MAny have been my Perils at Sea, and Perils at Land; and now, for your sakes, I am brought to tast of those Perils, which the unkindness of some, and malice of other False Brethren have cast upon me. The occasion they have taken is this;

No sooner was a breathing space of Liberty granted us, to Worship God according to our Consciences; but pre­sently the Spirit of Strife and Debate en­tred into the Sons of Diotrophes, and fill­ed Pulpits and Presses with Disputations and Controversies against an Innofensive People about matters, in no moderate mans Judgment, Fundamentally neces­sary to Salvation; and yet furiously prest upon that account by those, who other­wise could have no pretence for their impertinent Zeal.

When I saw this Imprudence could not contain it self within the bonds of our re­spective Meeting places, nor quietly be lodged in Booksellers shops, for those only to read, and buy that took delight in matters of Controversie; but that Books of that kind, full of bitter and dis­gracing Language, were sent to be cryed about the Streets, and in the Gates of our Exchange, to publish our Simplicity, and make us a Disgrace, and a By word to the Merchants of all the Nations about us, who certainly could not but withal Pity us (though some do not pity them­selves) while we stabbed, and wounded with such envious Tongues and Pens; I say, the sight, and report of these things, so pressed my Spirit, that I could not for­bear to write a few Lines, only that I might signifie what a desire I had, and many more, to quench those flames of Zeal, which under pretences of Truth, are burning up all Christian Love and Charity among us.

I have good reason to say many, for I cannot meet with one sober Christian of any Church whatsoever, that is not grieved at heart for these unprofitable Assaults.

The Title I gave that small Treatise, is, the Twelve Pagan Principles. This I foresaw would make a fearful sound: But I sent it up with that name, that you in the City might know what Lan­guage some taught us in the Country by their mincing Negatives: for we know but one word in opposition to Christiani­ty, and that is Heathenism or Paganism, though I confess this word Pagan, is not so common as Heathen, yet we know both signifie one thing. So that when you tell us the Quaker is no Chri­stian, what says every Plough man? then he must be a Heathen.

Again, Sometimes an odious and shameful Name brings a thing into con­tempt undeservedly, much more when it is deservedly and properly given. My Design was to make Disputations of this kind contemptible, and therefore I did hope the Name might make them nau­seous to the people: And I have the A­postle for an Example, who when he went about to wean the Ceremonious Galatians from Elements, calls them weak and beggarly.

Soon after I had published my Obser­vations [Page 4]upon these Twelve Opinions, collected by T. H. out of his Dialogues, I was in hope to hear of more able and powerful Instruments (as little Pearcers make way for great ones) appearing in so seasonable and honourable a work as Pacification; whose Wisdome and Prudence might allay the noise of that Passion which so much hinders the sound of Truth, and produce such charitable thoughts, and friendly Correspondency, that the Government under which we live, might be encouraged to continue our Liberty; a peaceable Neighbour be­ing a good sign of a peaceable Subject.

But behold, (O Friends!) contrary to my expectation, another Goliah start­ing forth, and in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin bidding, in effect, Defiance to Peace, deriding and abusing my mode­rate considerations, tendered only to in­cline the minds of both Parties to forbear farther Contentions about these Opini­nions.

And although he tells us in the first line of his Book, That he designs not to tra­duce the Person of any man, or wrong him in his Sentiments of Religion, yet he has [Page 5]closed up with an Epistle which does both; and that in such a Malicious and Contradictious manner, as in pro­bability may bring a blast upon his whole Design, as I shall shew in the Conclusion. It's true, I cannot lay the Epistle it self at W. R. his door, but this is plain, that if he had no design nor de­sire to traduce, he might have sent me a Copy of that Letter before he pub­lished it, and if I could not have satisfied him, he had been blameless; but now I may say, qui non vetat peccare cum possit, jubet.

But moreover, though he traduces not my Person; yet you may perceive a Spirit very unlike to a Lover of Christia­nity, creeping along the Book, slight­ing, jeering, endeavouring to sow Dis­cord, and create Trouble▪ groundlessly charging me with Shifts and Equivocati­ons; and what this may be called, I know not, nor do I much care, being confident that he who hath enabled me by his Grace, to pass through good Report, will also assist me to bear the contrary; which (all things considered) is a bur­den more easie, and less dangerous.

