of that Reply we now conclude it has Miscarried Therefore to the end we may no longer remain Silent under the Bp's Charges and Reflections c. We have thought fit at last tho late to make this Publick and the rather because we have heard some have conceived an Opinion That the Bp's Reply was Unanswerable Cork the 20th of the 7th Month 1700. Thomas Wight Nicholas Harris Advertisement REader please to mind that there are Two Impressions of W. P's Defence Extant The Citations in this Discourse respects the Second very few of the First being in Ireland But the Bps. Citations chiefly Respects the First A Rejoynder to a Book Stiled A Brief and Modest Reply to Mr. Penn's c. THE Bishop seems pleased with William Penn for Printing Gospel Truths together with his Testimony before his own Defence and begins his Introduction thus P. 1 The Bp. of Cork being to vindicate the Truth and Himself thanks Mr. P. for having Printed both his own Paper and the Bp's Testimony against it at length before his Book for the Bp. believes that all sober and Reasonable Christians who shall read those two over and consider them will easily acquit the Bp. from the first of Mr. P's Imputations in his Preface that he is a man of a mind different from those who would have strife among Christians abated and for discouraging Controversies in Religion Answ Evident then it is W. P. was careful to set the whole matter fairly before his Reader that so he might be able to make the better Judgment and we wish the Bp. had as well deserved thanks from W. P. for setting down the Defence tho' not at length yet in its due strength without suppressing so considerable a part of it and perverting so much of the rest as will be found he hath done Next we are equally agreed to refer W. P's Imputation to all sober and reasonable Christians believing they will not so easily acquit the Bp. as he thinks considering he was the only Person in Ireland who broke out into a Publick Testimony against that Inoffensive Paper called Gospell Truths and therein greatly abused us as W. P. hath plainly shewn in many Instances from Page 22 to 26 of his Defence but slipt over by the Bp. with saying To Omit things less Material as if so egregiously to abuse and villifie a People as he is there charged by W. P. to have done were a light matter with him And farther to speak our Sentiments after the Bp's way Let W. P's Defence and the Bp's Reply be read over and considered by all Sober and Impartial Christians and we cannot but believe they will be of our mind for the sakes of such only there was no need of this Rejoynder that Defence being as we think a sufficient Answer of it self to the most material parts of the Bp's Reply The Bp. proceeds thus ibid 1 the Bp. says a peaceable Testimony against the slight of men touching whom it is questionable whether they be Christians or not and against their cunning craftiness who lye in wait to deceive is no moving strife or raising quarrels among Christians Answ As to the peaceableness of the Bp's Testimony his management therein doth evidently shew it and which we leave to the Impartial Reader But if Misrepresenting Abusing and Calling us no Christians if obtruding Principles upon us as ours which we utterly disown and abhor if drawing Consequences from our Words Writings we never thought of much less intended and forcing them upon us tho we disclaim them if curtailing our Writings leaving out what explained our meaning and wilfuly overlooking our plain Sense with much more too tedious to mention would make it questionable whether we are Christians or not the Bp. is in the right Nay we will go farther with him it would not only be questionable but we had without all peradventure been positively made no Christians for it hath been the constant practice of our Adversaries since we were a People thus to deal by us and amongst the rest we cannot excuse the Bp. from having a share in some of these things which shall be shewn in their places But blessed be God 't is not the Tongues or Pens of all our Adversaries in the World can make us no Christians for we have not only believed in the outward coming and appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Flesh with his Sufferings Death Resurrection Assention and Mediation but in humility of Soul and to the praise of his Holy Name we can say we have witnessed his second coming in Spirit according to his promise John 14. 17 81. Chap. 15. 26. and 16. 13. to fit and prepare our Souls in order to obtain the benefit of his outward death and sufferings for us And thus we are not only Christians by Notion and Tradition but such in reallity for which we have the evidence in our selves according to 1 John 5. 10. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself And Rom. 8. 16. The Spirit it self beareth witness with our Spirits that we are the Children of God Here then is the double and agreeing record of true Religion the Illumination of the holy Ghost within agreeing with the Testimony of the Scriptures of Truth without which we shall have farther occasion to speak to But here that we may not be misunderstood we do not mean so largely of all such as some may call Quakers but of such whose Lives and Conversations influenced by the Holy Spirit bespeak them to be true Quakers and therefore true Christians Next as to the Bp's gross and to use his own Words scurrilous and unchristian charge of slight cuning craftinness lying in wait to deceive which is brought as a confirming charge to his Testmony in which he told us and tells again P. 9 he did not judge us We say as to this charge we shall not at present say much reserving it to be considered