for you to Speak and Preach that which ye have not received from Heaven Whence I further Argue thus He that Speaks and Preaches that which he hath not received from Heaven is a Blasphemer But G. F. Speaks and Preaches that which he hath not received from Heaven therefore G. F. is a Blasphemer It remains now that I prove the Minor Proposition of the former Argument namely G. Fox is not infallible and that also I shall do out of G. F's words thus He that so quotes Scripture as that he expresses 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 leaves one something that ought to be expressed or adds to Scripture words He that doth any one of these things or that which is manifestly equivalent such an one is a Perverter or Corruptor of Scripture and not infallible But G. F. doth some one of these things or that which is manifestly equivalent therefore G. F. is not infallible The same medium proves the Minor of the second Argument viz. G. F. Speaks and Preaches that which he hath not received from Heaven Thus he that perverts or corrupts the Scripture in any of the forementioned Instances or one that is manifestly equivalent Speaks and Preaches that which he hath not received from Heaven But G. F. doth so pervert the Scripture Therefore G. F. Speaks and Preaches that which he hath not received from Heaven The Minor of this and of the former Prosyllogism namely that G. F. doth so pervert the Scripture was proved in my Epistle by fifty Instances out of G. F's Book and I appeal to every unprejudiced Reader whether there be not as much weight in every one of them as in some of those for which G. F. chargeth his Adversaries with perverting of Scripture And whether there be not in many of them greater weight than in any of those And if it should prove that but two or three of those fifty Instances are full to my purpose it would be enough to prove what I have undertaken namely That G. F. is according to the true sense of his own words a Deluder and Blasphemer I have been forced to this way of syllogyzing that Mr. P's fallacious way of handling my Argument may more readily appear though I believe the common people did understand it as well if not better in that vulgar way wherein I propos'd it in my Epistle But to return The evidence of all the Premises is matter of Fact obvious to the eyes of every man that can but read English and discern one word or phrase from another or when he finds more or less in any Sentence for what can be lighter than the adding of a Pronoun to a Verb where it must be understood But I must not go too fast though my Argument proves G. F. to be a Deluder of People and a Blasphemer and so a Lyar yet it doth not prove him to be a false Prophet or Impostor therefore I added that large and indeed blasphemous Testimony of Solomon Eccles who saith Wo G. Fox is a Prophet indeed and hath been faithful in the Lords business from the beginning It was said of Christ That he was in the World and the World was made by him and the World knew him not So it may be said of this true Prophet whom John said he was not I added also the Quakers common Principle which doth not permit any one to be of the Ministry as they call it but Him or Her that hath an immediate Revelation or a Prophet Now if G. F. be a Prophet and a Prophet indeed not only of the Ministry but the most eminent therein and the Patriarch of the Quakers and if he be a Deluder and Blasphemer even when he Speaks Preaches then it follows roundly that G. F. is a false Prophet or an Impostor This is the substance of that Argument which Mr. P. undertook to overthrow Let us now see how he hath acquited himself in that warfare First He doth not charge me with one word of false quotation that I remember either out of Scripture of G. F's Writings so that I take it for granted that the quotations are all true and genuine 2. He grants that G. F. is a Prophet or sent of God by his eternal Spirit to turn people from Darkness to Light p. 67. 3. He doth not deny at least for the most part but that what I have ascribed to G. F. as Scripture words quoted by him is such and consequently distinguished from G. F's Paraphrases Explications or Inferences But he doth deny 1. That G. F. his affirming things to be true which are false and false which are true to be obvious to their eyes or senses That is He denies that G. F. his putting them for him Col. 3.10 thereby changing the Antecedent with for in Ephess 2.6 the corruption he blames in others Conscience for Thoughts Rom. 2.15 God for Lord Rom. 14.9 God for Christ Col. 3.16 and so of the rest He denies I say that these and the like falsities in G. F's quotations of Scripture are obvious to his senses and yet 1. they are words written and therefore proper objects of sense and 2. the change of the words which is the falsity in this case is in his answers not denyed but excused So that this his first Answer comes to this That W.P. doth deny that to be obvious to his sense which he reads and acknowledgeth by excusing And if this answer may serve his turn I must confess I am non-plust for when I have shewn an Object of sight to a mans eyes by noon-day light and when he perceives it and acknowledgeth it by manifest implication If he still persist to deny it expresly I cannot help it nor I think any man in the World I may well be said to fetch Arguments out of Bedlam as he sayes If I should prosecute such a man any further But for the sake of some that will believe their Sense and Reason I will proceed 2. He utterly denies that such falsity as I have spoken of renders G. F. either a false Prophet or Impostor Lyer he doth not deny Now 1. I must confess I have not so subtil a wit as to put a difference between a lying Prophet and a false Prophet and if my Argument will serve to prove G. F. a lying Prophet I will not contend whether the name of Impostor be proper for him but use it without scruple till I be better informed concerning it 2. Let it be considered what it is that W. P. denies and it will amount to as much as if he had confest it For he denies that such falsities or changes of Words and Phrases in citing Scripture as G. F. by his infallible Spirit calls perverting and corrupting of Scripture are such which is all one as to say that G. F. is not infallible and if he be
Did they not all own the eternal Divinity of Christ And did not Mr. P. know it Let the Reader judge whether he doth not knowingly abuse me and whether he has not abus'd him too in writing so much to no purpâ—se As for the difference between lighteth and enlighteth I stood not upon it but now after all his impertinent labour I say There is as much difference between these words as between destroy this Temple and destroy ye the Temple and our Translators seem to use the word lighteth for the Gospel preached and the word enlighteth for the Gospel received and believed W. P. deals here like a cunning Lawyer who having a bad Cause labours hard to turn off the Judges from the Matter in issue to something that is not so In order to that another Artifice he useth is To make an hideous out-cry against me as a Socinian Mungrel-Socinian Bidlean and other frightful names as if it were a sufficient vindication of G. F. from the charge I have prov'd against him out of his own Writings that I am an Erronious or Heretical Person Let me be all that W. P. saith I am a Turk a Jew an Anthropomorphite an Arrian or Sabellian or what he will will G.F. his Doctrine be e're the truer or his Person the wiser or honester Away with such Mercurial sleights Here he would fain draw us into the Controversie of his stating viz. Whether the Light be natural and created or supernatural and eternal Into which if we should be so foolish as to follow him I dare say we might have work enough for a full age and be never the wiser at last For how is it possible to come to any determination with one that is equivocating in his terms as I shall shew the Quakers to be Next he falls upon my Concessions concerning the Light in every man and pleases himself hugely in making me contradict my self and give away my Cause But it 's no great matter for one that is wont to equivocate in his own words to make his Neighbours contradictory by the same art And 2. if if should appear that I had failed