the use of outward means That this Doctrine is repugnanr to Scripture we shall plainly shew in its place we only brought it here to compare and explain what the Bp. means by the convictions of the Light and Spirit Now to the above Argument the Quakers do say and the Scriptures do abundantly prove that it is by the holy Light and Spirit of Christ within by which as the first principal Cause and Agent we come savingly to believe and know the things of God to which purpose we could cite a multitude of Scriptures but for brevity let these few suffice Rom. 1. 19. That which may be known of God is manifest in them God hath shewed it unto them 2 Cor. 4. 6. God who commanded light to shine out of darkness hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the Glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ John 1. 4. In him viz. Christ was life and that life was the light of Men. Vers 9. He viz. Christ was the true Light which lighteth every Man that cometh into the World Again 1 Cor. 2. 10 11 12. But God hath revealed them viz. the things of God unto us by his Spirit for the Spirit searcheth all things yea the deep things of God even so the things of God knoweth no Man but the Spirit of God Now we have received not the Spirit of the World but the Spirit which is of God that we might know the things that are freely given us of God Again 1 John 2. 27. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you and ye need not that any Man teach you but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things Again even to the wicked Pharisees the worst of Christ's Enemies he said Luke 17. 21. Behold the Kingdom of heaven is within you Then Rom. 8. 2 11 14 16. 1 Cor. 3. 16. Eph. 4. 6. 1 John 5. 10 These Texts besides many more we could cite do sufficiently prove our point that it is by the Light and Spirit of God inwardly manifested by which as the first and principal means we come to have a sight of Sin and be convinced of it and while the Bp. says 't is by the use of outward means people are made holy as in p. 23. we are we think by the same rule to understand he means they are to be convinced of Sin Righteousness and of Judgment If he thus intends 't is worthy his consideration how contrary his Assertion is to the Scriptures we have cited and whether he has that share in the Divine Light and Spirit of Christ as he pretends to But that we may not be misunderstood as if we went about to undervalue the Holy Scriptures far be it from us for we do declare for our selves and the People called Quakers in general that we Love Honour and Esteem them above and beyond all the Books and Writings in the whole World and are thankful to the Lord for their preservation as having found great comfort and benefit by them thro' the illumination of the holy Spirit and believe them to be whatsoever they say of themselves according to these or any other Scriptures Rom. 15. 4. 2 Tim. 3. 15 16 17. We shall not be altogether so full as to the Scriptures here as we might in regard we shall have farther occasion hereafter where we shall be more full upon this head Yet here may be a fit place to answer the Bp's demand p. 13. viz. What is become of Mr. P's Double Record We answer here it is the Light Grace and Spirit of God by its illumination giving us the experimental knowledg of the things of God within as we have shewn is one agreeing with and opening to us the Misteries of the Holy Scriptures without which is the other And thus the Apostles made the Scriptures of the Old Testament an agreeing Record with the openings and the illuminations of the holy Ghost in them while they cited numerous Texts and portions of Scripture out of the Old Testament as an agreeing record to what they imediatly delivered by the Revelation of the Spirit this we think is sufficient to make good W. P's assertion that the Light and holy Spirit within and the Scriptures without are the Double and agreeing Record of true Religion Ibid. 11. The Bp. goes on vilifying W. P. about the Light within to pass by his twitting of him about his Learning saying thus He i. e. the Bp. himself had made four the most rational constructions and conjectures he could devise of what they the Quakers should mean thereby p. 12. Mr.
