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
is will be as hard a Task as it was to one Simonides to tell what God was but still we are as wise as before Ans Truly I don't expect to be made wiser by this discourse of thine about the Soul but give me leave to ask thee a few questions about it notwithstanding thy considence in saying It 's strange we should differ about we know not what 1. Dost thou believe the Soul of Man was Created 2. Dost thou not believe God to be Increated to subsist of and from himself and from no other 3. Dost thou believe it possible for the Blessed Creator of all things to become a Creature or for a Creature to be made God Blessed for evermore and to be without beginning and infinite He that can believe this may easily believe Transubstantiation I would have W. P. and W. L. consult together once more and see if they can invent some Answer that may Reconcile these 2 Propositions 1. That the Soul of Man was Created 2. That the Soul is God himself without beginning and infinite The first is asserted by God himself Esay 57. 16. The Souls which I have made The latter is asserted by themselves for they say the Soul is a part of God's Being c. and in this case that known Maxim will stand good Quidquid est in Deo est Deus Whatsoever is in God is God Now if they cannot Reconcile them if I come to be put to my choyce whether I will Believe God's Word or Their's I shall not only believe what God hath spoken but also that his Word will certainly stand against them for Evil. Jer. 44. ult For they have rejected the Word of the Lord and what Wisdom is in them Now I hope W. L. may see notwithstanding all that he hath said That though the Soul of Man be made Immortal and can never Die yet it had not always a Being it is not without beginning there being a time when it was not and that it is not infinite and God himself But I wonder W. L. should say that it is so hard to know what the Soul is he forgets sure that the Quakers have a light in them that they say can teach them all things if they cannot know what it is now the Scripture hath so plainly told them that Man hath a Soul surely they would have been hard put to it to have told us that and all other things Recorded in Scripture concerning God the Man Christ Jesus the Holy Spirit and the Souls of Men if they had not been written there Notwithstanding they have often told us That they could have known all those things contained in the Bible if they had never been written But I am glad we are not forced to be beholding to them for the knowledg thereof for if we were I have ground to conclude we must go without it for I have often asked What some of those things were that our Saviour did when he was upon the Earth that are not written But they could never tell me one of them Pagan Principle the 3d. THe Third Opinion charged on the Quakers is That Jesus Christ is not a distinct Person without us W. L. His Answer is These Expressions being not in Scripture are not owned by them and why we should impose them I know not Reader here is a plain confession that the Quakers do not own Jesus Christ to be a Distinct Person without us therefore T. H. is no Forger But I will examine his Reason why they do not own it It is saith he Because it is not expressed in the Scripture Now in case that supposition were true that cannot be the Reason why the Quakers do deny it 1. For first They deny the Scriptures to be a Rule of Faith and Practice unto Christians and therefore though they may sometimes make use of them against those that own them Argumentum ad hominem as I may make use of the saying of a Heathen Poet against a Heathen yet it 's shameful for a Quaker having exploded them in print from being a Rule of Faith to bring this as a Reason why they do not own it because as they say it is not written in Scripture and as W. P. doth in calling this Doctrine of T. H. Vnscriptural seeing all the real ground a Quaker can have to own any Doctrine is Because he is Taught it by the Light within and the pretence of any other proof to himself is but vain for that 's the Question Whether the Quakers themselves do believe Christ to be a Distinct Person without them 2. But Secondly These Expressions of T. H. are no more in effect than if I should say in other words That Christ is a Man without us and is he not called in Scripture the MAN Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2. 5. For surely to say he is a MAN is to suppose him both to be distinct and a Person without us Obj. But Christ is said to be in his People and to dwell in them Ans I grant it but the Scripture saith it is by the Spirit 1 John 4. 13. Hereby know we that we dwell in him and he in us because he hath given us of his Spirit Chap. 3. 24. And hereby we know that he abideth in us by the Spirit which he hath given us neither is this to be understood of the Essence but of the Gifts and Graces of the Spirit therefore it 's said so Ephes 3. 16 17. where the Apostle prayes that they might be strengthened with Might by his Spirit in the inner Man That Christ may dwell in your Hearts by FAITH 3. But thirdly I will prove that Christ is called a PERSON in Scripture Matt. 27. 24. Pilate saith I am innocent of the Blood of this JUST PERSON If they say he was a wicked man that said so then it seems a wicked Man did own more concerning Christ than a Quaker is willing to do But I can prove that the Apostle Paul useth that very Expression 2 Cor. 2. 10. For your sakes forgave I it in the PERSON of CHRIST and this doth not only prove Christ to be a PERSON but also that he is a DISTINCT PERSON without us Because Paul doth here tell the Church that in that Act he did Represent the PERSON of Christ he being in respect of his HUMANE NATURE absent and in Heaven and that he acted in his stead But surely the Opposition the Quakers make against the PERSON of Christ is wholly Vnscriptural Never any true Minister or Christian mentioned in Scripture did ever oppose this Doctrine of Christ's being a Distinct PERSON without us if they did let them shew it us in their Next 4. But Fourthly Seeing Syllogizing which they formerly condemned is now grown into Fashion among them I will give them one Argument to prove Christ Jesus to be a REAL and True MAN If all the Properties of a Humane Person were found in Christ then he was a Real and True Man But all the