with more of the same kind only tell the Bp. That as we know not how he will reconcile this to modesty so we hope he will not say again he don't judge us while if what he says were true whether it respect our Principles or our Morals we think 't is plain he equally judges us to be the worst and basest of Men the Bp. Proceeds P. 1. Mr. P. adds he gave his Paper to the Bp. in a private way at a friendly visit upon his own desire This is what the Bp. Called writing in such a way that is hard to know what is meant If Mr. P. means that either he gave the Paper to the Bp. upon the Bp's Desire or made that Visit upon the Bp's Desire in both Senses the saying is utterly false for both the Visit and the Paper were a Surprize and altogether unexpected by the Bp. Thus the Bp. P. 1 and 2 Answ 1st As to the Paper take the words as they lye in W. P's Preface P. 1 which runs thus Given him by
that Paper which he gave the Bp. was not writ for an exact and compleat account of our Belief and in the Defence page 25. to 28. had declared that to believe in God is to believe him Omnipotent Omniscient and Omnipresent and that in believing in Christ as a propitiation in order to remission of Sins and justification of Sinners from the guilt of Sin was included not only believing in God Christ and the Holy Spirit but a belief of Heaven Hell Rewards and Punishments and consequently the Resurrection of the Just and Unjust this one would think had been enough to have satisfied the Bp. or any one else that had not a mind to misrepresent or cavil which it may be feared the Bp. has As to what the Bp. saith p. 4 A great Man has told us of the Gentile world and their belief in multiplicity of Gods c. It nothing concerns us we are not accountable for their but our own belief and had W. P. been to present some heathen Pontiff with our Confession of Faith concerning God and his Attributes no doubt he would have been more explicit and large then what is contained not only in the Paper called Gospel Truths but even in that Creed called the Apostles But while he intended that Paper for professed Christians he thought what was delivered therein concerning God sufficient to satisfie any who had not a mind to cavil But so earnest is the Bp. in pursuit of W. P. and the Quakers that in seeking occasion against them he plainly mistakes the Scriptures which we now come to shew Thus the Bp. p. 4. Mr. P. saith that Heb. 11. 6. seems exprest for a declaration of faith in God The Bp. takes the freedom to inform him that it was not at all intended for a full confession of Christian Faith as to that Article thereof touching the Beeing Nature and Works of God but only of such an initial or natural Faith which Men had or might have without Revelation for of the Faith of such viz. Abell and Enoch and those who lived before the Flood without any Revelation that we read of he there discourses Thus the Bp. Answ We answer for W. P. that he neither wants nor desires the Bp's Information unless it were more agreeable to Scripture then we shall find this The Bp's words here doth consist of two parts the one that the Faith of Abell Enoch and those who lived before the Flood was initial and natural without any revelation that we read of Next that Heb. 11. 6. was a discourse of such a natural Faith now if we prove the first was divine Faith and the last was no discourse of natural Faith it naturally follows the Bp. hath misrepresented the Scriptures to which purpose we will begin with the first verse in the Chapter Heb. 11. 1. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen And that this Faith was not natural but divine Faith according to Eph. 2. 8. appears very plainly from the context by the effects it produced Vers 2. By it the Elders obtained a good report Vers 3. Through Faith we understand the worlds were made by the word of God Vers 4. By Faith Abell offered unto God a more acceptable Sacrifice then Cain by which he obtained witness that he was righteous Vers 5. By Faith Enoch was translated that he should not see Death for before his translation he had this Testimony that he pleased God Now to the 6. Vers Which the Bp. says was a discourse of natural and initial Faith Vers 6. But without Faith it is impossible to please him for he that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him mind Reader the last part of this Verse was a part of what was laid down in Gospel Truths for our belief in God Vers 7. By Faith Noah being warned of God of things not seen as yet moved with fear prepared an Ark to the saving of his house by which he condemned the World and became heir of righteousness by Faith So the Apostle proceeds to the end of that Chapter which is long shewing the great and extraordinary effects of this divine Faith The Bp. seems to restrain the Text Heb. 11. 6. Only to the Faith of those who lived before the Flood But the Apostle passes on from Abel Enoch Noah to Abraham and the rest of the Patriarchs who lived between the Flood and the Law nor does the Apostle put any difference between the Faith of those before the Flood between the Flood and the Law or under the Law which the Bp. may do well to consider as also that Jude says expressly Enoch prophesied see Vers 14. Will he say he prophesied without Revelation But to shorten upon the first head Those Scriptures already cited do so plainly prove our point that we need not trouble the Reader with any more to shew that it was not natural but supernatural Faith those holy Men were endued withall by which in particular Enoch prophesied and was translated and Noah was warned to build the Ark which besides the rest are two such plain and extraordinary instances of supernatural Faith by Revelation from God that we cannot but admire the Bp. should assert those who lived before the Flood had no Revelation that we read of but what was natural and initial We leave it with the Reader and proceed to the second part in which the Bp. asserted that Heb. 11. 