run 48 pages farther bring something spoken of Christ as a contradiction to what he said before to which it had no relation But farther methinks I see W. R. sporting and triumphing over this Addition of mine by letting fly so many Scripture instances to shew what strange sences the taking out or putting in of a word or letter will produce He tells us of a Printer that left out Not in the 7th Commandment and then it was Thou shalt commit adultery And another fancy perhaps of his own which had been better concealed for it looks too much like prophane Drollery from 1 Cor 15 51 where saith he take away c from Changed and then it is We must all be hanged But are these Instances to our purpose Is the Case all one between the Scriptures and those mens writings who are alive to approve or disown what additions you make again the words letters that W. R. substracts from Scripture are such as make the Sence remaining run directly contrary to all Scripture and Reason whereas my Addition made the Charge agree with both But Thirdly Though I know we cannot add any word into the Scripture yet consider whether most Christians do not either in their Doctrinal or Practical Comments upon it make Additions When any man Bapâ—izeth by vertue of the Commission Mat. 28.19 doth he not add the word water to it When we oppose the Roman Purgatory pressed upon us from 1 Gor. 3.13 do not we add before Death or some words to that purpose When one saith Christ died for all men and proves it from 1 Tim. 2.6 will not another of a contrary mind say the word Elect is to be understood or added to make it agree with other Scriptures Now this is my Case they who make these Additions justifie me for as these words make these texts in their understanding agree with others more plain and less liable to exception so my Addition made this Charge more agreeable to other plainer Writings of the Quakers Seeing then there are different senses put upon these Texts and others I could name W. R. did not considerately compare the Quakers Writings to Heathen Oracles because in some places they may seem to admit of divers Constructions for he cannot but see what will follow if an Argument should be drawn from the Premises upon him The Second Charge against the Quakers is That the Soul is a part of God and of Gods Being without Beginning and Infinite Here faid I what hurt is there in all this that is in this Notion about the Soul or In twenty more of the like nature But when I proceed to say I never heard the Heathen were of this Opinion then W. R. makes advantage of my brevity and presently falls to proving that the Heathen had divine Apprehensions of the Soul which I deny not but this is not our business W. R. should have kept his eye upon the main design of this Charge as I did which T. H. tells us verbatim in p. 16. of the first Dial. is to bring an absurdity upon the Quakers for saith he If this be so then their Opinion must be thus understood God sets up a Light in himself which He Himself is to obey and in so doing he shall be saved Now to this being the substance of the Charge and without this there 's no hurt in it I said the Heathen were not of this Opinion or drew they any Consequences from their Apprehensions of the Soul leading them to any inward Idolatry but rather on the contrary as the changing the glory of God into Images of Men and Beasts Rom. 1. So that nothing is more opposite to Quakerism than Heathenism vulgarly understood that being all for Inward Spiritual Worship and this for an Outward gross Idolatry Moreover under this Charge W. R. makes a disparity betwixt the Soul of Man and Spirit of God which I oppose not because it hurts not the Question viz. Why may we not as well say God hath given us a measure of Himself as a measure of his Spirit No faith he because the Soul is a Creature made by God immortal and cannot die But in so saying he opposeth Austin and Jerome who say That if the Soul be seminated with the Flesh or come ex traduce then it shall die with the flesh If I should tell him what the Lord saith Ez. 18. The Soul that sins shall die I know he would answer that Soul there signifies the Body and why it may not so be taken in Isa 57. I leave to others to judge For my own part though I believe the Soul Immortal yet I never saw any great cause to Anathema those that held it slept with the body so long as they firmly believed it should be raised again to partake of Immortality for the Contest betwixt us is but about a little space of time which in the Grave signifies nothing but indeed betwixt them and the Roman Catholicks this Contest is of great concernment for it utterly overturns their profitable Doctrine of Purgatory Therefore they have no reason to suffer it But why we may not bear with one another about that and this Notion about the Soul in the Charge so long as the Absurdity aforesaid is detested I know not And for all W. R. huffs at my Confidence in saying It 's strange we should differ about we know not what I see no reason he has given to leave off this Admiration For if he should devote himself to read all that ever has been written about the Soul and all its Definitions and all such