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
also that they are the outward badges of the profession of Christianity which we do not allow the contrary having been proved by W. P. in his Defence and others of our Friends who have writ on that subject We observe altho ' the Bp. continues to clal them outward Badges yet he omits to call them Seals as he did in his Testimony which to us seems to be the effect of W. P's Defence and with more reason it may be attributed thereto then the effect attributed by the Bp. to his own Paper upon W. P. as before noted But to this faulty and long Argument may not we by a parallel Argument make the Bp. and his party outwardly no Christians while they difuse other things no less if not more positively commanded in holy Scripture Thus our Lord Jesus Christ the very same night he eat the Supper John 13. 4. to 15. rose from Supper and with more Ceremony washed his Disciples feet saying Vers 14. If I then you Lord and Master have washed your feet ye ought also to wash one anothers feet Vers 15. For I have given you an Example that ye should do as I have done unto you This seems to us as plain a command for this practice as that for Bread and Wine and more plain then for Water Baptism because Water is not mentioned in the Commission and this command we find was put in practice See 1 Tim. 5. 10. and recommended as a virtue in a Widow nor was this only an Example of Humility and Love true Badges of Christianity but had a signification of an inward cleansing as appears from the words of Christ upon Peter's refusal John 13. 8. If I wash thee not thou hast no part in me Again Acts 15. 29. The Churches were expresly commanded as the mind of the holy Ghost to abstain from blood and things strangled Again the Believers were enjoined Jam. 5. 14. that the sick should be anointed with Oyle in the name of the Lord. Now from these instances we form a parallel argument thus To renounce disuse or cast off the positive Institutions and Commands which our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles delivered and no doubt the primitive Christians in obedience thereunto practized is to renounce and cast off the outward profession of Christianity But the late Bp. of Cork and his party have renounced cast off or disused the washing of feet the abstaining from blood and things strangled and the anointing the Sick with Oyl in the name of the Lord which things our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles instituted and commanded Therefore the late Bp. of Cork and his party are outwardly no Christians c. We take this to be a plain parallel argument and by which the Bp. and his party are as much unchristianed as he Renders the Quakers by his while he can find no express repeal in Scripture for these things And yet at the same time we neither believe he or they for the disuse of these things nor we for the other ought or can be unchristian'd for we believe they are all ceased alike If the Bp. say those were temporary things with as good ground we say the like of the other If they say the repeal of blood and things strangled are implied where the Apostle tells us Coll. 2. 16. we are not to be judged in Meat or Drink c. And that the Kingdom of God consists not in Meat and Drink Rom. 14. 17. We say the same of outward Bread and Wine being Meat and Drink In our argument we have not included the constant practice of all Churches as the Bp. doth in his because we do not depend upon the verity of Tradition as the Bp. seems to do altho' we understand that two of those instances we have given are still practized after a manner by the Church of Rome from whence we suppose hee 'l not deny he derives the continued practice of Bread and Wine tho' he declines the other But as to the practice of Christian Churches instanced by the Bp. how greatly do they differ in their use as well as in their belief of the thing it self while there is none of all sorts nay not the Bp. himself that follows the primitive practice in the use of the outward Supper as we have hinted before and W. P's Defence hath more fully shewn how then can we depend upon tradition and thus we end about the Supper P. 21. The last point of moment says the Bp. in Mr. P's Book yet remaining untoucht is the great Difference or ground of dissent betwixt the Quakers and Establisht Church and this Mr. P. tells us is the great carnality and emptiness both of Ministers and People Upon which the Bp. in return upon the Quakers goes on thus Ibid. 21. The Bp. hereby enforced speak out he says then that if eating the fat and drinking the choicest be carnallity There is nothing to be eaten that is better then ordinary that comes in to our markets here which the People observe not presently bought up by the Quakers they are still the earliest and best chapmen every Market day for such commodities and much good may they do them And so concludes this as under the Title of carnallity and in the number of Scandalous Instances Answ If the Bp. in speaking out had spoke more to the purpose we think he had come off with more credit for certainly it is mean stuff for a Bp. to help to stuff his Book with all and in an Instance too that if there be Scandal in it perhaps he may be concerned beyond any Quaker in Ireland or for what we know in England while 't is believed his Table is supplied with varieties beyond any of theirs tho' perhaps his eager pursute after the Quakers made him forget that part or else thinks he ought to have a dispensation beyond them But does the Bp. go to Market himself or doth he write upon reports if upon report doth it become him to write to the Defamation of any people upon bare report which for ought he knows may be false and we know is false as he states it for the Quakers of Cork whom as we take it he means by the word here deny they are still the earliest Chapmen yet that some of them go with others at the common market time no doubt is true and where is the Scandal or Carnality of it if there be any the Bp. must be concerned in it since if it be true as we are informed his Caterer has been observed to be generally one of the first there tho' we will not say as the Bp. doth still the earliest because some extraordinary thing might occasion his coming later then usual and by that means perhaps miss a piece of meat for his Lord as he stiled him which perhaps a Quaker or some other had bought before which we will not say was the occasion of this reflection but probable enough it was so Well but the Bp. says we are