unworthiest Reflections however unprovoked without any Reproof is to merit their sharpest Retorts in the most vilifying Terms I know not what to infer from such an humorsome Carriage but that it is expected from the Quakers Religion it should bear that which J. Faldo's Vindication tells us his cannot a great Credit to our Cause against his Will Thus far of Christianity and Quakerism as they are contra-distinguished by our Adversary CHAP. III. Of the Scriptures MY Adversary begun his first Chapter in his former Discourse upon this general Charge The Quakers deny the Scriptures The Proof he offered was this The Quakers deny the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God and therefore they deny the Scriptures Upon this account I thus delivered my self He entitules his Chapter That the Quakers deny the Scriptures I was almost astonished at it because he pretended to prove all out of our own Books and none such had ever come to my Hand but upon Perusal I found this to be the Upshot That the Quakers deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God My Adversary's Reply is Rep. This is not the first Cordial you have made of a wilful Vntruth nor yet the last by a great many And you who summed up nine Arguments of mine more which were the Contents of the nine Chapters next following should have been ashamed of calling this one which was the first of ten the Vpshot and then insult But I shall try how you break this single Cord this one of ten Rejoyn I will not say he has Wilfully wronged me but Wronged me he has I did not say that it was the Upshot of his whole Discourse concerning the Scriptures but of that single Chapter For had I reputed his nine following Arguments undeserving of any notice I might have called this single one the Upshot but having singlely refuted his subsequent Arguments I could not in good sense call the First the Vpshot 'T was not therefore the Vpshot of the Whole but of that Chapter in which the Word is used I had good Reason so to term it since the Proof was too particular for the Charge It was not my wilful Untruth but his Mistake His suggesting as if I only encountered that single Cord is very Disingenuous for I throughly considered Nine following Chapters Hear him further Rep. That you deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God you grant But you say pag. 25. I declare to the World that we own them to be a Declaration of the Mind and Will of God with many other things which I have shewed to be short of the main Ends of the Scriptures Rejoyn Whether those other things left out are short of the main Ends of the Scripture or no will best be seen by considering what those Things are I do declare to the whole World that we believe the Scriptures to contain a declaration of the Mind and Will of God in and to those Ages in which they were written being given forth by the holy Ghost moving in the Hearts of holy Men of God That they ought also to be Read Believed and Fulfilled in our Day being Useful for Reproof and Instruction that the Man of God may be perfect Now if this belongs not to the main Ends of Scriptures either there are none or they are unknown However it was 〈◊〉 much the End as name of Scripture that was then controverted Again he goes on thus Rep. I shall easily grant that one Word may stand representative of many An odd Phrase that represents him not able to express himself congruously I have heard of Persons as Parliament-men but never of a representative Word before Rejoyn He might have pardoned me an Incongruous Phrase if such it had been for I have twenty times over been so kind to him But I must tell him it is not less proper though less used in Words then in Persons He shews Ignorance in that Philosophy he pretends to be a Master of where there are many single words or Terms that are significative of entire Sentences but argumentum ad hominem granting to the Scriptures that they are the Word of God does not our Adversary repute that Title Representative as well as Expressive of those many thousand Words contained therein if so then there is a Representative Word If not it can never be called so in our Adversary's sense Again he brings me in thus I think it is as good sense to call a King's Letters King as the Scriptures the Word of God Rep. But by your favour Mr. Penn It is neither non-sense nor bad sense to call a King's Letter the Word of a King Rejoyn This is nothing to the purpose the Stress lies here The Word of God being a Title given to Christ as the Title King is to a supreme Magistrate whether it be Reverent or Significant to call the Declaration Christ the Word of God any more then to call the Declaration of a King by the Title of King For we therefore decline to give that Title to any thing below Christ himself to whom the Scriptures most emphatically ascribe it Because I said that it might be the Word of Advice Reproof Instruction which Christ the Great Word of God livingly sows in the Hearts of Men and Women that Christ spoke of when he said The Cares of the World choak the Word and it becomes Unfruitful He replyes Rep. Here you have yielded the Cause to save Christ from being the choaked and unfruitful Word Rejoyn I need not have done so for any such