Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A54246
|
A winding-sheet for controversie ended
|
Penn, William, 1644-1718.
|
1672
(1672)
|
Wing P1394; ESTC R217516
|
14,041
|
11
|
therefore G. F. a Blasphemer which is the meaning of his quoting it but this Lye is for the Lake Neither G. F. nor S. E. nor the Quakers own any such Inference neither was the Resemblance in that of the Worlds being made by him Good Men may be resembled to Christ in one thing not in another Methinks he that believes him only to be an Example should not deny such Doctrine but he is angry it should be thought Christ made the World be came into he cannot abide that Verse should meet him any where Neither should he refuse S. E. a mystical Defence for himself had he thought great things of G. F. when he himself believes it was not the Visible Creation No he thinks Christ no more made this World then T. Firman did What then Will he call Men Blasphemers from other mens Principles But let him take World which way he pleaseth the Comparison lay not there And if it was esteem'd Dis-ingenuous in me to mention two Letters of a Man's Name by way of Reproof for open Slanders against a man by name at Length after he had retracted though I knew it not certainly it is dishonest with great Aggravation to question that which has been so often explain'd and denied as taken by the World and that in Print too But what would not H. Hedworth do to dirt the Quakers but we are not to be Hang'd by his Straws nor Fetter'd by his Cobwebs Now let sober Persons judge whether the Beginner of this Controversie knew well how to employ his time who thought to run down a Folio Book of neer 400. Pages the Author and with him the Quakers as Impostors Lyars and False Prophets with five or six Sheets stuff'd with dull Ignorance and Cavils at G. F's putting Within for In In for Among c. O shallow Head O Envious Heart The Spoils in thy Triumph will scarcely cover the Brow-beats thy own Weakness has given thee in the sight of the World Sect. III. Of the Rule § 1. BE it known to the World that this Socinian Agent who in the Dark Hectors every Perswasion has shown himself unworthy the Name of a Man who has turned his Book upon 25 Scripture Arguments 6 Reasons 2 Answers to 2 Objections about the Quakers denying the Scriptures 15 most clear Authorities from Papists Protestants and Socinians themselves to prove the Infallible Spirit of God to be the true Christian Rule of Faith without so much as taking them into any other Consideration then to fasten down-right Lyes upon us in general and me in particular affirming that I say Men are to be guided by immediate Inspiration in opposition to Scriptures c. a Lye as Black as Hell such words are not to be found in my Book And the very next Paragraph Now if this be his Meaning then tell me if Tollet Mald. Dr Ham. Hutch Soc. Sclith Crel were of his Mind Here he doubts what before he asserted Rare Confutation to 31 pages of serious Christian Argumentation Well I will suppose those men never understood it so nor did ever any Quaker in England to his great Dishonesty and Shame I assert it for we say that the true Knowledge of the Scriptures is most Heavenly and Divine Knowledge but the holy Spirit that brought those holy Men out of that they reprove and into that blessed State they Exhort to is onely able to make that Condition Ours by its secret Strivings Discoveries and Operations We know God may and does by his Spirit reach to the Conscience by Scripture and Preaching but then it is the holy Spirit that makes it efficacious by fresh and living Touches and we cannot call it our Faith or Knowledge till quickned to it by that Eternal Spirit be it mediately or be it immediately and this shall Break the Serpents Head Maugre the Force of these Lattern and Mungril Socinians which roundly checks his saying That I bestow'd 32 Pages to prove G. F's Spirit to be Infallible for that belongs simply to God's alone and then those that are led by it which was my Question and in which sense he is and all such Persons are Infallible as he himself confesseth pag. 27. and if he fool'd himself by any other Belief of us before let him look to that But he quarrels at my Use of the Word Spirit and thinks it Erroneous that God should be intended by it God is a Spirit nor can he be without his Spirit But H. H's Notion of a Spirit is a created third Person and so God is separated from his own Spirit indeed A Doctrine of late standing Pag. 10. 11. § 2. But perhaps I should not have been so free with him To conclude He allows G. F. to have a Conscience that to be an Infallible Rule that God is the Author of it that the Spirit may be said to have taught G. F. that God did work upon him by it c. therefore I infer G. F. to have an Infallible Rule in him and that both Conscience and the Spirit of God are said by him to be this Infallible Rule which Reader is more then any Quaker in England ever said unless Conscience be taken for Christ's Light within or God's Light within for H. H. abhors to think Christ should be God enough to illuminate any Man in that sense But let it be observ'd that this Person who calls the Light of God in the Conscience an Infallible Rule call'd it Imperfect in his Letter contradicting his Dialogue-Man J. Faldo and himself too For then must every Man have a Rule in himself Sect. IV. Of the Light of Christ Within § 1. THis gravel'd him sorely his beloved Socinianism is shaken by it this will have him that was and is called Christ to be the only Wise God whether H. Hedworth will or no. But that he might avoid discovering of himself and his Judgment of the first 10 Verses of John's History he would not say a word the Design had been known and Plot broken with which he hopes to blow up some Independants and abundance of poor Anabaptists therefore does he willingly pass over my Eight Arguments for the Divinity of Christ and his Light within and the Testimonies of Ancient and Modern Writers in their Defence O notable Champion He needs a better Prayer to excuse his Weakness then that in Controversie-Ended Pag. 23. But he sayes that I am mistaken about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Coming that the Arabick and Aethiopick the three French and Low-Dutch Translations are for him that I wrong Erasmus by putting too ambiguous for ambiguous a Triffler that Maldonat says my Sense is neither false nor absurd Grotius much approves of the Exposition which is extant in Cyr. and Aug. Dr Hammond reads it so § 2. But I will prove him an Ignorant or malicious Lyar. The Arabick hath it thus Quod erat Lumen verum illuminans omnem hominem Venturus in mundum That was the true Light which inlightens all Mankind
