and the Assistance of the Spirit of God are not these in my Book all made necessary to render the Scriptures such a Rule and Determiner Rejoyn But why such a trivial Rant for a Reply and why such hard words from a Man of his Circumstances one on many Accounts so near what he represents me to be Is it not true that if something be more firm then Writing that which is more firm and not the Writing is the Judge and Determiner Suppose a Scripture for every Case that ever did or may happen which we know there is not and therefore not THE RULE yet if such Scripture need an Exposition who is most truly the Judge and Determiner the obscure Text or the clear Expositor Certainly where the Stress lies the Power of Determination must be and there the Judgeship rests but that is alwayes in the Interpretation since the Difficulty is not about believing the Text but the Exposition given of it therefore the Expositor is both Judge and Rule and not the Text exposited And since J. Faldo has granted to us the Assistance of the Spirit for knowing the Scriptures the Spirit then which gives us how to understand and believe and enables us to fulfil them must needs be the Rule and Judge and no Writing whatever I shall conclude this Point with my Rejoynder to this following Passage in his Reply Rep. But W. P. hath not done triffling yet neither is the Law the Judge but there is a Judgâ— who interprets and speaks from the fresh Discoveries of his own Reason the Meaning and â—â—â—tendment of those written Laws But Mr. Penâ— The Judge is the Mouth of the Law and subject to thâ— Law and prescribed in his Judgment to that sense 〈◊〉 the Law which is expressed by the Letter of it If soâ—â— of the Judges had the handling of you for imposing yoâ— canting fresh Discoveries of his Reason upon them thâ— would tell you they give Judgment from a Deep Stuâ— and Weighty Consideration of the Letter of the Lâ—â— and moreover give you some hard Names or worse for youâ— canting Law added to your canting Gospel and yet the LIGHT IN THEIR CONSCIENCES NOT GIVE THEM THE LEAST REBUKE FOR SO DOING Rejoyn I perceive he measures the Judges Displeasure by his own Indeed they would be very Vnfit Persons to sit for our Judges that should be like him Men that would call hard Names and do worse to any Man for allowing them to be guided by a Living Reason would greatly evidence they had little or none and therein indeed that we mischaractered them But who most dishonours them I that suppose them to judge and explain Written Reason by the Living Principle of Reason in themselves or he that renders them so many Posts or Pillars that are to be moved by incens't Letters without relation to any Reason inherent to themselves and not otherwise But hear my forme Answer before I further rejoyn His Instance about the Law is same For the good Laws of any Land are but Reason written or rather declar'd by Writing which is oblieging against the Corruption of a Judge but not the Reason of the Judge neither is the Law the Judge but there is a Judge who interprets and speaks from the fresh Discoveries of his own Reason the Meaning Intendment of those written Laws If the Laws be sufficient without a Judge why is there a Judge If then they are Dark Obscure and Doubtful in many Cases so as to need a Judge and Interpreter which I call living and immediate Reason since the Scriptures are Writings in which are many things difficult to be understood it follows that there must be an Immediate Living Judge which must be therefore the Spirit of Truth that gave them forth because none knows the things of God save the Spirit of God And that those who are the Makers of Laws are the only Persons who are fit to judge and determine in Case of Difficulty by a Declaration of their Mind and Intenâ—ion in any such obscure Passage In short Either the Scriptures are not obscure a thing we daily see or if so yet sufficient which is impossible or they must have a Judge which is most true and necessary and what Judge but the Spirit of Truth which leads into all Truth p. 61 62. Now one would have thought that an Answer so sober and reasonable might have deserved a Reply more civil and pertinent then my Adversary gave me But I do the less wonder at it since he makes it his Practice to give hard Words instead of solid Answers But to his Reply as it is Rejoyn He tells me the Judge is the Mouth of the Law and Subject to the Law But I would have him consider two things First that the Scriptures of Truth were never given forth after that formal regular course that the Laws of England were but to particular Persons or Churches on particular Cases though together with hearty respect I acknowledge and enjoy the Benefit of them Secondly The