late Muggletonians art relling of a visible God and Christ remote not in any Behold here what an abominable thought it is to this man and the Family of Light called Quakers that 's his phrase that Jesus Christ should be like a Man visible or in any place remote from Men and Women that live here upon Earth and if he be not then it 's certain he is not a Man for a Man being in his Substance Body as well as Spirit and finite cannot be in moe than one place at the same time And Mr. P. talks at the same rate with G. W. P. 12. Sect. 6. where he argues thus If Gods presence make the Heaven as we have been alwayes taught and all have believed and confest let every Reader judge whether he say true or false Do not all Christians in the World except a few believe and confess that Heaven is a certain place distinct from Earth into which Christ ascended when a Cloud received him out of their the Apostles sight Acts 1.9 Then saith he since God vouchsafes to Temple and Tabernacle in men it follows that his Heaven is there also And so the Man Christ Jesus sits at Gods right hand in Heaven when W. P. sits at G. F's right hand for God Tabernacles in G. F. and hath his Heaven there and Christ is in W. P. or else there 's no such thing as Christ's being a Man Here W. P. derides and abominates their Faith who believe That Heaven is a visible place to be liv'd in c. But we will return again to G. W's Christ Ascended p. 18. Except you eat my Flesh and drink my Blood you have no Life in you saith Christ So neither is Christ our Gods right hand so limited 20 a remoteness from them the Saints Is seems that Jesus Christ is no otherwise in Heaven then he is in the Saints when they eat his Flesh and drink his Blood And indeed J. Newman's design was from what appears in G. W's Book to assert That the Man Jesus our Lord although he is the Eternal God has in Heaven a place remote from Earth an Humane Body which is not substantially in any Man nor in any place but in that which all men call Heaven To this G. W. opposeth himself and saith p. 21. Doth not this oppose the Infiniteness and Omnipresence of God and Jesus Christ and bring them under the limitation of finite Creatures So that Jesus Christ according to him has no other Body of a Man than what is as Infinite and Omnipresent as God himself Next we will see what Isaac Pennigton another famous man saith to this Point in his Book intituled A Question c. p. 33. The Scriptures do expresly distinguish between Christ and the Garment which he wore between him that came and the Body in which he came So then Christ's Body by which he means the whole Manhood was but Christ's Garment A little farther he saith This we certainly know and can never call the bodily Garment Christ but that which appeared and dwelt in the body To this agrees our Author W. P. p. 11. We dare not say That the intire Christ was that visible Body that was crucified at Jerusalem What was then J. Pennington will tell us in his next words Now if ye Professors indeed know the Christ of God tell us plainly what that is which appeared in the Body whether that was not the Christ before it took up the Body after it took up the Body and for ever Here it 's manifest that by Christ he understands nothing of Manhood Body nor Soul but only that which was before Jesus was born and the same is still the Christ his Body or Manhood was only his Garment which he took up and laid down And G. W. useth the word Manhood p. 14. He took upon him the Manhood in time Now I may appeal to my Reader whether I have not clearly prov'd as far as the nature of the thing will bear that the Leading Quakers do not believe that Jesus Christ is a man I say as the nature of the thing will bear because if they should in so many Syllables deny it though I have had it so from some of their mouths they must contradict express Scripture whcih often calls Christ a Man even since his Resurrection and that would destroy their reputation among those that reverence the Holy Scriptures But how they can by an unparallel'd equivecation both confess him in Scripture to be a Man and at the same time in Heart and in their Books deny him I shall now shew you out of the Books of Isaac Pennington and G. Fox a forenamed I. P. p. 20. For that which he Christ took upon him was our Garment even the Flesh and Blood of our Nature which is of an carthly perishing Nature but he is of an eternal Nature and his Flesh and Blood and Bones are of his Nature Here observe that the Flesh and Blood of our Nature that is the Manhood which he took upon him was a Garment and so no part of his Nature but he had Flesh and Blood and Bones too before that time which Flesh Blood and Bones were of an Eternal Nature that is to say God for I know nothing else that was of an Eternal Nature Here Christ is denyed to be by Nature a Man and yet by his Eternal Nature to have Flesh Blood and Bones Now if any man in the World can shew me a grosser piece of equivocation than this I will acknowledge my self a very ignorant Person To speak of the Flesh Blood and