as it is by him applied to that Sacred Person before defined His words are these Messias doth solely and singularly betoken Christ as it is interpreted John 1. 41. and 4. 25. For though the word Mashiach in Hebrew in the Scripture signifieth any Anointed one whatsoever yet in this Greek form Messias it never signifieth but only Christ Nor is the Hebrew word used in Hebrew Authors but in the same sense and so it is used infinitely among them Sometimes set single without any other addition and very often with this addition Melech Hamashiach the King Messias In this propriety the word is used Dan. 9. 25 26. Psal 2. 2. and so it was confessed by the ancient Jews Mr. Lightfoots 2 d Part of his Harmony Critica Sacra p. 136. Now seeing Christ is thus exalted at the Fathers Right-hand to be a Prince and a Saviour to give us Grace here to enable us to do his will and Glory hereafter far surpassing all our Obedience let us therefore believe in him for the pardon of our sins as he is a Priest receive his Doctrine as he is a Prophet and submit to his Laws as he is a King For whosoever shall be found so doing and continue therein faithful unto death they shall certainly receive that Crown of Life and Glory which God hath promised to them that love him I shall conclude in the words of the Apostle Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity Amen Quakerism is Popery Revived OR Some of their Old Opinions put into a New Dress and Asserted by the Quakers to be New Discoveries of the Light within them THere are two General Principles must be received by every one that will be either a Quaker or Papist 1. That the Scriptures of the Old and New-Testament are not the Rule of Faith and Practice 2. That there is some other Rule of Faith which is Infallible To prove this I shall quote their own sayings that you may know I do not wrong them The Quaker saith thus Will. Penn in Reas ag Rail p. 48. We deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Practice in honor to that Divine Light that was the Author of them Edw. Burrough's Works p. 62. He that perswades people to let the Scripture be the Rule of Faith and Practice would keep people in darkness Geo. Whitehead Dip. pl. p. 13. It 's Idolatry to call the Bible the means of our knowing God And in his Book entituled Christ Ascended p. 11. You are walking by your fancies and imaginations who set the Scriptures in the place of Christ as your only absolute Rule and Ground of your Faith and Knowledg G. W. in Enthusiasm above Atheism p. 20. saith As for W. Penn's saying That our Belief concerning the Scriptures is that inward Testimony that we have received from the Holy Light within us to the truth of those sayings He concludes thus Wherefore the Scriptures are so far from being the great Rule of Faith and Practice that the Light of Christ within is both our Warrant and Rule for Faith in and Obedience to them And in p. 27. he blames his Antagonist for saying The Doctrine contained in the Scriptures is the Rule of Faith and Practice telling him He should rather have said A Rule subordinate to the great Rule of Faith and Practice to wit That Divine Light And yet saith p. 49. But if he pretend the Spirit to be his Rule then the Scriptures are not Having heard what the Chief Men in the Quakers Ministry have said be pleased to hear what some eminent Popish Priests have said and you will see that this is no new Doctrine The Papist saith thus Eckius Luthers Antagonist in his Book of Faith and Justification The end that moved the Evangelists to write was not because they would have their Writings to rule over Religion and Faith but rather that they should be subject unto it Coster saith the same in his Enchiridion of Controversies And in Chap. 71. The Scriptures are as a Nose of Wax that suffers it self to be turned this way and that way Turrianus p. 250. If Christ had left no other Rule of our Faith than the Scriptures we should have had nothing else but a Delphian Sword Bellarm. de verbo Dei non Scripto Lib. 2. saith The way to keep men sound and undeceived about Religion is to forbid to the Laity or worldly men the reading of the holy Scripture as being the occasion of many Heresies Lib. 4. For although the Scriptures is God's Word nevertheless it can have no Authority without the Churches Approbation being an imperfect broken and lame Rule for there is not comprehended in it all things that are necessary for God's Honour and our Salvation but what is wanting must be supplied by unwritten Tradition Lib. 4. cap. 12. The proper and principal end of the Scripture was not that it should be a Rule of Faith but a profitable Admonition to make men entertain the Doctrine of Preaching Secondly There is some other Rule of Faith which they both say is Infallible 1. The Quaker saith It 's the Light in the Body immediate Inspiration or Enthusiasm by the Light