Question is not about things obvious but obscure and herein the Judge is not only the Mouth but Interpreter of the hidden Meaning of the Law This our Adversary's own words import For if the Law were so plain as only to need a Mouth what need would there be of deep Study and Weighty Consideration which he makes necessary to a Judge the bare reading of the Law would be sufficient to determine all Cases Nay it would end all going to Law But inasmuch as the Laws are both numerous and intricate as the Vexatious Cases and Disputes of our Times fully prove 't is manifest that some other Judge and Determiner must be found out one that understands compares and rightly applies Law whose Judgment must decide and determine the Controversie Now though every such Judge may be said to determine according to the Mind of the Law yet his Interpretation and not the bare Letter is recorded for the Determination of the Case depending from whence come our Book-Cases Nor indeed is this only referrable to any certain Person explaining the obscure Passages of Law but the Application of the Law to the Fact in which not only the whole living Reason of the Judge is deeply and circumspectly exercised but the Understanding and Conscience of the Jury respecting the Nature of the Law the Evidence of the Witness the Heinousness of the Fact and Variety of Circumstances wherein the obnoxiousness to Error lies according to the Greâ—k Proverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Error is about the Circumstances all in order to a definitive Sentence or Determination about the Point handled Now for any Man to call the written Law the Judge and not Synteresis or living sound Reason and Conscience in the Judge and Jury to me seems very absurd Besides Let it be considered First that the Law is added because of Transgression and such as live to that noble Principle from whence all good Laws come have
by wicked Works degenerated into the Earthly and thereby rendered our selves Aliens yea Rebels to his pure Law of Life first declares or holds forth Forgiveness of Sins past upon true Repentance by the laying down of his Life and then works out by his Holy Power and Spirit in our Consciences the Sin that is inherent and in the room thereof brings in his own Everlasting Righteousness So that our being accounted Righteous is as Christ was accounted a Sinner That is he was not a Sinner by Commission or Guilt neither were we as of our selves Righteous by Innocency or Non-commission of Sin for then there had been no need of Remission to have been declared by his publick offering up of himself But he was so reputed from bearing away the Sins that were past through the Forbearance of God and we are accounted as Righteous upon Repentance and true Faith because of that Remission and perfect Acquittance of Sins that are past as if we had never committed them Therefore wofully will they be mistaken that shut out the inward Work of God in the Heart and stretch this to Sins past present and to come without any regard thereto when as the Benefit of Christ's Suffering can in no sense be known or enjoyed without the true Faith and unfeigned Repentance which must precede Remission it self by whom or where is that wrought if not by Christ within much more must they go before compleat Justification which comprizeth Sanctification and Redemption we cannot but pron ounce it a Dangerous Doctrine since it flatters People with that being compleated that is not thereby deluding their poor Souls into a Perishing Security CHAP. IX Of the True Christ We own and our Adversary prov'd to deny him THe sixteenth Chapter of his first Book charged us with the Denyal of the Christ of God Among other Testimonies that he brought out of our Friends Books to maintain it I did eflectually consider two viz. This we certainly know and can never call the Bodily Garment Christ but that which appeared and dwelt in the Body Again For that which he took upon him was but a Garment even the Flesh and Blood of our Nature I. Peninington Quest p. 20 23 32. To introduce my Answer I observed at the same time and in the very same page He confost That we don't deny there was such a Man as Jesus the Son of Mary and that God or rather Christ was in him which I then said makes up our Christ I meant God manifested in the Flesh He replyeth thus Reply p. 76 77. But this I told W. P. was no more then the Quakers profess themselves We witness saith Fox the same Christ that ever was now manifested in the Flesh Rejoynder He should have given us the Book and Page where G. F. hath so expressed himself however we deny not that Doctrine for God doth dwell and walk in his Children who are called his Temples and Tabernacles in Holy Scripture 2 Cor. 6. 