As touching the Book it self, I shall not meddle with those matters in it which have already been sufficiently con­troverted, but only such of those parti­culars which relate to my Constructions put upon those Twelve Opinions, which were the occasion of my first Writing.

W. R. is much mistaken if he think to draw me to dance after his Disputing Pipe, especially at such a time, and in such a Cause as this is, which one grain of Christian Charity would easily Re­concile.

In a word, If the Controversie had not been serued up so high, as to ex­clude the Quakers from the number of Christians, and to render them as Hea­thens, Pagans, and Infidels to their Neighbours, Friends, and Relations, W. R. perhaps had never heard of such a Title as Pagan Principles, but hinc illae Lachrimae!

Having thus given you the true occa­sion of that Book, and the Reasons of its Title; I shall first take some notice of W. R. his Preface, and then to the par­ticular Charges as before mentioned.

1. He begins with a Complemental [Page 7]Perswasion to Mr. Penn to own the Man Christ Jesus. This is very strange, that when he and others, he especially, hath so owned him in us plain words as can be desired, to the satisfaction of so many, that W. R. should say he seems yet to deny him. Could I perswade him, he should not write a Line more upon this Subject, for I know the Spirit of Curiosi­ty and Jelousie will never be satisfied, but call whatever he says, Masks of eva­sive Pretences, Clouds of Impertinences, &c. Nay, in all probability, if he should write much more about it, he would soon have others as loudly calling upon him to own the Divinity, as now W. R. and many more do to own the Humani­ty; for so it happened after his writing the Sandy Foundation, &c.

2. The next thing remarkable, are the Reasons why he presents his Book to Mr. Penn. In the first, he insinuates such an intimacy betwixt us, as if he had a hand in Composing the Pagan Principles, which in a word is false. In his Second and Third Reasons, see how plainly he contradicts himself, in saying, I have espoused W. P. his Quarrel, and yet have [Page 8]layed nothing to Mr. Hicks his Charge; when as Mr. Penns Charge is the only Quarrel (as W. R. calls it) and I ne­ver heard of any other betwixt them. Neither have I espoused this any farther, than in a moderating way betwixt them in Love to both, which I believe is a Duty more incumbent upon many others, for neglect whereof, I desire they may not be accountable at the Great Day. W. R. might plainly perceive that my design was not to Charge, for in p. 4. I said, My Intent is only to shew how small a quan­tity of Christian Charitable Construction might make these Charges passable among us all Again, what a strange Inference doth VV. R. draw from my calling T. H. my Friend, that therefore W. P. ought not to call him Forger. may not one of my Friends wrong another of them, and no necessity lie upon me to fall out with either, or to interpose, unless for the Reason aforenamed? T. Hicks his Con­versation has been reputed honest for many years, and being willing to hope, that in general it is so still, I call'd him Friend, and desire not to carry it other­wise towards him, though I am no Friend [Page 9]to his Dialogues. And if in them, he has wronged VV. P. or others, either by adding to, or substracting any thing from their writings, or by putting down any Answers for theirs, which are not theirs (which is to be feared) he would do very well to follow that Coun­sel W. R. gives W. P. viz. retract, and count it no dishonour to him.

It's a difficult thing to turn Religious Controversies into a Dialogue, without consent of both Parties; for if he change but a letter, he is liable to a lash, unless he has been so careful to preserve the sence of his Antagonist, that he cannot object against it; and then no man can be angry. You nay see by what I have done, that the Quakers are not so curi­ous of their words, but that they will give us leave to put in such as may help us to a right understanding of their Principles, when their own expressions seem dark unto us.

The remainder of what W. R. hath writ, worth noting, before he comes to the Charges, contains a bad Compari­son, and a far-fetcht Conclusion.

First, He compares me to him that in­tending [Page 10]to kill his Enemy with a stab, let out the Imposthume. But let him remem­ber the Proverb, mala mens, malus ani­mus. The Imposthume indeed is some­what (proh dolor) to the purpose: For it's greatly to be feared that there are too many inward Swellings of Pride, Covetousness, Evil Surmizings, and Malice among many sorts of Professors this day; And O how happy would those Pens be, that (by the blessing of the Almighty Physitian) should be made Spiritual Love Lances to let them out. But as for the other Part of the Simili­tude which represents me as an Ene­my to the Baptists, he does thereby emi­nently signifie his Ignorance, and adds that, which his last seven years Certifi­cate will not countenance.