for this Charge for the saying brought to prove it is thus That which was spoken from the Spirit of Truth in any is of as great Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are and greater Geo. Whitehead's Serious Apol. p. 49. Reply A man may see how dark the eyes of this mans understanding are become that he should acknowledg that G. W. speaks the very words that T. H. charges upon them and yet can see no reason for this Charge But I hope he can see that this proves T. H to be no Forger W. L. Having confessed the Charge he goes to excuse it by saying That the addition of these words and greater will easily make any moderate man to believe G. W. means in some cases it may be greater Answ The Question that was put will inform us of his meaning i. e. Do you esteem of your speakings to be of as great Authority as any Chapter in the BIBLE Now both these words are in the Quakers Answer Of as great Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are and greater though W. L. hath the civility to leave out and chapters are I know not for what cause unless it were to introduce that instance he gives on purpose to evade the force of T. H. his evidence But I will not let it slip W. L. saith And that we cannot deny for if one of T. H. or I. G ' s. Sermons should at any time make a greater impression upon you or I than ever any Scripture did may we not lawfully say That the Spirit of Truth speaking in either of these men was of greater Authority to us that is wrought more powerfully upon us by them than by the Scriptures Answ To this I would make this answer 1. That W. L. mistakes the Question exceedingly for it 's not about the influence but the Authority which the Scripture hath over us as a Rule 2. That W. L. supposes by these expressions that T. H. and I. G. do not expound the Holy Scriptures in their Sermons Which is a false Supposition 3. And from thence he concludes That the influences their Sermons have upon the Consciences of their Auditors is not from the Power and Authority of God's Word but of their own sayings 4. Whereas he supposes the Spirit of Truth speaks by these men I readily grant it but not exclusive of but in conjunction with the Doctrine they preach agreeable to the Holy Scriptures 5. Therefore I conclude That whatever good effect their Doctrine hath upon the Souls of men for their Conversion and Salvation it is wrought by those words they deliver unto us not as they are the words of men taken abstractedly for as such they can have no such Efficacie but as they are indeed the Word of God which effectually worketh in them that believe Thus all men may see this instance serves not to the purpose for which he intended it Quest But saith W. L. What need we fear any dangerous Consequences attending this saying so long as they agree with us in this That every Spirit speaking contrary to plain Scripture is false Answ This man is very apt in drawing fale sSuppositions Do the Quakers that deny the Scriptures to be a Rule of Faith and Practice make it the Standard to try Spirits by and conclude all to be false that speak contrary thereunto No if they had done that or would yet do it they would see themselves to be false Teachers no Christians but Impostors Their Principles and Practices being contrary to Holy Scripture and the Rule of Christianity therein contained 7. Pagan Principle THe Seventh Charge is That is no Command from God to me which God hath given by way of Command to another Neither did any of the Saints act by the Command which was to another Every one obeyed their own Command W. L. He saith There is no great difficulty nor danger in this for it 's very true in one sense and as false in another and Charity will always take the best Reply There is so great danger in it that it leaves all men without a Rule for their Faith and Practice For if I am to obey none of those Commands given by God to others and recorded in Scripture for our Instruction and there be no new Revelation for the Rule of my Faith and Practice then are all men wholly destitute of a Rule and yet this is the very case And whereas he would salve it by distinguishing between one Command and another and allowing the Quakers a liberty to pick and chuse obey what they list and leave the rest undone This may not be allowed by the Quakers themselves for they confess that the Scriptures were all given forth by the same Spirit and therefore must needs be of equal Authority in those Commands they enjoyn upon us as our duty Object I know no Objection lies against this but the Quakers affirming They have immediate Revelation for the Rule of their Faith and Practice Answ I answer It 's easie to affirm any thing But that they cannot prove it is evident not only from the want of sufficient Testimony at all times when they have