many of them as might move the Lord to a farther compassion on them is surely more than this D L knows As for D L's ridiculing G VV. about his prophesie concetning G K. viz And thus saith the Lord because thou hast poured out contempt scorn and reproach upon my servants and people I will assuredly pour out and bring great contempt and scorn upon thee I answer What farther scorn and contempt may yet come upon him than what is already come and manifest to the world even since those words were written by G VV. let time shew and daies to come make yet more manifest For scorn and contempt is certainly come upon him even beyond the conceit which D. L. speaks of And although he may slight what G. W. said of G. K because as he saith it 's The fate of all men less or more yet that 's no more than those might have said whom the Apostle compared to Jannes and Jambres and of whom he said Their solloy should be manifest to all men 2 Tim. 3 9. In his 6. Chapter he flings out his scoffs and taunts about Infallible discerning and in particular reflects upon our Friends about Delaware thar they want this spirit of discerning and to prove it instances the case of Robert Ewer iâ— Now to this I say Though G F. as quoted by him speaks of a Minister of Christ's having an infallible discerning of a mans state and condition Yet he doth not say it is without any respect had to the fruit he brings forth And Christ saith Matt. 7 16 By their fruits ye shall know them So that I do believe to know any mans condition without this token must be an extraordinary and particular gift of God But by the fruits brought forth I do believe according to the words of Christ people may be known and that infallibly too for what is short of that is not properly knowledge but barely conjecture And as for Robert Ewer There was not so near an unity bewixt him and our Friends a considerable time before that business of that Woman at Philadelphia was talked of as D L. may possibly imagine But it is not the Churches place to disown any Member before proof be made of some evil done by him or her and to prove what I say I hope I have an Author very sufficient in D L's eye for it is no less person than his great friend G K. who in his late book of Retractations c. not yet retracted again that I heare of hath it thus in p. 3 We find no warrant from scripture to receive an accusation against any far less a positive judgment without plain evidence of matter of fact against them by credible witnesses c. Well then so far as matter of fact was thus made appear against Robert Ewer he was dealt with according to Gospel order too Bâ—t for D L's telling us of Late ill example of divers of our Preachers especially of their being unlawfully conâ—erned with women He should either have let us know who they were or else have been silent about it for for my part I know them not but do beleive it is a great slander In his p. 64. he banters W P. for saying We ascribe not in fallibility to men but to the grace of God and to men so far as they are led by it Here upon he makes this resiection viz Behould Reader and note this Rhetorick well For are not other Professors yea all men in the world so far infallible as well as Quakers Answ Yes But does not D L. know that there are multitudes of men in the world who are so far from being led by the infallible grace or spirit of God that they make a mock at and deride it and surely such are very far from being infallibly led by it But what need was there for D L. to say as well as Quakers since W P. according to D L's own citation doth not restrict infallibility only to the Quakers but to men indefinitely for saith he and to men so far as they are led by it As for his telling how friends admit none to travel upon Truth 's acount without certificates I think it is very commendable but passing by his mocking viz his saying it is to help our spirit of discerning I take notice of what he saith of G W. quoting him out of Quakers plaâ—nness thus We have a Record in Peoples conscience as if there fore there was no need of a Certificate which he Ishmael like calls a Pocket Record Answ Though he so tauntingly yet groundleslyt represents us to be a sort of people who think greaâ— things oâ— our selves as to our spiritual attainm ants yet I do beleive our Friends do not think they have attained to a greater degree of discerning spirits than the primitive Christians had and the Apostle Paul intimates their approving by their letters such as went to Ierusalem about the Churches service see 1 Cor. 16. 3. And the same Apostle speaking to the Corinthians as though he and Timothy needed nor epistles of commendation to that Church as some others 2 Cor. 3 1 there by intimated that though such very eminent labourers needed not such commendations yet others did And let D. L. observe that though G K. in his late book of Retractations p 3 c saith To know men by their fruits is a gift of the spirit and proceedeth from a true spirit of discerning that is given universally in some measure to all the faithfull Yet it seems he himself must have that which D L. calls A pocket Recerd with him to England and that signed not only by his own faction but also by perhaps D L. knows who besides In p. 66 D L. tells us My old friends oft bless them selves thus viz We are redeemed from a vain life and conversation more than any society in Christendom We are the only Professours of truth c. And saies D L. so saies the Pharisees We are not as other men c. Answ What then though the proud Pharisees were boasters and cryed They were not as other men c. Yet I hope he will not say The saints of old were Pharisees who said We know that we are of God and the whole world lieth in wickedness 1 John 5. 19 Yet there were some amongst them who appeared to be very scandalous in their lives and conversations Neither do we bless our selves as D L. falsly alledges because we are in measure redeemed from a vain life and conversation but it is our very principle which D L. cannot be ignorant of to abase self for ever and only to bless and priase the Lord who through his Son Jesus Christ enables the faithful to perform what is acceptable in his sight The next thing I shall touch at is to make some small reflection upon what he urgeth against us in his 7th Chapter under the head Of the Scriptures though the substance hath been often answered by our friends and