Bones of a Man and to intend nothing of the Nature of Man but only of God Has Muggleton or the Anthropomorphites of Egypt whom they so often call upon said any thing of so gross a nature as this if it be taken properly and if it must be taken improperly what horrid deceit and equivocation But it were a disparagement to G. F. that I. P. should have a Notion that was not first revealed to G. F. Therefore we find that long before G. F. had said in his Mystery p. 68. And is not Christ in Man And doth not Christ say they must eat his Flesh And so if they must eat his Flesh Is not his Flesh in them And how can ye call him Christ in Man without the Man he there I. P's words may be the exposition of these and tell us that by Man G. F. means the Eternal God and by the Flesh which men eat and whcih is in them he means the Flesh Blood and Bones of the Eternal God Who can read these things without horror Now let me put two or three Queries to my Reader which he may resolve from these Premises Q. First Of what use is or can the Scripture be to these men who do thus confound Heaven and Earth God and Man Flesh and Spirit Man's Nature and God's Nature Eternity and Time that they will understand the one when the other is named and plainly
What! eight times after the same manner Where was W. P.'s Conscience But can be not make sense of it Yes yes Suppose a Comma at the first made where and being understood explaineth the sense was maketh it more clear That 's one way Again Take the middle Clause and put in last interchanging the World and it thus And so to the Word Christ Jesus before the World was made him by whom it was made All this stir is to make it sense as for Scripturee 't is such as God's infallible Spirit in G. F. wirtes And may not a man at this rate excuse the groffest non-sense that ever was writ Go thy wayes for an admirable Advocate Once more let me ask the Reader what he thinks of the honesty of W. P. and whether he will excuse me hence-forward if I mingle any more Discourse with him It may benefit some or other therefore I will yet proceed a little further 13. Who can read Deut. 30.10 11 12 13 14. and not perceive that by the word very night unto them in their mouth and in their heart is meant the Word written And yet G. F. would have it to be the inward immediate Word and therefore in thy mouth must be left out as not well agreeing with that notion 14. It 's for the sake of that Notion that the Power of God is said by him to be the Gospel and the Gospel the Power of God as if they were convertible terms whereas the Apostle Paul sayes only That the Gospel is the Power of God not simply and absolutely but in a certain respect to Salvation to every one that believeth This I express't fully in my Epistle but W. P. would not see it but cries out Gross folly c. 15. Next you must know that the Quakers detest the thought of Christ's having the Essence of a man in any place remote from their own dear hearts and therefore when G. F. cites that Scripture Luk. 24.5 6. He must leave out of the very heart of the Text He is not here And W. P. will have it very aptly used to express the Mystical Resurrection but still he is not here must be out for that doth not quadrate with their fancy 16. And G. F. cites that Text Ephes 5.30 defectively to prove Christ not absent from his Church and W. P. avows it Indeed G. F. sayes He is deceiced who saith Christ is distinct from the Saints Myst p. 16. 17. But upon that Text Luk. 17.21 W. P. gives my chief exception a go-by takes no notice of G. F's changing The Kingdom of God into plain Heaven But if he had he abhors to think that Heaven is a visible place to be liv'd in bearing some resemblance to this visible World p. 12. 18. Amos 3.13 There G. F's applying that to Christ which is spoken of the Lord God favours their Doctrine of no distinction between God and Jesus Christ the Mediator and W. P. defends it on that account 19. The like may be said of 1 Cor. 15.28 where W. P. according to his usual candour tells me of Col. 3.11 but takes no notice of G. F. his citing Chapter and Verse which he is not wont to do 20. Joh. 1.1 God is the Word is defended by the same perverse Doctrine 21. So is his adding He or Christ to the Father Joh. 10.29 22. His palpable diminishing from Phil. 2.11 hath the same tendency and W. P. owns it G. F. in his own Cause would have exclaimed here as he doth upon the Ministers of Newcastle 23. W. P. talks of Brazen but I wonder with what face he could give such answer to John 15.25 which if it be not as G. F. cites it an addition to Scripture I never saw one nor ever shall What call for plain Scripture from another and at the same instant urge Scripture with addition himself He thinks if he can but make G. F. speak sense and truth in his Opinion he has done enough He may as well say all G. F.'s Book is Scripture for he believes it all as infallible as Scripture as if there were no difference between a Quotation and a Comment or Exposition But G. F. has said it Christ is not distinct from the Father That 's