been desired to prove it but particularly for that at the late Dispute in their own Meeting-house in Wheelers-street they were not able to give any other Demonstration of it but what a Turk or Impostor might give or pretend too equal with them But if they think they can do it when they have further consulted one another about it I will give them a longer time that they may fetch in what other Auxiliaries they have for I perceive the Light within them cannot supply them with sufficient Demonstration for if it could they had that to have been Geo Keith's Dictator in Wheelers-street In the mean time I would ask W. L. a few Questions upon his Distinction 1. Why he should say That the Quakers except against some particular Commands as not belonging to them as that Command to the Jews To anoint their heads when they fasted that to the young man To sell all and give to the poor and that to Paul To go to Rome Whereas it 's manifest the Quakers say That not any one of the Commands in Scripture concern them That the Scripture is no Rule to them 2. Why he should say That no Quaker will say these Commands Swear not at all Love your Enemies Quench not the Spirit c. concerns not them because they were spoken to others Whereas he knows they do so confidently affirm That those are no Commands to them that were given by God to others and recorded in the Scriptures 3. If the Scripture be no Rule how comes the Quaker to know that it is a sin to Swear and a vertue not to Swear at all He must not say Because 't is written in Matth. 5. Swear not at all for that Command was given to those that lived 1600 years ago and therefore that can be no Command to them For Edw. Burroughs saith in his
works page 47. That is no Command from God to me which he commands to another Neither did any of the Saints we read of in Scripture act by the Command which was to another c. They obeyed every one their own Command 4. If it be a sin as the Quaker saith To take any Oath how comes it then to pass that the Quakers do frequently go to Law with their Neighbours and employ men yea give them money to come in and swear for them And also when others cannot be accepted in their stead Why do some of the chief Quakers in London take Oaths themselves Surely if your Principle be true both these Practices are Abomination to the Lord. Now with what face of Truth or Honesty can these men censure others and do the same things themselves 5. How can the Quakers tell what Spirit it is they must receive must not quench the motions of must be taught and instructed by and that those things it teaches them are true What Rule is there to distinguish it from all false Spirits that so all men may know what Spirit they are to follow and what to reject If these things be not discovered by the Light of the Holy Scriptures how can they be known If they must be examined by the Light thereof then the Scriptures must be acknowledged to be our Rule and the Commands therein binding to us notwithstanding all that the Quakers say to the contrary 8. Pagan Principle THe Eighth Charge is That Justification by that Righteousness which Christ fulfilled for us wholly without us is a Doctrine of Devils W. P's Answer is thus And indeed this we deny viz. Justification by the Righteousness which Christ fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us And boldly affirm it in the name of the Lord to be a Doctrine of Devils and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption which doth now Deluge the World Will. Penn. Serious Apol. p. 148. Will. Lud. saith This makes a great noise surely somewhat more than ordinary moved W. P. to write at this rate Herein he confesses the Charge so that T. H. is no Forger But first saith W. L. let us calmly consider the terms whereupon he doth express himself in favour of W. P. W. L. This one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serves for Justification and Righteousness all along the New-Testament so that when we are said to be justified it is all one in my understanding as to be made just or righteous Reply I will speak something to this before I proceed any further And first whereas he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serves for Justification and Righteousness all along the New-Testament I hope he doth not intend that there is no other words used to express it by for I think that word is but seldom used in the New-Testament upon that occasion but most frequently other words to express the Spirits meaning by as in Rom. 5. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore being justified by faith vers 16. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the free gift is of many offences unto Justification v. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto Justification of life And Mr. Leigh in his Critica Sacra p. 69. saith thus upon that very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justitia i. e. Justice in which sense he saith the word is often used and brings in Cornelius à Lapide speaking thus Justitia ea quae est in nobis and a little after Est ipsa animi integritas sanctitas innocentia per quam sancti vivimus placemus Deo vel bonis viris So that it must be understood to respect that Integrity Holiness and Innocency of the souls of good men by which they live a holy life and please God But this cannot be done without their persons be first acquitted of their former sins by the Justification they receive from Christ through believing 1. But here I do distinguish between a Legal Righteousness so as to obey perfectly all that God requires at all times both in thought word and deed 2. An Evangelical Righteousness which is a sincere endeavour of the Soul to do all that God requires although by reason of the pravity of his nature he cannot attain it which is accepted with God for Christs sake as if he had perfectly done it 3. And that Righteousness which Christ fulfilled for us in his own Person wholly without us which was his keeping the Law perfectly in our stead and his suffering death for our sins 1 Cor. 15. 