Reason since Christ may in a sense as well be Choaked as by Sin afresh Crucified and the Spirit Quenched Nor could unfruitful obliege me to give away the Cause since the Word is alwayes Vnfruitful where rebelled against But is there no Difference J. Faldo between a Word of Advice spiritually livingly and powerfully sown in the Heart by Christ the great Word of God and that Advice Reproof or Instruction declared by Writing This brings to the Point Whether the Scriptures or Christ may most deservedly be stiled the Word of God Christ is God's living Oracle and rightly called the Word of God because that which livingly speaks forth the Will of God to the Souls of Men The Scriptures are but that Revelation declared and recorded consequently they can have no right to that Title which is so suitably ascribed to the Author of that Revelation To be sure J Faldo acknowledges that they are not the Living Powerful Self-sufficient Word of God Nor does he pretend to dispute for them to be such a Word of God as the Quakers deny them to be Though it seems very strange to me that there should be Two Words of God the one quite differing from the other or that any Word of God if two there were should be of it self Impotent or Insufficient as he seems to allow in his first Book pag 20 27. Vind. pag. 14 16. That the Word of God
God is at Liberty to speak to his People by the Scriptures if he please and so he is at Liberty to speak by another created thing as to Balaam by his Ass and because I returned in Answer To all which said I he sayes just nothing he replies As if sayes he I were to answer the Proofs of my own Affirmation But that was not all for beside that it was no Proof He should have proved it Erroneous or Contemptible as he stiles it or else he doth nothing To cite and not prove the Citation apt to the End for which it was cited that is the Doctrine it contained or abetted to be Erroneous is impertinent What Is it false Doctrine to assert That God is at Liberty to speak by the Scriptures or without them Or is it to contemn the Scriptures to say as John Faldo cites J. N. that God doth speak to People by those Scriptures that were given forth by Inspiration Or is it no Proof that God is at Liberty to speak by any other created thing to instance the Case of Balaam's Ass But he will by all means have it that according to J. N. to take an Ass or Bible to be our Instructer is of equal Prudence adding These Notions sayes he being by the Quakers sucked in I wonder not that they leave the Teachings of God by the Scriptures to attend on the Ministry of Asses But this indirect Reflection and unsavory Abuse both shews the Vanity and Envy of the Man and must needs beget an Abhorrence of his Proceedings against us in the Heart of every solid Reader It had much better become the Author of Poor Robin's Almanack or the Cobler of Glocester then a Turn'd-out Non-conforming Minister J. N's words I fully vindicated in my Answer his Drift was to drive off People from this pernicious Apprehension that God's Voice was only to be heard from the Scripture thereby justling the Spirit out of Doors and confining the Almighty to a certain Instrument and not that he intended to repute every Ass of equal value with the Scriptures though I do not doubt but the Voice of Balaam's Ass was a more immediate and forcible Rebuke with him then any Scripture then written But let this character our Adversary with every Just knowing Reader that he brings J. N's words that allow such Scripture as God shall please to speak to any by to be so far a Rule to those to whom it s directed in order to prove that the Quakers deny the Scripture to be in any case any Rule at all But we must not expect better Usage from a Man who is more perplext at our proving of our selves consistent with Truth because it contradicts his Apprehensions and Charges exhibited against us in Print then that we should be in the Wrong though for that Cause he pretends to write against us Strange that he should rather desire we might be mistaken then himself be thought to have mistaken us But he thinks I have greatly wrong'd St. Paul and I know not why unless it were in showing him to have been guilty of that Fault for to prove the Scriptures to be the Rule he brought this Saying of his And herein that is saith our Adversary all things that are written in the Law and the Prophets do I exercise my self to have a Conscience void of Offence towards God and towards Men. My Answer then was that he left out that which was more applicable to the words as the place it self evidently proves But this I confess to thee that is Faelix that after the way which they call Heresie so worship I the God of my Fathers believing all things that are written in the Law and the Prophets and have Hope towards God which they themselves also allow that there shall be a Resurrection of the Dead both of the Just and the Vnjust and herein saith the Apostle do I exercise my self c. Where its evident that believing all things that are written in the Law and the Prophets was not that wherein he said so properly that he exercised himself as in worshipping the God of his Fathers not after their way and having Hope towards God of the Resurrection c. there lay