enough for W. P. though it subvert the Gospel 24. The like ground there is for inserting Christ into the Text 2 Pet. 2.1 which I have mentioned 25. And for putting God for Lord Rom. 14.9 26. And so he would confound God and the Holy Spirit by putting the one for the other 1 Cor. 2.10 14. And why did not W. P. answer what I urg'd rather then pass it by and call me Busy-body which is very easie 27. Add to these Col. 3.16 and John 17.5 which I am about to speak and we have 11 Texts abused to serve that goodly Doctrine of the Father Son and Spirit their not being distinct but all one A very trivial Matter that doth but subvert the Faith of Christ and introduce another Gospel 28. When G. F. sayes This is Scripture If we find it not there we must say He is mistaken and then he is fallible If he give us the sense of Scripture in other words and obtrude them for Scripture he corrects the Scripture instead of citing it Christ saith John 17.5 And now O Father glorifie thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the World was But G. F. Christ who was glorified with the Father before the World began W. P. cries out Sottish Ignorance and Enmity with a witness Did ever Christ of his Apostles or any sober man living chide or reprove a person if he did leave out or put in or change a word not in the least perverting the sense Yes G. F. doth it for expressing ye where it must be understood It seems then G. F. is no sober man in W. P's account and if so I know not how he should be a true Prophet But I have shew'd in my Epistle that he perverts the sense and that the Phrase is to be understood of the glory which Jesus had not in possession but in decree with the Father before the World was Here Mr. P. cries out lamentably That ever any man should undertake to correct others in that which doth not deserve it whilst the beam is in his own eye and is himself most guilty This is like the rest sutable to the honesty of Mr. P. that he should compare an Exposition of Scripture with a quotation of it And because the chief artifice of his Book is to render me odious and detestable under the name of Socinian mongrel-Socinian Bidlean and the like and for that takes no small occasion from my exposition of this Text I shall shew 1. that two great Authors no Socinians are of the same mind Grotius upon those words The glory which I had adds Destinatione tua in thy Decree Augstinus Et nuno clarifica me And now glorifie me Hoe est sient
Controversy Ended OR The Sentence given by George Fox himself against himself and Party in the persons of his Adversaries ratified and aggravated by W. Penn their ablest Advocate even in his Huffing Book of the Vindication of G. F. c. BEING A Defence of that little Book Intituled The Spirit of the Quakers Tryed HERE It is manifested out of their Writings that the Leading Quakers do but equivocally confess the Divinity and plainly deny the Humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ the Mediator between God and Men. Also from eye and ear-witnesses is related the Divine Honour some give to others of them And no marvel for Satan himself is transformed into an Angel of Light 2 Cor. 11.13 14. Who is a Liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son 1 Joh. 2.22 London Printed for Francis Smith at the Elephant and Castle near the Royal Exchange in Corahil and at the same sign first Shop without Temple-Bar 1673. Controversie Ended OR The Sentence given by George Fox himself against himself and Party in the persons of his Adversaries ratified and aggravated by W. Penn their ablest Advocate even in his Huffing Book of the Vindication of G. F. c. IT cannot seem strange to any judicious Man that considers the nature of the Argument I undertook against the Spirit of the Quakers in G. F. that I should doubt of Mr. Penn's being able to satisfie his Conscience in its Vindication becaus I look'd upon him as a Man of some Learning and Judgment more than others of that Party and as consciencious as many But behold a Book is at length come forth under his Name and bearing the Title of A Vindication c. Which having considered I must confess I find my self mistaken in the opinion I had of him both in reference to his Judgment and Conscience My reasons for such change of my mind I shall in these Papers produce And first His address to his Reader challengeth some short remarks 1. He will have me to be the most unjust of any that ever yet wrote against them because saith he he draws a general charge from a particular failing I answer He should first have answered the Reasons I gave why I did so But do they not generally account G. F. most eminently filled with that Spirit wherein they boast Did he not write this Book in the Name of the Quakers Have they not defended it And doth not W. P. here in their Names undertake the defence of it And in such a case I am justied by W. P. himself see pag. 136. 