left out NOT in the 7th Commandment How should he know it was false Printed supposing he could have no other to correct it by Must not the Spirit or Light within be minded in such Cases Yea or the Man 's undone But a little more to this Charge wherein I said there is no great danger because it 's stated so in general that it may admit of good or bad particular Applications And for proof I shewed several particular Commands from God to others which did not concern any man now And several which concerned every man Neither did I ever hear a Quaker say That not any one of the Commands in Scripture concern them though W. R. saith it 's manifest they say so p. 47. If T. H. had told us what particular Commands they deny'd the work had been more easie and plain to reconcile But I observe all the Charges against the Quakers concerning the Scriptures run in a general way I wish it be not to stop the mouths of all others from speaking a word in their behalf I am sure it is not fair Had they been charged with owning Childrens Baptism perhaps some Presbyterian might have put in a word for them Had they been charged with denying Tithes some Baptist might have helped them before now If for denying Laying Hands upon all to be fundamentally necessary to Church Fellowship it 's probable J. I. himself might have assisted them in this or in opposing the Saterday Sabbath or in maintaining their Doctrine of General Redemption But now they being accused for denying Scripture for their Rule all we which profess the Scripture to be our Rule though we are divided into SIX several Churches and all differing so much in Doctrine and Discipline that we do not own one another as true constituted Churches yet we are all stirr'd up by this general Charge of denying Scripture and Gods Commands to fall upon them And if the Quakers were all supprest or banisht whose turn of all the Six would be next I know not but of this I am confident That the same Spirit which thus persues them will not let others be quiet when they are gone Strange that we cannot make better use of our time But W. R. puts some more Queries to me also under this Charge about the Scriptures How they can know swearing to be a sin or how they can try Spirits without them To both which there hath been enough said at least to beget Moderation if not Satisfaction by VV. P. in page 96. of Wisdome Justified c. And in his Rejoynder in defence of Quakerism a new nick Name c. the first part of it being almost all about the Scriptures The Eighth Charge That Justification by that Righteousness which Christ fulfilled for us wholly without us is it Doctrine of Devils To moderate this Charge I offered two things to be considered 1. The Greek word which generally in the New Testam serves for Justification and Righteousness which are both Latin words themselves in English habit and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serving for both I said that to be justified was all one in my understanding as to be made Just or Righteous And this W. R. himself confirms out of Mr. Leighs Critica Sacra for he saith The word must be understood to respect that Integrity Holyness and Innocency of the Souls of Good men by which they live a holy Life and please God which in substance is what I said before and W. P. before both of us viz. to be made Just or Righteous But saith W. R. this cannot be done without their persons be first acquitted of their former Sins by the Justification they receive from Christ through believing which in plainer English is all one as to say This cannot be done before it be done In the next place W. R. falls to distinguishing between a Legal Righteousness an Evangelical Righteousness and thirdly a Righteousness which Christ fulfilled for us in his own Person wholly without us The first he saith is a perfect Obedience to all God requires at all times both in thought word and deed But where this is called a Legal Righteousness I know not I think the Gospel requires as perfect obedience as the Law and more strict as in Mat. 5. But Secondly W. R. 's Evangelical Righteousness is only a sincere endeavour of the Soul to do all that God requires although by reason of the pravity of his Nature he cannot uttain it Is not this plainly to say that God requires us now under the Gospel to do that which he knows we cannot do This made the Slothful Servant say Mat. 25. that he was an hard Master But Thirdly he has distinguished out another Righteousness which Christ fulfilled for us which it seems cannot properly be called Legal or Evangelical But what he means by all this I know not unless he would bring us to expect to be justified by such a Faith as is without works and that I hope he will disown and if so all these Distinctions will vanish of themselves and that I believe they do as fast as they are Preached being so intricate and hard to be