the Stress as is evident from their calling that Worship Heresie and afflicting him for that Hope which they otherwise allowed of Nay that very Passage he makes the whole place to bear upon comes in rather in the Nature of a Parenthesis then a Principal Matter His thus dealing with us and the Scripture I call'd a Perversion at which he very vainly taunts as if it could not be a Perversion because I confess that it somewhat relates to the Verses cited crying out This is his Mouse his Mountain travelled to bring forth But if to clip a Text be not a Perversion or to stretch it to what it can never reach nor ever intended be not to pervert and abuse Scripture certainly there is no such thing That he clipped it is proved that he misapplyed it is not less evident For to believe a thing is not necessarily to make it a Rule besides if the Law and the Prophets were a Rule because he was exercised in them then must his Worship and Hope also be a Rule because he was exercised in them but that were improper and untrue He is angry I said the Apostle had out-stript the Law and the Prophets therefore they could not be his Rule replying If St. Paul had undertaken a Reply to this Gentleman he would have undoubtedly lasht him severely for this Wrong done to him and the Truth But I am not of that Mind for if he did not out-strip the Dispensation of the Law and Prophets how could he arrive at that State which witnessed the Fulfilling of the Law and the Prophets To deny this is to deny the further Illumination and Enjoyment of that Day and according to J. Faldo's own unhappy way of Reasoning the Apostle must not be a Christian for in denying the Prophets to be Christians because they were before Christ's visible Appearance and preferring Christianity so much above other fore-going Dispensations as he doth in not allowing the Apostle to have out-stript them he makes the Apostle to be no Christian For which I will not say he would have Lasht but Reproved this ignorant Priest as one that knows not whereof he affirms But hear him yet further Rep. I said the holy Scriptures determine according to their kind as much as a Writing can do From whence W. P. infers that it is not so determinative of all Cases as something else may be which is a more living immediate and infallible Judge then a Writing is or can be an inference worthy of a poor Schollar and a conceited Pedant Is he gone beyond Belshazer who trembled at such a rate at the Writing on the Wall Did ever any Man in his Wits affirm the Scriptures to supply the room of Eyes Skill to read Vnderstanding Conscience
Reasonable or Understanding Part is a Wrong that would have drawn a whole Chapter of Railing from him had he been so serv'd by a Quaker And for Faith how can a Man have it and not know he hath it and which way may he possibly know it and not experience it As to the Scriptures they may both be instrumental to Experience and with respect to what they declare of be also experienced Two places more and we leave this Chapter in which it will appear that his Courage is as much upon the ebb as his Envy was before upon the flote In his former Book he was so unhappy in his Cause as to let fall this Expression That God above and the Scripture without have taught us better things The use I made of it in my Answer he takes a little notice of I mean to recite not confute it Now what is the Teaching of the God above said I If it be in the Scriptures it was impertinent to say any more then that the Scriptures have taught them better things But if he meant that God taught by his immediate Discoveries with and beside the Scriptures then wherein do we differ To which I will faithfully set down his Reply that if there be any Reason in it I may lose none of it in Transscription Rep. W. P. thinks now he has me upon the hip this Phrase he calls assisting to my own Confutation If joyning the Teachings of God and the Scriptures alwayes together be Self-confutation let me be ever so Confuted Rejoyn This is both Evasion and False Doctrine Evasion in putting alway together in the Reply which was not in the first Passage and very much alters the Case since to say the God above and the Scriptures without have taught us better things and to say if joyning the Teachings of God and the Scriptures alwayes together c. are vastly differing For the first Saying or Passage is general and leaves God at Liberty to speak beside with or above the Scriptures but the Reply tyes God alwayes to the Scriptures that he cannot speak otherwise then by them nor the Scriptures be without him which makes up the False Doctrine I charged upon him But if he means that God speaks nothing contrary to his Mind declared in Scripture and the Scriptures nothing contradictory to the Mind of God I acquiesce yet this Concession not only brings him upon the Hip but upon the bare Ground too for it confutes him without Controle inasmuch as he grants that the Scriptures without are not sufficient to teach without the God above the very thing in Controversie almost from the beginning betwixt us so that I return his own words upon himself pag. 40. of his Reply All this ado is to make the Scriptures nothing without immediate Inspiration implying that we hold them to be profitable as God is pleased to discover unto us and breath into our Hearts the true Meaning and Vertue of them for our Instruction and Comfort and what short of this doth John Faldo's Expression import that makes the Teachings of the God above necessary to render the Scriptures truly profitable unto any And what is this but to say with us that they are of no value not in themselves but to us unless the God above unfold them and brings our Souls into a sense of those States and Truths they declare of I leave my sober Reader to make his Judgment of this and so proceed to the next Particular which will end this Chapter I will set down his words Rep. He quarrels with my Mannagement of Ephes 6. 