Secondly, W. R. draws such a Con­clusion from my Title Page, as I think Zoilus himself would not have done. Because I say, ‘these are Twelve Opinions for which T. H. has publish­ed the Quakers to be no Christians,’ that therefore I confess they hold them. If this be not a Quibble, I never heard one. And the root of it is this Particle (for) [Page 11]But is it not a common and plain form of Speech among us to say, Such a man was posted for a Coward, or accused for a Jesuite, and does it follow then that he was so? I doubt W. R. minds the Idioms of Greek and Hebrew so much, that he forgets the Propriety of his Mo­ther Tongue. But what need all this, when in p. 4. I say, to prevent mistakes, ‘Think not I plead for them, as if I my self, or they owned them; for both in their Books, and Conferences, they deny at least ten of them, as they are layed down and construed by T. H.’ Alas, poor Quakers! Now I pity you more than ever; no marvel if you complain so sadly of wrong Constructions, Forgeries, and Lyes, when such plain words as these will not free me from a Confession I never thought of. Poor Flock of Slaughter! Zac. 11.4. I see your own Country men must not speak a word for you, unless they resolve to be your Companions in Tribulati­on. All words that can be bended against you shall, and those that cannot shall be re­jected as Whimsies and Impertinencies. However, I shall proceed to make some brief Reply: But here I am in a streight, [Page 12]for I see my brevity is liable to be fille [...] up with Words to make it speak Absur­dities or contrary Sences: And if I us [...] many words, then I shall be counted [...] man of words, wanting Wisdome o [...] good Argument. Well, do as the Lord directs, O my Soul, and leave the issu [...] to himself.

1. The first Charge against the Qua­kers is, That the light in every Man is God Now because this Charge as it lies, seem to fix many foolish and improbable Ab­surdities upon them, as that when they pray, they only pray to a God within them and that they make as many Gods as there are men in the world, therefore, said I, to moderate the Charge, prevent mistakes and render it more intelligable to every man, put in but (of) and all is well. And this W. P. himself do [...]s in p. 8 of R. against R. Where we have him thus answering T. H. about this very Charge, and saying ‘That the Light within present with us every where, is to us the great proof of Gods omnipresence, and therefore of God.’ And in page 7, he blames T. H. for insinuating from G. W. his words that every Illumination is whole God▪ [Page 13]And as much he said to John Faldo page 10th of Quakerism a new nick name. ‘Far be it from us to assert, every such il­lumination to be the only Lord and Saviour and very God;’ and more to the same purpose in that page. And indeed in these places W. R. should have looked for W. P. his sence and not have run 48 pages farther & bring something spoken of Christ as a contradiction to what he said before, to which it had no rela­tion.

But farther methinks I see W. R. sporting and triumphing over this Addi­tion of mine, by letting fly so many Scripture instances, to shew what strange sences the taking out or putting in of a word or letter will produce. He tells us of a Printer that left out, Not, in the 7th Commandment and then it was Thou shalt commit adultery. And another fancy (perhaps) of his own, which had been better concealed, for it looks too much like prophane Drollery, from 1 Cor, 15, 51, where saith he take away (c) from Changed, and then it is, We must all be hanged. But are these Instan­ces to our purpose? Is the Case all one [Page 14]between the Scriptures and those mens writings who are alive to approve or dis­own what additions you make again: the words & letters that W. R. substracts from Scripture are such as make the Sence remaining, run directly contrary to all Scripture and Reason, whereas my Addition made the Charge agree with both. But,

Thirdly, Though I know we cannot add any word into the Scripture, yet consider whether most Christians do not either in their Doctrinal or Practical Comments upon it, make Additions. When any man Bap [...]izeth by vertue of the Commission Mat. 28.19. doth he not add the word (water) to it? When we oppose the Roman Purgatory pressed upon us from 1 Gor. 3.13. do not we add (before Death) or some words to that purpose? When one saith, Christ died for all men, and proves it from 1 Tim. 2.6. will not another of a contrary mind say the word (Elect) is to be under­stood or added to make it agree with o­ther Scriptures? Now this is my Case, & they who make these Additions, justifie me: for as these words make these texts [Page 15]in their understanding agree with others more plain and less liable to exception, so my Addition made this Charge more agreeable to other plainer Writings of the Quakers. Seeing then there are different senses put upon these Texts and others I could name; W. R. did not considerate­ly compare the Quakers Writings to Heathen Oracles, because in some places they may seem to admit of divers Con­structions: for he cannot but see what will follow, if an Argument should be drawn from the Premises upon him.