Minister If any man speak saith the Apostle let him speak as the Oracles of God 1 Pet 4 11 then to be sure it must be from the Spirit of God which is Infallible And as God's Spirit is Infallible so are it's teachings and guidings Now that G K as well as G W c hath wrote in defence of Infallibility is clear for in his Book Intiâ—â—led Divine immediate Revelation c p 13 not retracted we have it thus We place not an absolute Infallibility upon any person or persons whatsoever but we say the spirit of God in all it's Leadings Teachings and Motions is Infallible and men onely Conditionally so far as they receive and are in unity with those Leadings Teachings and Motions are Infallible We say further that every True Christian hath an Infallible Knowledge and Faith of all such things as are absolutely necessary to salvation But as to other things he may Err if he be not watchful to follow the Infallible Guidance of God's holy Spirit But if this Author thinketh he has no Infallible Faith or knowledge of any point of Doctrine he is a mere sceptick and unbeliever for all true Faith is Infallible That which is allible is but mere Opinion and Conjectural Likewise in his Help in time of Need he saith Are not ye as bad meaning as had as the Papists who openly affirm that ye are hot led by the Infallible Spirit and consequently not by the spirit of God Now here we see that G K ownes Infallibilias well as Friends viz. So for as they are led by the spirit of God and no Farther And if D. L. be as Iâ—pâ—rtiall as he pretends to be since he hath in his p. 62. and 64. so much ridicul'd W. P. about this very matter which is exactly according to G. K's own sentiments in the point how can he let G. K. escape his censure or else send to him to retract it But doubtless he had better let it alone least by undertaking to mend one hole he make two For in the Retractation Book it self G. K. saith He is no sceptick in Religion but that he and all sincere Christians hath an Infallible Faith and perswasion in things Relating to the Fundamentall and Essential Doctrines of Christianity In his foresaid p. 129. He offers a quotation out of Win P's Rebuke to twenty one Divines p. 22. thus We are horribly abused in saying We pretend all our Ministers to be Infalible Now I am sure D. L. hath horribly abused W. P. in this matter for he hath left out the explanatory part which is this We ascribe not an Infallibility to men but to the Grace of God and to men so far as they are Led by it Tho I want severall of the Books quoted by him in that part under the Head of Temporizing Yet I shall speak a little to it to show what a medling Man he is He begins it with a Passage he says to be Geo. F's taken out of a paper Intituled To the Parliament of the Comon Weal c. Thus Let all those Abey Lands that are given to the Priests be given to the Poor of the Nation To which he opposes a Passage out of W. P's Preface to his Perswasive to Moderation Thus Far be it from me to solictit any thing in diminution of the Just rights of the Church of England Let her Rest protected where she is Answer I cannot see how G. F's Advice to the Parliament about bestowing abby Lands upon the Poor of the Nation of W. P's moderation in not soliciting for any Diminâ—tion of the Church of Englands Just Rights can he said to be either 〈◊〉 or Contradictory For vnless he can prove all those Abbey Lunds that were given to the Priests either in the year 1659. the time of the Date of that Book or before to be it that time the just Rights of the Church of England it will not do any of his business at all For the Church of England hath her Rights in such suspects derived from the Authority of the Nationâ— And so that which may be termed her Rights under one Authority may not under another for I suppose they are not nâ—red any to 〈◊〉 as Alterable as the then present Authority still pleased Else how should they be now Imagin'd to be one Church of England's Rights and not Rather the Church of Romes Besides how comes W. P's moderation toward the Church of England to be Construâ—d Temporizing under the Reign of a Popish Prince He proceeds to Cavil against W. P. and offers a Quotation out of England's Interest Pag. 36. in these words We say Holy Writt is the Declared Fundamental Law of Heaven whereupon D. L. says Note how W. P. Conâ—ounds himself or deceives his Readers or both for in his Rejoynder as aforesaid he takes up severall pages â—â— prove the Scripture Corrupt and uncertain so much slighting it that he terms it J. Laldo's uncertain Word of God pag. 39. and yet here calls it The Declared Fundamental Law of Heaven Answer What W. P. saith in Englands present Interest as here cited by D. L. is either true of false if D. L. will say it 's false he Contradicts the Protestant part of the Christian World who hold and have declared holy Writt to be the outward Rule both of faith and Life and if D. L. says it 's true then he says as W. P. says besides W. P. did not lay it down as his own Judgment onely but as the belief of the Protestants in General whom he was then personating in opposition to the Popish Arrogancy of Assuming a Power to impose upon People in points of Religion tho' Contrary to Scripture and Reason And whereas W. P. says some scriptures are Corrupted Let D. L. deny that if he can his friend G. K. ownes it as I have allready shewn but who vnless a prejudic'd Adversary would find fault with two such Expressions which he himself cannot deny to be true and almost all Christendom do own and yet surely they do not mean that corrupt part to be either holy Writt or the Fundamental Law of Heaven But how D. L. comes to be so sensless as to bring in this under the head of Temporizing I must Confess he is wiser than I or I beheve himself either that can tell Next in his page 131. he cites an Epistle of E. Burroughs bearing date 1661. as follows Keep close to the Lord and to the measure of himself made manifest in your own hearts for unto that you are directed in the beginning and in it is your safety and preservation to the end but says D L afterwards W P controules this plea of E. B. in his Brief examination pag. 11. saying The Enemy Is at work to scatter the minds of Friends by that loose plea viz. what hast thou to do with me leave me to my freedom and to the Grace of God in my self c. Answer To keep Close to the Lord and to the measure
c. Now hence I observe That according to this aknoledgement for such it is implicitely at least the kernel of life and love had â—ot tookwing before the Year 1688 yet most of the â—ooks he quotâ—s were written long before thâ—t time But surely no orderly sensible man will imagine that order and form amongst God's People will occasion the life â—â—d power to withdraw whilst the power is not denyed Is not God a God of order And doth not the Apostel say to the Corinthians Let all things be done decently and in order 1 Cor. 14 40. Moreover if the life and love took Wings but about or since the jear 1688 how could those Orders which were established above twenty years before be the occasion of it Again what Orders have We that they disown Have We Montly meetings So have they Have We Yearly meetings So have they Have We Womens meetings Daniel Leeds saith Those Meetings are certainly of service in Deeds of Charity and Hospitality page 66. But to proceed he concludes that page and begins the next with this passage viz When my intentions were first â—â—t on this ensuing work I had taken G. K's books in equally with the rest or else I should have been partial as â—aleb Pusey has been being blinded with prejudice as his term is in only faulting G. K's books but not his Opposers but as I proceeded on at lenght I found G. K. according to the example of good men in all Ages has publickly acknowledged himself guilty of Errors in divers of his former books and promised a correction of the same and now of late we have his Retractation come over in Print Answ A meer flam For among all the contradictions that we have charged and proved upon him he has been so far from retracting any part of them though they contradict his present doctrine that he boasts in the very Retracting book it self That for the most part they are the soundest passages in all his book and that he can shew a good consistency of them with his present faith See pa. 42 43. And now since Daniel Leeds in the close of his Preface asserts his proceedings in his book to be honest and sincere I appeal to all impartial people Since G. K's doctrines as charged by us do greatly contradict each other and yet he refuses to retract â—ny â—aâ—â— of them Whether I sâ—â—â—â— Ks. 