16 17. thus And a Shame it is that this Man should bring these places to prove that the Scriptures are Means whereby to resist Temptation The Words are Wherefore take unto you the whole Armour of God And among the rest is reckoned the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God Why doth he not say it is a Shame I produce any Scripture at all which is like a Quaker throughly but the Matter is it a Shame to call the Scriptures the Word of God or a spiritual Sword Rejoyn No such Matter The Shame was that J. Faldo perverted and mis-apply'd Scripture and the Shame still is that he should so bungle and bogle in the Business as of Two Pages to take Two Lines that concern'd not either the Exposition or the Argument and when he has done say nothing neither to it Is this Man like to acquit himself with Advantage against the vain Attempts of W. P. as he is pleas'd to call them Reader I have often complain'd and yet shall have Cause enough of my Adversary's unfair Dealing in not reporting the fortieth part of what I urge and that he is sure to take not what is most but least material to my Cause and then bestows a Squib or two upon it instead of taking my Strength or giving a sage Reply and that I complain not without Just Cause be pleas'd to consider my former Answer with what he first writ to occasion it by which his Honesty in reciting and Reason in replying may be most impartially judged of Thus he pag. 113. Above all take the Shield of Faith which is able to quench c. and the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God Observe saith J. Faldo Faith in the 16th verse is preferred above the Word of God in the 17th verse therefore it is not Christ the Word but the Scriptures the Word for Faith is not above Christ Jesus Christ who had less need of Scripture then any of us all resisted Satan ' s Temptation by Scripture It is written it is written Mat. 4. To which I gave this following Answer But neither will this do his Business and a Shame it is that this Man should bring these places to prove that the Scriptures are Means whereby to resist Temptation which Rebuke was the whole he recited that concerned them not especially this in Hand unless he would have Faith to be the Scriptures or Word of God in his Sense which as it is absurd so it will by him be deny'd since he allows the Faith to be preferr'd before the Word of God therefore distinct from it and consequently not the same with it And should we grant to him that Christ is not understood by the Word of God but the Scriptures yet observe the fatal Blow his Cause receives at his own Hand Every true Christian hath Faith that Faith is above the Scriptures therefore every true Christian hath something in him above the Scriptures Again True Faith overcometh the World and quenches the fiery Darts of Satan consequently Temptations therefore not so properly the Scriptures as true Faith which is preferred above them by John Faldo himself and which resists Temptation and overcomes the VVorld is c. Once more the Just they live by Faith but Faith is above the Scripture saith J. F. Therefore the Just live by that which is above the Scriptures
But this Shift will not serve J. Faldo's turn since G. F. meant a visible changeable and not a visible permanent Worship This Passage relates to Figurative and Temporary Services standing in those things which were but Signs of the Substance to come and which are finished by it So that the Apostle did indeed labour to bring the Jews and other weak Christians off from their Visible Typical or Legal to the more Spiritual VVorship of the Gospel not that they should be debarred from expressing that VVorship for while Bodies and Souls are together there is as I writ at large in my Answer a Necessity of some Bodily Demonstration I will yet give one Relish more of the Man 's Disingenuous Spirit before I conclude this Chapter Reply pag. 50. Before W. P. parts from this Argument be grows kind and shews the Power of Condescension to have place in him by these words Yet thus far we could go That Visible Worship as such without a due Regard to what kind of Worship it may be and what is the Root from whence it came cannot be well-pleasing to God A great Compliance indeed which is thus much just and no more a man's filling a Dung-Cart or W. P's acting on the Stage or the Table in their Meeting-place as like a Fencer as ever was seen are not Worship because seen though they should by some be so called for every thing that is seen is not therefore Worship Rejoynder His