within them which is the Infallible Rule George Keith saith That Will. Penn hath immediate Inspiration as the primary Rule of his Faith and Practice See the Quakers own Account of the Wheeler-street-Meeting p. 56 57. And in answer to Mr. Ives 's Demand To give one evidence that they had Divine Inspiration for the Rule of their Faith and Practice he saith p. 62. It is sufficient that we have the witness in our selves Page 65. We profess and experience Immediate and Divine Revelation as the Ground of our Faith and Testimony And in his Looking-Glass for Protestants p. 29. he saith And this is our Faith in all these particulars who witness unto the Immediate Teachings of God by his Spirit in our hearts Geo. Whitehead Enthus above Atheis saith p. 19. But Enthusiasm taken simply as a Divine Inspiration or breathing into by a Deity we do assert and contend for in the best Acceptation I never thought the Quakers would have owned themselves to be Enthusiasts in Print But what may they not come to in time Page 22 23. he saith We do therefore assert the sufficiency of this Divine Illumination as being of it self able to shew and reveal to us what we ought to believe and do in all things And p. 24. he saith By their Preaching and Writing they proclaim the sufficiency thereof And p. 52. to shew that they are free from Error and Incongruity he saith It is true that we affirm the light of Christ within to be an Absolute Rule teaching men that follow it what they ought to know believe and do And in the same page he saith That he viz. his Antagonist falsly supposeth a defect in the Light and in our Ministry directing thereto Then they must be both of them sufficient and infallible if
thereby So that W. L. may see that the Quakers are not faced about to oppose the Humanity for they always opposed it neither is T. H. mistaken about their meaning Well I perceive W. L. is got half-way out of this Labyrinth for in his next words he saith Let 's be charitable in these Mysterious points however and expound these Extreams as we do that betwixt Paul and James Gal. 2. and Rom. 4. with James 2. for as Faith and Works so Divinity and Humanity must go together And what God hath joyned let no man put asunder Answ I wish the Quakers would but do so and then this Controversie would soon be ended As to what he tells me of W. P. his words at the Barbican-Meeting as an instance I say this to it When W. P. hath given us some infallible Demonstration that he did not speak equivocally in those Expressions then and not till then do they deserve my cognizance any further than to answer him in the words of the Roman Orator Quid attinet gloriose loqui nisi constanter loquare Cic. l. 2. de Fin. p. 61. For what availeth it for a man to speak gloriously if he be not constant and sticks not firmly unto that which he speaketh And I fear I may say of him as it 's said of some others by Augustine Hoc in labiis non in corde dicere Aug. Epist 20. Tom. 2. p. 588. They speak it but with their lips they believe it not with their hearts But let us proceed to the next particular 4. Pagan Principle THe fourth Charge is saith he That Christ Redeemed himself W. L. His Answer is This our Friend T. H. confesseth to be but his own Consequence from their words which he leaves to the judgment of others as indeed all Consequences ought to be And I 'le tell you what my weak apprehension is of it The sayings from whence he hath drawn this Charge I confess are above my capacity I do not understand how Christ is both the Election and the Elect Seed Nor how Abraham's old decayed Body was a Type of the Seed of Abraham Now I begin to like my Author and I should have done so before if he had spoke as honestly I wish he may keep in this mind A little after he saith W. P. asserts the Redemption of the Seed c. But then he endeavours to extenuate the fault saying It 's true it looks with a strange countenance to us but yet there is some of even the very same in Scripture as that in Isa 59. 16. He wondred there was no Intercessor therefore his own Arm brought Salvation to him And in Chap. 63. 5. Mine own Arm brought Salvation unto me and my fury it upheld me Whence faith W. P. in Reas against Railing p. 63. It is no ways absurd that we affirm That the end of Gods manifesting himself in the flesh was for the Redemption or Deliverance of his holy life that was in man as a small seed even the smallest of seeds that had been long vex'd grieved and pressed down by sin and iniquity And in page 64. This Seed was and is pure for ever Here saith W. L. He tells what he means by Redemption of the Seed In this he hath fully cleared T. H. from the guilt of Forgery And I will also quit this point when I have considered the meaning of those two Texts urged to prove it or rather to excuse W. P. 1. I take notice That though W. P. and the Quakers deny the Scriptures to be a Rule yet they can make use of them in favour of themselves when they think they will serve for their purpose But to pass that 2. It is obvious to all that will take the pains to consider them that these Texts do not prove what they are brought for i. e. That the end of Christ's coming was to redeem himself For as there is no such words spoken by the Prophet so it is contrary to the general scope and design of the Gospel and to the express words of the Apostle Paul 1 Tim. 1. 15. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation That Christ Jesus came into the World to save sinners of whom I am chief And that he came to seek and to save that which was lost not a lost God and a lost Christ as Geo. Keith saith but lost and undone sinners 3. If you will have my understanding of these two Scriptures it is this That by Salvation is meant by a figure the person saved and that it signifies no more but that he purchased them to himself the Abstract being there put for the Concrete as is usual in Scripture as in Phil. 3. 3. Circumcision is put for the persons circumcised and in 1 Cor. 12. 28. Helps Governments is put for Helpers and Governors with many more of the like kind that might be mentioned And therefore it 's said in Isa 49. 6. I also will give thee for a Light to the Gentiles that thou mayest be my Salvation to the ends of the earth that is My Salvation that I have appointed for them For God who is always perfectly happy and Blessedness it self cannot stand in need of any Salvation yea it is as great an absurdity as any the Quakers can be guilty of to affirm it But from hence we may see that the Light which is in them doth teach them to have strange blasphemous thoughts of God and sometimes out of the abundance of their hearts their mouths do utter it 5. Pagan Principle THe fifth Charge is That the Quakers do deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Practice unto Christians And T. H. brings in W. P. his words for proof Which are these We deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Practice In honour to that Divine-Light that was the Author of them W. P. in Reas against Rail page 48. W. L. The Quakers sayings brought to prove this I confess at a distance or to a hasty or a prejudiced Reader seem to do it but look seriously and charitably on them and there is as much truth in them as I desire Ben. Furly says There is nothing in the Scripture that is a duty upon him or which he is obliged to obey because there recorded and so say I. He further acknowledgeth that Geo. Whitehead saith That it is Idolatry to call the Bible the means of our knowing God Dip. pl. p. 17. Reply Reader W. L. hath gone very far already towards the clearing T. H. But hear what he saith further page 17. he there confesses They seem to him and others to speak slightly of the Scriptures which saith he I would not have them do But it seems they will not be ruled by him for you have heard W. P. his positive denial already And for Ben. Furly he saith It is the greatest errour in the World that ever was invented and the ground of all error to affirm That the Scripture ought to be a Rule to
Christians Whatsoever is a command to me I must not receive from any man or thing without me nay not the Scripture it self And Edw. Burroughs in his Works p. 62. saith He that perswades people to let the Scriptures be the Rule of Faith and Practice would keep people in darkness Now I hope T. H. is no Forger But whereas my Author doth endeavour to cover their nakedness by some pitiful Evasions that covering of his is too narrow the Light in every man doth see their folly and is above them justly condemning them by the Light of the Holy Scriptures which they do wickedly reject And their great pretences to Light and Knowledg are seen to be the manifest effects of Darkness and Ignorance To the Law and to the Testimony because they speak against this Word there can be no Light in them Quest W. L. askes this Question What Scriptures do they disown for a Rule but such as relate to some external parts of Worship and do not we our selves do the same Answ I answer They deny the Scriptures yea as Geo. Whitehead phrases it as quoted by W. L. himself the BIBLE which contains all the Books of holy Scripture both in the Old and New-Testament to be a Rule and therefore t is idle for him to talk as if it were some part of it only that related to external Worship Quest But saith W. L. Do not we our selves do the same Answ There is one thing I would be satisfied in what W. L. means by saying WE VS and OVR in this Discourse I suppose he doth it on purpose to insinuate as if himself were a Baptist because he hath been so some years ago If that be his meaning then I must tell him it 's unbecoming a man professing Religion so to carry it for I do declare That he hath not had Communion with any Baptized Church in England nor been