and has been by me Corrected with a Pen and never was in my Copy But what then do I answer it as All or Many If as the First then I Err yet perhaps not designedly neither but if as the Last MANY what Hurt have I done Sober Reader hear my Book If we excel in ALL Things as he confesseth there 's the Cavil which is to say there are but Few Things wherein we do not transcend all others how possibly can we be Dangerous and Dishonourable to the Christian Religion Is the Christian Religion among the Few Things wherein we are supposed wanting which is the main Thing of all If so what are the MANY Judge O Impartial People How Dis-ingenuously and with what Envy he hath aggravated that All for Many when my own Answer makes no Advantage by it but runs as it would have done had Many been instead of All Is it true then that to esteem it an Error in Printing is without Good Reason for which there is so evident a Reason Does this Man make Conscience of a Lye An Idle Shifter To his Second He is here as False as in the Former for the Paragraph immediately fore-going to which this has reference speaks thus He is pleased to allow us at least a great many of us to be Honest-Hearted c. If this takes in the Quakers in General or if any such word as Quakers in General be mentioned or by me made to be the Consequence of his words and not rather some of them I will confess to have wronged him In the mean time he has kept to his old wont of most Ungodly Defamations and fastening upon Mens Writings Plain Untruths but of his own making God the Righteous Judge will Reward him Pag. 9. § 8. Lastly But he tells us again that in Sect. 8. which is Page 13. of my Spirit of Truth Vindicated I say I will not give him the Lye and that in Page 92. I tell him he has broke his Word with us which in plainer English is He has told a Lye and would therefore fix the Lye on me saying I am Unchristian and Uncivil But if this be an Answer to my Just Objection against his Twice Breach of Promise with us not to Reflect yet immediately to do it not to use Scripture or Reason counting us Unworthy yet endeavour at both let 's forever give off Writing What tell me I Lye because more then Seventy Pages of the Former Passage in quite another case I say that breaking a Man's word is in Plainer English telling a Lyar If I did forbear it at first it was meer Curtesie The Author's Countenance in Lyes might well justifie my saying what I did however Lye and Contradict he did and he denies it not whatever I did but it seems his Proud Spirit can't abide to be spoken plainly to and to tell Truth of him or reprove his Lyes must cost a Man as much Implacable Scurrility as may be expected in case of Real Wrong from the most Dissolute of Men. This is H. H. with his Grim Socinian Cavils burson'd with Folly and Revenge For my Non-sence or Ignorance in my Mother-Tongue we will venture that with the World but the Press has injur'd me not a little I deny that ever Non-sence went to it whatever came from it However H. Hedworth is not my Judge Sect. II. of G. Fox § 1. P. 15. NOw let us hear what he says of G. F. He that is not Infallible is a Deluder but G. F. is not Infallible therefore G. F. is a Deluder The first proved from G. F's Book How can ye be Ministers of the Spirit and not be Infallible And how can they but Delude People who are not Infallible I Answer G. F's words stand Immoveable forever He that is a Minister of the Spirit is Infallibly so and in that Ministry is Infallible otherwise the Spirit 's Ministry is Fallible which is the Consequence of this Anti-spiritual Socinian and not of G. F's Doctrine Next They who are not Infallible as to the Things of God they Teach are not taught of God nor of his Spirit of Grace which gives Certain Unerring Understanding and so Deluders But G. F. never said That every one that is not Infallible is a Deluder in all things for a Man may be Fallible or Mistaken in some Matters wherein he is not a Deluder But the Drift of G. F's words is this That such Preachers who deny the Spirit 's Teachings and Infallible Knowledge as necessary to a Qualification of a Gospel Ministry are Deluders and in this Sence who pretend to Teach and know not the Certainty but the Incertainty rather of what they Teach such are Deluders and by this will I stand against this Vain Syllogizer in Defence of that Defamed yet Worthy Man G. F. But he endeavours to prove G. F. himself not Infallible Pag. 15 16. § 2. Next he that renders the Pronoun YE where it is to be understood or renders the Greek Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 BY WITH or AMONG or TO or puts HE for WE or what is equivalent is a Perverter or Corrupter of Scripture and not infallible as saith G. F. of his Adversaries but G. F. does so himself Ergo a Perverter and Corrupter the same about his being a Blasphemer since who corrupts Scripture preaches what he has not from Heaven therefore a Blasphemer O the Logick O the Ethicks but O the Metaphisicks of this Under-Graduat in Philosophy What! Is this any more then Bumbast Repetition It was time for Controversie to End indeed I say that G. F. had to do with such as believed every Particle yea the very Hebrew Points themselves to be part of the Scriptures divinely given forth as an unalterable and only Rule He denies it but asserts the Spirit of Truth that gave them forth to be the Rule especially since Christ's Manifestation in the Flesh The Priests therefore are Perverters and Corrupters if they leave out one Jot or Tittle but G. F. not so for if the Sense be rendred God never tyed People to the express words says he therefore G. F. his not oblieging himself to that exactness makes him no Perverter unless he should be judg'd by the untrue Notion other men have of a Rule that he submits not to which were Injustice it self This shows then how unwarrantably our Adversary useth my words against G. F. which are only due to himself and the Priests he defends unless he could make their Case one which he can never do and therefore what I say to them cannot be ascrib'd to G. F. but with manifest wrong For the Doctrinal Mistakes they shall be considered anon only thus far G. F. is no Perverter or Corrupter and consequently no Blasphemer if he put With for Among but the Priests are who so grievously transgress their own Rule for they esteem it no less by their Opinion of it Pag. 17. § 3. But Sol. Eccles's Testimony makes G. F little other then a God