〈…〉 which probably D. L. had no thought about whâ—â— he wrote his book 〈…〉 any argument in sincerity and tâ—uth for his not taking in G. Ks. books as wel as oâ—hers in this wraâ—gling piece of his As for his counting me Partial because I have not faultâ—d G. K's Opposers as well as G. K. I answer â—ll by G. K's opposeâ—s he mean our Friends I never 〈…〉 cause to be so scâ—utinous as D. L. hath been in searching either into our Friends books or G. K's either till since that time any farther than what related to the Controversy which G. K. had raised amongsâ— us here and chiefly that about the universal neccessity of the knowledge of Christ in the outward in order to salvationâ— without our acknowledging of which I found he would not own the most upright amongst us to â—e any better than Heatheâ—s Now upon a time looking into G. K's Universal free Grace of the Gospel in pa. 117 I found that he there would not grant That outward knowledge or the knowledge of Christ in the outward was universally 〈…〉 salvation which I presently shewed to an honest Friend and then a late Friend of his at Philadelphia and when I came to town again he told the he had shewed G. K. the passage and said his answer was to this purpose That if he was in his senses upon his death 〈◊〉 â—e would leave 〈◊〉 aâ— his last testimony to his Friends about him That if they should find any thing in his former books contrary what he now held they should scrach it out where they met with it Now had he not presently after this and after his so uncharitably counting honest Friends to be but Heathens gone about to perswade his over credulous followers That he was not changed in his Principles thereby deceiving and deluding them should have had no occasion on that account to have put Pen to Paper as I did But I suppose he waâ—ily considered in time That if he should acknowledge a change in his principles his New and raw disciples who â—alued themselves at that time much upon their being accounted Quakers and that of a primitive stamp too would have forsaken him and his notions also Well then he finds out a way to gloss over this place and would have us believe That when he denyed as aforesaid the knowledge of Christ in the outward to be universally necessary to salvation his meaning was that it was not so necessary to salvation begun as if that difference betwixt our Friends whom G. K. was then vindicating and other people was about salvation began only Yet least that would not do We must also be told of a distinction betwixt the express and the implicite knowledge of Christ and that the express knowledge was not universally necessary yet the implicite knowledge was Now these things put me into a farther search into both his former and latter books and in his former I still found where he was concerned to treat of the subject he alvvais denyed that knovvledge to be essentially necessary to salvation particularly in his Universal free Grace c. p. 117 and Light of truth triumphant p. 6. By his former books I mean such as bear date before the year 1681. or thereabouts Which is supposed to be about the time that he wrote as he acknowledged 199 of the 200 queries concerning the Revolution of humane souls c. But by his latter books it appears that he is clearly changed in principle as to the point of doctrine and I finding things thus and also how he was receded from his principles in some other matters wherein he differed with Friends as About the sufficiency of the Light without something else and about Preachers being Magistrares and of the confused work he had made about his strange notions of the Resurrection as in my said book is shovvn This I say Was the occasion of my Writing that book that thereby I might shevv to them especially to the most sincere amongst them hovv he vvent about to deceive them by drilling them on and persvvading them we could never prove he was chainged in his Principles as his ovvn vvords are see Some Fundamental Truths p 13. Printed about the year 1692 Wherein he further saith thus I can prove a good consistency of my present doctrine with all mark all my former and latter books Behold now the man for if this be true what need he now at a pinch have put out his book of Retraetations why he was driven to it he must either do it or else some of his followers might have
we also believe according to scripture that he is within us the hope of glory and that if Christ be not in us we are Reprobates Now whether D. L will reckon the title person without us too low to give to the Christ of God or not yet to be sure it is unscriptural For though it is clear the scripture speaks of Christ in us in more express words than it doth of Christ without us yet we believe him to be without us also But to sum up the matter two omishons of D L's in this quotation out of G W s book manifest his baseness as any intelligent Reâ—daâ— may observe the rectifying of wich by inserting them very much alters the case as â—â— he leaves out the woras without us and 2 dly He makes G. W to say The title person is too low where as his words are The title person is thought too low so that that qualifying word thought being here omitted t is unfarily done of D. L. I come now to his seconâ— Chapterent it used Opposition â—â— Unity and having as I hinted before since I finished my answer to what he calls Contradictions met with G W s â—ook 〈◊〉 The Quakers Plainness I shall examine the use he makes of some of it in the said Chapter In p â—7 48. he brings in G. W laying down some oâ— the Mâ—ggletonians false doctrines and then endeavours to shew that G W holds the same my present business therefore is to shew D L's folly in so doing The first of Muggletons doctrines that he brings out is That death took Christ's soul into it and that Christ's soul dyed when the body dyed Now to shew that we hold the same he turns us to his Numb 37. 38 39 Where saith he they deny the body to be Christ and that it was Christ that dyed And that both body and soul was sacrifized see Numb 42. Answ First If the body was properly the Christ how was it sayd That by Christ God made the Worlds Heb. 1 â— since it was many thousand years after the world was made ere Christ took up that body 2dly If the body was properly the Christ how is it that Christ sayd to the Thief on the Crosâ— To day shalt thou be with me in paradise Luke 23. 