owned by them as worthy their Communion for several years unless he hath gone to any place where he is unknown and got it surreptitiously which I think the method used in such cases among our Churches will hardly admit him to do And to my knowledg they have refused long ago to admit him to preach among them because of his corrupt and dangerous Principles And yet the chief of the Quakers in a scurrilous Book of theirs in the Title-page call him a Sober Baptist Preacher signifying to the World that he is owned so now which is a most abominable untruth But they seem to have no regard to Truth and Honesty neither with their Tongues nor Penns For as Mr. Ives sheweth in his Questions for the Quakers That two of these Publishers i. e. William Mead and John Osgood have both of them with others took their Oaths in Chancery one before Sir William Beversham and the other before Sir William Child and yet it 's known to all that this is the Quakers avowed Principle That it is sinful to swear at all or in any case For as Geo. Fox saith in his Catechism quoted by Mr. Ives p. 107. All that swear are out of the Power of Jesus Christ and his Truth and the Doctrine of the Apostles c. AND ARE FALSE CHRISTIANS c. Now though they can rail against others at pleasure yet if we do but tell them of their faults though it be with the greatest mildness that may be they presently fall a raging and raving as if they were possest with and under the power of some unclean Spirit I will therefore leave them and return to W. L. whom I know to be a man that hath adhered to and contended for the Quakers Principles for divers years And I would say thus much to W. L. by way of advice That he would either be what he pretends to be or profess to be what he is Why dost thou halt between two Opinions Be in earnest and don 't trifle thus about Religion God is a jealous God and he is very angry with Lukewarm Professors but more with Apostates Take heed to thy self and to the Holy Scriptures for thereby thou mayest be made wise to Salvation through faith in Christ And if thou shalt reject the same know of a truth that Gods Word will certainly stand against thee for evil for I perceive thou hast drunk down too large a draught of their poysonous Doctrines as is manifest in this very instance under consideration besides many other for thou sayest There is as much truth in this Position That the Scriptures are no Rule of Faith and Practice unto Christians as thou desirest Where is then the difference between W. L. and a Quaker But we shall find much more of this in his Book There is some other rambling nonsensical Discourse under this head which I shall pass with this Observation upon it 1. That W. L. confesses T. H's Charges are matters of Opinions 2. W. L. saith We read of no punishment denounced against men nor rewards given for their Opinions at the last day 3. That if W. L. hath no reward from the Quakers for this service he hath done for them in contending about Opinions he is like to have none in the last day 4. That a man may hold and maintain the most wicked and abominable Opinions that are in the World though never so Atheistical and Antichristian and not be condemned for it at the last day But sure W. L. forgets The corrupt Principles lead to corrupt Practices as he will certainly find this corrupt Principle will do if prosecuted in denying the Scriptures to be a Rule of Faith and Practice Do but debauch a mans Conscience with wicked Principles and you will quickly see him a man of a debauched Conversation Why doth God appoint the Gospel to be preached Surely besides its Office in the revelation of himself and Son it is that by it we might come to have an evil opinion of the ways of sin and so forsake them And by presenting God therein as an Holy God and the Beauty Glory and Excellency of Holiness we might come to have our minds influenced thereby fall into a love and liking of it which begets holy Principles in us and so leads us to a holy Life And herein lies much of that difference betwixt the obedience of a man that is meerly Moral and one that is Evangelical The one being taught by the Law of Nature doth that which is good for the matter of it the other as he is farther enlightned doth not only obey in doing more but in all the parts of his obedience he acts from higher Principles and to a more noble end But whilest others are slighting good Principles I desire to prize and improve them for the honour of God and my own Salvation to believe and obey as God hath commanded in the Holy Scriptures 6. Pagan Principle THe sixth charge is That the speaking of the Spirit in any is of greater Authority than the Scriptures W. L. His Answer is There is no reason in my opinion
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
