Selected quad for the lemma: friend_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
friend_n	ask_v	see_v	tell_v	899	5	4.5492	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57953	Quakerism is paganism, by W.L.'s confession; in a book directed to Mr. N.L. citizen of London: or, Twelve of the Quakers opinions, called by W.L. The twelve pagan principles, or opinions; for which the Quakers are opposed to Christians examined and presented to William Penn. By W. R. a lover of Christianity.	Russel, William, d. 1702.; Roberts, Daniel, 1658-1727. aut	1674 (1674)	Wing R2358; ESTC R219761	57,659	96

which as it refers to men as by the scope of the place is evident it is not only an Vntruth but Blasphemy Neither will that relieve him to bring in W. P. saying That every such Illumination is not very God for if it were then W. P. must believe there were as many Gods as there are Men in the World because he faith that every man hath that Illumination For W. P. in his Reason against Rayling Page 56. saith Geo. Whitehead owns it in its own being to be no other than God himself where he approves of that saying and adds this to it himself We assert the true Light with which every man is enlightned to be in it self the Christ of God and the Saviour of the World Now if W. P. will contradict himself who can help that it's not T. H. his fault but his own Reader here he confesses the charge so that Mr. Hicks is no Forger 2. Pagan Principle HIS Second Charge is That the Soul is a Part of God and of God's Being without beginning and Infinite W. L. His Answer is What hurt is there in this if they do say so I never heard the Heathen were of this Opinion I see no cause to be offended much less to account them Heathen if the Quakers do count it a part of God Rep. Surely this Man is little Read in Heathen Authors that he can say he never heard the Heathen were of this Opinion that the Soul is a Part of God c. Let him but read Seneca I presume he hath learning enough to do it because he is a Schoolmaster and he will find him to be of this very Opinion These are his Words Quid aliud voces animum quam Deum in Corpore humano hospitantem What can we call the Soul saith he but God abiding in an humane Body And of the Reason wherewith the Soul of Man is endowed he affirms that it is Part of the Divine Spirit in Man's Body For these are his Words Ratio nihil aliud est quam in corpus humanum pars Divini Spiritus c. Seneca Epist 67. So that if I would trouble my self and you I could shew you that herein there is a great union between a Quaker and a Pagan in their Opinion about the Soul of Man the which may be most elegantly detected in the Words of a Learned Author of our times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is a little Deity guesting in a body of Flesh Thus Reader thou mayest see that T. H. is no Forger and also that W. L. though ignorantly hath rightly called this A Pagan Principle But W. L. saith The great Heat of disputes of that nature has caused a scoffing Poet to Rhyme thus of OUR Disputes These Disputants like Rams and Bulls Do fight with Arms that spring from Skulls And when they argue the greatest Part O' th Contest falls on Terms of Art Who would but think these Verses had been made upon the late Disputes between us and the Quakers as W. L. words it and yet I find that Hudibras is the Poet and the Title of the Book tells me it was written in the time of the late War and Licensed November 11. 1662. Hudibras Part 1. page 267. Canto 3. But I perceive he can allow himself a liberty to say any thing yea rather than T. H. shall go free he will jeer his Friend W. P. also for if the Author of the Quakers Quibbles be not much mistaken the great fault which made that Dispute so fruitless lay in W. P. and his Friends for in page 10. he asks W. P. this question When thou camest to the Reasoning and Disputative part how many shuffles and put-offs How many pittiful Evasions and poor shifts didst thou make how many delays how much loss of time I was not only ashamed to see it but admired thy self and Friends did not blush at it to see you make yourselves and party so ridiculous in the Eyes of others What Rayling instead of Reasoning What Clamour What Noise What Tautologies What Disorder What Discord and Confusion No Argument to me more fully proved you to be no Christians than your Unchristian carriage in that Meeting And he that speaks this is an Indifferent Person neither Quaker nor Baptist As for the abuse he hath done to the Poet in repeating the two first lines otherwise than they are in Hudibras I question not but Hudibras knows how to right himself better than I can direct him in the mean time I would advise W. L. to take that good advice nosec tripsum to study the knowledg of himself more and then he will not be at so much leisure to pry into the lives and espouse the Quarrel of other Men had he been so imployed when he wrote this Book he had saved me this pains for I can assure him that I don't use to imploy my Time after this sort nor would I have done it now only I hope God may have some Honour by detecting his folly and it may be I may be made Instrumental to bring him to a sight of it I had thought to have passed over this Head but the man makes such a stir about an impertinent Question that I am minded to say something to it lest my silence should prove his prejudice Quest But Why saith W. L. may not we aswel say God hath given us a Part of himself as a Part or Measure of his spirit which hath no beginning nor ending Ans I answer as it is in the Question and relates to the Soul of Man I will tell you why we may not so speak because there is a great Disparity betwixt the Soul of Man and the Spirit of God As 1. The Soul of Man is a Creature made by God Isaiah 57. 