in expressing my mind concerning that matter yet still the Argument of my Book might be firm and valid against G. F. Here under this Head upon my sober appeal to the Light in the Quakers he falls as it were into an exstacy and cries out monstrum horrendum as if some Poetick Deity had inspir'd him Why what 's the matter He saith That unto which a man makes an appeal must be capable of giving an infallible judgment and so a true Judge or else he appeals foolishly Answ It seems when Paul appealed to Caesar that is Nero that Nero was capable of giving an infallible judgment or else Paul appealed foolishly Do not all men know that Appeals are made to men upon the account of necessity or conveniency not upon an opinion of his infallibility to whom the appeal is made Doth not Mr. P. reason like a man in a fright 2. He saith that G. F. is by the verdict of that Light in them pronounced not guilty and I tell him that G. F. is by the verdict of the Light in me and as many thousands as the Quakers pronounced Guilty On which side now is the infallible judgment or are we both infallible What tristing is here with terms and words Upon the question if self of the Light in every man I have in effect discours'd already when we consider'd W. P's Position touching the Un-erring Judge c. I add further That every man that grows up to years of discretion has a capacity by Nature or otherwise to know so much of Gods Will concerning his Duty as whereby his honesty and sincerity may be tryed 2. That he that is faithful in the obedience of that knowledge he has shall have more 3. That such an one as was Cornelius Acts 10. who feareth God and worketh Righteousness shall be accepted of him But. 4. that such a person may be yet without the Knowledge or Faith of Jesus the Mediator between God and men And 5. that God did not to Cornelius neither was wont in those Primitive times nor doth he in these dayes that can be made to appear reveal unto such men inwardly by his Spirit the knowledge of Christ the Mediator which was contained in those words which Peter preached to Cornelius whereby he and his House were to be saved 6. I say That that knowledge in those words are conveyed to us by the Holy Scriptures as unto Cornelius by word of mouth 7. I say That the Quakers in vilisying the knowledge from tradition and the profession of the Person of Christ by tradition and contending for an immediate revelation of this Knowledge do vilifie the dispensation of the Gospel by the Mediator Jesus and his Apostles and Evangelists their Preaching and Writing These things are evident partly by themselves partly by Scripture as Acts 10. 11. Mat. 25. Rom. 2. Now let us look into Mr. P. and his Associates their sense of that Doctrine they so much glory in and upon the account of which they sing such loud tryumphs in the World viz. The Light in every man is infallible and they that are not infallible are Deluders For we shall deceive our selves if we think we understand them when we understand the words in one sense 1. Then you must know that by the term Light sometime they mean Christ so when they say the Light is supernatural and eternal they mean by the Light Christ that is God and the sense is God is supernatural and eternaly and God is infallible Who ever denyed it But 2. when they say the Light justisies or condemns then they mean that which we call Conscience for so G. F. expounds it Myst p. 11. saying And the Light condemns which you call Cousciouce Sutable to this sense when a man proceeds rightly in the use of his faculties and those means which God assords him and attains to a true knowledge then he is infallible and the Light that is his Judgment is infallible But when he doth not proceed rightly and gives a wrong judgment then he is fallible and his judgment fallible but not the Light And so the sense of their Position The Light is infallible when they do not mean by the Light God is that true knowledge or true judgment is true knowledge or true judgment And Mr P. has unhappily by being a little more open than their Doctrine will bear utterly betray'd both his Cause and his Friends For thus he saith p. 82. Infallibility of persons any further then as they are joyned and conformed to the Light of God me never affirmed and fallibility of the Light because of the fallibility of persons we never owned That is to say when G. F. and W. P. preach nothing for truth buth what they certainly know to be so then and in that point they give a true judgment and are infallible and so
him Well! what 's his censure against me which lights upon G. F His carping there is like all the rest malicious and troublesom It seems G. F. is a malicious and troublesom Prophet Thus I might go through all the instances and present W. P. wounding and goring himself and Friend upon the Horns of my Argument but the Reader will easily excuse me from that travel and do it himself in his own mind And yet methinks I cannot but note one more of his mercurial watchings He 'l go near to charge me with palpable lying as he has done divers times in the like case for this common phrase because I say I cannot when I can It is in my p. 33. in his p. 126. where I fault G.F. for saying absolutely God said For did not sin with his mouth where the Scripture saith In all this did not Job sin with his lips Now my exception lies in those words In all this which W. P. according to his wonted honesty leaves out and gives out that my exception lies in the putting of mouth for lips and that I charge G. F. with imposture on that account when as he has found as great a change as that in Christ and his Apostles their quoting of Scripture Well! suppose what is not that my exception had been that Is it not as great a corrupting of Scripture to put mouth for lips as to put to for in where Mr. P. faith To and In may he the same or as destroy ye for destroy ye understood Thus all the foul play that W. P. can use will not excuse his good Friend but every blow that he strikes at me wounds G. F. mortally But the most deadly of all comes at last 't is this without change of his Argument If Christ and his Apostles have not observed such exactness as G. Fox so severely reproves his Adversaries for the want of It is to be hoped that be will either retract his unworthy abuse or else not think it hard in us to charge this blasphemous inference upon him namely that he makes Christ Jusus and his Apostles perverters of Scripture and what else be wickedly concludes against Professors This inference falls with all its weight upon G. F. as the Reader may readily perceive But for me it touches me not at all For First We will suppose G. F. but equal to Christ and his Apostles in changing words to the same sense yet there will be this difference between them 1. They testified the infallibility of their spirit by many Miracles c. but I never heard of any that G. F. did except the eating and making one or more meals of Spidars of which I hear not of any evidence but his own word 2. Christ never call'd the Scribes and Pharisees Perverters of Scripture for such change of words as G. F. hath done Professors 3. Christ did not at the same time challenge the World and call them forth to come and have their Doctrines tryed by that very Scripture that is that Version or that Copy then in use among them and which he corrects them for not following exactly in every point without their meanings as G. F. has done in his Mystery c. and Preface to the same Which things considered are enough to render him according to his own Judgment as Deluder and Blasphemer and W. P. no less in making the Parallel but our Lord and his Apostles innocent But secondly of fifty instances there are not above three or four that have not either addition or substration both of words and sense or an alteration of words either importing or countenancing a bad sense or at least varying from the sense of the place as I doubt not but will appear to any judicious Reader And W. P. himself in most of the Instances doth not deny the various sense onely he endeavours to make that sense consist with truth in general or some opinion of their own which others count error Lastly It 's more than Mr. P. knows for all his skill in the Hebrew which is very notorious among learned