6. Was not at all intended for a full confession of Christian Faith touching the Beeing Nature and Works of God but of natural and initial Faith To which we answer as hath been already shewn they had divine Faith and Revelation before the Flood so consequently the Bp's Arguments do fall in course However the Text it self with the context very plainly intends spiritual and divine Faith not only with respect to those extraordinary effects produced by true Faith as well before as after the Flood but also seems expressed as W. P. hath asserted for Faith in God And we say Christian Faith too because the Apostle speaks in the present tense notwithstanding his Attributes be not there enumerated no more then they were by Moses in the word I am Instanced by W. P. but past over in silence by the Bp. Now to that Vers 6. We take leave to ask the Bp. what Faith it was they were to come unto God by and without which it was impossible to please him whether was it Natural and initial or Spiritual and supernatural Faith if he answers as he said before Natural we tell him that cannot be since the Scripture tells us all were by nature Children of wrath and that Man naturally has nothing nor can perform any thing acceptable to God see these Texts John 15. 5. Eph. 2. 3. Pro. 20. 24. 1 Cor. 2. 14. Besides many other Scriptures consequently then that Faith mentioned Heb. 11. 6. intended no other then
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
which is no where done in any one text of Scripture but is to be gathered out of many Answ Is it not strange Reader that the Bp. who so strangely condemned that Paper of Gospel Truths as short and defective for not being more explicit and full in others as well as in this point should now a second time be so very defective himself as not to tell us where those many Texts are by which the Trinity was to be proved No that he has not done for a good reason too because in all the Scriptures a more full proof could not be found then 1 John 5. 7. But the Bp. to help himself tells us of the Thirty Nine Articles and Nicene Creed To which we answer their foundation in that point ought to be the Holy Scripture if so why had not the Bp. cited or referred us to those Scriptures but in stead of confirming the Trinity we think he has rather lessened the proof thereof while he tells us the Apostles purpose was to prove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God for altho' the Apostles could not prove the Trinity without proving Jesus Christ to be the Son of God yet as the Bp. assignes that Text. by the context chiefly to prove Christ was the Son of God we ask doth he not thereby lessen the proof of the Trinity vvhile as we said above we can no where find so full and plain a Text in all the Holy Scriptures to prove the Trinity we are sure we design not to strain or misrepresent the Bp's sense but what we have said we think naturally follows from his own words and far less then we could have said on the matter As to his appeal to his Paper we agree in that point provided W. P's Defence be compared with it and there the Impartial Reader will see whether W. P. hath wronged the Bp's Sense or not and whether the Bp. hath not now confirmed W. P's asking How came the Bp. to render it a by passage and the Text it self short and otherwise intended by the Apostle then an Article of Faith about the Trinity see p. 33. of W. P's Defence in two places and thus we end as to what the Bp. has said about the Trinity P. 6 7. The Bp. tells us we must give a more explicit confession of our Faith if we expect to be accounted Christians for other reasons then he has given especially says he this for one that a great Person among them who professes as concerning their Principles he was deceived by them thinking they had held sincerely the Principles which by a more diligent search he finds they hold not Answ George Keith being the person he means as appears in the Margin we must take leave to say the Bp. is greatly mistaken for he is neither great among us nor indeed of us at all having been denied by us some Years past and as to that Man he must either have been a great Hypocrite formerly or a foul Apostate now from us The former if for about thirty Years he walkt among us and defended our Principles by word and writing and yet at the same time was not convinced of the verity of them an Apostate to be sure if being convinced of our Principles and from that perswasion defended them while now he retracts and condemns some of the very same Principles he then defended The Bp. proceeds about G Keith p. 7. assures us meaning G. K. and has Printed Testimonies out of their Books to prove they deny Answ As to G. Keith's confident assurance we question not that he having given us sufficient proof thereof already by plainly perverting and misrepresenting our friends words and writings as well as contradicting what he has before writ in defence of us and our principles and did we only refer back to our friends reitterated as well as G. K's own former writings they would sufficiently prove us Orthodox as to the four following points brought by the Bp. from G. K's Third Narrative however because the Bp. shall not have occasion to say we pass them over we will briefly consider them 1st That they i. e. the Quakers deny Faith in Christ as he outwardly suffered at