2. He faults my generosity because I wrote against G. F. at a juncture saith he when he might understand him to be at America Answ Methinks it savours of arrogancy as if the Voyages of their great Prophet must be as generally taken notice of as if he were some Prince or Cardinal 3. He suggests the unseasonableness of the opposition just when they should make the best of an unexpected toleration Answ And would they not have cryed out with more colour of reason if it had been done at a time when they were under sufferings And if he tells us saith W. P. that he had no mind to add to our troubles he deals deceitfully for his self-safety and not charity to us was hinderance Answ It 's no marvel that Mr. P. errs in judging mens hearts when he fails so grosly in things before his eyes as I shall soon shew But the Bookseller can tell him the little Book was so well approved of by Men of Learning and Authority persons I know not that it might have been printed in the most dangerous times 4. But it 's a very grievous thing to them to want my Name and no simall enquiry have they made after it which ingenuous Persons would have scorn'd to have done But I perswade my self I gave satisfying Reasons to all unprejudiced Readers why I concealed it and W. P's Book hath justified them for he hath at a venture given me a new Name and ascribed to me what may seem odious under it If they set their Names to their Books to have praise of men I seek it not Next he is much offended at a quondam Friend of his who was so kind as to give away some six-penny Books to those he knew would not buy them and yet were concern'd to read them A notable Crime in another Man but a virtue in a Quaker I wish they would practise it in reference to their Vindication But he bestows some foul Epithites upon G. F. as Knave Puppy c. Answ O the blindness of Self-love that Mr. P. should thus expose a man's name for words spoken in a free manner and privately to his Acquaintance and that after he had recall'd those terms and promis'd to forbear them for the future and in the mean time himself to be such a proficient in abusive Terms and Phrases as if he were Doctor of the Chair among the Satyrists save that he mixeth some Billingsgate language withal I shall here present the Reader with some of his sweet language if I should transcribe it all I dare say it would take up more Paper then I intend to write in the whole Measure his Book by the Title The Spirit of Truth Vindicated against that of Error and Envy unseasonably manifested as if there were a season for the manifestation of Error and Envy in a late malicious Libel He designs to mischief owl-light way of stabbing men or deceiving people great injustice and deceit Mongrel-Socinian stupid or malicious more Mahometan than Christian Serpentine Associates a lie plain lie arrant lie palpably belie idle Boaster indeed a very Dreamer his vulterous Eye malicious Comments his own vexed base murdering Spirit meer novice wickedly sayes him weakness folly malice and untruth Saturnal Dreams so over-run with the lazie c. left his Wits behind in exchange Pseudo-Linguist brawling Associate to will mischief was present c. This miserable Man smaller degree of distraction O stupendious folly such creeping Spirits how dark and vile the man is the poor man has an irksom way of telling his Tale c. wonted folly so absurd better Argument out of Bedlam Sacriledge and Ingratitude I almost tremble to think on brazon'd language of brutish malice such Bats as himself fools himself frothy spirit peevish Antichristian c. If he say that I have applyed the like opprobious tenns to G. F. as False Prophet Lyar Impostor Falsity Forgery I must tell him 1. That the nature of my Argument required those terms I could not express that which was necessary to be said without them or such like If G. F. be a Prophet he must be either a true one or a false one 2. G. F. supplyed me with them bestowing those or the like upon his Adversaries upon unjust accounts But I appeal to any prudent man whether W. P. might not with greater advantage to his Apology have
because that Rule was sufficiently know to G. F. by the means aforesaid and God is not wont to give that special Gift but to his humble Servants and Friends or to those whom he will imploy upon some special business in the World And if he had such a suggestion the more notoriously wicked was he to disobey so great a Light Now if any judicious Reader will take pains to consider the 25 Texts W. P. has quoted and he may add 25 more to them with their Contexts I am perswaded he will find them every one to intend some of the Cases I have mentioned Now let us see if we can understand what W. P. intends by the terms of his Position for we must understand him as he understands the Scriptures not Literally but Mystically 1. We are to know that by God's Holy and Vnerring-Spirit he means if he means as the leading Quakers neither Hypostasis nor Person nor any thing else but God himself who is the Father 2. By Judge of Truth Rule of Faith Guide of Life he means That God doth immediately teach G. F. and every man to judge infallibly of all Truth what is to be believed and what to be practised For otherwise