understood that I know not how any man can tell how to regulate his Faith or Life according to them The Second thing I propounded to moderate this Charge was these words wholly without us which I said might very well satisfie us that the Quakers levelled not at Scripture Justification but at our conceits of it of which I see W. R. takes no notice And no doubt he saw cause for it For wholly without us must either in this point of Justification signifie wholly without our Faith or wholly without our works or wholly without both And where the Scriptures account any one a justified Person wholly without both or either of these I know not But for as much as W. P. hath already treated so largely upon the Doctrine of Justification in his 8th Chapter of the said Rejoynder I do hereby desire William Russel to go thither to satifie himself about their Faith in that matter As I told him at first I intend not a Dispute much less a Quarrel about words if any thing I have said will but put the least stop to Carears of that Nature I have all the Reward I look for The Ninth Charge is That Justification is by Works This I said is almost yea I might have said altogether of the same nature as the former And it 's a great deal of pity to Heathenize men for Preaching up good works especially in an Age when they are so scarce To which W. R. _____ replies Rarely well guest Is T. H. finding fault for Preaching up good works But W. R. might not I have said the same to T. H. his 4th Charge That Christ Redeemed himself Rarely well guest was that ever the Question did the Quakers ever say so in terminis much less in T. H. his sence but I like none of this upbraiding braving Language Certain it
like they were not very far from him Nothing is more common now a days than to jeer with a Question Our Saviour himself was so served Mat 26.68 Prophesie unto us thou Christ who is he that smote thee The Third Charge That Jesus Christ is not a distinct Person without us To this I said as a Motive to Moderation That because this Definition of a Distinct Person without us is not in Scripture why should we impose it on them especially considering what Reason they give for their tenderness in refusing such Expressions because they occasion people to retain mean and dark Apprehensions of God and Christ and his place of Residence W. P. Count. Christ p. 79. If W. R. fears no such Consequences let him use them without Unchristning others that do not And whereas he saith It is shameful for a Quaker to refuse those Expressions because not in Scripture while he owns not the Scripture for a Rule I say it 's much more shameful for those that own the Scripture for a Rule to impose such expressions upon others which are not in Scripture they have reason to keep you to what you call the Rule But W. R. will prove the word Person yea and a distinct Person too from 2 Cor. 2.10 where the Apostle saith for your sakes forgave I it in the Person of Christ Here a grain of his Greek might have been useful For that which the Translators according to their Judgment have rendered Person of Christ whether it may not as well be read in the sight of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in conspectu Christi or in Christs steed I leave to more able men than W. R. or I am to determine There is sixteen more pages spent in this Charg which I can account no other than a vain florish to let W. P. see what W. R. can do if he be not constant to what he has spoken For these pages are chiefly spent laying aside the quibbles about the Ass in proving the Humanity of Christ which I told him the Quakers did not deny and brought W. P. his Confession at the Barbican Meeting to prove it viz. that we do faithfully believe the holy Manhood to be a Member of the Christ of God and a little after We believe the Man Christ Jesus to be glorified in Heaven This though VV. R. cannot dislike yet he will distrust and therefore says that when W. P. has given us some infallible Demonstration that he did not speak equivocally then and not till then do his words deserve my Cognizance What Unbelief is here Nay what a strange Demand is this for one that is an utter Enemy to Infalibility in the Quakers to demand an Infallible Demonstration from them Now that must be visible or else he cannot judg of it And what visible Demostration any Christian can give which may not be counterfeted by an Hypocrite I never yet knew The truth is W. R. doth ignobly to apply Aug. words to Mr. Penn viz. They speak it with their lips they believe it not with their hearts What is this in plain English but to tell the world W. P. is a dissembling Hypocrite and his word how sincerely soever given not to be taken for truly I will not believe that mans word in Civil Affairs whose solemn publick word I cannot believe in Spiritual But that you may know this is not such a new Article of their