Jerusalem as he rose again ascended and now sits at the right hand of God to be necessary to Salvation Answ If G. K. doth here mean that the Knowledge of the outward death and suffering of Jesus Christ is so necessary to salvation as without the knowledg of which all Men are damned and eternally lost we answer we dare not be so uncharitable as to conclude that the many millions of Men who are and have been in the World and who never had or heard of the outward history of the sufferings and death of Christ c. are so damned provided they yield obedience to the Spirit of God in them selves and thereby from unholy become Holy Men. But if he mean with respect to the Quakers and such who have had the knowledg of the outward history as recorded in Holy Scriptures we hold it absolutely necessary so to believe 2ly That we deny Justification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed Answ To this head we have spoken before and the Bp. himself hath allowed W. P. Orthodox in what is written in Gospel Truth so we need say no more of this now 3ly That we deny the Resurrection of the Body that dieth If he mean the same Numerical Body of Flesh Blood and Bones which we have here on Earth we know not where he will find Scripture for that But on the contrary he may find the Apostle 1 Cor. 15. 36. calling such curious Body Enquirers Fools Now as to us we fully own and truly believe the Resurrection of the Body according to the Holy Scripture but are not so nice and inquisitive as to enquire what sort of Body God will give us leaving that to his Divine Will who will give us such a Body as pleaseth him and this is Scripture language and agreeable to 1 Cor. 15. 36 37 38. and cited by W. P. in his Defence against the Bp's Testimony in which Book he hath briefly but fully asserted our Belief in this point which we do not find the Bp. makes any return to in his Reply by which as we take it he tacitly allows him Orthodox therein notwithstanding he now brings up this of G. K. against us 4ly That we deny Christ's coming again without us in his glorified Body to judg the Quick and the Dead Answ This charge is false because we own it in express words and would G. K. with the rest of our Adversaries let our plain words and Sense mean what they say and import there would be no room left for this malitious charge as well as many others for many of our Friends have very often publickly in print asserted our Belief in this point and W. P. in particular whom I will cite on this occasion besides in other of his writings hath fully owned the same in
Primitive Christianity revived which because we shall find his name presently mentioned in opposition to the Articles of the Creed we will insert at large as it lies in that Book P. 85. Jesus Christ took our nature upon him and was like unto us in all things sin excepted that he was born of the Virgin Mary and suffered under Pontius Pilate the Roman Governour crucified dead and buried in the Sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea rose again the third day and ascended into Heaven and fits on the right hand of God in the power and Majesty of his Father who will one day judg the World by him Even that blessed Man Christ Jesus according to their works We think we need not farther enlarge upon this point then to say as we did before the charge is wholy false Ibid. 7. The Bp. proceeds farther about G. K. thus Nay the same person i. e. G. K. professes as the Bp. has seen under his hand that he really thinks he can prove W. P. holds not one of the Articles of the Christian Creed soundly and entirely and that none ever more plainly oppugned the Doctrine of the Scriptures then W. P. and his party upon so close an evidence as this is let the World judg if the Bp. be unreasonable in demanding a better confession of Faith then by meer Innuendo's as necessary to their being allowed Christians Thus the Bp. Answ That the Bp. has seen under G. K's hand we do believe and it confirms what we heard viz. That he had writ to the Bp. offering to supply the Bp. with some matters against W. P. and the Quakers or at least against W. P. The use we make thereof is only to observe how restless and implacable that Man is who will send over Sea and Land where he does tho' but vainly hope to give a helping hand against the Quakers But as to what G. K. really thinks he can prove against W. P. we must needs say we think him very modest to what he used to be in that he has not been more positive in any charge against him or the Quakers then really thinks and it may be a certain indication to all impartiall Men who have been acquainted with his unjust perverting and misrepresenting way of dealing by our Friends that 't is past his power by such his foul way it self to prove W. P. denyed any one of the Truths contained in that Creed called the Apostles much less that he did not hold one of them soundly and intirely And as to our oppugning the Doctrine of the Scriptures as he says what shall we say of such a Man as G. K's thoughts of others who as it appears knew not his own for so many Years If he were to be measured by his now writing against those things he so many Years defended In short a Malitious Adversary and Apostate was never a good Evidence against the People he deserted and such to be sure is G. K. against the Quakers And should we ask the Bp. whether he will grant that a Deserter from and an Enemy to the Church of England is a good Evidence against that Church we belive he would hardly allow it with what reason then could the Bp. bring G. K's Evidence against the Quakers And as to the Scriptures we assert for the Quakers against either his