« ZurückWeiter »
and which we wish himself had not transgress’d.
As his work is principally a Revival of old Charges, we apprehend no Defence more rational, than such as is taken from the Writings of those he has accus’d; their own Words being the best Evidences of his perverting them.
The End we propose, is the right Information of himself and others, concerning a People found in all the Doctrines of Christianity, Lovers of Sobriety and Virtue, and deferving better Usage, than he has thought fit to give them.
WE freely submit what we have written to the Consideration of every impartial Reader, who will form his own Judgment, without Respect of Persons, by the Merits of the Cause.
The Vicar having prefixed to his Book the
Names of the Quaker Authors, by him cited,
Edward Burroughs, 69,
87, 115. William Dewiherry,
Chris Atkinson, 68. Joseph Wyeth, 350.
E RRA TA.
PAGE 13. line 6. for 11, 5:700d 2. 1. p. 23. l. 17. for 23.
read 13. P. 39. 1. 19. for Cor. read i Cor. p. 140. 1. 5. for were read where. p. 147. 1. 26. for out read our. p. 181. 1. 27. for part read paft. p. 185.1. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. dele the Comma's. p. 186. 1. 23. for 1 Foby read Fohn. p. 188. in the Margin, for lanecâ read lanceã. p. 266.1.13. for then read when. p. 221. 1. 17. dele not. p. 224, 1. 27. for be read are to be. p. 228. 1. 32. for Hamon read Haman. p. 250. l. 15. for Hour read Hours. p. 260. l. 3. for Merits read Mercies. ibid. I. 25. for the Period put a Semicolon. p. 282. 1. 17. for Occasion read Omission. p. 286. l. 7. for 15. read xvi. 15. p. 290.1. 10. for XX. read xxviii. p. 331. 1.3 for include read conclude. p. 368. 1. 29, 30. for their read his. ibid. l. 29, 30, 31. dele the Comma's. p. 370. 1. 11. dele the Comma after teftify. p. 372. l. 14. for away read a Way. Such other Typographical Errors as may occur, the Rea. der is defired to correct with his Pen,
Defence of Quakerism,
Or an ANSWER to
Patrick Smith's Book.
Preface, and Manner of Writing, are
N his Title-Page, he calls the Quakers,
a Complication of Deism, Enthusiasm, and divers other ancient and modern Errors and Heresies: Whence 'tis evident, that he is not clear of that Bitterness and Virulence of Expression,
which himself says, (a). Can never serve to clear & up a Controversy, nor be confiftent with a
· Christian Spirit. Harsh Terms, by raising terrible Ideas in the Imagination, may probably prepossess weak Readers in Favour of one side, and are too often us'd for that Purpose, as is observ'd by John Hales of Eaton, who says, (b) He
resy and Schism, as they are in common Use, are two Theological Mapucai's or Scarecrows, · which they who uphold a Party in Religion
(a) Pref. p. 9. (6) Tract concerning Schilm, p. 191,
use, to fright away such, as making Inquiry • into it, are ready to relinquish and oppose it, • if it appear either erroneous or suspicious.'
His Dedication, fo far as relates to the Bishop of London's favourable Opinion of some of bis Papers, and his Commands to him to proceed in his Design, we pass by, tho', it seems, by his begging Patronage, that he is conscious his Cause needs it. The Manner of his Address we esteem more Courtly than Christian, and shall leave to the Giver and Receiver of them to reconcile the "Titles of My Lord, and Right Reverend Father in God, with the plain Precept of Christ, Be not ye called of Men Rabbi. Mat. xxiii. 8.
In his Preface, he tells us, that he has been
at the Pains to draw up a brief Summary of " the whole Controversy, between the Church • of England and the Quakers--without omitting
any material Branch or Part thereof, that he
knows.' But we know, and, did he desire it, could inform him, of divers superstitious Usages of that Church, about which the Quakers have a Controversy with her, which he has not touch'a upon.
He goes on, p. 10. • And that it might be ! the better suited to the meanest Capacity, he
says, he has put it into the Form of a plain · Conference. Which is no good Reason for his writing in a Method most adapted for Sophistry, whereby a Writer, in altering the Form of Men's Expressions, may easiest impose* on the Reader his own Sense instead of theirs, and therefore justly held by Controversial Writers mean and unfair.
. And indeed, he says, it has not been the least Part of his Labour, very often to find