it is not intelligible That God should be the Judge of Truth c. among men And therefore 3. that the Scripture is as he saith pag. 38. much like the shadow of the true Rule which may give us some ground to guess what the Rule if self is In the next page he saith in effect That the Teachings of God are like the knowledge of the Princes Will and Secrets viva Voce or immediately which he that hath and every man ought to have heeds not so much the same when he meets it in print that is in the Scriptures They are like a Gazette to a Privy Counsellor But he saith That the eternal Spirit that is these immediate Teachings to be superior to those Writings So that when G. F. saith How can they but delude People that are not infallible This is to be heeded more than any sentence in Scripture and is superior to those Writings 4. He means by his Position that men are to be guided into Truth and Faith and good Life immediately in opposition to their endeavours studying the Scriptures setting themselves to Prayer Reasoning Preaching and the like that is such of these as are performed by us which he calls p. 84. Running in our own Wills poring beating of our Brains and daily striving Now if this be his meaning as manifestly it is then let any man that has read any of those Authors Books tell me whether he thinks that any one of those he mentions was of his mind that is Tollet or Maldonate Beza or Dr. Hammond or Hutchinson Socinus Selichtingius or Crellius Did they not all abhor that Doctrine It comes to this That God has made men with faculties capable of believing and understanding what the Will of their earthly Superior is by the means of Ministers Messengers Proclamations Writings c. and of obeying his Will heartily without immediate assistance But if our Heavenly Superior will have us to know or do his Will he must tell us immediately himself he must go along with us and lead us step by step or else he must expect no Service Duty or Obedience from us at all The truth is This Doctrine of the necessity of God's immediate Teaching doth overthrow the Mediatorship of the Man Christ Jesus our Lord and quite subvert the Gospel for mediate and immediate are directly contradictory Besides still we have gain'd nothing by this doctrine for if men do not hearken to the Un-erring Judge or mistake him or resist him against knowledge refusing to be led by him they fail as much as if they had no such Immediate Guide but a Mediate Guide and Direction Let Mr. Pen be the Example who even in the beginning of his Book has notwithstanding his immediate and infallible Guide run into five or six such palpable Falsities and Calumnics as I am consident the Cobler of Glocester would never have been guilty of nor any man else that had not been transported with pride rashness and revenge What has he gain'd then by his immediate Guide which another man that knows by Nature or Tradition he ought to speak truth is not equally capable of But why doth this Apologist spend so many Pages upon this Point and take no notice of my arguing in the following Lines which he saith I had obliged my self against Must it be past over therefore I am perswaded to use his words he was confounded at it It was to this effect We by your own confession have the Light within or the infallible Guide as well as you why then is not our Doctrine as true as yours You answer That we are not obedient we are in the customs of the World c. and therefore not to be heeded Thus you prove your selves to be in the Truth and us to be in Error not by Divine Reason and Holy Scripture but by the high opinion you have of your selves and your low opinion of others And it indeed they acknowledge that there are vertuous Persons that are of a contrary perswasion to them and none but who are guided by an infallible Spirit then they are no more certain than other men and we need still an infallible Judge I add If every man hath the I have a measure of infallible Light the least measure whereof convinces of sin especially gross sins such as Malice Envy Lying Murdering-Spirit c. which W. P. imputes to me But I am so far from having any such convictions that on the contrary my Conscience hears me witness of a hearty love to Truth and their Persons in what I have done and am a doing Therefore if their Doctrine be true his Imputation is false if his Imputation be true their Doctrine is false But enough of this Having now in this Introduction given the Reader a proof of W. P's faculty in accusing meek language faithfulness in representing my words and sense modesty in praising himself and Party evading of that which is weighty confidence in denying what they are charged with and his sense of the Spirits guidance We are pretty well prepar'd to make a conjecture of what we are to expect from him in the handling of the main Argument which I think fit first to give a short account of And I must tell you that it is Argumentum ad Hominem an Argument against G. F. formed out of his own words and runs thus He that is not Infallible in a Deluder But G. Fox is not infallible Therefore G. F. is a Deluder The Major Proposition as they call it is expresly proved by that Quotation out of G. F's Book where he faith How can ye be Ministers of the Spirit if ye be not infallible And How can they but delude people that are not infallible And again G. F. faith Is is not Blasphemy