I have reason to suspect W. L. also For in a certain Discourse he had with R. S. a good Friend of mine about two years ago he pleaded for a sinless Perfection here in this life as it 's opposite to that Imputed Righteousness of Christ made Ours by believing as the way by which he expected to be justifified Whereupon R. S. asked him Whether he had yet attained it W. L. told him he had not Whereupon R. S. replied You do not know but you may die before you have attained it how then can you think to stand justified before God It cannot be by your own personal Righteousness for that you confess you have it not I should be amazed to hear him utter such expressions so contrary thereunto as these are in his Book but that I consider he may have learned the Art of Equivocation from W. P. by his often converse with him But now I am upon this Head I would make so bold as to ask W. P. and the Quakers one Question Quest Suppose they do attain to a state of sinless Perfection here in this life yet seeing many of them have lived in a course of sinning twenty thirty or forty years before they attain it What must make Compensation for the sins they have committed in the time past of their lives If they shall say Their own Obedience which they perform to the Light within them after they are thus perfect That is to suppose the good deeds they perform in the latter part of their lives should make Compensation for their former evil deeds Which will proclaim to all intelligent men not only that they hold Justification by their own personal Righteousness exclusive of Christ's Righteousness which is to be justified by Works in the strictest Notion being the next Principle we are to enquire into but also that they do hold that other Popish Principle To believe that they can do Works of Supererogation And yet this Author is much displeased that any should suppose the Quakers do derive their Pedigree from Rome W. L. Goes on to excuse his beloved Friend W. P. by telling us That forasmuch as many Teachers so word this Doctrine of Justification as the weak are thereby misled into a vain hope that God will justifie them or look upon them as just and righteous THROUGH Christ at the last day though they live and die in sin Hence saith he so great a zeal might arise in W. P. against such Expositions of Scripture-Justifications and chiefly against this phrase THROVGH CHRIST Answ To which I answer If W. P. hath so great a zeal risen up in him CHIEFLY against this phrase THROVGH CHRIST Then it follows That if we should word the Doctrine of Justification so as to please Will. Penn we must say That men are justified WITHOVT CHRIST But I hope I shall never make that one of the Articles of my Creed But farther W. L. saith These words Wholly without us may very well satisfie us That they level not at Scripture-Justification but at our conceits of it Reply Then it seems W. L. concludes That Justification by that Righteousness Christ fulfilled for us wholly without us is not a Doctrine agreeable to Scripture but a conceit I perceive now T. H. is no Forger for W. L. doth not only own the words to be spoken by W. P. but owns the Doctrine of the Quakers about it And yet forsooth we must be very tender of calling this man a Quaker Howbeit I conclude he avoids the name for no other Reason but that he might be the more serviceable in propagating their cause An excellent Stratagem As for what he saith about the Doctrine of Justification springing from the Doctrine of Predestination misunderstood and as held by Calvin Beza Piscator Synod of Dort c. As I do not believe it in the sense that I have defined it and as Protestants generally hold it So for those mens Opinions about the Decree of Absolute and Irrespective Reprobation I shall leave it to them whose concern it is to clear themselves of it for it 's none of mine at this time 9. Pagan Principle W. P. SAith His ninth Charge against the Quakers is That Justification is by Works Here W. L. hath followed his own advice viz. To leave out words most material in this Charge For the words laid down by T. H. are That the Quakers hold Justification by Works in the strictest Notion And brings these proofs out of the Quakers own Books God accepts not any where there is any failing or who do not fulfil the Law and answer every Demand of Justice Edw. Burrough's Works p. 33. And in Answer to Quest 14. Was not Abraham justified by Works We must not conceive that his personal Offering was not a justifying Righteousness but that God was pleased to count it so Nor was there any Imputation of anothers Righteousness to Abraham But on the contrary his personal Obedience was the ground of that Imputation Therefore that any should be justified by anothers Righteousness imputed and not inherent in him is both ridiculous and dangerous W. P. Reas against Rail p. 80. Now I hope T. H. is no Forger But let us hear what W. L. hath to say W. L. This is almost of the same nature as the former and it 's