Quiddities about it as tota in toto and tota in qualibet parte I dare affirm he will not be more able to tell us what the Soul of Man is than he was before Therefore let him not think that I write any thing about the Soul to make him much the wiser but only in this sense that we may all be so wise as to leave contending about it And for this cause I shall take no notice of more Questions of that Subject for I think he puts them but to try whether I will be so foolish as to Answer them I shall conclude this Charge with telling W. R. that I writ not those Verses he jerks me for to jeer my Friends but that by telling them what others say they may be weaned from these unprofitable and dishonourable Disputes whom it chiefly concerns to think on it But if I were minded to seek after a jeering Spirit in his Writings I doubt I should find a downright one in that pertinent Question he so often hath put to the Quakers viz. What some of those things were that our Saviour did upon Earth that are not Written Don't you think this a wise one and a charitable one too Doubtless he might have posed the Prophet David with an easier Question than this For he saith Psal 35.15 That the Abjects gathered themselves against him and he knew it not though 't is
should say he seems yet to deny him Could I perswade him he should not write a Line more upon this Subject for I know the Spirit of Curiosity and Jelousie will never be satisfied but call whatever he says Masks of evasive Pretences Clouds of Impertinences c. Nay in all probability if he should write much more about it he would soon have others as loudly calling upon him to own the Divinity as now W. R. and many more do to own the Humanity for so it happened after his writing the Sandy Foundation c. 2. The next thing remarkable are the Reasons why he presents his Book to Mr. Penn. In the first he insinuates such an intimacy betwixt us as if he had a hand in Composing the Pagan Principles which in a word is false In his Second and Third Reasons see how plainly he contradicts himself in saying I have espoused W. P. his Quarrel and yet have layed nothing to Mr. Hicks his Charge when as Mr. Penns Charge is the only Quarrel as W. R. calls it and I never heard of any other betwixt them Neither have I espoused this any farther than in a moderating way betwixt them in Love to both which I believe is a Duty more incumbent upon many others for neglect whereof I desire they may not be accountable at the Great Day W. R. might plainly perceive that my design was not to Charge for in p. 4. I said My Intent is only to shew how small a quantity of Christian Charitable Construction might make these Charges passable among us all Again what a strange Inference doth VV. R. draw from my calling T. H. my Friend that therefore W. P. ought not to call him Forger may not one of my Friends wrong another of them and no necessity lie upon me to fall out with either or to interpose unless for the Reason aforenamed T. Hicks his Conversation has been reputed honest for many years and being willing to hope that in general it is so still I call'd him Friend and desire not to carry it otherwise towards him though I am no Friend to his Dialogues And if in them he has wronged VV. P. or others either by adding to or substracting any thing from their writings or by putting down any Answers for theirs which are not theirs which is to be feared he would do very well to follow that Counsel W. R. gives W. P. viz. retract and count it no dishonour to him It 's a difficult thing to turn Religious Controversies into a Dialogue without consent of both Parties for if he change but a letter he is liable to a lash unless he has been so careful to preserve the sence of his Antagonist that he cannot object against it and then no man can be angry You nay see by what I have done that the Quakers are not so curious of their words but that they will give us leave to put in such as may help us to a right understanding of their Principles when their own expressions seem dark unto us The remainder of what W. R. hath writ worth noting before he comes to the Charges contains a bad Comparison and a far-fetcht Conclusion First He compares me to him that intending to kill his Enemy with a stab let out the Imposthume But let him remember the Proverb mala mens malus animus The Imposthume indeed is somewhat proh dolor to the purpose For it 's greatly to be feared that there are too many inward Swellings of Pride Covetousness Evil Surmizings and Malice among many sorts of Professors this day And O how happy would those Pens be that by the blessing of the Almighty Physitian should be made Spiritual Love Lances to let them out But as for the other Part of the Similitude which represents me as an Enemy to the Baptists he does thereby eminently signifie his Ignorance and adds that which his last seven years Certificate will not countenance Secondly W. R. draws such a Conclusion from my Title Page as I think Zoilus himself would not have done Because I say these are Twelve Opinions for which T. H. has published the Quakers to be no Christians that therefore I confess they hold them If this be not a Quibble I never