16. For I will not contend for ever neither will I be always wroth for the Spirit should fail before me and the Souls which I have made 2. But the Holy Spirit is increated and of the same Essence with the Father as the Quaker himself confesseth and from thence takes occasion to confound the Personal Existence of all the Three Now though I may say God hath given us a measure of his Spirit because we are made to partake of the Gifts and Graces thereof yet I may not affirm that therefore the Soul in which they do reside is a part of God and of God's Being without Beginning and Infinite But says W. L. That Man hath an Immortal Soul we all grant and yet before he is got ten lines forward he saith if the Soul be a Created part of Man coming by Generation then as I have heard it argued it must be Mortal and a little after This is a great Mistery and we must wait till another Seal of the Book of Life be opened before we shall know what the Breath of Life was which God Breathed into Adam Gen. 2. He saith Philosophers and Divines have made a great Bustle about the Soul but to define what it

thereby So that W. L. may see that the Quakers are not faced about to oppose the Humanity for they always opposed it neither is T. H. mistaken about their meaning Well I perceive W. L. is got half-way out of this Labyrinth for in his next words he saith Let 's be charitable in these Mysterious points however and expound these Extreams as we do that betwixt Paul and James Gal. 2. and Rom. 4. with James 2. for as Faith and Works so Divinity and Humanity must go together And what God hath joyned let no man put asunder Answ I wish the Quakers would but do so and then this Controversie would soon be ended As to what he tells me of W. P. his words at the Barbican-Meeting as an instance I say this to it When W. P. hath given us some infallible Demonstration that he did not speak equivocally in those Expressions then and not till then do they deserve my cognizance any further than to answer him in the words of the Roman Orator Quid attinet gloriose loqui nisi constanter loquare Cic. l. 2. de Fin. p. 61. For what availeth it for a man to speak gloriously if he be not constant and sticks not firmly unto that which he speaketh And I fear I may say of him as it 's said of some others by Augustine Hoc in labiis non in corde dicere Aug. Epist 20. Tom. 2. p. 588. They speak it but with their lips they believe it not with their hearts But let us proceed to the next particular 4. Pagan Principle THe fourth Charge is saith he That Christ Redeemed himself W. L. His Answer is This our Friend T. H. confesseth to be but his own Consequence from their words which he leaves to the judgment of others as indeed all Consequences ought to be And I 'le tell you what my weak apprehension is of it The sayings from whence he hath drawn this Charge I confess are above my capacity I do not understand how Christ is both the Election and the Elect Seed Nor how Abraham's old decayed Body was a Type of the Seed of Abraham Now I begin to like my Author and I should have done so before if he had spoke as honestly I wish he may keep in this mind A little after he saith W. P. asserts the Redemption of the Seed c. But then he endeavours to extenuate the fault saying It 's true it looks with a strange countenance to us but yet there is some of even the very same in Scripture as that in Isa 59. 16. He wondred there was no Intercessor therefore his own Arm brought Salvation to him And in Chap. 63. 5. Mine own Arm brought Salvation unto me and my fury it upheld me Whence faith W. P. in Reas against Railing p. 63. It is no ways absurd that we affirm That the end of Gods manifesting himself in the flesh was for the Redemption or Deliverance of his holy life that was in man as a small seed even the smallest of seeds that had been long vex'd grieved and pressed down by sin and iniquity And in page 64. This Seed was and is pure for ever Here saith W. L. He tells what he means by Redemption of the Seed In this he hath fully cleared T. H. from the guilt of Forgery And I will also quit this point when I have considered the meaning of those two Texts urged to prove it or rather to excuse W. P. 1. I take notice That though W. P. and the Quakers deny the Scriptures to be a Rule yet they can make use of them in favour of themselves when they think they will serve for their purpose But to pass that 2. It is obvious to all that will take the pains to consider them that these Texts do not prove what they are brought for i. e. That the end of Christ's coming was to redeem himself For as there is no such words spoken by the Prophet so it is contrary to the general scope and design of the Gospel and to the express words of the Apostle Paul 1 Tim. 1. 15. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation That Christ Jesus came into the World to save sinners of whom I am chief And that he came to seek and to save that which was lost not a lost God and a lost Christ as Geo. Keith saith but lost and undone sinners 3. If you will have my understanding of these two Scriptures it is this That by Salvation is meant by a figure the person saved and that it signifies no more but that he purchased them to himself the Abstract being there put for the Concrete as is usual in Scripture as in Phil. 3. 3. Circumcision is put for the persons circumcised and in 1 Cor. 12. 28. Helps Governments is put for Helpers and Governors with many more of the like kind that might be mentioned And therefore it 's said in Isa 49. 6. I also will give thee for a Light to the Gentiles that thou mayest be my Salvation to the ends of the earth that is My Salvation that I have appointed for them For God who is always perfectly happy and Blessedness it self cannot stand in need of any Salvation yea it is as great an absurdity as any the Quakers can be guilty of to affirm it But from hence we may see that the Light which is in them doth teach them to have strange blasphemous thoughts of God and sometimes out of the abundance of their hearts their mouths do utter it 5. Pagan Principle THe fifth Charge is That the Quakers do deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Practice unto Christians And T. H. brings in W. P. his words for proof Which are these We deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Practice In honour to that Divine-Light that was the Author of them W. P. in Reas against Rail page 48. W. L. The Quakers sayings brought to prove this I confess at a distance or to a hasty or a prejudiced Reader seem to do it but look seriously and charitably on them and there is as much truth in them as I desire Ben. Furly says There is nothing in the Scripture that is a duty upon him or which he is obliged to obey because there recorded and so say I. He further acknowledgeth that Geo. Whitehead saith That it is Idolatry to call the Bible the means of our knowing God Dip. pl. p. 17. Reply Reader W. L. hath gone very far already towards the clearing T. H. But hear what he saith further page 17. he there confesses They seem to him and others to speak slightly of the Scriptures which saith he I would not have them do But it seems they will not be ruled by him for you have heard W. P. his positive denial already And for Ben. Furly he saith It is the greatest errour in the World that ever was invented and the ground of all error to affirm That the Scripture ought to be a Rule to

I have reason to suspect W. L. also For in a certain Discourse he had with R. S. a good Friend of mine about two years ago he pleaded for a sinless Perfection here in this life as it 's opposite to that Imputed Righteousness of Christ made Ours by believing as the way by which he expected to be justifified Whereupon R. S. asked him Whether he had yet attained it W. L. told him he had not Whereupon R. S. replied You do not know but you may die before you have attained it how then can you think to stand justified before God It cannot be by your own personal Righteousness for that you confess you have it not I should be amazed to hear him utter such expressions so contrary thereunto as these are in his Book but that I consider he may have learned the Art of Equivocation from W. P. by his often converse with him But now I am upon this Head I would make so bold as to ask W. P. and the Quakers one Question Quest Suppose they do attain to a state of sinless Perfection here in this life yet seeing many of them have lived in a course of sinning twenty thirty or forty years before they attain it What must make Compensation for the sins they have committed in the time past of their lives If they shall say Their own Obedience which they perform to the Light within them after they are thus perfect That is to suppose the good deeds they perform in the latter part of their lives should make Compensation for their former evil deeds Which will proclaim to all intelligent men not only that they hold Justification by their own personal Righteousness exclusive of Christ's Righteousness which is to be justified by Works in the strictest Notion being the next Principle we are to enquire into but also that they do hold that other Popish Principle To believe that they can do Works of Supererogation And yet this Author is much displeased that any should suppose the Quakers do derive their Pedigree from Rome W. L. Goes on to excuse his beloved Friend W. P. by telling us That forasmuch as many Teachers so word this Doctrine of Justification as the weak are thereby misled into a vain hope that God will justifie them or look upon them as just and righteous THROUGH Christ at the last day though they live and die in sin Hence saith he so great a zeal might arise in W. P. against such Expositions of Scripture-Justifications and chiefly against this phrase THROVGH CHRIST Answ To which I answer If W. P. hath so great a zeal risen up in him CHIEFLY