Faith as to hear date from that Barbican Meeting hear what Edward Burrowes some years ago said in his 138 and 281. pages of his works We prize the Lord Jesus Christ as God Man and own him alone to be the Foundation God hath laid Now if this be not ground enough for Christian Charity towards them the thing I aim at God deliver me from such Judges for I know not what can be farther urged in this partiticular to induce them to it The Fourth Charge is That Christ Redeemed himself This I said was but T. H. his Consequence and I believe he thinks it natural from some of the Quakers sayings But if they disown it as we see they do and call it a gross perversion of their words why must we not believe one as well as the other and give them leave to take those words of J. N. and G. F. in a Figurative fence as well as W. R. takes liberty to expound Isa 59.16 and 63.4 by a Figure For so VV. P. saith p. 63. of R. against R. they are to be taken and there he treats at large of the Redemption of the Seed and in what fence they hold it wherein there is nothing sounds like Heathenism or unworthy of Toleration in my understanding to be sure it cannot be called their Principle that is but his Inference But I think we need say no more of their Consequencing Charge for it is so harsh and sour there 's no fear that any sober man will drink it The Fifth Charge against the Quakers is That they deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Practice unto Christians The first thing necessary in this Charge is to resolve VV. R. what I mean by VVe Vs and Our in this Discourse I Answer that now we are Charging them with denying the Scriptures I understand all of us that do own the Scriptures for our Rule And at other turns in my former book I understand all such ridged Opposers of the Quakers as for these Twelve Opinions render them as Pagans and Heathens and yet I would hope they do it from a zeal only to promote as they think the Glory of God and the Authority of the Scriptures And therefore my hearts desire and prayer for them is that they may see that this Zeal of theirs is not according to knowledge for the Nature of it is such as will directly lead them to joyn with those who when Opportunities are offered will fall to killing Christians upon a Principle of doing Christ good service Joh. 16.2 And I put my self among them though thanks be to God not inclinable to that Zeal because the Purport of the Book represents me as standing among them pleading as well as I could for a little Moderation towards the poor Quakers and not the Quakers Cause any farther than as it might admit of favourable Constructions for that End Neither can you say I am any otherwise guilty of Uncharitableness when I say let us be Charitable than the Apostle was of Cursing when he said therewith curse we men Jam. 3.9 But you 'l say the Apostle and they were Brethren but I am not in fellowship with these that now oppose the Quakers For your satisfaction in this Particular I refer you to my Narrative in Answer to the Reading Letter in the conclusion hereof and proceed to tell you that I perceive you cannot escape my Covering as you call it as narrow as it is I see it wraps you so fast that it makes you angry and call their book of the Barbican Meeting Scurrilous and
Resurrection is past already And what think â—ou can be the Design of this Compariâ—â—n but to possess peoples minds that they deny any Resurrection at all Whereas you cannot but know that the Difference betwixt them and us is onlâ— about the manner of the Resurrection a needless nay a forbidden Controversie even by him that you think says moâ—â— for your Notion And let any impartiâ—â— man but read the very Quotations yoâ— have brought out of their Books anâ— all that ever W. P. has writ about it anâ— they will say the same And I shall plain tell you more That if I did understanâ— the Quakers as well in all other poinâ—â— as in this I should not have refrainâ—… their Meetings as I have done and dâ— not that I think it unlawful to go bâ—â— I will not say I would be a Quaker thâ—â— is one of the weakest passages in all yoâ—â— book As if a man could be a Quâ—ker or any other Profession when 〈◊〉 pleased It s true indeed he may perhaâ—â— when he will take up the formal of any thing But to get into 〈◊〉 Life Spirit and Power of Reliâ—â—on is not a work so easie as you suâ—gest Next I shall speak to that whiâ—â— hath something of Argument in it and conclude I brought a Demonstration sufficient to convince any rational man that the Quakers did own a Resurrection and a better Being after Death or else they would never be so mad as to expose themselves to all sorrows and miseries in this life when they may avoid it The Apostle himself confirms this Consequence saying Let us eat and drink if to morrow we shall die and be no more But W. R. rejects this and brings two