heard one And the root of it is this Particle for But is it not a common and plain form of Speech among us to say Such a man was posted for a Coward or accused for a Jesuite and does it follow then that he was so I doubt W. R. minds the Idioms of Greek and Hebrew so much that he forgets the Propriety of his Mother Tongue But what need all this when in p. 4. I say to prevent mistakes Think not I plead for them as if I my self or they owned them for both in their Books and Conferences they deny at least ten of them as they are layed down and construed by T. H. Alas poor Quakers Now I pity you more than ever no marvel if you complain so sadly of wrong Constructions Forgeries and Lyes when such plain words as these will not free me from a Confession I never thought of Poor Flock of Slaughter Zac. 11.4 I see your own Country men must not speak a word for you unless they resolve to be your Companions in Tribulation All words that can be bended against you shall and those that cannot shall be rejected as Whimsies and Impertinencies However I shall proceed to make some brief Reply But here I am in a streight for I see my brevity is liable to be filleâ— up with Words to make it speak Absurdities or contrary Sences And if I usâ— many words then I shall be counted 〈◊〉 man of words wanting Wisdome oâ— good Argument Well do as the Lord directs O my Soul and leave the issuâ— to himself 1. The first Charge against the Quakers is That the light in every Man is God Now because this Charge as it lies seem to fix many foolish and improbable Absurdities upon them as that when they pray they only pray to a God within them and that they make as many Gods as there are men in the world therefore said I to moderate the Charge prevent mistakes and render it more intelligable to every man put in but of and all is well And this W. P. himself doâ—s in p. 8 of R. against R. Where we have him thus answering T. H. about this very Charge and saying That the Light within present with us every where is to us the great proof of Gods omnipresence and therefore of God And in page 7 he blames T. H. for insinuating from G. W. his words that every Illumination is whole God And as much he said to John Faldo page 10th of Quakerism a new nick name Far be it from us to assert every such illumination to be the only Lord and Saviour and very God and more to the same purpose in that page And indeed in these places W. R. should have looked for W. P. his sence and not have
is that T. H. rates the Quakers for making them necessary to Justification and that I think is as far from Christianity as the contrary is from Heathenism The Tenth Charge against the Quakers is That Christ fulfilled the Law only as our Pattern This word only being the occasion of this Charge I did endeavour to moderate and said That to an innocent understanding it signifies no more than chiefly as our Pattern which is far from signifying that there is no other end of Christs fulfilling the Law And W. P. himself mentions other ends in p. 79. of R. against R. But saith W. R. How can I count this an honest Sentence and yet will not justifie it And here he leaves out one half of my Sentence and then cries out I am very Inconsistent And well may I or any man else at this Rate But take all together and it 's thus This is an honest Sentence though I will not justifie it so worded and understood as T. H. doth For T. H. Prints this word only in a different Caracter that it might have such an Emphasis put upon it as was never intended for it And again T. H. understands or else would have others to understand by this word only That Christ fulfilled the Law yea and died too for no other end but as our Pattern of Obedience and Sufferings And if this be not his understanding of W. Penns Sentence this Charge is frivolous and of no use or advantage at all against the Quakers And this sence of it I will not justifie and I am sure W. P. denys it and oppugnes it Again W. R. queries why I call this Heathen Doctrine seeing the word Heathen is not so much as mentioned by T. H. I answer every Plough-man teaches it me from the Title page of his Dialogue by a better sort of Inferencing than helped him to the 4th Charg That Christ Redeemed himself far more plain and passable among the people And whereas W. R. saith the honour of that name belongs to me I must tell him that upon a second view I find he do's Mr. Faldo wrong For although the Dialogues made the first noise of Heathenism in these parts yet it seems Mr. Faldo put out a Book to degrade the Quakers from the Title of Christians a little before The Eleventh Charge is That the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction is Irreligious and Irrational As he who is truly desirous to quench a fire will be most active in pulling away those Brands that increase the Flame So he that heartily mediates for Peace labours more to remove those words that stir up wrath than to make Arguments to strengthen either side Upon this very Account I said substract the word Irreligious In hopes that rhen the greatest offence taken at this Doctrine might cease For I know many and hope there are thousands more unknown to me that live