men whether out Lord and his Apostles in their Citations of Scripture did not keep to the very words of that Version which was then in use or allowed by those to whom he spake and they wrote So vast a difference is there between the Citations of Christ and his Apostles and those of G. F. that it 's a most shameful thing they should be brought into comparison Here I might transcrible much to the bitter condemnation of them out of their own mouths but I must hasten Notwithstanding after Mr. P. has writ a Book stuft with Invectives and opprobrious condemnations of G. F. his Doctrine and Person under my Person and Cause he comes at length in the end of it to say something to his purpose of Vindication if it were true and reasonable but it proves no Armour of proof but a meer Cobweb He argues thus Professors hold the Scripture to the such a sufficient infallible Rule as that God hath not given unto men any thing more clear and certain But G. F. and the Quakers hold That the eternal Spirit is by way of excellency the Rule and Guide of Christians Therefore he was not consined to the very express words and points thereof as his Rule Could he satisfie his Conscience in this Apology But I answer 1. This arguing clearly supposes that the Dictates of G. F.'s Spirit are more excellent than the Scriptures 2. It supposes that the Spirit of God or God himself can affirm that to be written which is not written that is can lie for in citing Scripture men have respect to the very express words and upon those they build the sense 3. It supposes that because G. F. has a less esteem of the Scriptures than other men have therefore he may honestly do that to the Scriptures which will render other men Pervertors and Corruptors of them 4. It supposes that which is false viz. That Professors hold the prosent English Transslation to be unalterable for G.F. chargeth them with perverting Scripture for altering it to the very same sense as both he and they must acknowledge 5. G. F. chargeth the Translators with corrupting Scripture for rendering it so as W. P. confesseth to be the same with the rendring that G. F. would have as I shew'd upon Col. 1.23 6. It seems by this arguing that when G. F. calls upon other Christians to come forth and be tryed by the Scriptures we must understand not the form of found words contained in the Scriptures but his interpretation of Scripture But they poor Men must be charged nay commanded to give him plain Scripture printed Scripture Chapter and Verse What though G. F. his words are to W. P. of equal yea greater authority than the Scriptures as proceeding fresh and new from the holy Spirit but these have pass'd through many foul hands must they therefore be so to other men that do not acknowledge him
led by that Spirit When the truth of any matter in question is to be tryed by a written Testimony and that writing may be produced he that shall then instead of the determinate words of that Testimony produce other words to the prejudice of his Neighbours cause shall be counted forger and lyar And I nothing doubt but that G. F. if he had dealt so with other writings of civil concern as he has done with the holy Scriptures would by this time have lost his ears And it would not have excus'd him in such a change to have urged that his own knowledge and testimony were of greater cortainty and vilidity than the words of that written Testimony forasmuch as Party concern'd acknowledg'd no such matter 7. G. F. in accusing Professons of perverting Scripture in the Instances cited follows his own Judgment and Principle and not theirs for the makes it an Argument of the Quakers their being sent of God because they speak of Scripture right as it is but Professors the contrary and tells them they run into all absurdities that give their meanings to Scripture Lastly such is the unhappiness of W. P's undertaking in this matter that almost all his reasonings and scornings too against me in vindication of G. F. turn directly to his condemnation For because Prefessons do not acknowledge any other common Rule of Faith but the Scriptures it was necessary therefore for G. F. to confute them by express Scripture especially in that he had undertaken so to do and dar'd them to go to a tryal at than Tribunal See the Epistle to his Mystery I have been long in the answer of this Allegation because it seems to be the only thing of weight in his whole Book but you see how it disserves him Having now seen my Argument against G. F. confirm'd and improv'd with much bitterness by W. P. under pretence of vindicating him I might here fairly conclude but having added to my Argument in my Epistle that he had not only done to same or the like to that which he condemn'd in other but much more and that which was really conclemnable and urg'd my Instances to prove that also it may perhaps be sit for me to say something in vindiation of them or some of them from W. P.'s exceptions Though indeed if the Reader would but take the pains to compare my Epistle with his Answer and what I have here already written I might well spare mine and his further labour in this Matter But because every Reader may not have opportunity so to do I will proceed The first instance I have spoken to already The second Instance is form John 1.7 where G. F. applies that to the Light which John speaks of the Baptist vis That all men through him might believe Which taken as it is spoken proves that the preaching of John Baptist was a means of bringing all men to believe and consequently that the true Light may light every man by the foolishness of preaching or outward means which is contrary to the Quakers Doctrine of the Light and is avoided by his perverting the Text. The third Inst in from 2. Cor. 4.6 For God who commanded the Light to shine out of darkness hath shined in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ G. F. hath it thus When as Paul said that the Light which shined in their hearts to give the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ 1. He puts the light insted of God 2. He leaves out Light immediately before of the knowledge 3. The whole Sentence is non-sense and notwithstanding all this W. P. has the face to tell his Reader He obtrudes an arrant lie upon our very senses and call me wretched Scribler How idle How frivolous c. The error that 's couch'd here is 1. That God and Christ the Light are not distinct but all one 2. That by Light here is not meant Knowledge 3. That this Light is not an effect of Creation 4. Inst from Col. 3.10 where G. F. reads them for him and so takes away from us a proof that the New Man there spoken of is created W. P. saith in his defence If he did put Them for Himit is not false but if we in common discourse say you for thou he 'l say it's false 5. Rom. 2.15 G. F. puts Conscience for Thoughts because Conscience was more easily drawn to signifie the uncreated Light in every man 6. John 7.38 There he puts Christ's helly for the Believers belly to countenance the foresaid Notion 7. 2 Cor. 2.16 G. F. applies that to the immediate Word which is plainly spoken of the Apostles And W. P. that he may be true to his way of abusing me falsly saith I undertake to prove him to be an Impostor for putting the before Death and Life which the Translation doth not Did ever man make less conscience of what he wrote 8. Col. 1.23 Putting was for is to prove inward preaching without outward I have spoken of it before 9. 2 Cor. 13.5 Within you for in you to countenance as he supposes their Doctrine of God's immediate Light 10. 2 Cor. 3.6 G.F. saith The Scripture said The Letter was dead and did not give Life W. P. blames me for referring these words to this Scripture which is the nearest I can find but he finds no Scripture nearer to which to resen it How captious he is Paul saith The Letter â—illeth speaking of the first Covenant as W. P. confesseth but G. F. intends that the outward dispensation of the New Covenant in the Scriptures is dead An Opinion that has done no small mischief in the World 11. I have charged G. F. that twenty times or more as I suppose he denies that the Scripture is called Word but saith it is called a Treatise Acts 1.1 And yet that word there rendred Treatise is the same which is rendred Word when applyed to Christ But W. P. to help at a dead lift saith G. F. intended The Word of God by way of excellency Which of G. F. his Adversaries did ever affirm it was 12. But W. P. can desend him in any thing even when he obtrudes upon his Reader the grossest absurdity instead of Scripture and will not have it to be any more than a trivial Objection against his infallible Prophet when he saith And so to the Word Christ Jesus Him by whom the World was made before is was made This G. F. puts in a Scripture Letter and this he repeats in his Book at least seven times without any variation the eighth time he has it thus By which the World was made before it was made It 's evident enough he has respect to John 1.3 Without him was not any thing made that was made What saith his Chamption now But is there no allowance to be had for curt Expressions eseapos of the Pen oversight in Compositors and Errors in the Press