really thinks or other his more bold assertions that no people in the World doth more truly own the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures then they do Now as to the Bp's demanding a better Confession of Faith then by meer Innuendo's by which we suppose he means Gospel Truths We answer him as we did before if he had been an impartial Reader as he pretended and had esteemed that Paper too short exprest in some points he would have searched R. B's Apology where he would have found most if not all those Points besides others largely and fully handled before he would have so exposed us under a false disguise to the World as he did in his Testimony Ibid. 7. The Bp. tells us Mr. Penn tells the World he and his Brethren receive all the Articles of the Creed called the Apostles but this may be reckoned one of the good effects the Bp's Paper has had to bring them to this acknowledgment Answ All things considered we think the Bp. has no reason to be highly conceited of his Paper for what ever good opinion he has of it himself we believe few if any impartial Men has the like more especialy such who have read W. P's Defence If he could have told us and therewith proved W. P. and his Brethren had ever disbelieved the Truths contained in that Creed which W. P. says we do believe he might with more reason have told the World this and we tell him if he had read only some of the several Tracts of W. P's in particular not to mention many other of our Friends he might have found him owning all the Truths contained in that Creed called the Apostles and in particular he cannot be ignorant of his owning the most essential to wit Father Son and Holy Ghost we think as fully exprest in some parts and more fully in others then in that Creed even in that serious Apology p. 149. before observed which lay before him if he had never read any other of his Works Ibid. 7. Now the Bp. begins to forsake the road and instead of regularly answering page by page he fetches a large step in his next charge from p. 30. to 104. then backwards other times forwards then here then there and sometimes no page at all for which let us hear the Bp's reason or rather his pretence he gives us for so doing p. 7. It would be says he as endless as needless and besides would swell this Paper to too great a Bulk to follow Mr. P. page by page to the end replying to all his little Cavills and poor Evasions A more compendious way saith the Bp. therefore must be taken which shall be first by reducing Mr. P's Answers and Arguments to some common Heads or Figures of Speech which he uses so contemptible in themselves as that the instances of them are answered by being shewn And 2ly by singling out the more material points wherein Mr. P. enlarges and setting them in their true light Thus the Bp. Answ We confess the Bp. hath not only found out a more compendious but also a new way to answer his Opponent for in stead of answering W. P's Answers and Arguments in order as they lay in his Defence like a fair Disputant he undertakes to reduce them to some common heads or figures of Speech and single out as he says the more material points c. No doubt the Bp. understood what he did for by so doing he could the better drop the weight and force of W. P's Arguments and pass over those points which pincht him most and what he found too hard for him to answer under the Title of little Cavills and
to his Censuring the Quakers instead of saying common Twelve he should have made the Creed into distinct Articles and laid them down for us But leaving this we proceed to the next Ibid. 10. Inconsequent and trifling inferences says the Bp. of W. P. such are p. 31. we call him the beloved Son of God the only begotten of the Father therefore conceived of the holy Ghost Mr. P. knows Solomon was named Jedediah the Lords beloved David said to be his begotten Son Psal 2. his first born Psal 89. 27. Yet neither conceived of the holy Ghost nor born of a Virgin Thus the Bp. Answ Certainly we believe hardly ever came more trifling 〈◊〉 matters to speak in his way from a Man in the station of a Bp. Be pleased Reader to read W. Ps ' Defence from p. 35. to 39. where he answers the Bp. fully upon this point of the manifestation of Christ Jesus in the flesh and shews plainly that altho' the words conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin be not expressed in that brief Paper Gospel Truths yet they are very fully implied and take but the above words which the Bp. has pickt out of the Defence and they imply no less for who was the beloved Son of God and only begotten of the Father according to John 1. 14. Chap. 3. 16. but Jesus Christ that was born of the Virgin But says the Bp. Solomon was named Jedediah the Lords beloved what then so was Daniel a Man greatly beloved of the Lord and many other servants of God too But where was any of them called the Word made Flesh the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth his beloved Son in whom he was well pleased who tasted death for every Man his office of Justification a Propitiation named Jesus Christ with all this and more of the same kind in Gospel Truths and again repeated by W. P. in his Defence And now for the Bp. a second time to suggest such trifling 〈◊〉 things we should tell him it looks like trifling for trifling 's sake did we not find some of it worse and indeed it looks as if the Bp. would falsify the sense of Scripture rather then want proof to make W. P. guilty of trifling and inconsequent Inferences thus he has cited Psal 2. and Psal 89. 