a greatdeal of pity to Heathenize men for preaching up Good-works especially in a day when they are so scarce Reply Rarely well guest Is T. H. finding fault with mens preaching up good Works Surely that 's none of the Question Neither doth he Heathenize any for so doing that 's no part of the Charge nay he doth not so much as mention the words Heathen Pagan or Pagan Principle in all his twelve Charges I wonder how W. L. did to give them so right a name The honour of that belongs to himself and not to me nor T. H. But seeing so great a Friend of theirs as W. L. is hath so often called them so I hope they will not find fault with me for writing after his Copy As for what he is pleased to say of his own renouncing meriting by Works and that he thinks no rational Papist can be so weak to imagine that forty or fifty years spent all in Good-works nay forty or fifty thousand years can deserve Eternal Recompence of Reward is no Argument to the contrary but that an infatuated Quaker may be of that mind And why we should not think so of them till they have cleared themselves of it by renouncing Edw. Burroughs Will. Penn and their Books with all others who have asserted such Doctrines as these I see no Reason 10. Pagan Principle THe tenth Charge is That Christ fulfilled the Law ONLY as our Patern The proof cited by T. H. is W. P.'s own words For not the hearers of the Law are just before God But the doers of the Law shall be justified Rom. 2. 13. From whence saith W. P. how unanswerably may I observe Vnless we become doers of
come in and sup with him c. Rev. 3. 20. This is the Supper of the Lord we witness it And about the Resurrection and Judgment to come he said I speak this from the Eternal God That the Resurrection is come the Judgment is come and I witness it And this very well agrees with Isaac Pennington's words in his Book of Questions about Christ p. 14. Now Friends if you would know or believe aright you must believe in him who was with the Father before the World was who was the Saviour the Jesus the Christ from Everlasting This we firmly believe c. Yea it is he to whom the name Jesus and Christ did of right belong before he took up the Body For that which he took upon him was our garment even the flesh and blood of our Nature which is of an earthly and perishing Nature But he is of an Eternal Nature and his flesh blood and bones are of his Nature viz. Eternal For that which redeems that which is Jesus the Saviour came down from Heaven page 20. que 7. que 8. Reader Not knowing how short my time may be I thought good to leave this to Posterity lest I should not have such another opportunity And will conclude with that saying of the Apostle Ye therefore beloved seeing ye know these things before beware lest ye also being led away with the errour of the wicked fall from your own stedfastness But grow in grace and the knowledg of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to him be glory both now and for ever Amen 2 Pet. 3. 17 18. AN APPENDIX SInce the finishing these Papers in answer to W. L. I have been earnestly importuned to write a few lines touching that great Question about the Lord Christ as it relates to the Quakers Opinion And to shew who it is to whom the name Christ doth properly belong And although I think my self a Child in the knowledg of such Divine and Metaphysical Truths compared with those Worthies of our Age whose parts and learned Acquirements may more amply fit them for such a Work Yet seeing they have hitherto omitted it I shall speak something to it hoping it may be an occasion to set some abler Pen on work to discourse more accurately upon this subject And by polishing what I have more briefly laid down they may make the Truth appear more perspicuously in its own Brightness and Splendor And I will give you the Question as it is laid down by Mr. PENN in the Barbican-Meeting and since printed and published by some of the chief Quakers in London viz. W. Mead J. Osgood W. Shewen E. Man S. Newton J. Claypool W. Welch W. P.'s Question is this Was he the Christ of God before he was manifested in the flesh Answ I answer He was never called the Christ of God before but with respect to what he was to be when and after he was manifested in the flesh To make this good I shall use this method 1. To explain what is meant by the word Christ 2. To shew that it is taken Relatively is a name of Office and as such applied to him 3. That this name cannot be properly and really applied to the Divine Nature taken Abstractively 4. That it doth properly and really belong to that Sacred Person who was Conceived by the Holy Ghost Born of the Virgin Mary and called by the name of Jesus of Nazareth 1. To explain what is meant by the word Christ It is a Derivative from the Hebrew and Greek the two Original Languages in which the Holy Scriptures were written The word in the Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mashiach in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christos in the Latin Christus All which signifie in English Anointed Being derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ungo All signifying to Anoint 2. That it is taken Relatively and is a name of Office c. appears from the frequent use thereof in the Old-Testament and applied to Priests Prophets and Kings who were anointed with Oyl when they entred upon their Offices and therefore were called The Lord 's Anointed 1. To Priests Exod. 40. 