The Second Charge against the Qua­kers is, That the Soul is a part of God, and of Gods Being, without Beginning, and Infinite.

Here faid I, what hurt is there in all this? that is, in this Notion about the Soul, or In twenty more of the like na­ture? But when I proceed to say I ne­ver heard the Heathen were of this Opi­nion, then W. R. makes advantage of my brevity, and presently falls to proving that the Heathen had divine Apprehen­sions of the Soul, which I deny not: but this is not our business; W. R. should have kept his eye upon the main design [Page 16]of this Charge, as I did, which T. H. tells us verbatim in p. 16. of the first Dial. is to bring an absurdity upon the Qua­kers; for saith he, If this be so, then their Opinion must be thus understood, God sets up a Light in himself, which He Himself is to obey, and in so doing he shall be saved: Now to this being the substance of the Charge (and without this there's no hurt in it) I said the Heathen were not of this Opinion, or drew they a­ny Consequences from their Appre­hensions of the Soul, leading them to any inward Idolatry: but rather on the contrary, as the changing the glory of God into Images of Men and Beasts, Rom. 1. So that nothing is more oppo­site to Quakerism, than Heathenism, vul­garly understood, that being all for In­ward Spiritual Worship, and this for an Outward gross Idolatry.

Moreover, under this Charge, W. R. makes a disparity betwixt the Soul of Man, and Spirit of God, which I oppose not, because it hurts not the Question, viz. Why may we not as well say God hath given us a measure of Himself as a measure of his Spirit: No faith he, because the Soul [Page 17]is a Creature made by God immortal, and cannot die: But in so saying he opposeth Austin and Jerome, who say, ‘That if the Soul be seminated with the Flesh, or come ex traduce, then it shall die with the flesh.’ If I should tell him what the Lord saith, Ez. 18. The Soul that sins shall die; I know he would answer, that Soul there signifies the Body; and why it may not so be taken in Isa. 57. I leave to others to judge. For my own part, though I believe the Soul Immor­tal, yet I never saw any great cause to Anathema those that held it slept with the body, so long as they firmly believed, it should be raised again to partake of Im­mortality; for the Contest betwixt us is but about a little space of time, which in the Grave signifies nothing: but indeed betwixt them and the Roman Catholicks this Contest is of great concernment, for it utterly overturns their profitable Doct­rine of Purgatory. Therefore they have no reason to suffer it. But why we may not bear with one another about that, and this Notion about the Soul in the Charge, so long as the Absurdity afore­said is detested, I know not. And for all [Page 16] [...] [Page 17] [...] [Page 18] W. R. huffs at my Confidence in saying, ‘It's strange we should differ about we know not what;’ I see no reason he has given to leave off this Admiration: For if he should devote himself to read all that ever has been written about the Soul, and all its Definitions, and all such Quiddities about it as tota in toto, and tota in qualibet parte, I dare affirm he will not be more able to tell us what the Soul of Man is than he was before. There­fore let him not think that I write any thing about the Soul to make him much the wiser, but only in this sense, that we may all be so wise as to leave conten­ding about it. And for this cause I shall take no notice of more Questions of that Subject; for I think he puts them but to try whether I will be so foolish as to An­swer them.

I shall conclude this Charge with tel­ling W. R. that I writ not those Verses he jerks me for, to jeer my Friends, but that by telling them what others say, they may be weaned from these unprofitable and dishonourable Disputes, whom it chiefly concerns to think on it. But if I were minded to seek after a jeering Spi­rit [Page 19]in his Writings, I doubt I should find a downright one in that pertinent Questi­on, he so often hath put to the Quakers, viz. What some of those things were, that our Saviour did upon Earth that are not Written? Don't you think this a wise one, and a charitable one too?