27. to make the Scripture serve his turn against W. P. whereas 't is undenyable what is said in the second Psal is spoken of Christ himself which is fully confirmed in the New Testament in these words Acts 13 33. God hath raised up Jesus again as it is written in the second Psalm Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee Then as to Psal 89. 27. is it not very plain David doth there personate Christ it runs thus Also I will make him my first born higher then the Kings of the Earth We will not enlarge on the matter only add that if the Bp. could have proved such gross falsifying the plain sense of Scripture as this we should no doubt have heard of it very loudly while the Bp. made so much adoe about two words which altered not the sense as we have before shewn But no more of this now Ibid. 10. The Bp. quotes W. P. for another trifling instance He that confesseth him made flesh confesseth him made flesh by God and therefore made holy flesh does not all the World know say's the Bp. that all flesh is made by God and do we hence conclude all flesh is holy or conceived by the holy Ghost many more may be instanced Answ Here 's Instances enough already and more then are consistant with the Bp's Credit as we have shewn and truly we think as little to the purpose as most Men ever wrote and indeed we do begrudg the time we spend in answering such trifling if some of it be not unjust matter were it not for the sake of Truth and for those who may think there is more in the Bp's Arguments then really there is and had we at first only referred the Reader to W. P's Defence for answer to all these trifling Instances it would have fully answered them and so fully too that we must take W. P's own words to answer the Bp. again because the Bp. hath so unfairly pickt out such as he hoped to make some advantage of and not only so but in this instance hath put in a word of his own and left out three of W. P's without which he could not have made good his charge against W. P. And to shew that he hath so done we here give W. P's own words as they lye in his Defence p. 34. Thus. W. P. He that confesses the word was made flesh confesses him made flesh by God and therefore made holy flesh which is found Doctrine and agrees with John 1. 14. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us c. Now instead of these words the Word was the Bp. has only put in the Word him Again had not the Bp. so unfairly left out three of W. P's words the distinction between Christ's flesh and all other flesh was plainly and fully imply'd by saying the Word was made flesh for who was the word made flesh but Christ the beloved Son of God and only begotten of the Father and so W. P. calld him but four lines before surely one would think here was distinction enough between Christ's flesh which was conceived by the holy Ghost and all other sinful flesh to satisfie any who had not a mind to Cavil or trifle for triflings sake Now Reader judg in the matter Did the Bp. deal justly with W. P. in thus doing by him to answer his unfair purposes but 't is no news for the Quakers to be thus abused and misrepresented by their Adversaries as we noted in the begining And now to the Bp. What is become of his trifling and inconsequent inferences where is wilfuly false overlooking the plain Sense where is manifold arts of uncharitabelness and disingenuity where is the falsifying and perverting plain sense of Scripture and consequently impiety and corruption we leave it with the candid Reader who they are fallen upon whether the Bp. or W. P. And so we proceed Ibid. 10. Saith the Bp. of W. P. Contemptious and scornful Language such is that reflection a weak head Which Reader observe W. P. alluded to himself in relation to the Bp's Arguments in case his instances were no better to the purpose then the Bp's upon that expression of the Bp's stomach turning we will not call the Bp. a weak head but we are sure we should think our Arguments weak were they no more to the purpose then the Bp's are in what 's past but in regard the Bp. did not answer W. P's Arguments about the Language Thee and Thou to a single person they remain yet in force agaist the Bp. And as to his Reflections on our conscientious using that Language calling it a wicked kind of weakness together with an
Men so hardened as it appears by Mr. P's wresting Scripture to elude the Truth Mr. P. first in a manner confesseth himself put to his shifts I am sensible of the disadvantage I am under c. saith he Yet proceeds he to shift on Answ We have little cause to believe the Bp's mourning is real while he continues to abuse as well as misrepresent us as he doth however let his mourning be of what sort it will 't was needless here because 't is without ground for we deny W. P. doth either wrest Scripture or elude the Truth But on the other hand 't is very plain the Bp. doth here wrest W. P's words to sute his own turn not only in not laying down his following words but wrongly applying those he has laid down Now W. P's words are these viz. I am sensible of the disadvantage I lye under and that I touch a tender place and what I say upon this Head also anon upon the Supper will be against wind and tide with the generality Now Reader judg doth W. P. in a manner confess himself put to his shifts or doth he not rather express himself thus with respect to the people who are generally in the practice of Water Baptism and the outward Supper and consequently therefore did believe the harder to be prevailed upon by his Arguments and this we take to be no more then if the Bp. were writing against the Papists in a received Tenet of the Church of Rome Suppose Transubstantiation might not the Bp. with a great deal of reason say with respect to them I am sensible of the disadvantage I lye under c. would this be in a manner confessing he was put to his shifts but we have more of the same kind nay worse in what follows The Bp. proceeds to vindicate his allegation in his Testimony viz. P. 17. The Bp. had avouched those words of our Lord Matt. 28. 