16. Rev. 21. 3. But we must forever reject J. Faldo's ignorant or worse Consequence That because we own that God dwells in his Children therefore he dwelt no more in that Body of Flesh he prepared to manifest himself by then he doth in his People Or that our asserting that God appeared and dwelt in that Holy Body eminently prepared by him is to be understood in no larger Sense then that in which we understand him to dwell in his Children I might as well argue against the Scripture as J. Faldo doth against us Christ was full of Grace and Truth therefore when he fills his Children with Grace and Truth they have as much Grace and Truth in them as their Lord and Master Or thus God was in Christ and God was in Paul therefore he was as much in Paul as he was in Christ It is after this Rate Reader our Adversary essayes to confute us as if we made no Distinction between the Fulness and the Measure the Treasury and the Gift He was full of Grace and Truth and of his Fulness have we received and Grace for Grace Joh. 1. 14 16. The next Thing I observed from what he gave as our Confession of the true Christ was this That he whom we call Christ is not John Faldo ' s Christ for he was that Body only that dyed here he cuts my Answer of short and bestoweth this Reply upon it Reply pag. 76. Here the Word Only W. P. forgeth he makes my allowing Christ's Body to be his Garment to imply it is not Christ himself Rejoynder Why did he not give my Words who knows by what he quoted of my Answer that he had ever been so kind the Man knew it pincht him and seem'd resolved to conceal it It was this In the midst of his second Proof he inserts these two Words VERY RIGHT as his Assent to that Part of it which to me seems as inconsistent with his Purpose as may be to wit that which Christ took upon htm was our Garment even the Flesh and Blood of our Nature therefore said I John Faldo as well as we acknowledgeth That the Garment is not Christ unless there be no Difference betwixt Christ and his Garment Or that Christ was but the Garment of that divine Being that dwells therein which were unscriptural and very carnal and I still say That Christ's Garment can never constitute him Christ And that as he darkly calls it the intire Christ as I shall make appear so hath he in this Concession contradicted himself and utterly given away the Cause But he is of another Mind as his Reply will inform us Reply pag. 76. The Apostle Paul calls his and the Saints Bodies their Cloathing 1 Cor. 5. yet they were never the less a part of themselves Rejoynder A meer Rattle for Children Did the Body God prepar'd for his Son to do his Will in help to constitute him Christ as much as the Apostles Body did help to constitute him Paul If it did why may we not as well say that Paul was among the Fathers in the Wilderness so many hundred Years before he was born as the same Apostle doth assert Christ by Name to have been the spiritual Rock of which the Fathers drank in the Wilderness 1 Cor. 10. 4. for if the Body constitute him Christ as sayes J. F. then he could no more be Christ before he had that Body then Paul could be Paul before he had his Body and consequently There is no more Absurdity in affirming That Paul was Paul so many hundred Years before he was born then that Christ was Christ so many hundred Years before he was born Again If Paul's Body were but a Cloathing how much more remote doth J. F's Comparison make Christ's Body to be from his Divinity since Paul did not preexist Christ did but he that took that Body and that Body that was taken were not of equal Date for the Body was taken in the Fulness of Time but he that took it and
believe great and good things of them and that from no less Evidence then the Eternal Word that gave them forth which hath oftentimes given my Soul a deep Savour of those blessed Truths it declares of only we cannot allow them to be The Word though the Words of God and the rather forasmuch as we see the great and general Neglect that People are guilty of towards that Living Powerful Regenerating Word of Life by whom alone all right Knowledge and lasting Peace is derived to the Soul of Man through this Apprehension that in having the Writings they have the Word of God and therefore look no farther the very State of the professing Jews of old who thought better of the Scriptures then of Christ believing to have Life in them at what time they crucified the Lord of Life and Glory From whose Proceedings we learn thus much That the worst Enemies to the invisible Word of Life may carry the greatest seeming Respect to and bestow the highest Titles upon the Scriptures that were given forth from it In short It was when Men turned from the Power of Godliness