Doubtless he might have posed the Pro­phet David with an easier Question than this; For he saith, Psal. 35.15. That the Abjects gathered themselves against him, and he knew it not, though 'tis 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, [Page 20]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 [Page 21]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 [Page 22]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 [Page 23]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, Ʋs, and Our, in this Discourse. I An­swer, that now we are Charging them [Page 24]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 [Page 25]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 the close of the Title page, an Abomina­ble Ʋntruth, and that they seem to have no regard to Truth or Honesty. If these be not angry words, I know none. But in all these five pages concerning this Charge, where is a particular of any one Scripture, not relating to some external part of Worship, which they deny. Why should you say they deny the Bible which contains all the Books? This is but quibbling, by which you know I may easily prove that you deny it all by de­nying Circumcision, a part therein con­tained. [Page 26]But in short, Sir, Be not angry, for I must tell you, that until all we, that own the Scriptures for our Rule, come to an Unity in Faith and Practice, according to it, and its well known we are now far from it, methinks it seems a pitiful contradiction for us to press it up­on others as an easie, plain, intelligible and unalterable general Rule.

Do you think our Divisions, both in Doctrine and Discipline about it, do not wonderfully weaken our Commendati­ons of it, as the Evangelical appointed Rule? yea, in so much, that Church, Discipline, Doctrines will hardly keep people awake while they are Preaching up even from Scripture Authority.

They may well say unto us, Physitians heal your selves; agree among your selves, ye wise and Learned, what is the mind and meaning of the Scriptures, about which now ye dispute, and then we will more willingly conform to what you call Scripture Ordinan­ces and Appointments.

Lastly, Sir, you conclude this Charge with a palpable abuse of my words: ‘Seeing then (said I) the great De­sign of all the Scripture, is to bring us [Page 27]to an holy life, let's bear with Opini­ons, which we plainly see do not sub­vert it, especially considering, that we read of no punishment denounced a­gainst men for their Opinions.’ Now can any fairly and honestly conclude from hence, that I allow of wicked, Athe­istical, and Antichristian Principles? But I see you are resolved to bring me under some manner of Scandal if you can: therefore in your 42d page, you say I for­get, That Corrupt Principles lead to Cor­rupt Practices. No, I do not forget it; nor do I plead for, or go about to extenu­ate any sinful or corrupt Principle, but to oppose that of Pride and Bitterness a­gainst others; Demonstration is the best proof in this Case. Survey the Quakers, and put their Lives and Conversations into one Balance of the Sanctuary, and the lives of any other sort of Christians into the other, and if they be found the lighter, I'le never speak a word more for them as a People. How long must we wait to know a corrupt Principle? They have been among us about six or seven and twenty years, and yet we see no corrupt Practices growing from their [Page 29]Principles. Certainly, were such evil Fruit, as you imagine, natural to the Tree; we should have seen it before now: for you say, when a mans Consci­ence is debaucht, we shall quickly see him a man of a debaucht Conversation.

The Sixth Charge is, That the speak­ing of the Spirit in any, is of greater Au­thority than the Scriptures.

To this I said, (and I see no cause to alter my saying) ‘that there is no Reason for this Charge to be drawn from G. VVhiteheads words: For these words (and greater) being added to the clo­sing of the Sentence doth plainly signi­fie to me that it must relate to the In­fluence:’ For what doth Authority sig­nifie without Influence? Of what worth is the Authority of a Magistrate, where his Commands are not regarded? Now it must be the Spirit opening of our hearts, as it did the heart of Lydia, to hearken to the Scriptures, and suffer them to have any impression upon us, or Au­thority over us; wherefore VV. R. saith well, That whatever good effect the Preachers Doctrine hath upon the Soul, it is wrought by those words, not as they are [Page 28]the words of men, but as indeed the words of God, which effectually work in them that be­lieve. So that they must first believe them before there will be any effectual work wrought by them; and this they cannot do without the inward operation, and Conviction of the Holy Spirit; Therefore I see no evil in ascribing the greater to the Spirit, so long as they give a great Authority to the Scriptures; both which, G. VV. doth in his Answer cited by T. H. viz. ‘That which was spoken from the Spirit of Truth in any, is of as great Authority as the Scrip­tures and Chapters are, and greater.’ I must put in Chapters now, for Civilities sake, for VV. R. catches at my leaving them out before; but truly I know no difference or force depending on Chap­ters more than Scriptures; they were Scriptures before they were in Chapters. But the great Reason of this Charge is yet behind, and the Apeal directing me to Dial. 1. p. 28. there I find it, viz. ‘That because the Script. if diligently consulted with, would deter persons from believing the Quakers feigned Revelations, therefore 'tis, they so [Page 30]much endeavour to beget in the minds of men an ill Opinion of them.’