19. was an Institution and command of Baptism with Water and gave two substantial reasons which he holds to Baptizing with the holy Ghost was not in the Apostles power therefore it could not be the thing commanded them 2ly Baptizing with Water was the Apostles and primitive practice and has been ever since the practice of the Church To the first of these Mr. P. answereth it is not true and to make that good alledges Acts 10. 44. while Peter yet spoke these words the holy Ghost fell on all those that heard the word Hence he infers that Peter Baptized Cornelius with the holy Ghost Now was there ever any thing more impertinent and inconsequent while Peter spoke c. the holy Ghost fell on them c. therefore which was the point to be proved was it Peter's act and in his power to Baptize with the holy Ghost no the Spirit breatheth where it listeth John 5. 8. But God says Mr. P. by the Apostles did Baptize Believers with the holy Ghost to which the Bp. answers as we take it tacitly granting the matter Did he so Then 't was God Baptized them with the holy Ghost and not the Apostles they were only instruments at pleasure as long as the act was not principally theirs it cannot be concluded hence to have been in their power Thus the Bp. Answ Reader we must desire thy excuse for this long citation we could not well avoid it for the following reasons 1st Let a Man act ever so warily 't is much if his words be not perverted as the Bp. hath done by W. P. on this point 2ly It will in part appear from the Bp's own words tho' to be sure not designedly how unfair he has been unto W. P. in representing him as if W. P. had said 't was in the Apostles power of themselves to Baptize with the holy Ghost tho' at the same time in a kind of contradiction to himself as a Salvo adds But God says Mr. P. by the Apostles did Baptize Believers with the holy Ghost But then with a short turn Query's as if W. P. had been of another mind before Did he so Then 't was God Baptized c. Now Sober Reader we must desire thy farther patience in citing W. P's own words as they lye in one entire Paragraph of his Defence p. 76. which will not only discover the Bp's false representation of W. P. but fully clear up the matter that W. P. never intended or meant 't was barely in the Apostles power to Baptize with the holy Ghost Thus W. P. viz. I say then the Bp's first reason is not true for God by the Apostles did Baptize Believers with the holy Ghost it fell upon them by the powerful preaching of the word thus act 10. 44. while Peter yet spake these words the holy Ghost fell on them that heard By which it is evident that Peter in that Sermon was the Minister of the Spiritual Baptism to Cornelius and his company Now Impartial Reader judg in the matter was it possible for a Man to speak more plain then W. P. doth here that 't was God by the Apostles they as his Ministers were made able by him to Baptize Believers with the holy Ghost and which was W. P's point to prove and which he did by others as well as this Argument tho' the Bp. has overlookt them and what can be said or who can be safe tho' ever so plain while it hath been the common practice of our Adversaries to misrepresent us as the Bp. hath now done by W. P. as if he should intend 't was in the Apostles power to Baptize with the holy Ghost see the Bp's own words But if we mistake him not the Bp. himself seems to allow that God did instrumentally Baptize Believers with the holy Ghost we are sure we intend not to wrong his Sense but his words to us seems to import no less while he saith Did he so Then 't was God Baptized with the holy Ghost and not the Apostles they were only instruments at pleasure as long as the act was not principally theirs it cannot be concluded hence to have been in their power Nor did W. P. ever intend 't was in the Apostles power only as Instruments in God's hand and by his power and at his pleasure they Baptized Believers with the holy Ghost but whether this was the Bp's Intention or not we will not determine and so leave it and return to the Argument That it is plain not only from this Instance cited by the Bp. but by other Arguments advanced by W. P. which the Bp. past over in silence that God did Baptize Believers instrumentally through the Apostles and therefore the Bp's first reason falls and W. P's takes place Farther whatsoever the Apostles did in the discharge of their Ministerial Office whether as to Preaching Healing or Baptizing they were but Instruments it was all done by God through them God spake through them yet they said to speak he healed through them yet they said to heal so to Baptize through them and