to the Form only that they did Canonize and lay so vast a Stress upon them In the first and second hundred years after Christ they were so scattered that very few had all of them and it is not unreasonable for us to believe that many had none of them especially those of the New Testament Were they therefore without the Word of God and a sufficient Rule for Faith and Practice Surely not It was an Administration of Life and Power of writing the Law in the Heart and putting the Spirit in the inward Parts From whence came that Christian Answer to the Heathen concerning Swearing Fighting such contra-Evangelical Practices They could not do so because of God in their Consciences At that time of Day the Anoâ—nting led them into all Truth But in process of time when Christians grew Careless and Worldly whereby they lost the Power of Godliness then they began to set up an outward pompous Religion ascribing that to the Letter and Form which was only due to the Spirit and Power And as thus entered the Apostacy into the World so where Men are not turned and conformed to that eternal Spirit and divine immortal Power the Apostacy still remains And our End in pressing People unto the Eternal Word of Life is that they may be brought out of Death and Darkness which the Scriptures can never do They are a Declaration and Testimony of Heavenly Things but not the Heavenly Things themselves and as such we carry an high Respect unto them We accept them as the Words of God himself and by the Assistance of his Spirit they are read with great Instruction and Comfort I esteem them the best of Writings and desire nothing more frequently then that I may lead the Life they exhort to and whatever sleight Apprehensions my disingenuous Adversary is pleas'd to have of these kind of Acknowledgments I write the naked Truth of my Heart knowing I must give an Account to God CHAP. IV. His Pretence of our Equalling our own Writings and Sayings with the Scriptures VVIthout any flourishing Reflections most commonly the Head and Tail and sometimes Middle too of my Adversary's Reply I shall lay down his words Rep. The Means I used for confirming the first part of this Charge were two First Their pretending them to be from Immediate Inspiration This he is so far from denying that he pleads for it but after such a rude impertinent manner that I should but injure you and shew my self Idle to transscribe and animadvert upon it Rejoyn How rude and impertinent a manner I pleaded for it the Reader may best judge by perusing something of the Passage For Inspiration the Scriptures are not more express in any one thing No man can know the things of God by the bare Spirit of a Man The Scriptures are a sealed Book to all but those who know them by the same Hand that originally gave them so that however common they may be in the World they are Strangers to them that understand them not And though Old respecting the Time when they were revealed to the Saints yet New to every Age. So that we assert not a Revelation of New Things but a renewed Revelation of those Things God made former Ages Witnesses of otherwise men are no more benefitted by them And to be benefitted they must be made ours by the Spirit which made them the Holy Ancients In short No Man can understand Spiritnal Things but the spiritually Discerning nor can he so be without the Inspiration of the Almighty This is Scripture Now the Author of those Queries and J. Faldo also denying Inspiration they consequently deny themselves to be spiritually Discerning And for Men not spiritual to judge of spiritual Matters much 〈◊〉 to write of them and bid their Writings go and throwdown Self-will and exalt the Truth is Vain and Idolatrous For the Scriptures themselves considered meerly as such are unable much less Writings founded on Self-Will For it s the alone Priviledge of God's Power and Spirit and no writing whatever distinct from it can perform that Great and Mighty Work in Man Now as Rude and Impertinent as this Answer may be in John Faldo's Eyes his Reply has not afforded me Light enough to see it He would prove us guilty of holding Inspiration as if to do so were a Crime From a Passage of John Story 's who rejected certain Queries exhibited against the Quakers because meerly grounded upon the Author's Imagination of certain Passages in Scripture and not any certain Knowledge or Experience received from the Revelation of the Spirit It must be left to the Reader to judge how pertinently I returned upon my Adversary Sure I am that Self-willed Queries can never throw down Self-will And to urge Scripture not experienced is to steal the words of Truth from our Neighbour Inspiration was in request after Scriptures were in the World And