43 Since Ioseph begged his body and laid it in a Sepulchre v. 52 53 from whence it rose not until the third day ch 24 v. 6 And as for their saying it was Christ that dyed it is no more than the Apostle saith in express words How that Christ dyed for our esins 1. Cor 15 3 So that D L is as really quarrelling with the scriptures as with us And what if G W declares That Christ's soul was sacrifized doth not Isaiah speak of God's making his soul an offering for sin see ch 53. v 10 What can be a plainer proof Yet it doth not follow that his soul dyed But if D L say otherwise then it is he and not we that holds those Muggletonian doctrines however I am sure we do not And so having done with this I shall pass the rest of this chapter all is it being pretty much of a sort and it being not my intention to answer every paragraph in the book as I have already told my Reader and given him a very good reason too viz because I have not many of the books by me out of which he produces his quotations to examine them by neither would it be necessary if I had since with any unbyassrd persons I must â—eeds have spoiled his credit in laying open the unfairness and forgeries he is guilty of in the beforegoing I shall now proceed to his third Chapter which I find much like his former it being grounded upon his not being willing to distinguish in ascriptural sense between Christ as he was from the beginning and as he came in the body in the fulness of time As for what he here saith of John Whitehead I refer the Reader to Tho. Ellwood's book Called Truth Defended c. p. 124. As for his saying That The true Chrstians believe that the true Christ hath a body of flesh and bones c. To this I answer That how or after what manner Christ's body is now in heaven I shall by no means undertake to determine ' it being I believe a bove the capacity of us Mortals so to do But I shall tell D. L. that he hereby brings his great friend G. K. under his censure of not being a true Christian for G K. expresly saith of Christ's body that It is no more a body of flesh blood and bone but a pure Aethereal heavenly body see Way cast up p. 131 not retracted Then for his bantering W P. about his calling Christ's body holy saying Can this be other than hypocrisy for as is noted at Numb 49 50 he holds the body to be earthly and perishing I would have the Reader note it proceeds from W P's vindicating this saying so Jsaac Peningtons ' That which Christ took upon him was but the garment of our nature which is of an earthly and perishing nature To which I answer That Christ's body was a holy body according to W. P. Surely D. L. will not deny Yet that it was the garment of our nature is not me thinks hard to make out For it is said Heb 2 14 For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same Mark of the same Now how it is the same if not of the same nature for my part I know not though Christ defiled not his nature by sin as we have done ours is Certain and there fore a holy body according to W P Yet in as much as he took on him the seed of Abraham he surely took on him our nature unless the seed of Abraham be not of our nature and that this is the garment which Is. P meant I suppose D. L. will not deny Nay the scripture saith expresly v. 17. In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethern Yet though Christ was in all things made like unto his brethren though he took â—hould of the seed of Abraham and took part of the same flesh and blood with us which flesh and blood of ours is surely of an arthly and perishing nature Yet I utterly deny D L's inference that W P. renders Christ's body earthly and perishing For though he took part of the same flesh and blood with us which flesh and blood of ours as I said is of an earthly and perishing nature yet by the mighty power of God Christ's body was raised from the dead and saw no corruption and so he dieth no more death hath no more dominion over him but he ever liveth to make intercession for us in his soul and spirit and glorious and heavenly body I come next to touch upon one passage in his Chap. 4 where he thinks he hath gotten I know not
what advantage against W P He cites VV P's Reason against Railing p. 165. where D. L. saies W. P. justifies and declares that he abides by there ill names given by E. Burrough p. 30. c. to wit Thou Iesuit thou Sot thou Sorcerer thou art a Serpent c. And yet saies D L in Address to Protestants p. 242 he at once unchristians himself and all his Brethren for so doing for saith he Men that call names for Religion may tell us they are Chistians if they will but no body would know them to be such by their fruits to be sure they are no Christians of Christ's making Upon which D. L. cries out Good Reader take notice of it Alas how has the man forgot him self Answ Alas how hath D L. abused VV P. and his Reader too For VV P. doth not declare that he abides by any ill names given by Edward Burrough for the word ill is not VVill. Penn's but added by D L which was ill done of him VV P's words in the page quoted by D L. being these viz But let it suffice that Edward Burrouge gave no harder names than the scriptures by Rule allows We read oâ— dogs bears wosves sâ—â—ine serpents â—â—pers foxes childeren of the Devil and such like And as that nature to whom they were then given thought them hard so doth Thomas Hicks now But the same power that then give them hath now used them to the same end and purpose and I abide by it Thus far W P where observe W P doth not declare that he abides by any ill names for he useth not the word ill but hard names 2dly He sheweth how such like names have been given of oâ—d â—y good men yea it was by the best of men and saith that E B. doing it to the same end and purpose he abides by it and since D L. finds fault with it we may easily guess at his reason for so doing viz t was W P. that wrote it For of all the hard names his friend G K. hath given his opposers I cannot if it were for my life find that he blames him for one of them and to shew that not only the scriptures and our friends as above but that also G K. hath given hard names to his opposers I shall instance for brevity sake but one place out of but one of his books entituled The true Christ owned see p. 104. 