led by that Spirit When the truth of any matter in question is to be tryed by a written Testimony and that writing may be produced he that shall then instead of the determinate words of that Testimony produce other words to the prejudice of his Neighbours cause shall be counted forger and lyar And I nothing doubt but that G. F. if he had dealt so with other writings of civil concern as he has done with the holy Scriptures would by this time have lost his ears And it would not have excus'd him in such a change to have urged that his own knowledge and testimony were of greater cortainty and vilidity than the words of that written Testimony forasmuch as Party concern'd acknowledg'd no such matter 7. G. F. in accusing Professons of perverting Scripture in the Instances cited follows his own Judgment and Principle and not theirs for the makes it an Argument of the Quakers their being sent of God because they speak of Scripture right as it is but Professors the contrary and tells them they run into all absurdities that give their meanings to Scripture Lastly such is the unhappiness of W. P's undertaking in this matter that almost all his reasonings and scornings too against me in vindication of G. F. turn directly to his condemnation For because Prefessons do not acknowledge any other common Rule of Faith but the Scriptures it was necessary therefore for G. F. to confute them by express Scripture especially in that he had undertaken so to do and dar'd them to go to a tryal at than Tribunal See the Epistle to his Mystery I have been long in the answer of this Allegation because it seems to be the only thing of weight in his whole Book but you see how it disserves him Having now seen my Argument against G. F. confirm'd and improv'd with much bitterness by W. P. under pretence of vindicating him I might here fairly conclude but having added to my Argument in my Epistle that he had not only done to same or the like to that which he condemn'd in other but much more and that which was really conclemnable and urg'd my Instances to prove that also it may perhaps be sit for me to say something in vindiation of them or some of them from W. P.'s exceptions Though indeed if the Reader would but take the pains to compare my Epistle with his Answer and what I have here already written I might well spare mine and his further labour in this Matter But because every Reader may not have opportunity so to do I will proceed The first instance I have spoken to already The second Instance is form John 1.7 where G. F. applies that to the Light which John speaks of the Baptist vis That all men through him might believe Which taken as it is spoken proves that the preaching of John Baptist was a means of bringing all men to believe and consequently that the true Light may light every man by the foolishness of preaching or outward means which is contrary to the Quakers Doctrine of the Light and is avoided by his perverting the Text. The third Inst in from 2. Cor. 4.6 For God who commanded the Light to shine out of darkness hath shined in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ G. F. hath it thus When as Paul said that the Light which shined in their hearts to give the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ 1. He puts the light insted of God 2. He leaves out Light immediately before of the knowledge 3. The whole Sentence is non-sense and notwithstanding all this W. P. has the face to tell his Reader He obtrudes an arrant lie upon our very senses and call me wretched Scribler How idle How frivolous c. The error that 's couch'd here is 1. That God and Christ the Light are not distinct but all one 2. That by Light here is not meant Knowledge 3. That this Light is not an effect of Creation 4. Inst from Col. 3.10 where G. F. reads them for him and so takes away from us a proof that the New Man there spoken of is created W. P. saith in his defence If he did put Them for Himit is not false but if we in common discourse say you for thou he 'l say it's false 5. Rom. 2.15 G. F. puts Conscience for Thoughts because Conscience was more easily drawn to signifie the uncreated Light in every man 6. John 7.38 There he puts Christ's helly for the Believers belly to countenance the foresaid Notion 7. 2 Cor. 2.16 G. F. applies that to the immediate Word which is plainly spoken of the Apostles And W. P. that he may be true to his way of abusing me falsly saith I undertake to prove him to be an Impostor for putting the before Death and Life which the Translation doth not Did ever man make less conscience of what he wrote 8. Col. 1.23 Putting was for is to prove inward preaching without outward I have spoken of it before 9. 