3. Christ died for OVR sins according to the Scriptures Now this is imputed to us if we believe Rom. 4. 5 6 7 8. 22 23 24 25. And Christ is made unto us Righteousness 1 Cor. 1. 30. And in this sense he is called The Lord OVR Righteousness Jer. 23. 6. And therefore it 's said Christ was made sin for VS who knew no sin that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5. ult He bare OVR sins in his own body on the tree 1 Pet. 2. 24. The truth is if Legal Righteousness and Justification THROVGH Christ according to the Gospel be the same thing then the Quaker is right in denying Justification by that Righteousness Christ fulfilled for us both Actively and Passively in his own Person wholly without us But then the Apostle Paul was mistaken who saith A man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Jesus Christ Even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law for by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified for if Righteousness come by the Law then Christ is dead in vain Gal. 2. 16 21. But by this I perceive That the Quakers rather than they will own Justification by that Righteousness Christ fulfilled for us wholly without us they will avoid that absurdity laid upon that Opinion by the Apostle i. e. That then Christ died in vain by affirming That Christ in respect of himself never died But why I may not from hence conclude The Quakers professing Christianity to be vain I know not If W. P. can demonstrate the contrary I desire he would But let us hear what W. L. hath to say further touching this thing W. L. Now that no man can make himself so or that he can be so without Christs Righteousness and also that this act of justifying us or making us just is of the free Grace of God through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ I believe it is granted by us and them Answ If by Vs W. L. mean according to his former false Insinuation the Baptists and himself though indeed he is not one of that number neither can he be so accounted Then I answer That those words expressed by him if as honestly intended as plainly exprest is that the Baptists and other Protestants own But as I know the Quakers do not own it
there be no defect in either But to proceed In p 69. he saith The Apostles Doctrine contains Rules but the Light within that gave it forth was the Rule the chief or highest Rule for Guidance and Power and that wherein was the Power of Rule and Government to all true Christians And in p. 58. he is displeased much because his Antagonist doth not believe that their Light is sufficient to direct men to believe in Jesus Christ But is it not manifestly insufficient for that the Quakers who pretend to be guided by that Light do not believe in him as I have made appear Now when G. W. hath thus asserted the sufficiency and infallibility of the Light at the close of his Introduction p. 16. Dictator-like he comes forth like a Pope and General Council with a most dreadful Sentence against all that will not believe him in these words To deny the true God who is Light is Atheism But to deny his immediate Light in man is to deny the true God Surely this is a higher piece ofVncharitableness than Mr. Ives can be supposed to be guilty of in saying The Quakers are no Christians I could have alledged many more Testimonies but these are sufficient Now to prove that this is no new Doctrine let us hear what the Popish Priests say to this point The Papist saith It is that Body called the Church or Divine Revelation which is the Infallible Rule A Book entituled A Manual of Contr. written by a Pomish Priest lays this down for an Article of Faith That the Church of Rome is Infallible in all her Propositions and Definitions of Faith and is so to be received under pain of Damnation And this is known to be their professed Principle Bellar. de verb. Dei Interp. Those that speak against the Popes Decrees and Humane Institutions are false Teachers For the Pope hath Power and Authority to judg in all Controversies in Doctrine and to give forth the right meaning of the holy Scripture and no man may appeal from his judgment Charon's Third Truth chap. 2. having said That the Church and the Scripture are Judges together He adds But the Church is primarily and principally and with great preheminence and a little after The Scripture is not nor cannot be the last Rule and Soveveign Judg of Doctrine And chap. 3. p. 2. Faith that is necessary to Salvation comes from the Churches speaking and not from the Reading of the Scripture Without knowing of which after a sort yea and without believing or obeying it expresly a thousand millions are saved And to be short a man may be a Christian and a good Christian and be saved without the Scripture but not without the Church for the Scripture hath no Authority Weight or Power over us but only so much as the Church doth allow and assign unto it In a Boook entituled Reason against Railery c. p. 7. are these words It may be asked when one pitches upon a determinate sense of any place beyond what the Letter inforces by what light he guides himself in that Determination And