105 thus His false accusations his beast with seven heads that he hath coniured out of the sea of his trobled imagination his Atheistical and blasphemous creed I have proved him man iâ—estly guilty of Sâ—â—inianisim Arrianisoum Anthropomorphitism Muggletonism Antichristianism and fast of all gross Atheirsm Now where will D L's sincerity and impartiality be if he deal not with G K as he hath dealt with us in this matter Then as to what he offers to prove that W P. unchristians him self and Brethren at once because he saith as D L. quotes him Men that call names for religion may tell they are Christians if they will c. I answer Here he hath very unfairly left out that part of VV P's words which would unquestionably have shewn such men he there discreyd to be no Christians For VV P. being there treating concerning and speaking against persecutors he hath it thus viz Men that call names for religion and fling stones and persecute for faith may tell us they are Christians if they will but no body would know them to be such by their fruits Now these words and fling stones and persecute for faith D L. hath concealed from his Reader and I am sure that is a worse errour than a little failure in Syntax But by inserting them my Reader may see what sort of men they were whom VV P. rejected as unworthy of that honourable name viz Perjecutors for faith flingers of stones as well as callers of names for religon And it is well known that such persecutors in formers and others would not only fling stones but throw diâ—t too and also call such names as these You Quaking Curr You Anabaptist Rogue You Fanatick Dog and the like Now it is clear that this was the calling names for Religion which W. P. meant and not the calling of names after the manner as the Prophet did when he called a sort of men Greedy Dogs c. nor after the manner as E B. did when he called such like men Sot Sorcerer c. But perhaps D L. will say in vindication of G. K that he hath retracted the hard names by him given to his Opposers Answ That Retractation is but a meer flam like some of the rest For how far hath he retracted this Why his words are of so large an extent that 's that I know no Professor of Christianity but both might and would say as much and yet retract just nothing at all neither would there be any service in it in order to give the least satisfaction to any concerned who might suppose themselves abused by hard names published for his retractation is only in general terms viz He retracts in general all the hard names that he hath given to such as did nor deserve them without discharding any particular person or society from the scandal of those hard names For instance G. K. in his Antichrists and Saducees detected hath bestowed many hard names upon me as Antichrist Saducee or rather Atheist Bold Ignorant Miller Philosopher c. Now since there is great probability that he doth not mean me to be one of those upon whose account he hath retracted the hard names given So also any of his former Opponents to whom he hath given hard names may say I know not that he means me to be one of them who have not in his Judgment deserved them and now although he seems to make an acknowledgment and blame himself for bestowing hard names on divers yet since he names none of those divers what satisfaction to me is his pretended retraction in this more than his charging them on me in his former and what sincerity doth he manifest in it For those divers he hints at either did occur to his memory at the writing of his book or thy did not If they did and he sincere in his pretension he should have named them but if they did not then it is a sign he put down what he published by meer rote and in short he had as good have said nothing about it since every particular person concerned in those hard names may say they are never the more satisfied there by and so all of them still lye at G K's door Upon pruisal of his 5th Chapter about prophesies I find not above one that he hath mentioned which hath failed For those he speaks of who have of late prophesied against several towns and places I never heard that any prefixed a time nor otherwaies than upon condition viz unless they did repent which whether there was not so much repentance in so
as certainly true as he is cofidently false in it As first his affirming that the Quakers searcht the Town for arms this I am credibly informed is false and that it was not the Quakers who did so but others 2. dly Supplied them with guns swords c. This was not likely to be true for though perhaps there might be here and there one that had a fowling piece not that I have cause to suspect that any person furnished them with so much as one yet I question whether they had any swords at all to furnish them with The 3 dly is a third lye For he saith they gave them a Commission which was not so but a Warrant to bring them back to justice in their own way they being nor Friends that went by virtue of that Warrant after them Then he adds and hiâ—ed them for 100 pound Whereâ—â— this was not to neither it is true after the men that followed them were agreed to go and in order thereto were got into the boat Sam. Carpenter to incourage them called to them and promised to give them 100 pound if they would bring back the sloop and men And if Sam. Carpenter was to blame in it why did not G. K. instead of commending him and other's for what they did 〈◊〉 deal of with Samuel about it and say his evil actions iâ— they were 〈◊〉 before him in order to have recovered him 〈◊〉 not a word of that then it was Den Samuel with him man months after that after till he began to differ with seperate from Friends and then Samuel not joyning with him he spared him no more than others Moreover whereas D L said Sam Carpenter paid down the 100 pound and that the Assembly have since voted it a debt of the Province Now this is not so neither for there was no such sum voted but the man will be medling with things he knows nothing of Then as for his saying that it was those whom the Quakers got to gether and furnished with guns and swords and who had Commission and were nired for 100 pound to do it that recovered the sloop here in it as worth one's observation how prettily he contradicts his friend G. K. in the matter who saies It was Peter Boss and one or two more vvith him that retook the sloop having neither gun svvords nor spear see Antichrists and Sadâ—cees detected p. 7. Yet in their Appeal to the Yearly Meeting in 1692 G K among others saith as â— L. here saith as to those vvho took the sloop Thus thoâ—gh they â—oth beâ—n false vvitness yet their witness agrees not together I shall next take notice of a passage of his relating to Tythes which may be seen in his p 107 thus I know none in Christe naâ—â— no not the Priests themselves but they will deny that they take Tythes as Tythes but only as maâ—re 〈…〉 to preaching and not as any other part or the 〈…〉 Answ It may be so For what other part of the Cerimonial Law did Tiths belong to except to give part to the Stranger the Fatherless and the widow tho that part our Priests do not care to perform to be Sure But â—â—ee D. L. says he knows none that say they take Tiâ—â—s as Tiths I shall take Leave to tell him That he seems to have pored so long on G. â—'s Great Mystery c. as to have bemudl'd himself or dull'd his sight else he might have there seen and so have known That the Priests take Tyths as Thyths for which I referr him to the following Passages First in pag. 87. G. F. quotes the expression of a Priest thus The Lord hath given Tyths for the maintenance of the Ministry of this Nation And a littte lower he saith The Priesthood is Changed but not the Tyths abolished by the coming of any Substance Secondly in Pag. 245. he quotes Gawin Eaglesheld Thus The Law is not changed that gave Tyths c. Now I hope from henceforth D. L. may be satisfied That the Priests did not deny their taking Tyths as Tyths Besides to talk of not taking Tyths as Tyths is Just as good sense as to say D. L. dos not tell Lyes as Lyes But it is yet further observable That D. L. ackowledged That Tyhts for the Maintenance for Preaching being part of the Ceremoniall Law and consequently