2 Cor. 13.5 Within you for in you to countenance as he supposes their Doctrine of God's immediate Light 10. 2 Cor. 3.6 G.F. saith The Scripture said The Letter was dead and did not give Life W. P. blames me for referring these words to this Scripture which is the nearest I can find but he finds no Scripture nearer to which to resen it How captious he is Paul saith The Letter â—illeth speaking of the first Covenant as W. P. confesseth but G. F. intends that the outward dispensation of the New Covenant in the Scriptures is dead An Opinion that has done no small mischief in the World 11. I have charged G. F. that twenty times or more as I suppose he denies that the Scripture is called Word but saith it is called a Treatise Acts 1.1 And yet that word there rendred Treatise is the same which is rendred Word when applyed to Christ But W. P. to help at a dead lift saith G. F. intended The Word of God by way of excellency Which of G. F. his Adversaries did ever affirm it was 12. But W. P. can desend him in any thing even when he obtrudes upon his Reader the grossest absurdity instead of Scripture and will not have it to be any more than a trivial Objection against his infallible Prophet when he saith And so to the Word Christ Jesus Him by whom the World was made before is was made This G. F. puts in a Scripture Letter and this he repeats in his Book at least seven times without any variation the eighth time he has it thus By which the World was made before it was made It 's evident enough he has respect to John 1.3 Without him was not any thing made that was made What saith his Chamption now But is there no allowance to be had for curt Expressions eseapos of the Pen oversight in Compositors and Errors in the Press
renders all Discourse vain and inessectual Or is it possible to convince those men by Reason that will deny the evidence of Sense Besides how can there be either end or fruit of writing where a man shall not only musunderstand things that are plain but impute to his Adversary Words and Sayings of his own coyning and proceed to the bitterest reproaches thereupon and in the mean time omit to take notice of Matters of moment Therefore I have entituled this Discourse CONTROVERSIE ENDED for I am bold to affirm that it must either be ended here or if not It may be continued infinitely upon the same grounds What remains then to be done but earnestly to beg of God through Jesus Christ that he would give them repentance to the acknowlegment to the Truth O Holy Jesus who wast dead but art alive and livest for evermore who wast crucified through weakness but livest through the Power of God to whom God even thy Father hath given al Power in Heaven and Earth who canst be touched with the feeling of our Infirmities for thou wast in all things tempted as we are Have pity upon these men who some of them have a zeal of God but not according to knowledge work in them Humility and enlighten the eyes of their minds that they may acknowledge thee to be their Lord and the Mediator between God and Men that they may no longer despise that Knowledge and Faith of thee which is by Preaching or Tradition through the Holy Scriptures but may contend earnestly for the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints Have morey upon me O Lord pardon mine Infirmities and judge whether I have not been as careful not to wrong them in this Work as I would have them or any man to be of not injuring me and grant that it may be fo benefit and advantage to many and that thou mayest be glorified thereby Amen POSTSCRIPT NOw it will appear whether there be any prudent and houest men among the Governing Quakers by their dealing with W. P. for this Book of his for I appeal to the Reader whether he thinks there be any such inconsiderable Society of Christians in England that would not either have requir'd a publick acknowledgment of his Offence or have disown'd that Member which should have wrote in their Desence a Book of 138 papges and but two of them that is p. 130 and 131. that have any pertinency of Auswer to their Antagonist's chief Argument and that also which is there alledg'd to be partly false and altogether inconsequent save against himself But to contain many pages that directly confirm and aggravate the Charge brought against them and moreover to be so stuff with palpable calumnious and self-praysing untruths and virulent Language that it makes their Cause and Dealing odious in the sight of sober men all which I have prov'd W. P. to have done in relation to the Quakers It will easily appear to the considering Reader that I have for brevity sake omitted to impprove many Advantages which my rash Adversary has given me contenting my self to in timate them and so proceed And he that has diligently and judiciously read my Epistle and his Answer may perceive that I have not so much as intimated divers things of much advantage to my Cause and Person Among those is that Passage in p. 136. where he essayes to answer some of my Reasons for keeping my Name from them and sayes very civilly That I horribly bilie them why wherein Not in