indeed are unintelligible without it The New Birth is never the more known for Christ's Saying to Necodemus though thereby we are taught that without it no man shall enter into the Kingdom of God It is the Spirit alone that reveals the Mysteries of Regeneration therefore to deny Inspiration or Revelation is to overthrow the only and Evangelical Way to divine Knowledge Erasmus himself could tell us What Men set forth by Man's Device may be perceived by Man's Wit But the thing that is set forth by the Inspiration of the holy Ghost requireth an Interpreter inspired with the like Spirit And without the Inspiration of it the Secrets of God cannot be known which is also the substance of the fourth Article exhibited against the Lutherans in the Council of Trent as an erroneous Doctrine they held That to understand the Scripture neither Gloss nor Comment is necessary but only to have the Spirit of a Sheep of Christ's Pasture Vetablus
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
far beneath those noble Gentiles who not having an outward Law were a Law unto themselves having the Effect of it written in their Hearts their Conscience bearing witness c. And this we may boldly say That such as ever acted from that inward Sense never thought they did God Good Service in Killing his Servants whilst great Admirers of the Letter of the Scriptures and who as concerning this Commandment Thou shalt not Murder thought themselves most unblamable believed They did God Good Service in killing his Servants Nor can I think it so great a Disgrace to our Cause that we ingenuously profess the Reason why we desire to fear God and keep his Commandments doing unto others as we would have them do unto us not so much to be from the Letter of the Scripture as the Convictions of the Eternal Light and Spirit of God in our Consciences As it ought to be unto John Faldo and his Adherents who ground their Obedience upon the Letter of the Scripture and not upon such internal Convictions What is it but to say They could Lye Swear Steal Kill c. without any Remorse did they not find such Injunctions and Prohibitions upon record A Consequence so detestable yet so natural to their Principles that if this render them not able Guides to the very Confines of Rantism and Atheism I shall gladly ask an Excuse for my Ignorance But that I may leave nothing undone that may compleat the Satisfaction of every moderate Inquirer I shall further weigh and rejoyn to these words of his They who thought they did God good Service in Killing his Servants did not sin in the least because they were not convinced of a Command to the contrary nor the Idolaters in the Case of Baal because they thought Baal to be a God indeed Now Reader observe the Evasion This Passage relates not to Men's practising what God Commands or our Tenderness in imitating other Saints without Commission for fear we should offer strange Fire which is our Question but their doing that which God never commanded yea which Mankind in all Ages hath adjudged impious and which to be sure his Holy Spirit that E. B. said All Men should wait to be convinced assisted and led by in fulfilling God's Commandments never moved any to He unworthily draws a general Conclusion against us from meer particular Premises It seems Men are to act without if not against Conviction upon his Principle and that it is the same thing with him to commit moral Enormities from an Hardned Heart and to be tender of taking up any external Practice or performing some Religious Duty without the Convictions and Leadings of the Holy Spirit The Apostle said to such as had not as yet so full clearness as others That if any were otherwise-minded God would reveal it He did not injoyn them during that Scruple to believe or practice the thing doubted but therefore did Persecutors act inexcusably in their fiery Zeal because their blind Consciences checkt them not Again If Blindness came from Education it is though Blindness still and therefore it was basely done of J. Faldo to say in our Name that it is not Sin in the least c. more excusable for in the dayes of such Ignorance God winks But if it be a Blindness proceeding from long Disobedience and Rebellion against the Convictions and Strivings of the Good Spirit of God as his Word Hardned implies then I say it is not only very hainous in God's Sight but those Persons can never be excused neither from great Guilt nor the Sense of it in themselves let them or J. F. talk never so much of Conscience Besides the most Essential and Universally Necessary Commands of God were through all Ages confest to both before there was any of those Writings we rightly call the Scriptures of Truth from the Law of Nature as many stile