unno it a nuno sient tune praedestinatione sie nuno perfectione That it us then so also now as then in Predestination so also now in Perfection Secondly I shall declare the Opinion of the Leading Quakers concerning the Essence or Beeing of our Lord and Mediator Jesus Christ so far as the equivocation of their Writings will permit And it was as much as all the reputation of the Quakers is worth to be plain in this point therefore we must not expect it from them First Then for the God-head or Divinity of Christ in the confession whereof Mr. P. and G. W. do so much glory and boast Mr. P. in his Sandy Foundation hath brought many Texts of Scripture and five Arguments from right Reason to prove that God is the Holy ONE not it Holy THERE that ONE is God and God only is that Holy ONE He rejects there that impertinent distinction that he God is ONE in Substance but THREE in Persons or Subsistencies G. Whitehead defends this Position of W. P. in his Book called The Divinity of Christ where in the Name of the Quakers he confesseth That there are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and that these Three are One both in Divinity Divine Substance and Essence not three Gods nor seperate Beeings That they are called by several Names in Scripture as manifest to and in the Saints and are One infinite Wisdom One Power One Love one Light and Life c. I should have given G. F. the preheminence for I believe he is the Author of this Opinion among the Quakers he saith Myst. p. 142. Christ is not distinct from the Father and p. 199. they are not only One but all One. Hence it is manifest 1. that when they say Christ is God they mean nothing by Christ neither Substance nor Essence Person nor Subsistent especially in the sense of their Adversaries Wisdom or Power Light or Life or any thing else that is really distinct from that which the Jews mean by the God of Israel or the Mahometans by one God He that believes less must be an Atheist 2. That the Propositions Christ is God and the Father is God are of the very same import and signification even as to say W. P. is a Man or The Author of the Sandy Foundation is a Man So that respecting the time before Jesus was born the Father the Son or Christ did as much signifie one and the same intelligent and happy Person or Hypostasis as Paul and the Apostle of the Gentiles the same individual Man or Person And this is that Opinion which Ecclesiastical Writers attribute to Sabellius and they that maintain it are called by them Sabellians The consequence whereof is that the Son of God or Christ as God was at that time nothing but another Name of God or the Father and had no more Life Knowledge Power or Property distinct from the Life Knowledge Power or Properties of God or the Father than he that is not has from him that is And so all that the Quakers contend for when they seem so zealous for the Divinity of Christ is nothing in the World beside their own glory and the disparagement of their Adversaries save that God or the Father was or might be in those dayes called Christ or the Son of God or the Light c. Thus much touching the Divinity of Christ according to the Leading Quakers Now for his Humanity or his being a Man And we shall find that what-ever W. P. talks of Christ as Man and as God yet that he equivocates and deludes his Reader believing no such thing as Christ his being a Man or else he dissents from his Brethren which I suppose he will not own 1. G. F. for it 's fit he should lead doth in an insulting manner crow over his Antagonists for using the word Humane when they speak of the Nature of Christ see my Epistle p. 37. Where doth the Scripture saith he speak of Humane the word Humane In his Epistle before the Divinity of Christ Is God a Man No he is a Spirit Is the Holy Ghost a Man It is called the Holy Spirit and Christ was a Man the Man Christ Jesus If G. F. believed Christ to be now a man why did he not retain the Present Tense is but change it into was very roughly But that which we find in the Postscript of that Epistle will put the matter out of question where that Author out of Scripture defines a person to be a Man or Woman sometime the Body the Face or visible appearance of either He cites many Texts out of the Old Testament for that use of the word Person and saith that in the New it is mentioned with the same acceptation as before in the Old As for instance saith he Thou regardest not the Person of Men Mat. 22.16 Mark 12.14 Luk. 20.21 In the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. faciem hominum the face of men he cites Gal. 2.6 2 Cor. 1.11 Jud. 16. where the same word is rendred Person and concludes That the word Persons is attributed to men How now If Christ is a Man and a Man is a Person will not Christ be then a Person No such matter according to these mens Logick for immediately he goes about to vindicate the Greek Text 2 Cor. 2.10 from being translated Person of Christ and sayes it is translated face of Christ or sight of Christ and our Poly-glottist W. P. saith p. 11. Christs Person is strictly considered an unscriptural expression and will needs make me manifestly guilty of perverting Scripture for using it But what weight there is in his friends answer to that Text I see not for if a Person be a Man or the face of a Man as he defines it then if Christ be a Man he will be a Person and his face will be the face of a Person And if Christ be not a Person then he is not a Man for the definition of a thing and the thing defined are convertible But that they do absolutely deny Christ to be a Person or Man I prove further out of G. W's Book Christ Ascended p. 24. This manner saith he of excluding God's right hand and Christ to a limitation out of his People in a personal Beeing which are no Scripture terms still implies him to be a personal God or Christ like the Anthropomorphites and Muggletonians conceits of his Where note that he doth with equal contempt reject a personal Christ as a personal God and so Christ is no more a Person that God and consequently no more a Man for they deny God to be a Person Again p. 31. Is the Essence or Beeing of the Son of God personal And p. 37. He challengeth his Adversaries saying What rule in Scripture hast thou for these words visible God visible Christ c. And a little below Thou like the old heretical Egyptian Monks the Anthropomorphites and