against this phrase THROVGH CHRIST Then it follows That if we should word the Doctrine of Justification so as to please Will. Penn we must say That men are justified WITHOVT CHRIST But I hope I shall never make that one of the Articles of my Creed But farther W. L. saith These words Wholly without us may very well satisfie us That they level not at Scripture-Justification but at our conceits of it Reply Then it seems W. L. concludes That Justification by that Righteousness Christ fulfilled for us wholly without us is not a Doctrine agreeable to Scripture but a conceit I perceive now T. H. is no Forger for W. L. doth not only own the words to be spoken by W. P. but owns the Doctrine of the Quakers about it And yet forsooth we must be very tender of calling this man a Quaker Howbeit I conclude he avoids the name for no other Reason but that he might be the more serviceable in propagating their cause An excellent Stratagem As for what he saith about the Doctrine of Justification springing from the Doctrine of Predestination misunderstood and as held by Calvin Beza Piscator Synod of Dort c. As I do not believe it in the sense that I have defined it and as Protestants generally hold it So for those mens Opinions about the Decree of Absolute and Irrespective Reprobation I shall leave it to them whose concern it is to clear themselves of it for it 's none of mine at this time 9. Pagan Principle W. P. SAith His ninth Charge against the Quakers is That Justification is by Works Here W. L. hath followed his own advice viz. To leave out words most material in this Charge For the words laid down by T. H. are That the Quakers hold Justification by Works in the strictest Notion And brings these proofs out of the Quakers own Books God accepts not any where there is any failing or who do not fulfil the Law and answer every Demand of Justice Edw. Burrough's Works p. 33. And in Answer to Quest 14. Was not Abraham justified by Works We must not conceive that his personal Offering was not a justifying Righteousness but that God was pleased to count it so Nor was there any Imputation of anothers Righteousness to Abraham But on the contrary his personal Obedience was the ground of that Imputation Therefore that any should be justified by anothers Righteousness imputed and not inherent in him is both ridiculous and dangerous W. P. Reas against Rail p. 80. Now I hope T. H. is no Forger But let us hear what W. L. hath to say W. L. This is almost of the same nature as the former and it 's a greatdeal of pity to Heathenize men for preaching up Good-works especially in a day when they are so scarce Reply Rarely well guest Is T. H. finding fault with mens preaching up good Works Surely that 's none of the Question Neither doth he Heathenize any for so doing that 's no part of the Charge nay he doth not so much as mention the words Heathen Pagan or Pagan Principle in all his twelve Charges I wonder how W. L. did to give them so right a name The honour of that belongs to himself and not to me nor T. H. But seeing so great a Friend of theirs as W. L. is hath so often called them so I hope they will not find fault with me for writing after his Copy As for what he is pleased to say of his own renouncing meriting by Works and that he thinks no rational Papist can be so weak to imagine that forty or fifty years spent all in Good-works nay forty or fifty thousand years can deserve Eternal Recompence of Reward is no Argument to the contrary but that an infatuated Quaker may be of that mind And why we should not think so of them till they have cleared themselves of it by renouncing Edw. Burroughs Will. Penn and their Books with all others who have asserted such Doctrines as these I see no Reason 10. Pagan Principle THe tenth Charge is That Christ fulfilled the Law ONLY as our Patern The proof cited by T. H. is W. P.'s own words For not the hearers of the Law are just before God But the doers of the Law shall be justified Rom. 2. 13. From whence saith W. P. how unanswerably may I observe Vnless we become doers of

sweat as if it had been dipt in water And not being able to endure it upon giving notice to the people there came up some very lusty men that were not Quakers and relieved me After this when Sam. Thornton saw he was disappointed of his purpose he railed upon me saying Thou art a Thief a Lyer a Murderer a Devil Thy name is Cain and then cried out with a loud voice Cain Cain Cain Cain Cain just like a man bereft of his Reason One said I was a Drunkard another Thou art drunk every day in the week I not knowing what opinion some might have of me that did not know my Conversation asked what they meant by saying I was a Drunkard One of them answered Thou art drunk with words besotted with ignorance c. Now if these men can allow themselves a liberty thus to rail against one at so desperate a rate against whom they can prove none of those things whereof they accuse him and when they have done excuse it by saying We meant Allegorically Who then can have his Reputation secured from these mens virulent and reproachful Tongues I being at the same Meeting place some time after and hearing such expressions about Christ which had a tendency to beguile the ignorant