it or rather the Law God placed in Man's Nature and since where they have never been Therefore whatever particular hardned and seared Consciences may say we have the Consent of Mankind and their own Rebellion and Lewdness against them But the Words of J. Faldo in plain terms import as if 1 st Men were not generally convinced of the Righteousness of the Moral Commands of God but that Men keep them because they are in the Bible only which runs against the Testimony of Scripture the Consent of Ages and the Writings and Judgment of the most Honest and Learn'd Protestants 2ly As if it were a like Evil Conscientiously to forbear Running Willing and Striving in Matters of Worship without the Spirit 's Conduct and searedly to plead for the Commission of Murder and Idolatry because Men of such Consciences bogle not at it though that is more then J. F. can prove I mean that they have no Stroak or Remorse 3 ly As if we could worship preach gather Churches and administer Gospel-Ordinances aright without the Spirit 4 ly That he is not convinced by any other Testimony then the Scripture without of any Transgression against God's Law 5 ly It supposes that if Men stay'd till the Spirit mov'd they should stay long enough who vainly prate of Praying by the Spirit notwithstanding never considering that the Spirit standeth ready to Reveal it self to their Assistance and Assurance who wait for it and that all the Children of God are led by the Spirit of God which being our Position had it but been weighed by this Adversary he could not methinks be so Unjust in his Aggravations 'T is true should we believe as he doth the Spirit is not to be waited for now adayes to lead us or that it is not ready to our Information when we wait for its Discoveries and Leadings our Assertion would look very absurd and loose for it were to let fall all Worship but not upon our own Principle as I said before for first all Worship to God ought to be performed by the Assistance of his holy Spirit for of our selves we can do nothing that is Good And secondly God's Spirit is ready to assist instruct and comfort those that wait diligently and patiently for it yea God has given it to the Rebellious that it may judge them if it don't lead them It is such Protestant Doctrine that I wonder Men should not know their Admired Ancestors Faith when they met it Oh great Degeneration into Hardness and Ignorance Lastly There is the same to be said against him that pretends to ground all upon the Scripture that he objects against us who plead for the Conviction of Conscience which the Instance of the Jews Murder of our Lord Jesus Christ unanswerably proves There was a Law that Blasphemers should be put to Death By this Law they apprehended Jesus adjudged and got him to be executed These Men above any Age exalted the Scriptures as the Only Rule Where lies the Mistake Not in the Scripture but in their blind and envious Application of it Now I ask if the only Way
Friendship to him yet so invincible was his Displeasure that there was no holding for me of his Good-will and believing Christ to be God They were with him as inconsistent as Light and Darkness I know no other Reason if this be any for his Sharpness to me And God knows this is the very Truth I leave it with my Reader to satisfie his own Conscience concerning this Matter But he never wrote against me Truly he needed not who hath another Instrument so nimble and so able a Scribe as J. F. for the Purpose But if calling me the basest Names undervaluing detracting and traducing me in almost all Companies behind my back and in a Garden at Hogfdon where I went to accompany some of my Relations to affront me with opprobrious Names as many can witness who demean'd my self with all Gentleness towards him and to act in the Quallity of an incessant Agent against us by Informations Reports Books c. WHO ONCE DID ALL THESE THINGS FOR US and we are no worse Men then we were If these things be no just Provocations to mention two Letters I am to blame Yet that I name him in almost all my Writings or all that he hath read is false for in the Spirit of Alexander the Copper-Smith c. which J. F. quotes he is not named and of above Twelve Books he was mention'd but in Three and that obscurely this makes the Fourth against my Will The Occasion besides what hath been already toucht upon was this H. H. one of his Friends writes a Book against us or rather to us against G. F. J. Faldo's Mr. T. F. was the Promoter and Scatterer of these Pamphlets especially upon the Exchange where not in private Converse as J. F. sayes and makes to be the only Reason of my taking notice of him that he may render me base to his Readers before several and those of divers Perswasions