omitted his many reproachful and virulent expressions Besides I doubt not but to make it as evident as the Sun at noon that W. P. is himself guilty of those very Crimes which he falsly charges upon me and in those very Instances Before I came to the main Argument of my Epistle to the Quakers I addressed my self to them by way of Introduction wherein I gave some reasons of that manner of Argument which I intended This Mr. P. first falls foul upon and by the honesty and discretion he useth here we may judge of his performance in the whole Treatise In his first and second Sections the Reader may take notice how greedily he catches at the commendations I give of some of them I said there were honest-hearted amongst them and he saith He is pleased to allow us at least a great many among us to be honest-hearted It may as well be understood of some few Is he not a modest man If his Neighbour say Honest-hearted he will have it at least a great many honest-hearted I said Whilst some of you excel in many things c. But W. P. like a man that will rob his Neighbour for praise rather than go without it saith thus Sect. 2. If we excel in all things as he confesseth Here W. P. has committed a double falsity 1. He puts all for many and 2. the Quakers indefinitely for some of them I have look't among the Printers Errata's whether he had not corrected all by many but find no such thing And if I should grant him that error without good reason yet the other piece of falsity viz. putting we the Quakers in general for some of them will abide by him to the gross injury of me and the shame of himself Doth he call me idle Boaster and at the same time vainly boast of the praise I never gave them In his third Sect. He calls those praises which by falsifying my words he wrings out paying them their due In his fourth Sect. he saith of me Nor doth he less then palpably belie us in telling the World we condemn all virtuous Persons whatsoever if not of our own Perswasion And yet I cannot understand his Answer to be less than an implicite concession of the Charge Sure I am G. F. denies the Worship and whole Religion of all Sects that differ from the Quakers It seems I belie them with a matter of truth which because it is not plausible W. P. would palliate You may see what he 's resolv'd on He saith Sect. 5. Christ's Person which he meaning me prejudicially sayes we deny is c. My words are these But you seem at least to deny his Person Is there no difference between denying and seeming to deny But I shall have occasion to speak further of this matter Only the Reader may take notice all along of his great honesty in quoting my words But this is a trivial fault in comparison with that which follows W. Penn Sect. 8. But saith he he promiseth for the future to decline this way of proceeding and withal to avoid the use of both Scripture and Reason c. I will not saith he give him the lie but I hope he will not say I am uncivil if I tell him He has already â—â—ntradicted himself and broke his word with us for within eight lines he that promised to relinquish all personal reflection layes to our charge c. And in p. 92. he has it up again and gives me the lie in plain English which he saith here he will not give me He words it thus First Then he has broke his word with us which in plainer English is he has told us a lie in assuring us at the beginning he would deal with us neither from Scripture nor Reason and yet undertakes both Now Reader have patience to hear my words which run thus But it is not my design at this time to take a full view of you And indeed I have found it very fruitless to deal with you by way of Reason and Scripture for your leading men c. It follows in my next page I will not therefore now deal with you so much by Arguments drawn from Reason and Scripture and depending purely upon the understanding and mind but by such Arguments whose evidence depends mostly upon the outward Senses Now let the sober Reader judge on whom the lie is to be fixed and whether I have not sufficient reason to tell him He is both uncivil and unchristian Behold here the infallible Minister the Censor of the World and of other mens foul language Behold the Spirit of Truth vindicated Let me beg of thee Reader to read his Book See how he treats me and what himself deserves Acknowledge the special hand of our Lord Jesus in giving up this man to these shameful failings in the very entrance of his work Pag. 15. Upon occasion of my savine they look upon themselves as led by an infallible Spirit this plain English-man takes up his Post and will defend this That God's Holy anâ—Vn-erring Spirit is or should be the proper Judge of Truth Rule of Faith and Guide of Life among men I commend him for his wit I have charg'd G. F. with about fifty such failures as for which he condemns his Adversaries to be perverters of Scripture and consequently Deluders and Blasphemers W. P. here in vindication of him enters into a long discourse of two and thirty pages to prove from Scripture Reason and humane Authority That G. F. is or if he is not should be led by an infallible Spirit for his Hypothesis is no other way to his purpose 1. I do not only willingly grant but contend for it That there was in G. F. at that time when he wrote his Mystery c. a Conscience which had he hearkened to he should thereby have been a Law to himself and it would not have suffered him to be guilty of such things as he condemns in others 2. I grant also that this Rule is infallible viz. That he that judgeth another for any thing is inexcusable if he do the same thing himself I grant 3. that God is the Author of this Conscience Light or Knowledge 4. That G. F. might have known the Rule aforesaid by a good use and improvement of his own understanding but I suppose he came to the knowledge of it by some outward Teaching or Tradition especially by the Scriptures And so 5. the Spirit of God may in a true and good sense be said to have taught G. F. that Rule because it inspired those that preached and wrote that Rule in the Scriptures 6. That the Spirit of God was ready to have assisted him in walking according to that Rule 7. That it may be God did by his Power and Providence work upon him toward obedience Lastly Perhaps the Spirit of God did at that time when he was about to disobey suggest to him his Duty and Rule But there is little reason to think so
because that Rule was sufficiently know to G. F. by the means aforesaid and God is not wont to give that special Gift but to his humble Servants and Friends or to those whom he will imploy upon some special business in the World And if he had such a suggestion the more notoriously wicked was he to disobey so great a Light Now if any judicious Reader will take pains to consider the 25 Texts W. P. has quoted and he may add 25 more to them with their Contexts I am perswaded he will find them every one to intend some of the Cases I have mentioned Now let us see if we can understand what W. P. intends by the terms of his Position for we must understand him as he understands the Scriptures not Literally but Mystically 1. We are to know that by God's Holy and Vnerring-Spirit he means if he means as the leading Quakers neither Hypostasis nor Person nor any thing else but God himself who is the Father 2. By Judge of Truth Rule of Faith Guide of Life he means That God doth immediately teach G. F. and every man to judge infallibly of all Truth what is to be believed and what to be practised For otherwise it is not intelligible That God should be the Judge of Truth c. among men And therefore 3. that the Scripture is as he saith pag. 38. much like the shadow of the true Rule which may give us some ground to guess what the Rule if self is In the next page he saith in effect That the Teachings of God are like the knowledge of the Princes Will and Secrets viva Voce or immediately which he that hath and every man ought to have heeds not so much the same when he meets it in print that is in the Scriptures They are like a Gazette to a Privy Counsellor But he saith That the eternal Spirit that is these immediate Teachings to be superior to those Writings So that when G. F. saith How can they but delude People that are not infallible This is to be heeded more than any sentence in Scripture and is superior to those Writings 4. He means by his Position that men are to be guided into Truth and Faith and good Life immediately in opposition to their endeavours studying the Scriptures setting themselves to Prayer Reasoning Preaching and the like that is such of these as are performed by us which he calls p. 84. Running in our own Wills poring beating of our Brains and daily striving Now if this be his meaning as manifestly it is then let any man that has read any of those Authors Books tell me whether he thinks that any one of those he mentions was of his mind that is Tollet or Maldonate Beza or Dr. Hammond or Hutchinson Socinus Selichtingius or Crellius Did they not all abhor that Doctrine It comes to this That God has made men with faculties capable of believing and understanding what the Will of their earthly Superior is by the means of Ministers Messengers Proclamations Writings c. and of obeying his Will heartily without immediate