When he that was speaking had done I offered to discourse soberly with them about it which they refused Whereupon I told the People that the Quakers held these Opinions viz. 1. That Jesus Christ is not a distinct Person without us 2. That Christ in respect of himself never died 3. That the Blood of Christ shed upon the Cross without the gates of Jerusalem is of no more value in point of Justification than the blood of another man 4. That the Imputed Righteousness of Christ which he fulfilled for us in his own Person wholly without us is a Doctrine of Devils The Quakers refusing to answer notwithstanding I offered to make good each of these particulars them I told the People that I hoped they would believe what I had charged upon them i. e. That they were afraid to bring their Doctrines to be tried by the Light of the Holy Scriptures like those spoken of by Tertullian whom he calls by the name of Lucifugae Scripturarum Men that fly from the Light of the Scripture as the Bats do into their holes when the Sun appears Whereupon Francis Campfield stood up and said Thou art my Neighbour and I know thee And then made a speech to the people telling them He desired they would take no notice of what I said for I was somewhat distempered in my head Giving a strong Indication to the people That I was a distracted man and so not fit to ue discoursed with I told him I hoped the people would not believe what he had said but in case they should if the Quakers would be pleased to appoint time and place I would procure a man that should make good all that I had charged upon them whom they should acknowledg to be in his right wits But they refused to accept of that offer also I being at the Barbican-Meeting Octob. 9. 1674. fell into some Discourse with a Quaker Another that stood by seeing his Friend at a loss pulled him by the arm saying That I was a distracted man or to that effect The Quaker I was talking with cried out Alas for him is this he I told him he was mistaken for I thank the Lord I am not in that condition He presently replied I was so for Francis Campfield had declared me so to be in the Meeting at the Bull and Mouth By this the Reader may see what subtil Artifices these men make use of to evade the force of an Argument What did all this signifie to the matter in debate was it not a meer shift 2. Open and manifest Confessions of some Eminent in the Quakers Ministry concerning the Man Christ Jesus and His dying for our sins 1. I and many others being present at Mr. Mekins a Dyer in Oldstreet we heard Josiah Cole affirm That that Man which was born of the Virgin Mary and suffered at Jerusalem without the gate c. is not the Christ the Saviour of the World And he would needs undertake the proof it And having agreed beforehand that the Scripture should be the Rule to try that present Controversie by though he would not own it as the Rule of Faith he attempted to prove it as followeth J. C. It is written Isa 45. 21 22. I am God and there is none else a just God and a Saviour there is none besides me From whence he drew this inference If God be the Saviour and there is none besides him then that Man is not the Saviour It was replied That Christ was God as well as man and therefore his Argument was insufficient Quest It was asked J. C. Whether the Light or Spirit in that Man was not the Christ And he answered Yea it is so Rep. His Respondent replied A Spirit hath no flesh to be broken nor blood to be shed therefore if his Notion were true Christ never died Josaih Cole did affirm with a great deal of seeming seriousness That the true Christ in respect of himself never died A Friend of mine being present one Mr. J. D. brake forth into Admiration saying He saith Christ never suffered There being about eight of the chief Quakers in London present one of them said Thou liest he did not say Christ never suffered for he suffers in thee and others but he said Christ never dyed I met with Josiah Cole twice afterwards and both times discoursed with him about that point and he was very positive and peremptory in it asserting with the greatest confidence imaginable That Christ never died At another time being at Edw. Mans the Hosier I and divers others then present heard Patrick Livingstone another owned in the Ministry affirm That Christ in respect of himself never died neither could he because he was only God There was indeed a holy Body which he i. e. The Light in him took up acted in for a time and laid down again But that Body was no part of the Christ but only a holy Body in which he was I then brought that Scripture Luke 24. 39. to prove he had a Body as well after as before his Resurrection Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have But it seems this very saying of our Saviour was so distasteful to them that about ten of the Quakers cried out together Blasphemy Blasphemy his Christ is a Christ of flesh and bones Blasphemy And that without any Provocation thereunto for I made no Comment upon the words And at the same time Charles Harris another Eminent in the Ministry being asked Whether that holy Ordinance of the Lord's Supper was now to be practised said It 's written If any man hear my voice and open the door I will