me in a Private way at a Friendly Visit upon his own desire Considering the Order of the words we believe any Impartial Reader will conclude the Bp's desire was relative to the Visit not the Paper but waving that see but about ten lines farther and the matter will be past doubt where W. P. Speaks thus I did Indeed perceiving him conversant in our Writings his Character moderation casually present him with one of these Papers Again at the end of the Preface W. P. speaking of the Paper says given him Now Reader judg in the matter Can any thing be plainer then that the Paper was W. P's Present and not given at the Bp's Desire From whence we conclude that either the Bp's over eager desire for an advantage against the Quakers made him fall into this mistake or he thought it might pass with his unwary Reader as a Confirmation of his former Charge about the Quakers way of Writing But now since the Bp. is so Critical about Words may not we with more reason and justice return the Charge upon himself where he says This is what the Bp. called Writing in such a way that is hard to know what is meant Whereas what the Bp. said in his Testimony before runs thus You have such a way of Writing and Speaking that it is very hard in many matters of Religion to know what you mean So that 't was matters of Religion he then spoke of but that which he now applies this way of Writing and Speaking to is not matter of Religion but a meer circumstance of W. P's visiting the Bp. upon the Bp's Desire or not so to put the best construction upon this mistake the Bp. forgot himself when he said This is what the Bp. called Writing in such a way c. But 2dly Supposing we should let it go as the Bp. would have it he will still be in no better a case for the word this the Bp. makes to intend W. P's Words in his Defence relating to the Paper and Visit and those words what and called respect the time past and related to what the Bp. has charged the Quakers withal in his Testimony about their way of Writing c. How then say we could any Words in the Bp's Testimony be relative to W. P's Defence which was writ afterwards and was an Answer to that Yestimony Thus Reader see how the Bp. falls into the same fault he would have charged upon W. P. and the Quakers We had not thus troubled thee Reader about Words but the Bp. gave the occasion and we were willing to let thee see how ready the Bp. is amongst the rest of our Adversaries to charge and condemn us without ground while the fault is in themselves and yet this is little to what will appear hereafter in the Bp. Next as to the Visit the Bp. denies he desired it and charges W. P. with an utter falshood but he would have done well to have Exhibited this with others of his Personal Charges and Reflections before W. P. went for America that so he might have Answered for himself However as it happens we can in this Case say something in the defence of W. P. and must say we believe the Bp. to be forgetful for Amos Strettell of Dublin being at Cork while W. P. was here and hapning to be in company with him and Joseph Pike at the House of the said Pike at a time when G. R. came to visit W. P. they the said Strettell and Pike heard G. R. say to W. P. That the Bp. had a great desire to see him and desired him to bring him to his House to which W. P. agreed when a convenient season offered Thus much the said Strettell and Pike remembers and are ready to give under their Hands if desired and 't is believed G. R. himself cannot forget it whom we know and is known to be a Person of that Character and Station in the World that would scorn to forge such a Story to W. P. However it accidentally hapned G. R. did not accompany him as designed in that Visit occasioned by W. P's dining at a House which lay not far from the Bp's He thence took the oportunity of Visiting the Bp. in company with two other Persons We find the Bp. confesseth He had a little Curiosity which might pass for a Desire to see W. P. whom he jeeringly calls King of Pensilvania as he would have been desirous to see the Pope or the Great Turk or any other great Man of Sin This we find he remembers and we may be so Charitable as to believe he forgot the other To conclude this point about the Visit If the Bp. hath conceived any dislike against W. P. for puting it in Print either because it might be a Scandal to the Bp. in regard W. P. is a Quaker or that he thought W. P. might thereby raise his Credit with the World which the Bp. would have depressed we say if either of these be the Case we believe he may be very easie in the matter for without lessening to the Bp. he may know many Persons of much greater note and station in the World then he Ireland not excepted have desired to see and converse with W. P. which as we don't believe he valued himself upon less reason then had he to value himself upon the Bp's desire and no other reason can we suppose W. P. had for Printing it then to demonstrate how unsuitable a return and course treatment the Bp. gave him for his friendly Visit As to the Bp's suspition of a design in W. P's giving him the Paper as he tells us tho' he leaves us in the dark as to what the design could be We Answer 'T was needless thus to tell us now since W. P. has told the design in his Preface which was to improve the Bp's Temper in Moderation which the Bp. should have disproved or told us what other design W. P. could have in presenting him with the Paper Ibid. 2 As to the Bp's Jeers upon W. P. Calling him King of Pensilvania Reproaching him with a Spirit of Discerning and slily Insinuating him among the number of Great Men of Sin we shall say the less here in regard we shall take notice thereof in another place And as to his Margin Note given him upon Information that W. P. should say he had a Kingdom of his own which was understod of Pensilvania What if the Bp's Informer misunderstood W. P nay what if the whole Information was false let the Reader judg whether it became the gravity of a Person in the Bp's station thus to jeer upon Information Ibid. 2 Says the Bp. And thus much as to Mr. P's Preface Answ But before we end we must take notice of the Bp's shortness not to say unfairness in not taking notice or answering what followed in the Preface which lies thus Nor was it writ namely Gospel Truths for an exact and compleat account of our Belief but occasionaly to
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