called G. Fox Knave Puppy Logerhead with such like unhandsome Terms unworthy of a Man of T. F's Consideration in the World This I would never have repeated had not J. Faldo drawn yea compelled it from me by suggesting an Untruth and substituting it in the room of the True Reason Well But if his Information fail him not I have been engaged by T. F. to another kind of Deportment And suppose all this hath he not dis-engaged me sufficiently I owe no Man any thing beyond Truth nor will be fettered from my Testimony by any Obligations But I never was engaged to him beyond what I have faithfully related except it was his lending me as he thought by one that was my Servant at that time of my Tower-Imprisonment about Forty Pounds he coming in my Name counterfitting both Messages and Letters as I made appear to him afterwards which though mine Eyes never saw one Penny of it nor was there a Penny employed in my Service or to my use I did when God enabled me having then no Estate in my Hands faithfully repay as if I had really had every Penny believing then and still that it was Kindness in him to me that was abused by a Knavish Servant and I would never let him suffer for it If herein I have wronged him he may forgive me But because in my Answer to J. Faldo and what he said in his behalf against us I told him that some thought it a Shame that so ill a Tongue should go unrebuked of those whose Principles and Interest give them the Liberty of doing it in a way that might be more effectual then all the Moderation and Reason that can easily be shown to him J. Faldo exactly like himself strains these words all the Moderation and Reason which I intended of our bearing his Abuses only showing their Vnreasonableness by writing to nothing below some Vnjust and Violent Course to rid him out of the way which are but softer words for down-right Murder and to Countenance this Comment of his I was told I think by one that had it at T. F's Mouth that he was advised to take the Law of me for his Security But to put all this out of doubt those that thought it a Shame he should so frequently violently and publickly revile honest Men bringing their Common Credit into Question by scurvy Names meant by the way that might be taken only the Law which was what some counselled him to use to secure himself against me These Men had need have good Consciences that are thus affraid before they are hurt Thus have I vindicated those Reflections J. Faldo lay'd such Foundation for and if T. F. be troubled at this I must tell him so am I but I cannot help it Let him better advise his Scribe next time for I have nothing but hearty Love and good Wishes for him nor have I said any thing harsh or disgraceful in this Defence of my self imputing much of what hath happened more to his Natural Haste and sometimes ungoâ—â—rn'd Speech then a Premeditated Injustice He knows how often I have caution'd him in those respects while we conversed together Nor hath it been my only Observation and Admonition by a great many others and some of his own Friends too Thus I leave T. F. â—n perfect Good-will to see what Leave it is that J. Faldo is taking of us His Epilogue degenerates not one jot from the Book it self And as if he would do me a great Deal of Mischief in a little Compass and say whatever is rude and unjust once for all he tells his Reader That I have egregiously played the Forger that I am a Cheat that all Men understanding Controversie will judge me worthy to be made a Proverb of and when they would express an impudent Forger to say no more then W. PENN Rep. pag. 95. And that he may add Prophaneness to his Railing he proceeds A Great Poet of their own hath these words worthy to begin all Mr. Penn's Books on that Subject as it ends this of mine If a meer Scoff in Scripture-Phrase be prophanening Scripture then I have not over-charged him in calling this Phrase wherein he useth Paul's words to the Athenians but with Scorn and Levity against us Prophaneness But let us hear these so much Derided Words And they that would be satisfied concerning us any way they must find us and know us in the Principle of Life where we are and not in their own Reason where we are not and so let none REASON about us for there they can never know us nor come unto us W. Smith's Cat. p. 94. But why so much Contempt upon this Passage unless it be to show us that he can still Scoff at that Principle of Life which is the Strength and Habitation of God's Children as he hath done already throughout both his Books Did the Disciples or the Pharisees find out Christ's Meaning by their Reasoning about it John 6. or would not either have relisht the true Meaning of his Words had they dwelt in the Divine Principle of Life