religiously though they believe this Doctrine even in T. H. his sence yea and the Doctrine of Predestination too And am verily perswaded I shall meet them there where all Controversies shall fly away But for all I have adventured to do this yet I see W. R. will not be satisfied he must have the whole Charge substracted before the Dispute shall be ended How true a Representative is this man of the generality of the Contenders and Disputers of this Day but oh how lamentable is it For go into any of their Congregations and you shall hear them Commending Preaching up and Praying for Peace Moderation and Christian Charity But when you come to put them to the test and know what they will do or what they will abate towards such an Accommodation you 'l â—ind not a word not a letter not a hair of their head or a Notion that signifies â—s little to be parted with for it So that â—ndeed when any of them pray for Unity or Charity it is in Substance no more but that all may be turned to their Opinions or else Anathama Maranatha God convert them But here I cannot but take notice of the Quakers peaceable desires in not contending with me about â—eaving out this word though W. R. â—ells me in a jeering way it 's not to be left â—ut for W. P. spake it by immediate Inspiration Well then I perceive men speakâ—ng by Inspiration are more easily made â—olyable to cease from Controversie than â—hey that speak without it But let VV. R. his pretences for Truth be never so great I 'le not regard them while he can both scoff at one of the greatest Evangelical Doctrines abuse them that confess it â—nd by such Fire-kindling Books as this he hath now published not endeavour â—o accommodate but extend the diffeâ—ence to the hinderance of Peace So much concerning Irreligious Now as to the Irrationality of thâ— Doctrine I find VV. R. himself makinâ— it no Attempt to vindicate it from such 〈◊〉 Charge only sporting himself with 〈◊〉 idle quibble or two about it lets it pasâ— but not without an Untruth to bring uâ— the Rear For the Searcher of all hearâ—â— knows I spake nothing to this or anâ— other point to gratifie W P. or any mâ—â— else which this Enemy to Paganism haâ— so little Christianity as to suggest The Twelfth Principle Charged 〈◊〉 the Quakers is That this Body which diâ—â— shall not rise again Now we are come to the main 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grand Charge Now says W. R. 〈◊〉 61. Speak out and be not afraid now comes to the Point I though I had spoke plain enough before or else he doth 〈◊〉 if he doth not understand me to saâ— There is no more difference betwixt me aâ—â— a Quaker in this Article than betwiâ—â— four pence and a groat But if I can yâ—â— speak lowder I shall Know thereforâ— W. R. that I believe from the bottom of my heart That the Quakers are mâ—â—â— basely abused in this matter by the crasâ— Insinuations of many malicious men Foâ— though the Citizens generally have such â—â—arp Needle Heads that there 's very â—â—w of them that mind things of this naâ—ure but see or are easily brought to see â—here the fallacy of a Proposition lies â—â—t scarce one Country man of an hundred can discern it Tell not me what 's â—â—e Question but what is the fruits and â—ffects of it I strike at that And if you â—re not willing such absurd Consquences â—…ould be suckt out of your Questions â—â—ate them so plain as to prevent it If â—ou would not have the Quakers called Heathens do not say they are no Chriâ—â—ians Let T. H. come into a Country â—uditory and Preach that the Quakers â—eny the Resurrection of this Body and â—â—t me afterwards examine them and if â—â—e generality do not go away with this â—elief if they give any credit to him â—â—at the Quakers deny the Resurrection â—â—e burn my Books How often have I â—eard them in Sermons compared to Hyâ—eneus and Philetus who concerning the truth have err'd Saying that the
Resurrection is past already And what think â—ou can be the Design of this Compariâ—â—n but to possess peoples minds that they deny any Resurrection at all Whereas you cannot but know that the Difference betwixt them and us is onlâ— about the manner of the Resurrection a needless nay a forbidden Controversie even by him that you think says moâ—â— for your Notion And let any impartiâ—â— man but read the very Quotations yoâ— have brought out of their Books anâ— all that ever W. P. has writ about it anâ— they will say the same And I shall plain tell you more That if I did understanâ— the Quakers as well in all other poinâ—â— as in this I should not have refrainâ—… their Meetings as I have done and dâ— not that I think it unlawful to go bâ—â— I will not say I would be a Quaker thâ—â— is one of the weakest passages in all yoâ—â— book As if a man could be a Quâ—ker or any other Profession when 〈◊〉 pleased It s true indeed he may perhaâ—â— when he will take up the formal of any thing But to get into 〈◊〉 Life Spirit and Power of Reliâ—â—on is not a work so easie as you suâ—gest Next I shall speak to that whiâ—â— hath something of Argument in it and conclude I brought a Demonstration sufficient to convince any rational man that the Quakers did own a Resurrection and