13 14 15. And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy Garments and anoint him and sanctifie him that he may minister unto me in the Priests Office And thou shalt bring his sons and clothe them with coats and thou shalt anoint them as thou didst anoint their Father that they may minister unto me in the Priests Office And this was to be observed as a Rule throughout all their Generations 2. Touching the other two Offices of Prophet and King we find the same method used in both and that by the Command of God himself to the Prophet Elijah 1 Kin. 19. 15 16. And the Lord said unto him Go Anoint Hazael to be King over Syria And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be King over Israel And Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-Meh-lah shalt thou anoint to be Prophet in thy room Now that the name Christ is so applied to him viz. Relatively and as a name of Office I shall prove by shewing you 1. That he is called a Priest a Prophet and a King 2. That he was anointed by God the Father when he entred upon his Offices First That he is called a Priest These Scriptures following do sufficiently evince But Christ being come an High-Priest of good things to come Heb. 9. 11. The High-Priest of our Profession Christ Jesus Heb. 3. 1. This man because he continueth ever hath an unchangeable Priesthood Heb. 7. 24. Seeing then that we have a great High-Priest that is passed into the Heavens Jesus the Son of God let us hold fast our Profession For we have not an High-Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities but was in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin Heb. 4. 14 15. Secondly That he is called a Prophet Jesus of Nazareth which was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people Luke 24. 19. And it shall come to pass that every Soul which will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from among the people Acts 3. 23. Thirdly That he is called a King Pilate called Jesus and said unto him Art thou the King of the Jews Jesus answered My Kingdom is not of this World Pilate therefore said unto him Art thou a King then Jesus answered Thou sayest that I am a King To this end was I born and for this cause came I into the World c. John 18. 33. 36 37. Nathaneel answered and saith unto him Rabbi thou art the Son of God thou art the King of Israel John 1. 49. Who is the blessed and only Potentate the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords 1 Tim. 6. 15. And he hath on his Vesture and on his Thigh a name written KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS Revel 19. 16. Secondly That Christ was Anointed by God the Father when he entred
upon his Offices with the holy Spirit As the Priests Prophets and Kings under the Law were anointed with Oyl when they entred upon Theirs see Matth. 3. 16 17. And Jesus when he was baptized went up straightway out of the water And lo the Heavens were opened unto him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a Dove and lighting upon him And lo a voice from Heaven saying This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased Heb. 1. 9. Therefore God even thy God hath Anointed thee with the Oyl of Gladness above thy fellows Luke 4. 17 18 21. And there was delivered unto him the Book of Esaias the Prophet and when he had opened the Book he found the place where it is written The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he hath anointed me to preach the Gospel c. And applied this to his own Person as being then fulfilled Then he began to say unto them This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears The word which God sent unto the Children of Israel was this That God had Anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with Power who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed of the Devil for God was with him Acts 10. 38. Now by this we may see that as his Name is so is the Person to whom it is given for he being Anointed with the Holy Spirit above his fellows he is properly and truly the Lord 's Christ Thirdly That this Name cannot be properly and really applied to the Divine Nature taken Abstractively And my Reason for it is this Because some of those things which were done by the Man Christ Jesus could not have been performed by the Divine Nature in the sense before defined 1. Because if they could there had then been no need for him to have been a man made of a woman to be made flesh and dwell among men to have been exposed to all those sufferings and sorrows which befel him in the days of his flesh while he was upon the earth 2. Because Christ died for our sins according to the Scripture 1 Cor. 15. 