put an end to by Jesus Christ's Offering up himself And that being the chief Cause why our Friends refuse to pay them must needs be an Argument to any sensible Man s understanding That we owne Jesus to be the Christ And we know the Apostle saith The Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a Change also of the Law Heb 7 2. I shall now proceed to his 13. th Chap about Miracles wherein he seems resolved to Act the part of one that would be Retrogade to any thing acted or done by a Quaker especially if he thinks he hath found out a way to redicule it thereof I think I shall not need to say much to it only some passages I shall hint at as followeth He begins his Cavills against some passages in G. F's Iournall to which I need say no more than thus That I am satisfied That where at any time G. F. in his Journal hath mention'd any Miracle which God had wrought by him the Intent was not to set up of applaud the Creature nor to boast of the work but to give the praise and honour to God the Worker to whom it belongs As for what he saith in pag. 110 about G. F's being call'd The Father of many Nations c. I answer thus hath been Answer'd so often already particularly by W. P. in Judas and the Jews c. and in Invalidity c. and that to my satisfaction above twenty years ago that I shall say no more of it in this place than to reâ—er the Reader to the Books for his satisfaction also A little lower in the Same page he Insinuates that G. F. should pretend to the Gift of Tongues to Interpret all Languages which I am perswaded he shall never be able to make appear But if he can let him In pag. 111. He pretends to object something worse against G. F. which take as follows But which is yet worse if true I have seen a sheet called An Essay c. lately put out by one T. C. wherein he shows that G. F. in answering Priests and Professor's Books falsly quoted their Words and perverted them c. Which he would have W. P. to appear and clear G. F. from c. Answ If there be such a Book written by T. C. so accusing G. F. I question not but it is or will be Answer'd in the mean time I will assent to D. L's saying if true it must needs be judged wicked c. But I shall likewise add if it be false the reporting it must needs be wicked in his Author T. C. and Idle and wicked in himself also thus to repeat it only
thus where dost thou read in the Scrpitures that men must do no work on the first day of the week Now to this I shall say That G W propos'd this Querie to one who accounted the first Day the Sabbath day and that it was a sin in it self to work thereon which we say it is not there being no Command of God to be produced requiring it so to be kept But as it is no sin to work on that day so it is no sin to abstain from work on that day for if it had surely the Primitive Christians would many times have sinned in meeting to gether on that Day It is no sin in it self for the free People of West Jersie to Chuse their Magistrates and Officers on another Day and in another manner than by their Laws and Constitutions is appointed Yet inasmuch as it is no sin to Chuse them on that Day and in that manner and it being according to their Law and the Peoples Rights and Priviledges it ought to be kept Let D. L. take notice of that and so it is in the Case of abstaining from Labour on the First Day of the week In pag. 120 he produceth a Prophecy of W P against J H which he would have to be false but not withstanding his pretending he allwayes believed plainness and honest simple hearted dealing to be best Yet rather than he will loose the Advantage of making W P look like a false Prophet he hath Crastily as well as knavishly left out those words which would have show'd that the Prophecy vvas but Conditional although as laid dovvn by D. L. it 's absolute For proof whereof I shall transcribe it first as cited by D. L. and then as publisht by W. P. D. L. bath it thus So sure as God Liveth the Lord will make thee an example of his sury and thy head shall not go down to the Grave in peace and by this shalt thou know says he that not a Lyning nor Delusive but a true and Infallible spirit hath spoke by me See Reason against Railing pag. 181. Now vvhether W. P. did not there bely the spirit of God For I do understand that P. H. died at Peace in his bed and with great satisfaction Thus far D. L. Now hear the passage as it comes from W. P. As sure as God liveth Grear will be the Wrath that shall follow Thee Yea God will visit for these unrighteous dealings and I testifie to thee from God's living spirit if thou desist not and come to deep Repentance the Lord will make thee an example of his fury c. Now observe these words if thou desist not and come to deep Repentance D. L. hath far unlike to a man that loves honest simple hearted dealing best very dishonestly left out because it render'd the Prophecy but Conditional which Conditions if perform'd render also the Prophecy nevertheless true tho' the Iudgment did not come upon him Now desist I do believe he did and whereas D L says he understands he dy'd at Peace in his bed and with great satisfaction I may possibly as truly say he repented of his so Grievously abusing our Friends before he Dy'd for I have been told so by full as credible an Author I suppose as D. L 's was but to say he dy'd with great satisfaction if D. L. mean without Repentance I am satisfied his state could be never the better for that For altho' he might reckon us no Christians as Indeed he did and so without the Pale of the Church yet he ought to have walked honestly towards them that are without 1. Thess 4. 12. which T. H. did not do by the Quakers but by his misrepresenting them to the world in his Dialogues he did certainly do very dishonestly by them in giving those for the Quakers Answers and saying they were no other but what the Quakers give both in words and practice see Dialogue pag. 163 which he could never prove to be such But to my knowledge when call'd upon for his proofs us'd pitiful shirts to evade them and at last wholely absented himself from the Meeting appointed for tryal thereof And that the Reader may see I do not misrepresent T. H. now he is Dead I shall recite a few of his questions and also what he gives for the Quakers Answers and says it 's no other than what they give forth c. see his pag 72. Question Are you then as perfectly happy as ever you expect to be Answ We Witness Perfection Q. What proof is that to another man A. We say we witness it is not that proof Sufficient Q. But what if I believe otherwise A. We shall not spare to Stigmatize and Comdemn that person that questions the truth of our sayings Q Will this Convince me or any other of your Perfection A Tho' it do not yet thereby we shall render you so odious to our Friends that they will believe nothing that is spooken by You against us Q. Then may I not conclude that the Reason whey you so freely rail against and reproach your Opposers is only to secure your Credit with your own Procesytes A. I cannot deny but that there may be something of that in it Q. Will you be so liberal of your Revilings whether your Adversaries give Occasion or no A It concerns us to render them as ridiculous as we can c Q. But doth not this Signefie a very dishonest and malicious mind in you A. We care not what you think provided our Friends think not so This with a great deal more that might be mention'd was contained in the Book which as he was never able to prove to be as he wroet so let every Impartial man Iudge whether these were like to be the Quakers Answers or no and if notwithstanding all these Grievous abuses of us by Th. H he could lay down his head in peace with the Lord which doubtless was the Peace intended by W. P. without repentance I think people need not much mind that Command of our Savour As you would that men should do to you do you also to them likewise Luk. 6. 