a better Being after Death or else they would never be so mad as to expose themselves to all sorrows and miseries in this life when they may avoid it The Apostle himself confirms this Consequence saying Let us eat and drink if to morrow we shall die and be no more But W. R. rejects this and brings two Witnesses to be of his side The first of the Saduces which saith he were men that profest Religion in opposition to the common Opinion of the Jews and so consequently were exposed to sufferings Mark it he says they were but Consequently exposed to Sufferings he tells us of none Nor do I remember any they suffered for their Religion as tide a Consequence as T. H.'s used to be It 's true they shared in the unavoidable Calamities of War but that is not to our Business Other stories mention a Tolleration among them and that they liv'd peaceably in their several ways Again if I may draw Consequences also it 's as probable they were wicked men as good notwithstanding their Profession and their fine name For nothing is more common than for the worst men to get the best names The Pharisees name was as full of Holyness as the Sadduces of Justice and yet were the vilest men in those times But suppose some particular Sadduces should rather suffer death than deny their Notions this would be no better proof than if you had brought some high Spirited Gallant who will out brave death for a point of Honour Besides there is no Confession of theirs now extant and we know what it is to take one at anothers hand nor doth Josephus make all of them so to hold Your other Testimony is of the Esseans And you bring some of Josephus his words saying That notwithstanding they denyed the Resurrection of the Body yet they could not be forced to revile their Law Maker but scofft at their Tormentors and joyfully yielded up their Souls as though they hoped to receive them again And so indeed they did hope for in the same page saith Josephus It was an Opinion among them that the Body is corruptible but yet the Souls remain for ever immortal And that when they are delivered out of these carnal bonds then presently as freed from a long bondage they joyfully mount aloft the good to felicity the bad to misery Now why would you conceal this did you think I would trust you No you knew this confirmed what I had said That the Quakers exposing themselves to this lifes miseries was a plain Demonstration they owned a better being hereafter But you serve Josephus as you serve me either take no more than serves your turn or stop where it makes an ill sound to the Reader Mind your dealing in pag. 63. where you bring in my Answer thus But suppose they should tell us this very Body shall not rise what care I Is this a handsome place to stop at or just to do so What will a hasty man be ready to say when he reads this surely this is a careless man indeed he cares not whether his Body rise or not And so may take pett read no farther and then what reports must I expect Sir this is not Christianity nor Paganism in the best sence Such devises as these will do you no service in the end tho for a time they may bring Scandals upon Quakers and all that desire their Toleration You know the whole Sentence is this But suppose they should tell us this very Body should not rise what care I so long as they tell me I shall have a better And Sir when you hear of any Beggar that rails upon another for taking away his earthen Pitcher after he has given it him again turn'd into Gold then will I repent of this carelessness Your last and greatest Argument to prove your Notion about the manner of the Resurrection you would have grounded upon Reason A thing I confess I love so deerly that I dayly pray to be delivered from Unreasonable men for all men have not Faith 2 Thes 3.2 whence I conclude that an unreasonable Faith commonly produces the worst sort of unreasonable works that is Conscience Persecution But to your Argument which you say is highly rational the substance whereof is That if the Body be a partaker of the Sin it should also partake of the Punishment But the Body is a partaker of the Sin therefore This I think is your sence for these are your words It s absurd to imagine that one Body should commit the sin and another Body that never sinned be punisht To this then I answer that the Minor is defective For in this you suppose that the Body is a part of man capable of Action or Passion without or distinct from the Soul and if it were so I confess you are in the right But it 's no such matter This should have been proved but I fear it 's too Philosophical for you This Body is but a piece of Animated Clay and can do nothing and is good for nothing without the Soul See Dr. More on the point The evil Spirit cares not for it if he did he would not let Witches and Reprobates be burned But he knows they shall have such a body at the Resurrection as is more fit for his purpose in which the Soul like Perillus in his Brazen Bull may be tormented for ever So on the other hand though you say it 's not to be allowed never fear it I 'le venture my eternal life upon it that none will disalow of the Change of their vile bodies when they see them fashioned