3. But the Divine Nature taken Abstractively cannot die For besides this Consideration viz. That the Nature of the Divine Essence cannot possibly admit of it and it 's horrid Blasphemy to assert it So on the contrary it is positively affirmed That God lives for ever If I lift up my hand to Heaven and say I live for ever Deut. 32. 40. yea he swears by himself As I live saith the Lord Isa 49. 18. The name of the Lord the Everlasting God Gen. 21. 33. For thus saith the High and Losty One that inhabiteth Eternity Isa 57. 15. whos 's goings forth have been from of old from everlasting Micah 5. 2. Lord thou hast been our dwelling-place in all Generations Before the Mountains were brought forth or ever thou hadst formed the Earth and the World even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God Psal 90. 1 2. And God said unto Moses I AM that I AM Thus shalt thou say unto the Children of Israel I AM hath sent me unto you This is my name for ever And this is my Memorial unto all Generations Exod. 3. 14 15. The Certainty Perpetuity and Eternity of Gods Being assures Believers of the Certainty and Accomplishment of all his Promises seeing they know he is faithful and cannot lie nor cease to be For if he could do either it would take away all the Foundation of our Faith and Hope in God his Word and Promises But there are some Objections urged by the Quakers in print against this Truth in these words W. P. Askes this Question Was he the Christ of God before he was manifested in the flesh Mr. Ives answers He was the Son of God Quest W. P. But was he the Lords Christ And turns this Answer to it himself Answ W. P. saith I will prove him to have been the Lords Christ as well before as after 1. From the Apostle Paul's words to the Corinthians That Rock was Christ 2. Next from Jude where some Greek Copies have it thus That Jesus brought the people of Israel out of Egypt See The Quakers Account of the Barbican-Meeting p. 24. Reply I will answer to the last first If W. P. have seen any such Greek Copies he should have cited them and told us what they are Till which time I shall account it as the effect of passion stirred up in the defence of a bad cause But surely W. P. forgot himself to bring this Allegation for if this be brought to prove any thing it is That he as Jesus was before he was manifested in the flesh Which name was never given to him till he came in the flesh And she shall bring forth a Son and thou shalt call his name Jesus And she brought forth her first-born Son and he called his name Jesus Matth. 1. 21 25. Besides our English Translation doth very well agree with the Greek for in Jude v. 5. which is the place he refers to the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in our Translation Lord which is the express signification of the word and so rendred in multitudes of places in the New-Testament And this can be brought by W. P. for no better purpose than to undervalue the Scripture by quarrelling with the Translation though there be no cause Secondly As for those words in 1 Cor. 10. 4. That Rock was Christ I answer It 's meant not really but figuratively as appears by the precedent words vers 3 4. And did all eat the same spiritual meat and did all drink the same spiritual drink for they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ For it 's evident 1. That there was a Real and True Rock which Moses smote with his Rod and out of which the water gushed 2. That the people of Israel drunk of this Water to quench their thirst 3. That this was Real and True Water because their Cattel also drank thereof Numb 20. 11. He smote the Rock twice and the Water came out abundantly and the Congregation drank and their Beasts also 4. That the Water which came out of that Rock became Rivers and followed them in the Wilderness He brought streams also out of the Rock and caused waters to run down like Rivers Psal 78. 16. Behold he smote the Rock that the waters gushed out and the streams overflowed ver 20. And they thirsted not when he led them through the Deserts And in the next words you have an Account how they were supplied in this their journey through the Deserts He caused the waters to flow out of the Rock for them He clave the Rock also and the water gushed out Isa 48. 21. He opened the Rock and the waters gushed out they ran in the dry places like a River Psal 105. 41. And therefore it 's said The Rock followed them Which by a Metonymie is meant the water that
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.