31. Which I would have D L to mind As for D L's Appendix I see little need to speak to it the most of it being very much like his other rambling stuff up and down throughout his whole Book yet not willing wholely to pass it by I shall make some few Observations as followeth In his pag 129 under the head Of infallibility He quotes a passage out of G W's Voyce of Wisdom pag 33. That they that want Infallibility are not true Ministers Now several of the Books he quotes I want and this among the rest Therefore whether this be fairly quoted or not I know not Yet I believe the thing to be true viz That where any Minister is not Infallibly assured that what he ministers to the People is from the movings and guidings of the holy Spirit of God so far he is not a true
God which raiseth the dead Who delivered as from so great a death and doth deliver in whom we must this he will yet delive us 2. Cor. 1. 8. 9. 10. Yet at last he was put to death at Rome In the next place I shall take some notice of D. L. ◠〈◊〉 In his p. 137. 138. he asks Why this following doctrine so frequently preached formerly by ancient friends is how let fall and nor preached by any of you viz I the Light will overturn nations Kingdome and Gathered Churches c. and citing many books as News out of the North c p 15. I am the same door that ever was says G F the same Christ to day yesterday and forrver c. Answ This is but a meer begging the question For as he hath not proved so I deny that the doctrine of the fight was frequently preached by antient friends in those terms And as for those words in the above cited News out of the North with several others cited â—y him I cannot sufficiently speak to them â—auing not the books and by what is before written it is easy to see that he ought not to be trusted in his quotations he is so exceedingly perfidious in them As a farther confirmation of this charge I shall produce another proof as followeth I happening to have one of the books he cites in the abovesaid page viz G. F's Great Mistery out of which he pretend to produce a quotation thus And tho that same spirit that raised Iesus from the dead is equal with God viz. the holy Ghost see Great Mistery p 66 127 I dilligently searched both those places and do affirm there are no such words to be found in either of them But I find in p. 127 that a Priest charged G F with professing equality with God whereupon G F tells us that the Assembly of Divines in their Catechisia say The holy Ghost is equall in power and glory with the Father Now saies G F every one that comes to witness the son of God and the holy ghost c by your account they witiness that which is equal in power glory with God and that his words were spoken beyond all creatures out of all creatures that he did not say G Fox Now is it not as cleare as the sun that D L hath again grieviously abused both G F also his Reader For it is one thing to witness the holy Ghost wich is equal in power and glory with the Father to be in us according to G F even beyond unterance and another thing to profess our selves equal with the Father Son or holy Ghost either as this abusive D L would render us In p 138 139 he asserts this falshood viz 'T is the faith or belief of all your preachers in general That when you preach or pray 't is not you but Christ in you that prays I prove this to be your belief by these two reasons First You do never in your meetings pray for pardon or forgiviness of sin Not that I have heard in twenty years due attendance for seeing 't is Christ in you that prays there is no need of it he being without sin Answ He may as well charge all those holy men of old who have prayed to God and yet heave not in all their prayers asked pardon for sin with the same as he falsly charges us with here viz with believing that it is Christ in us that prays And in order to prove that what he objects against us was not the common practice of the primitive Church I shall produce an example which at this time occurs to my mind as it is related Acts. 4. 24. to 31. where we find that the Church then assembled together lift up theie voices with one accord in prayer to God in which prayer there is not one word of confession of or begging pardon for sin And if D L be so blind as that he can perceive no difference or distinction to be made between Christ by his spirit helping our infirmitie's in our prayers which we say he doth and without which we cannot pray as we ought see Rom 8 26 and saying that 't is Christ in us that prays which we say not we cannot help it Then what or how due his attendance hath been for twenty years I know not but sure I am I have heard earnest cryes and servent supplications put up to God in our publick meetings for pardon and remission of sins many times in less than ten years His second reason is this You do not pray to Christ becaiuse it being Christ in you that prays it is absurd for Christ to pray to himself Answ This is again a meer begging of the question for we say no such thing as that when we pray 't is Christ prays in us but as above 't is Christ by his spirit that assists his children in their prayers who said Without me ye can do nothing John 15 5. He continues in his p. 139. to cast many unjust reflections upon us in relation to these two heads of not praying for pardon of sins and not praying to Christ at all which is partly answered already but in order to the more full clearing the latter objection I shall take notice of one passage more in the same page After he hath opposed the Apostles Saints and Martyrs to us he concludes that paragraph thus viz Both Apostles and other Christians frequently prayed to Jesus Christ as well as to God the Father Answ This affects not us at all as to what he infinuates that we do not pray to Christ because it is neither against our principle nor practice and if he will not believe us in relation to this assertion yet methinks he might credit his Friend G. K. in the matter who in p. 121. 122. of his Way cast up saith He hath not only himself done so but also hath heard others expresly naming the words Jesus Christ Although saith he when we express not these words yet if we pray by the movings of his liâ—e and Spirit we pray in the name of Jesus c. And he farther saith I have heard expresly such petitions put up in our prayers at our meetings unto Christ as Jesus son of David have mercy upon us O! thou blessed Jesus that wert crucified and dyed for our sins and shed thy pretious blood for us be gracious unto us O! thou our mercifull High Priest whose tender bowels of compassion are not more straitned since thy ascension but rather more inlarged Thou art our Advocate and Mediator in heaven with the Father our merciful High Priess Thou blessed Jesus thou knowâ—st our most secret desires and breathings which we offer up into thee in the inabâ—ngs of thy blessed â—ife and spirit that thou maist present them unto thy Father and our Father that in thee we may be accepted and our services also and for thy sake our defects and short comings our sins and transgressions that we have