then answers That that Light whatever it is and not the Letter is indeed the formal Revealer or Rule of Faith 〈◊〉 in the next Paragraph The Letter-Rule secluded I advanced saith he to prove That Tradition or that Body called the Church taken as delivering her thoughts by a constant Tenor of living Voyce and Practice visible to the whole World is the absolute certain way of conveying down the Doctrine taught at first In 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stillingfleeton c. Part 2. p. 19. it 's said That Divine Revelation is firmer and more Authentick than either Scripture or our seeing and again It is the sole standing unextinguishable general Light set up for the assured Guidance of all men And p. 27. They are certain and know themselves certain and declare so much before the face of the Sun and all the eyes of Heaven by their stability fixedness and immovability in Faith In another Popish Book entituled A Rational Compendious way c. p. 31. The Roman Catholick Religion doth not teach any thing as an Article of Faith which is either an Error or a Corruption And p. 30. The Roman Church is infallible and perpetual Now from what hath been said we may draw this Conclusion 1. That if W. L. say true That he is no Christian who denies the Divinity of Christ If he means in the common sense viz. as he is the Second Person in the Divine Essence then the Quakers are no Christians for in that sense they deny the Divinity of Christ in denying the Trinity of Persons 2. That they do really deny the Humane Nature to be a part of Christ and that Sacred Person whom God hath Anointed with the Holy Spirit who is both God and Man The man Christ Jesus to be the Christ the Saviour of the World And so fulfil that Prophecy Even denying the Lord that bought them 3. From hence it follows That the Quakers have no Christ at all but one of their own setting up and adoring For the name Christ cannot be properly applied to the Divine Nature taken Abstractively as I have fully proved And they confess they own no other Christ but the Light within them which they say is only God though in truth it is but a created Light and they Idolaters in worshipping a Creature instead of the Creator 4. If he be no Christian that hath no Rule for his Faith and Practice then the Quakers are no Christians for they have no Rule for their Faith and Practice For 1. They confess the holy Scriptures are not their Rule 2. It 's apparent notwithstanding their high pretences they have not Divine and Immediate Revelation for their Rule for they cannot demonstrate it by Scripture right Reason nor any other way Thus I have used my endeavour according to the Exhortation of the Apostle 2 Tim. 2. 25 26. In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves if God peradventure will give them Repentance to the acknowledging of the Truth And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the Devil who are taken captive by him at his will The Lord open the eyes of their understanding and bless this Treatise to all those good ends and purposes for which it is intended To whom be glory in the Churches by Christ Jesus throughout all Ages World without end Amen William Russel Here followeth a Letter from the Baptized-Congregation in Reading concerning William Luddington Brother Ives I Received yours and advised with the Brethren about it and the Answer which is That we do not own William Luddington in any such Relation as Communion with us neither do we know any Principle of Religion that he is stedfast to But about ten or twelve years since he was here in Prison and blamed much for refusing to give God thanks for any of his Mercies or to joyn with them that did with many other strange Humours as Mr. Mason can tell you not suiting with Christian Religion But was looked upon by all to be a Quaker and sometimes a supposed Behmenist which uncertain Fictions best suited his wandring Fancy Sometimes he is for universal Communion with all sorts as he calls it And sometimes speaking against Forms and says He never preached for Baptism nor never would For that Text Mat. 28. 19 20. To the end of the World he says was to the end of that Age. And he had wrote a Book two years since to that purpose and going to print it But Mr. Maynard perswaded him to the contrary So that for this Ten years past we have been so far from any Communion that we have had little Religious Converse neither did we ever find he desired any with us And as for his writing on the behalf of the Quakers he hath done them so little service here that he hath only discovered his folly and made his best Friends ashamed of him and many others say they were deceived in him So that we may say He hath here met with the just reward of his folly and is discerned by all sober rational Christians and left only to be supported if by any by such giddy Brains that will lay hold on any rotten Post to support a Tottering Building But at last yours came and was so acceptable that your Enemies say you have gained great Credit by your discrcet managing that Business And you have morae raised the hearts of all your and the Lord's truly loving Friends towards you And as it is common for men that want Wisdom or good Argument for what they would have to supply it with Railing and abundance of words so your Adversaries have done But God hath furnished you better as appears by your managing this business To whose guidance we leave you with our prayers that you may be kept to the end And rest Your Brethren in Christ Signed by consent By Daniel Roberts Reading this 6th of Decemb. 1674.