assistance But if our Heavenly Superior will have us to know or do his Will he must tell us immediately himself he must go along with us and lead us step by step or else he must expect no Service Duty or Obedience from us at all The truth is This Doctrine of the necessity of God's immediate Teaching doth overthrow the Mediatorship of the Man Christ Jesus our Lord and quite subvert the Gospel for mediate and immediate are directly contradictory Besides still we have gain'd nothing by this doctrine for if men do not hearken to the Un-erring Judge or mistake him or resist him against knowledge refusing to be led by him they fail as much as if they had no such Immediate Guide but a Mediate Guide and Direction Let Mr. Pen be the Example who even in the beginning of his Book has notwithstanding his immediate and infallible Guide run into five or six such palpable Falsities and Calumnics as I am consident the Cobler of Glocester would never have been guilty of nor any man else that had not been transported with pride rashness and revenge What has he gain'd then by his immediate Guide which another man that knows by Nature or Tradition he ought to speak truth is not equally capable of But why doth this Apologist spend so many Pages upon this Point and take no notice of my arguing in the following Lines which he saith I had obliged my self against Must it be past over therefore I am perswaded to use his words he was confounded at it It was to this effect We by your own confession have the Light within or the infallible Guide as well as you why then is not our Doctrine as true as yours You answer That we are not obedient we are in the customs of the World c. and therefore not to be heeded Thus you prove your selves to be in the Truth and us to be in Error not by Divine Reason and Holy Scripture but by the high opinion you have of your selves and your low opinion of others And it indeed they acknowledge that there are vertuous Persons that are of a contrary perswasion to them and none but who are guided by an infallible Spirit then they are no more certain than other men and we need still an infallible Judge I add If every man hath the I have a measure of infallible Light the least measure whereof convinces of sin especially gross sins such as Malice Envy Lying Murdering-Spirit c. which W. P. imputes to me But I am so far from having any such convictions that on the contrary my Conscience hears me witness of a hearty love to Truth and their Persons in what I have done and am a doing Therefore if their Doctrine be true his Imputation is false if his Imputation be true their Doctrine is false But enough of this Having now in this Introduction given the Reader a proof of W. P's faculty in accusing meek language faithfulness in representing my words and sense modesty in praising himself and Party evading of that which is weighty confidence in denying what they are charged with and his sense of the Spirits guidance We are pretty well prepar'd to make a conjecture of what we are to expect from him in the handling of the main Argument which I think fit first to give a short account of And I must tell you that it is Argumentum ad Hominem an Argument against G. F. formed out of his own words and runs thus He that is not Infallible in a Deluder But G. Fox is not infallible Therefore G. F. is a Deluder The Major Proposition as they call it is expresly proved by that Quotation out of G. F's Book where he faith How can ye be Ministers of the Spirit if ye be not infallible And How can they but delude people that are not infallible And again G. F. faith Is is not Blasphemy
What! eight times after the same manner Where was W. P.'s Conscience But can be not make sense of it Yes yes Suppose a Comma at the first made where and being understood explaineth the sense was maketh it more clear That 's one way Again Take the middle Clause and put in last interchanging the World and it thus And so to the Word Christ Jesus before the World was made him by whom it was made All this stir is to make it sense as for Scripturee 't is such as God's infallible Spirit in G. F. wirtes And may not a man at this rate excuse the groffest non-sense that ever was writ Go thy wayes for an admirable Advocate Once more let me ask the Reader what he thinks of the honesty of W. P. and whether he will excuse me hence-forward if I mingle any more Discourse with him It may benefit some or other therefore I will yet proceed a little further 13. Who can read Deut. 30.10 11 12 13 14. and not perceive that by the word very night unto them in their mouth and in their heart is meant the Word written And yet G. F. would have it to be the inward immediate Word and therefore in thy mouth must be left out as not well agreeing with that notion 14. It 's for the sake of that Notion that the Power of God is said by him to be the Gospel and the Gospel the Power of God as if they were convertible terms whereas the Apostle Paul sayes only That the Gospel is the Power of God not simply and absolutely but in a certain respect to Salvation to every one that believeth This I express't fully in my Epistle but W. P. would not see it but cries out Gross folly c. 15. Next you must know that the Quakers detest the thought of Christ's having the Essence of a man in any place remote from their own dear hearts and therefore when G. F. cites that Scripture Luk. 24.5 6. He must leave out of the very heart of the Text He is not here And W. P. will have it very aptly used to express the Mystical Resurrection but still he is not here must be out for that doth not quadrate with their fancy 16. And G. F. cites that Text Ephes 5.30 defectively to prove Christ not absent from his Church and W. P. avows it Indeed G. F. sayes He is deceiced who saith Christ is distinct from the Saints Myst p. 16. 17. But upon that Text Luk. 17.21 W. P. gives my chief exception a go-by takes no notice of G. F's changing The Kingdom of God into plain Heaven But if he had he abhors to think that Heaven is a visible place to be liv'd in bearing some resemblance to this visible World p. 12. 18. Amos 3.13 There G. F's applying that to Christ which is spoken of the Lord God favours their Doctrine of no distinction between God and Jesus Christ the Mediator and W. P. defends it on that account 19. The like may be said of 1 Cor. 15.28 where W. P. according to his usual candour tells me of Col. 3.11 but takes no notice of G. F. his citing Chapter and Verse which he is not wont to do 20. Joh. 1.1 God is the Word is defended by the same perverse Doctrine 21. So is his adding He or Christ to the Father Joh. 10.29 22. His palpable diminishing from Phil. 2.11 hath the same tendency and W. P. owns it G. F. in his own Cause would have exclaimed here as he doth upon the Ministers of Newcastle 23. W. P. talks of Brazen but I wonder with what face he could give such answer to John 15.25 which if it be not as G. F. cites it an addition to Scripture I never saw one nor ever shall What call for plain Scripture from another and at the same instant urge Scripture with addition himself He thinks if he can but make G. F. speak sense and truth in his Opinion he has done enough He may as well say all G. F.'s Book is Scripture for he believes it all as infallible as Scripture as if there were no difference between a Quotation and a Comment or Exposition But G. F. has said it Christ is not distinct from the Father That 's enough for W. P. though it subvert the Gospel 24. The like ground there is for inserting Christ into the Text 2 Pet. 2.1 which I have mentioned 25. And for putting God for Lord Rom. 14.9 26. And so he would confound God and the Holy Spirit by putting the one for the other 1 Cor. 2.10 14. And why did not W. P. answer what I urg'd rather then pass it by and call me Busy-body which is very easie 27. Add to these Col. 3.16 and John 17.5 which I am about to speak and we have 11 Texts abused to serve that goodly Doctrine of the Father Son and Spirit their not being distinct but all one A very trivial Matter that doth but subvert the Faith of Christ and introduce another Gospel 28. When G. F. sayes This is Scripture If we find it not there we must say He is mistaken and then he is fallible If he give us the sense of Scripture in other words