suppose he will not deny and the second he may see if he be not blind as plain as his face in a glass The conclusion then must needs be that D. L. hath abused the Quakerâ— and their books The evil of which I can sincerely say I heartly desire he may come to a sense oâ— and true repentance for before it be too late And now if not withstanding what hath been here so plainly manifested of D L s abusing our â—riendâ— and their writings any shall yet be so exceedingly prejudiced against us as not only to continue to vindicate him in such an evil work but also to bestow such large encomiums on him as some have done both by word of mouth and writing as well in verse as prose We can then do less but conclude that iâ— proceeds not from any Christian like desire to stand in defence oâ— the truth but that it is meer envy and preâ—â—diâ—â— agâ—inâ—t the doctrine way and practice which we proâ—ess and are found in as well as against us their honest and peaceable nighbours which own and profess them that hath done and doth animate them to such proceeding Which if they shâ—ll yet continue to do as sure as truth is Truth and falshood is falshood iâ— so â—oing they can never please God who is just nor obtain credit with any impartial man of right understanding Therefore if after all they do or shall continue to vindicate him as aforesaid we can then do no less than look upon them to be such as are here described and so as I saiâ— neâ—r the conclusion of my other book with the same expreâ—â—ion I shall conclude this viz We must leave our cause with God who judgeth righteously POST-SCRIPT Iohn Woods Vindication of himself from the abuses put upon him by Daniel Leeds It is not because I delight in controveâ—â—y or disire to be seeâ— in print that I have put pen to paper but for the clearing of truth and my self from those lyes and false aspersions published against me Daniel Leeds in a book called News of â— Trumpet sâ—anding in the Wilderness In the 91 page of his book he seems to write to London meeting with pretence that my actions with others may bâ— Recorded and in the 94 page he pretends to give account of my actions and thus he saith John Wood one of your Brethren a Preacher in Gloucester County in West-Jersy being Sheriff of that County came with men armed to take goods from Iohn Roberts at Pensoaken and sent two men before who pretended they had lost their way of which the said Iohn Roberts and his wife took pity and gave them meat to eat Soon after they espied VVood coming with his company wherefore Roberts made fast the door but VVood told him he had those within that would do his business they seeing him so treacherous opened the door this VVood when come in offered his hand Roberts said if he came as a friend it was well But said Wood I come not as John Wood the Preacher but aâ— the Sheriff of Gloucester Now by the way observe that in the 〈◊〉 between G K and the Magiâ—trates at Philadelphia those Magistrates could not finâ— how to distinguish between Magistrates and Quakers or Preachers but here you see their Brother J. W. had the art to do it But this I Wood proceeded and took of several sorts goods use in the house among which was a warming pan which the Woman earnestly desired him to leave by reason of the great â—se themselves and the Neighbours had of it in case of sickness oâ— Child-â—ed there being none there about except that But she could not prevail with this Wood but away he carried it and soon after this Roberts â—ell sick and beginning to recover again the fate up one day but at night going to his cold bed for want of the pan to warm it being winter the cold bed made such impression on him that his speech was soon taken away which he did not recover again but dyed in a few daies and what trouble this was to the Widow the Neighbours can tell how much she imputed the death of her husband to the want of the pan which she could not perswade this Wood to leave tho' she offered him to take any other thing instead of it Note the occasion of this distress was only for not answering a Summons to Gloucester Court when the Court at Burlington required the same the place having been some years in contest between the two Counties about the bounds not decided which County it belonged to which I suppose is two Now Reader be pleased to peruse the following Certificates and then thou wilt be informed how he hath abused me This may certify whom it concerns that â— â—he under written being deputed as Saâ—-Sheriff by Iohn Wood High Sheriff for the County of Gloucester for the executing of a Warrant of distress granted per order of Court at Gloucester â—he 1 st of September Anno 1694 signed by 3 Iustices of the Peace upon the goods and châ—â—â—els of Iohn Roberts one of the Inhabitants of Pensoaken claimed to be within the jurisdiction of Gloucester Court aforesaid and in order thereunto I accordingly went and meâ— with the said Roberts near his dwelling-house who understanding my business hastily went into his house and put to the door against me pulling in the latch and denyed me entrance So that by reason hereof I was prevented of executing that Warrant above said â— also offered that if he would pay the fine in mony I would forbear making any distress which he also refused so I returned the Warrant back un executed to the High Sheriff again To the truth of all which I subscribe my name this â—6 th of May Anno Domini 1698. Thomas Bull Now upon return of the Warrant as before I applied my â—ell to the Magistrates who commanded me to have the Warrants executed that thereby the Opposers might â—ring the Controversy to a tryal that it might be decided to which County they did belong and in order these to I deputed Ioseph Tomlinson to execute the Warrant at Iohn Roberts's Therefore hear him VVhereas Iohn Roberts of Pensoaken was fined at a Court 〈◊〉 at Gloucester on the first day of September 1694 and VVarrant issued out of the Court for levying theâ— saâ—d 〈◊〉 Iohn Wood High Sheriff deputed me and by virtue of thâ— said VVarranâ— I and Edward Eglington did qâ—â—etly enter the â—ouse of the said Roberts without any arâ—s so much as â—â—â—â—â—se rod and 〈◊〉 without any advice from or 〈…〉 contrived by Iohn Wood and â—e staid an hear at least until word was brought by a boy â—hat the Sheriff was at a Neighbours house and desired Iohn Roberts to go thiâ—her Theâ— Robert wents ouâ— and shut â—her doâ—â— and us on the inside â—s soon as that wâ—â— done his children câ—rried the â—â—st of â—he â— goods thy seâ— the most 〈◊〉 by some as theâ— said in to the