this That there are some of their Writers that make it a great part of their Answers to Books the reproaching the Author Let this very Book of W. P. be an Instance How many Sheets must it have wanted if all of that kind had been substracted Not in this That they are very Rhetorical in that point I am perswaded W. P. could not Rhetoricate so well in the praise of any Person in the World G. Fox not excepted as he hath in reproach of me He has taken up one of Muggleton's peculiar Phrases wherewith to abuse me and my Friends calling us Serpentine Associates It 's like Muggleton had us'd it in W. P's hearing and W. P. according to his nature was taken with it and so bestowed it upon his next Adversary Neither in this do I belie them that if they had my Name then it must be considered what Party I am of and accordingly all that is odious or so reputed either in the Doctrine or Practice of the whole Party must be raked up against me Let his Book be witness whether he has not dealt so with me even upon a suspition of my name But saith he we never charg'd the infirmities of a single Person further then upon that guilty Person unless he were connived at or justifyed in his wickedness by any whole Party Now here lies the Wit If any part of the Charge be not found apparent all the rest how manifest soever must go for a horible lie But W. P. kind Man will not put me to much trouble in searching for an Instance It is but turning back to p. 7. and there I find a single Person described as it were in a Hue and Cry and his being wanting in the very Alphabet of common civility attributed plurally to him and me at least and I think to all the Party that W. P. assigns for us Has he not then rak'd up against me what is odious or so reputed both in the Doctrine and Practice of a Party and of a particular Person Which he can never prove me guilty of justifying in that case Another Instance shall be of an elder date see the Epistle to G. Whitehead's Divinity c. where G. F. tells the Presbyterians and Independents that when the people of God called Quakers were gathered together in divers places to Worship God then you said They were plotting together against Oliver whom some of you called the Light of your Eyes and Breath of your Nostrils to bring in King Charles If they can make it appear which I much doubt that one or another Presbyterian or Independent did suggest any such thing against them it can never be believed by any sober Man that that Person was connived at or justifyed therein by one or both Parties Presbyterians or Independents and yet here G. F. and J. S. impute it to them both indefinitely and that so as thereby to insinuace that the Quakers were generally at least esteemed Friends to the King and sufferes upon that account But the Presbyterians and Independents Friends to Oliver and Enetnies to the King and the Quakers O the Candour and Simplicity of G. Fox O the Modesty and Meekness of W. Pen Again Inreference to their calling men Tinker or Tayler W. P. replyes We never told the World mens Trades in a way of detraction or reproach our Souls abbor it When he has taken shame to himself in the ingenuous acknowledgment to the World of those untruths I have prov'd him guilty of then he may better be believed In the mean time who can believe that G. W. did not call Bunyan the Tinker by way of detraction when he adds immediately a rayling envious man and in a late Pamphlet calls rayling Language Tinkers-Rhetorick Besides Tinker is a term of reproach and he that is such may by Stature be punished as a Rogue FINIS The Book intituled The Spirit of the Quakers tryed c. is to be had at the Elephant and Castle heat the Royal Exchange in Cornhil London Why may not he prophane Scripture to abuse men Mystery Epist It had been to be desired that he had not failed in his English in this place The instances of these things out of G. F's Book are to be seen in my Epistle p. 5 6. The Mystery of the great Whore I suppose they will not deny that writing to all the Worlds in defence of Religion is Speaking or Preaching or equivalent * Here this great Linguist has forgot to write good English that is his Mother Tongue What an unworthy thing is it in W. P. to intimate p. 67. that I would have the Text rendered Haec est lux illa vere quae venientem in mundum illuminat omnem hominem Ambiguitatem sustulisset See p. 68 c. W.P. p. 13. W. P. p. 117. P. 127. Divinity of Christ Pref. P. 119. He chargeth me p. 61. with driving at the Divestigating Christ of all right to eternal Divinity This is learned non sense G. F's spirit could never elevate him to such a degree of Jargon Besides except he can produce some Author for it which I am perswaded he cannot I shall conclude him the first that ever us'd the word divestigate or divestigare in any sense whatsoever Though the word One is not in the Hebrew in some Texes where he so confidently puts an Emphasis Yet eight lines after himself confounds and abuses Scripture Heb. 2.16 with Rom. 4.5 Non-sense as was observed before pag. 68. pag. 92. Tradita