This is a hard Censure, and how he will get off I know not, unless by way of supposed Consequences, for I dare say they never told any man, that their endeavours were to beget in the minds of men all ill opinion of the Scriptures, or that they feared the Scriptures would deter persons from believing them. But it being none of my Purpose to give a particular account of their Faith in this, or other Points, I refer those that are minded to know their Judgment about the Script. to the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, & 9th, Chapters of Quakerism a new nick name for old Christi­anity, and the Defense of it. And where­as he saith, a man may see how dark my Ʋnderstanding is, that I should acknowledg G. W. ' s words, and yet see no Reason for the Charge. Is not the Reason of the Charge what I last mentioned, as a hard Censure? And indeed he that sees a Reason for that Consequence in G. VV. his words, I confess sees more than I do.

The Seventh Charge is, That is no Command from God to me, which God hath given by way of Command to another: nei­ther [Page 31]did any of the Saints act by the Com­mand which was to another: Every one obeyed their own Command.

This in Substance is but the two for­mer Charges drest up in other words: For by Commands, I suppose T. H. means Scripture Commands, and by Saints, such as are recorded in Scripture: And then 'tis no more than what Ben. Furly said before, that there is nothing in the Scripture which he is obliged to obey because there Recorded. And so say I, not only because Recorded in that Book, do I obey any Command, but because the Spirit of God convinceth me that it is my Duty. For if its very being in that book be the ground of Obedience, what would become of him, who should hap­pen to have one of that false Impression, whose Compositor W. R. saith was a Papist, and 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 [Page 32]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 [Page 33]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, [Page 35]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, [Page 36]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 [Page 37]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 is that T. H. rates the Quakers for ma­king them necessary to Justification, and that I think is as far from Christianity, as the contrary is from Heathenism.

The Tenth Charge against the Qua­kers [Page 38]is, That Christ fulfilled the Law only as our Pattern.

This word only being the occasion of this Charge, I did endeavour to mode­rate, and said, ‘That to an innocent understanding, it signifies no more than chiefly as our Pattern, which is far from signifying, that there is no other end of Christs fulfilling the Law.’ And W. P. himself mentions other ends in p. 79. of R. against R. But saith W. R. How can I count this an honest Sentence, and yet will not justifie it. And here he leaves out one half of my Sentence, and then cries out, I am very Inconsistent. And well may I, or any man else at this Rate. But take all together, and it's thus: This is an honest Sentence, though I will not justifie it so worded and understood as T. H. doth: For T. H. Prints this word only in a diffe­rent Caracter, that it might have such an Emphasis put upon it, as was never intend­ed for it. And again, T. H. understands (or else would have others to under­stand) by this word only, That Christ fulfilled the Law (yea and died too) for no other end but as our Pattern of Obedi­ence and Sufferings. And if this be not [Page 39]his understanding of W. Penns Sentence, this Charge is frivolous and of no use or advantage at all against the Quakers. And this sence of it I will not justifie: and I am sure W. P. denys it, and oppugnes it. Again, W. R. queries, why I call this Hea­then Doctrine, seeing the word Heathen is not so much as mentioned by T. H. I an­swer, every Plough-man teaches it me, from the Title page of his Dialogue, by a better sort of Inferencing, than helped him to the 4th Charg, That Christ Redeem­ed himself, & far more plain and passable among the people. And whereas W. R. saith, the honour of that name belongs to me; I must tell him, that upon a second view, I find he do's Mr. Faldo wrong; For al­though the Dialogues made the first noise of Heathenism in these parts, yet it seems Mr. Faldo put out a Book to degrade the Quakers from the Title of Christians a little before.

The Eleventh Charge is, That the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction is Irreligi­ous, and Irrational.