Acknowledgment of my Condescension is a small Artifice to insinuate my yielding him the Cause But what Reason he had to commend me would be better seen by considering how aptly and honestly he hath replyed to that little piece of my Answer he found in his Heart to give us He thinks to fling us off with his dirty and vain Similitudes I writ of Visible Worship as Praying Speaking c. on a Religious Account he turns it to any visible thing as Filling a Dung-Cart Acting on a Stage or Table as a Fencer Similes right-well suiting his Disposition as if I denyed that to be Worship which was seen because seen which was the farthest thing from my Thoughts and is not at all deduceable from my Words Yet hath this Man the Confidence to tell his Reader that they signifie just thus much and no more But in good Conscience Courteous Reader can this Man think to escape the Hands of God that acts with so much willful Baseness against me as to make no Difference between my saying That visible VVorship as such unless proceeding from a Right Root cannot be well-pleasing to God and saying That visible VVorship is not Worship because Visible though it should proceed from never so true a Ground which he makes my Answer to speak at least he infers so from it though â— direct Contradiction Is it one and the same thing to say Visible VVorship is not therefore true VVorship because Visible and concluding filling a Dung-Cart is not true VVorship because Visible is it honestly done to â—pply that to Acting upon Stages and Fencing which â—lly me was joyned to Worship If I had said Visible Fencing as such is not Worship because seen his â—y Shift might have had something in it but to make Difference betwixt saying that Visible Prayer is 〈◊〉 true VVorship because seen and Fencing or filling Dung-Cart is not true VVorship because seen thereby turning what I said of VVorship to every Trivial or Common Action among Men is unworthy of an Ingenuous Disputant much more an Humble Christian and least of all a Christian-Minister In short I spoak against Visible VVorship not Rightly Grounded a Position as true as Scripture it self for it is Scripture twenty times over and he twisteth it to my Denyal of VVorship because visible be it grounded as it will as his last words in the Chapter tell us For every thing sayes he as the sense of my Answer that is seen is not therefore VVorship instead of this Every VVorship that is seen is not therefore true VVorship But his extending the Major Proposition to every visible Thing and not to visible Worship only opens a Gap for his wild and extravagant Similes I will lay down our Propositions that the whole VVorld may see his Unjust VVay of Dealing with us My Proposition lay in form thus That Visible Worship which ariseth not from a Right Ground is not acceptable with God But John Faldo's Visible Worship say ariseth not from a Right Ground Therefore John Faldo's Visible Worship is not Acceptable with God The Argument as he gives it in my Name formed lies thus That which is seen is not Worship But a man's filling a Dung-Cart c. is seen Therefore Filling a Dung-Cart c. is not Worship Which Argument makes nothing Worship that is seen or visible however truly grounded because Visible instead of making such Visible Worship not true which doth not proceed from a right Root Now be pleased Friendly Reader to observe whither this Evasion drives the Matter If that which is seen be not therefore Worship as says J. F. in my Name then publick Praying or Preaching though of never so True a Kind or arising from never so Right a Ground because seen is not Worship much less True Worship By this it undeniably appears that my Adversary hath at best mistaken my Answer which abundantly confesseth as he himself hath observed in his Reply pag. 50. That there will be there must be and there ought to be a Visible Worship and that such Visible Worship only is rejected which ariseth not from a Right Ground in the Heart But how can this be if publick Praying and Preaching springing from never so spiritual a Root because seen must be no Worship which J. F. tells the World in my Name How can these so grand Opposites meet Or how is it possible to reconcile things as contrary as this William Penn owns Visible Worship William Penn denyes Visible Worship For it is no less then to make me renounâ—e Visible Worship for Visibility's sake who by my Principle and Writings hold and maintain such Visible VVorship as is of a true Nature or springs from a good and spiritual Ground So that it is not the Visibility but the Ground or Nature not being as it should be that is the Reason of our Exception Dr. Everad's Sermons Beloved I would have you ponder these things well If ye set up Ordinances c. so as to build and rest in them ye do make Idols of them or at best you play the Babes and the Children with them by resting alwayes on such Crutches and Go-bies and never come to be Young-men much less as Fathers in Christ pag. 562. And truly with some men herein lies the Top or Quintescence of their Religion making such ado about Shadows Figures and Resemblances and they let the Truth the Substance the thing pass and regard it not forasmuch as they are so zealous and hot about Forms But if they are by