and obtrude them for Scripture he corrects the Scripture instead of citing it Christ saith John 17.5 And now O Father glorifie thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the World was But G. F. Christ who was glorified with the Father before the World began W. P. cries out Sottish Ignorance and Enmity with a witness Did ever Christ of his Apostles or any sober man living chide or reprove a person if he did leave out or put in or change a word not in the least perverting the sense Yes G. F. doth it for expressing ye where it must be understood It seems then G. F. is no sober man in W. P's account and if so I know not how he should be a true Prophet But I have shew'd in my Epistle that he perverts the sense and that the Phrase is to be understood of the glory which Jesus had not in possession but in decree with the Father before the World was Here Mr. P. cries out lamentably That ever any man should undertake to correct others in that which doth not deserve it whilst the beam is in his own eye and is himself most guilty This is like the rest sutable to the honesty of Mr. P. that he should compare an Exposition of Scripture with a quotation of it And because the chief artifice of his Book is to render me odious and detestable under the name of Socinian mongrel-Socinian Bidlean and the like and for that takes no small occasion from my exposition of this Text I shall shew 1. that two great Authors no Socinians are of the same mind Grotius upon those words The glory which I had adds Destinatione tua in thy Decree Augstinus Et nuno clarifica me And now glorifie me Hoe est sient
spoken of And for so doing pretend the guidance of God's infallible Spirit And W. P. tells us p. 38. 'T is their Principle That the Eternal Spirit their Guide and Rule who in several Generations hath revealed a great part it seems not al of the things contained in the Scriptures to be superior to those Writings and below that The Scripture is much like the shadow of the true Rule I say of what use can this shadow of a Rule be to these Persons 2. Whether I did not take the most proper way of dealing with these men in my Epistle shewing to their senses that G. F. in his Ministry had asserted for Written and Spoken that which is not Written nor Spoken 3. Whether any ingenuous man could express a charge more modestly than I did when I said You seem at least to deny his Person seeing I have now and could then have prov'd that they not only seem to deny Christ's Person but do effectually deny it both in the sense of their Adversaries and in their own sense of that word 4. Whether Mr. Pen be not either a very weak man or was not in a great rage or both that he should write such a Book as this I have in hand when he might know before what I could produce against them For he might castly imagine that I could have recourse to that Christian Letter wherein these things had been represented to him which he received above twelve months agoe and takes no notice of 5. Whether he will impute it to Mr. P's want of all honestly and good Conscience or to a transport of Passion and Revenge that he makes such hideous out-cries of Sacriledges and Ingratitude toward Christ Jesus against those he calls Mongrel-Socinians because they will not own that God was called Christ before Jesus was born and in the mean time himself to deny whatsoever of Essence Substance Person Power Life or Happiness is attributable to Jesus as he is the Mediator between God and Men Lastly Whether the Reader will not freely give me himself and all other Christians a Supersedeas or Dispensation from ever writing or speaking any more about matters of Religion to such men that deny the Conclusion when their senses evidence all the Premises that condemn that falsity in other men which they excuse in themselves that palpably belie other men to get glory to themselves that deny Christ totally under his name and pretence of Zeal for his Divinity finally that are such notorious Equivocators as I have manifestly prov'd these men to be Nevertheless because Mr. P. has made it his great study to render me consequently what I have said thought 't is inconsequent enough odious detestable under the name of Socinian Bidlean and the like although I wrote nothing but what was approved by men of learning and piety and strangers to me and for ought I know to all my Friends I will therefore present to the Reader a short account of these mens opinion concerning Christ who for distinction sake call themselves Vnitarians being so called in those places where by the Laws of the Countrey they have equal liberty of Religion with other men or because they own but one Person and one Substance or Essence of the most High and Independent God and to distinguish them from other Christians that hold Three Persons and one Essence of God and are therefore denominated Trinitarians I say therefore that they are very zealous Assertors of the Unity of God and that is the reason as they solemnly profess why they cannot allow of three Persons in the God-head because they think it destroys his Unity or Oneness and I have shew'd that the Quakers W. P. especially do also disallow them Notwithstanding the Quakers according to their equivocating manner can call God the Father by the Name of Christ and the other cannot I know not that they differ in one tittle more concerning the one God But concerning the one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2.5 The Vnitarians willingly and heartily acknowledge that he was fore-ordain'd before the foundation of the World 1 Pet. 1.20 that he was born of the Virgin Mary by the coming of the Holy Ghost upon her and the power of the most High overshadowing her Luk. 1.35 and therefore he is called IS the Son of God likewise that he and no Man but he ascended into Heaven and descended thence John 3.13 being sanctified and sent into the World into which he came not to do his own Will but the Will of him that sent him John 6.30 that by reason of this mission and sanctification he did whilst he was here upon Earth deservedly challenge the Name of God or the Son of God John 10.34 35 36. in a far more excellent sense than either the Magistrates among the Jews that were called gods and Sons of the most High Psal 82.1 6. Or Moses who was God to Pharaoh Exod 7 8 and also to his Brother Aaron Exod. 4.16 Heb. or than any Angel who in the Dispensation of the Law did represent God and was therefore called by his Name Acts 7.35 Exod. 23.20 Gal. 3.19 see Jud. 13.22 And that as there was but one God then so there is but one God now notwithstanding that Jesus is God over all Unto which glorious and supream Dominion next to the most high God himself Jesus did attain by doing the Will of God fully and perfectly on Earth the perfection of which obedience was that being as is said in the form of God he thought it not robbery or a prey to be equal with God but made himself of no reputation c. and became obedient unto Death even the death of the Cross Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and given him a Name which is above every Name that at the Name of Jesus every knee should how and that every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father Phil. 2.6 7 8 9 10 11. That God hath made that same Jesus whom ye the Jews have crucified both Lord and Christ Acts 2.36 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour Acts 5.31 God raised him seem the dead and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places far above all principality and power c. For by God's exalting Jesus and setting him at his right hand they understand that the same Man Jesus that was crucified and raised from the dead was also taken up in the sight of the Apostles into Heaven a Cloud receiving him out of their sight Acts 1.9 And that he is there having not now a Body of Flesh and Blood for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15.50 but an heavenly spiritual incorruptible and glorious body of a Man the like whereof all Saints shall have in the Resurrection when this Man Jesus shall descend from Heaven to judge the World that in the