Witnesses to be of his side The first of the Saduces which saith he were men that profest Religion in opposition to the common Opinion of the Jews and so consequently were exposed to sufferings Mark it he says they were but Consequently exposed to Sufferings he tells us of none Nor do I remember any they suffered for their Religion as tide a Consequence as T. H.'s used to be It 's true they shared in the unavoidable Calamities of War but that is not to our Business Other stories mention a Tolleration among them and that they liv'd peaceably in their several ways Again if I may draw Consequences also it 's as probable they were wicked men as good notwithstanding their Profession and their fine name For nothing is more common than for the worst men to get the best names The Pharisees name was as full of Holyness as the Sadduces of Justice and yet were the vilest men in those times But suppose some particular Sadduces should rather suffer death than deny their Notions this would be no better proof than if you had brought some high Spirited Gallant who will out brave death for a point of Honour Besides there is no Confession of theirs now extant and we know what it is to take one at anothers hand nor doth Josephus make all of them so to hold Your other Testimony is of the Esseans And you bring some of Josephus his words saying That notwithstanding they denyed the Resurrection of the Body yet they could not be forced to revile their Law Maker but scofft at their Tormentors and joyfully yielded up their Souls as though they hoped to receive them again And so indeed they did hope for in the same page saith Josephus It was an Opinion among them that the Body is corruptible but yet the Souls remain for ever immortal And that when they are delivered out of these carnal bonds then presently as freed from a long bondage they joyfully mount aloft the good to felicity the bad to misery Now why would you conceal this did you think I would trust you No you knew this confirmed what I had said That the Quakers exposing themselves to this lifes miseries was a plain Demonstration they owned a better being hereafter But you serve Josephus as you serve me either take no more than serves your turn or stop where it makes an ill sound to the Reader Mind your dealing in pag. 63. where you bring in my Answer thus But suppose they should tell us this very Body shall not rise what care I Is this a handsome place to stop at or just to do so What will a hasty man be ready to say when he reads this surely this is a careless man indeed he cares not whether his Body rise or not And so may take pett read no farther and then what reports must I expect Sir this is not Christianity nor Paganism in the best sence Such devises as these will do you no service in the end tho for a time they may bring Scandals upon Quakers and all that desire their Toleration You know the whole Sentence is this But suppose they should tell us this very Body should not rise what care I so long as they tell me I shall have a better And Sir when you hear of any Beggar that rails upon another for taking away his earthen Pitcher after he has given it him again turn'd into Gold then will I repent of this carelessness Your last and greatest Argument to prove your Notion about the manner of the Resurrection you would have grounded upon Reason A thing I confess I love so deerly that I dayly pray to be delivered from Unreasonable men for all men have not Faith 2 Thes 3.2 whence I conclude that an unreasonable Faith commonly produces the worst sort of unreasonable works that is Conscience Persecution But to your Argument which you say is highly rational the substance whereof is That if the Body be a partaker of the Sin it should also partake of the Punishment But the Body is a partaker of the Sin therefore This I think is your sence for these are your words It s absurd to imagine that one Body should commit the sin and another Body that never sinned be punisht To this then I answer that the Minor is defective For in this you suppose that the Body is a part of man capable of Action or Passion without or distinct from the Soul and if it were so I confess you are in the right But it 's no such matter This should have been proved but I fear it 's too Philosophical for you This Body is but a piece of Animated Clay and can do nothing and is good for nothing without the Soul See Dr. More on the point The evil Spirit cares not for it if he did he would not let Witches and Reprobates be burned But he knows they shall have such a body at the Resurrection as is more fit for his purpose in which the Soul like Perillus in his Brazen Bull may be tormented for ever So on the other hand though you say it 's not to be allowed never fear it I 'le venture my eternal life upon it that none will disalow of the Change of their vile bodies when they see them fashioned