As he who is truly desirous to quench a fire, will be most active in pulling away those Brands that increase the [Page 40]Flame. So he that heartily mediates for Peace, labours more to remove those words that stir up wrath, than to make Arguments to strengthen either side. Up­on this very Account I said, substract the word Irreligious: In hopes, that rhen the greatest offence taken at this Doct­rine might cease. For I know many, and hope there are thousands more, un­known to me, that live religiously, though they believe this Doctrine even in T. H. his sence; yea and the Doct­rine of Predestination too: And am veri­ly perswaded I shall meet them there where all Controversies shall fly away; But for all I have adventured to do this, yet I see W. R. will not be satisfied; he must have the whole Charge substracted before the Dispute shall be ended. How true a Representative is this man of the generality of the Contenders, and Dis­puters of this Day! but oh how lamen­table is it! For go into any of their Con­gregations, and you shall hear them Commending, Preaching up, and Praying for Peace, Moderation, and Christian Charity: But when you come to put them to the test, and know what [Page 41]they will do, or what they will abate to­wards such an Accommodation? you'l [...]ind not a word, not a letter, not a hair of their head, or a Notion that signifies [...]s little, to be parted with for it. So that [...]ndeed when any of them pray for Unity or Charity, it is in Substance no more but that all may be turned to their Opi­nions, or else Anathama, Maranatha, God convert them. But here I cannot but take notice of the Quakers peaceable desires in not contending with me about [...]eaving out this word; though W. R. [...]ells me in a jeering way, it's not to be left [...]ut, for W. P. spake it by immediate Inspi­ration. Well then, I perceive men speak­ [...]ng by Inspiration are more easily made [...]olyable to cease from Controversie, than [...]hey that speak without it. But let VV. R. his pretences for Truth be never so great, I'le not regard them, while he can both scoff at one of the greatest Evangeli­cal Doctrines, abuse them that confess it, [...]nd by such Fire-kindling Books as this he hath now published, not endeavour [...]o accommodate but extend the diffe­ [...]ence to the hinderance of Peace. So much concerning Irreligious.

Now as to the Irrationality of th [...] Doctrine, I find VV. R. himself makin [...] it no Attempt to vindicate it from such [...] Charge, only sporting himself with [...] idle quibble or two about it, lets it pas [...] but not without an Untruth to bring u [...] the Rear: For the Searcher of all hear [...] knows, I spake nothing to this or an [...] other point to gratifie W P. or any m [...] else, which this Enemy to Paganism ha [...] so little Christianity as to suggest.

The Twelfth Principle Charged [...] the Quakers is, That this Body which di [...] shall not rise again.

Now we are come to the main [...] the grand Charge. Now says W. R. [...] 61. Speak out, and be not afraid, now comes to the Point. I though I had spoke plain enough before, or else he doth [...] if he doth not understand me, to sa [...] There is no more difference betwixt me a [...] a Quaker in this Article, than betwi [...] four pence and a groat. But if I can y [...] speak lowder I shall. Know therefor [...] W. R. that I believe from the bottom of my heart, That the Quakers are m [...] basely abused in this matter, by the cras [...] Insinuations of many malicious men. Fo [...] [Page 43]though the Citizens generally have such [...]arp Needle Heads, that there's very [...]w of them that mind things of this na­ [...]ure, but see, or are easily brought to see [...]here the fallacy of a Proposition lies; [...]t scarce one Country man of an hun­dred can discern it. Tell not me what's [...]e Question, but what is the fruits and [...]ffects of it; I strike at that. And if you [...]re not willing such absurd Consquences [...]ould be suckt out of your Questions, [...]ate them so plain as to prevent it. If [...]ou would not have the Quakers called Heathens, do not say they are no Chri­ [...]ians. Let T. H. come into a Country [...]uditory and Preach that the Quakers [...]eny the Resurrection of this Body, and [...]t me afterwards examine them, and if [...]e generality do not go away with this [...]elief (if they give any credit to him) [...]at the Quakers deny the Resurrection, [...]e burn my Books. How often have I [...]eard them in Sermons compared to Hy­ [...]eneus and Philetus, who concerning the truth, have err'd Saying that the Resur­rection is past already? And what think [...]ou can be the Design of this Compari­ [...]n, but to possess peoples minds, that [Page 44]they deny any Resurrection at all▪ Whereas you cannot but know, that the Difference betwixt them and us, is onl [...] about the manner of the Resurrection▪ a needless, nay, a forbidden Controver­sie, even by him that you think says mo [...] for your Notion. And let any imparti [...] man but read the very Quotations yo [...] have brought out of their Books, an [...] all that ever W. P. has writ about it, an [...] they will say the same. And I shall plain tell you more, That if I did understan [...] the Quakers as well in all other poin [...] as in this, I should not have refrain [...] their Meetings as I have done and d [...] (not that I think it unlawful to go) b [...] I will not say, I would be a Quaker; th [...] is one of the weakest passages in all yo [...] book! As if a man could be a Qu [...] ­ker or any other Profession, when [...] pleased.