renders all Discourse vain and inessectual Or is it possible to convince those men by Reason that will deny the evidence of Sense Besides how can there be either end or fruit of writing where a man shall not only musunderstand things that are plain but impute to his Adversary Words and Sayings of his own coyning and proceed to the bitterest reproaches thereupon and in the mean time omit to take notice of Matters of moment Therefore I have entituled this Discourse CONTROVERSIE ENDED for I am bold to affirm that it must either be ended here or if not It may be continued infinitely upon the same grounds What remains then to be done but earnestly to beg of God through Jesus Christ that he would give them repentance to the acknowlegment to the Truth O Holy Jesus who wast dead but art alive and livest for evermore who wast crucified through weakness but livest through the Power of God to whom God even thy Father hath given al Power in Heaven and Earth who canst be touched with the feeling of our Infirmities for thou wast in all things tempted as we are Have pity upon these men who some of them have a zeal of God but not according to knowledge work in them Humility and enlighten the eyes of their minds that they may acknowledge thee to be their Lord and the Mediator between God and Men that they may no longer despise that Knowledge and Faith of thee which is by Preaching or Tradition through the Holy Scriptures but may contend earnestly for the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints Have morey upon me O Lord pardon mine Infirmities and judge whether I have not been as careful not to wrong them in this Work as I would have them or any man to be of not injuring me and grant that it may be fo benefit and advantage to many and that thou mayest be glorified thereby Amen POSTSCRIPT NOw it will appear whether there be any prudent and houest men among the Governing Quakers by their dealing with W. P. for this Book of his for I appeal to the Reader whether he thinks there be any such inconsiderable Society of Christians in England that would not either have requir'd a publick acknowledgment of his Offence or have disown'd that Member which should have wrote in their Desence a Book of 138 papges and but two of them that is p. 130 and 131. that have any pertinency of Auswer to their Antagonist's chief Argument and that also which is there alledg'd to be partly false and altogether inconsequent save against himself But to contain many pages that directly confirm and aggravate the Charge brought against them and moreover to be so stuff with palpable calumnious and self-praysing untruths and virulent Language that it makes their Cause and Dealing odious in the sight of sober men all which I have prov'd W. P. to have done in relation to the Quakers It will easily appear to the considering Reader that I have for brevity sake omitted to impprove many Advantages which my rash Adversary has given me contenting my self to in timate them and so proceed And he that has diligently and judiciously read my Epistle and his Answer may perceive that I have not so much as intimated divers things of much advantage to my Cause and Person Among those is that Passage in p. 136. where he essayes to answer some of my Reasons for keeping my Name from them and sayes very civilly That I horribly bilie them why wherein Not in this That there are some of their Writers that make it a great part of their Answers to Books the reproaching the Author Let this very Book of W. P. be an Instance How many Sheets must it have wanted if all of that kind had been substracted Not in this That they are very Rhetorical in that point I am perswaded W. P. could not Rhetoricate so well in the praise of any Person in the World G. Fox not excepted as he hath in reproach of me He has taken up one of Muggleton's peculiar Phrases wherewith to abuse me and my Friends calling us Serpentine Associates It 's like Muggleton had us'd it in W. P's hearing and W. P. according to his nature was taken with it and so bestowed it upon his next Adversary Neither in this do I belie them that if they had my Name then it must be considered what Party I am of and accordingly all that is odious or so reputed either in the Doctrine or Practice of the whole Party must be raked up against me Let his Book be witness whether he has not dealt so with me even upon a suspition of my name But saith he we never charg'd the infirmities of a single Person further then upon that guilty Person unless he were connived at or justifyed in his wickedness by any whole Party Now here lies the Wit If any part of the Charge be not found apparent all the rest how manifest soever must go for a horible lie But W. P. kind Man will not put me to much trouble in searching for an Instance It is but turning back to p. 7. and there I find a single Person described as it were in a Hue and Cry and his being wanting in the very Alphabet of common civility attributed plurally to him and me at least and I think to all the Party that W. P. assigns for us Has he not then rak'd up against me what is odious or so reputed both in the Doctrine and Practice of a Party and of a particular Person Which he can never prove me guilty of justifying in that case Another Instance shall be of an elder date see the Epistle to G. Whitehead's Divinity c. where G. F. tells the Presbyterians and Independents that when the people of God called Quakers were gathered together in divers places to Worship God then you said They were plotting together against Oliver whom some of you called the Light of your Eyes and Breath of your Nostrils to bring in King Charles If they can make it appear which I much doubt that one or another Presbyterian or Independent did suggest any such thing against them it can never be believed by any sober Man that that Person was connived at or justifyed therein by one or both Parties Presbyterians or Independents and yet here G. F. and J. S. impute it to them both indefinitely and that so as thereby to insinuace that the Quakers were generally at least esteemed Friends to the King and sufferes upon that account But the Presbyterians and Independents Friends to Oliver and Enetnies to the King and the Quakers O the Candour and Simplicity of G. Fox O the Modesty and Meekness of W. Pen Again Inreference to their calling men Tinker or Tayler W. P. replyes We never told the World mens Trades in a way of detraction or reproach our Souls abbor it When he has taken shame to himself in the ingenuous acknowledgment to the World of those untruths I have prov'd him guilty of then he may better be believed In the mean time who can believe that G. W. did not call Bunyan the Tinker by way of detraction when he adds immediately a rayling envious man and in a late Pamphlet calls rayling Language Tinkers-Rhetorick Besides Tinker is a term of reproach and he that is such may by Stature be punished as a Rogue FINIS The Book intituled The Spirit of the Quakers tryed c. is to be had at the Elephant and Castle heat the Royal Exchange in Cornhil London Why may not he prophane Scripture to abuse men Mystery Epist It had been to be desired that he had not failed in his English in this place The instances of these things out of G. F's Book are to be seen in my Epistle p. 5 6. The Mystery of the great Whore I suppose they will not deny that writing to all the Worlds in defence of Religion is Speaking or Preaching or equivalent * Here this great Linguist has forgot to write good English that is his Mother Tongue What an unworthy thing is it in W. P. to intimate p. 67. that I would have the Text rendered Haec est lux illa vere quae venientem in mundum illuminat omnem hominem Ambiguitatem sustulisset See p. 68 c. W.P. p. 13. W. P. p. 117. P. 127. Divinity of Christ Pref. P. 119. He chargeth me p. 61. with driving at the Divestigating Christ of all right to eternal Divinity This is learned non sense G. F's spirit could never elevate him to such a degree of Jargon Besides except he can produce some Author for it which I am perswaded he cannot I shall conclude him the first that ever us'd the word divestigate or divestigare in any sense whatsoever Though the word One is not in the Hebrew in some Texes where he so confidently puts an Emphasis Yet eight lines after himself confounds and abuses Scripture Heb. 2.16 with Rom. 4.5 Non-sense as was observed before pag. 68. pag. 92. Tradita