Its true indeed he may perha [...] when he will, take up the formal of any thing: But to get into [...] Life, Spirit, and Power of Reli [...] ­on, is not a work so easie as you su [...] ­gest. Next I shall speak to that whi [...] hath something of Argument in it, and [Page 45]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 [Page 46]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 [Page 47]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, [Page 48]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. Its absurd to imagine, that one Body should commit the sin, and a­nother Body that never sinned, be pu­nisht. [Page 49]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 like unto the glorious body of our Lord Jesus Christ. The text you bring makes against you. I grant, the end of the Resurrection is, That we might re­ceive a reward according to the deeds none in the Body, 2 Cor. 5. But it doth or say, we shall receive the reward in [Page 50]the same Body wherein the deeds were done. No, the Apostle tell us in the same Chapter, that this House or Tabernacle (meaning his Body) was but a groan­ing Burthensome thing, and desired to be cloathed with that House which is from Heaven, suppose a poor Tenant in a thackt Cottage should do his Landlord such faithful Service, that at length he should take him out of that Cottage, and Seat him in one of his best Buildings, and therein reward him for his former Ser­vice, do you think this will not be al­lowed? or is this to deny rewards?

But you say you cannot possibly under­stand that the Quakers intend the same Resurrection the Apostle doth in 1 Cor. 15. I believe you: For there is a veil over your Understanding, which all your Wisdome cannot remove, the Lord re­move it. And the Quakers may say the like to me; for they believe some five things perhaps which yet I cannot possib­ly understand: What then, shall I speak evil of that I know not? no, let us wait in the Spirit of Love and Meekness, and God shall reveal to us whatsoever he sees ne­cessary for us in his own time. Thus, Belo­ved Friends, I have given you, and all [Page 51]that please to read me, a faithful account why I writ that little Book called The Twelve Pagan Principles, and the Rea­sons of that Title, together with those Considerations; which, in my under­standing, ought in some measure to calm the passions of those, who at first sight of those Charges (thus seperated from all Sayings that might help them) have been hasty to condemn the Quakers upon their account. And that I intended nothing but to beget at least a moderate Language, and Behaviour, and to stir up others to the same work; methinks the great condiscending and little better than beseeching way of Arguing I us'd might convince, even W. R. himself. Had I come forth with a Resolution to help the Quakers to a Victory (though more than I think them sufficient to their own defense, and that their Adversaries have both wanted and fallen into a con­federacy) I would not have talked at that submissive truckling rate, of putting in, or taking words out of their Sayings to facilitate their being understood? No, I would have betook my self to the more laudable Sanctuary of Rhetorick (espe­cially at a Pinch, as W. R. doth page 37.) [Page 52]where Figures, honourable among some men, lie ready to overturn these Char­ges with little trouble, if better Reason had been wanting: But W. R. himself satisfies you that my Pen was indifferent, notwithstanding he would have me a Quaker, for he says, all along my Book that I have cleared T. H. of Forgery: then I hope T. H. his Party cannot be angry. And on the other side, the Quakers ma­king no complaint, signifies they are not offended with what I writ. And if this be not Indifferency, there's none in the world. I have heard as if he commended the en­deavours of that Quibbling Author of the Quakers Quibbles, and that as an in­different Pen; if so, he shews great blind­ness that faults me of Partiality. I am of that mind, had W. R. been guided by this Loving, Meek, and Peaceable Spirit of Christ when he began to write, he might have expected a Blessing upon his La­bours; but let him know assuredly, that while he is a Promoter of these unprofita­ble and dishonoarable Disputes, the Lord will not hear his Prayers.