he loâ—â— Suffering thou froward he was good to his Enemiâ—â— thou base to thy Neighbours Surely thou hast forgâ—â— that if thou walkest as he walked thou must have do with that dangerous Doctrine of Perfection as thou else where reputest it But at thy Rate of quoting this Scripture and following of Christ thou mayst as well bring in Circumcision and the Passover as Baptism and the Supper Christ told his Disciples The Spirit should lead them into all Truth after his Ascension and his beloved Disciple John referred the Churches to the Anointing C. You tell us these Ordinances were used as Figures and Shadows no longer to endure then till the Substance comes viz. The Baptism of the holy Ghost The Reason can be no other then the vain Conceit of a deluded mind for they are no Figures of the Baptism of the Spirit therefore this can be no Reason for the abolishing of them Christ commands his Apostles to teach and baptize promising to be with them to the End of the World Q. Who ever said that Breaking of Bread was a Figure of the Spirit 's Baptism It 's a meer Fiction of thy making as p. 107. of Reas against Rail will shew But if Water-Baptism and Breaking of Bread are no Figures nor Shadows they must be Substances and what Difference then there is between thee and Popery in this Point let the Reader judge And for Christ's bidding his Disciples Go teach baptizing Matth. 28. I told thee That no Water was mentioned and that Luke in the first of the Acts sayes before the Commission mentioned by Matthew could be given at least executed John baptized with Water but ye shall be baptized with the holy Ghost not many Dayes hence And then comes the Commission in Force Go teach baptizing how with the holy Ghost turning People from Darkness tâ— Light from the Power of Satan unto God C. If the Baptism of the holy Ghost do put this Commission in Force as thou saist then the Obligation to those Duties signified in the Commssion cannot be taken off If so thy Argument falls Q. A poor Shuffle indeed Does my Argument fall because thou beggest the Question which is Whether their Baptism be with Water or the holy Ghost C. If Baptism of Water be not intended then none not the Baptism of Afflictions for the Apostles were not to persecute Not the Baptism of the holy Ghost for that was a Promise not a Commission p. 63. Q. Thou dost but triffle with us still Though to be baptized was a Promise yet to baptize was a Commission To be baptized not many Dayes hence was the Promise of Christ but go and baptize all Nations which followeth was a Commission and that it was with no other Baptism Christ's Distinction sufficiently proves viz. John indeed baptized with Water but ye shall be baptized with the holy Ghost not many Dayes hence stay till then and go and teach baptizing all Nations c. C. To baptize with the holy Ghost was none of their Duty it being properly Christ's Work p. 63. Q. It was both their Work and Duty witness that Simon Magus would have bought that Gift of Peter And that Paul baptized with the holy Ghost Acts 19. Did he not therein do his Duty C. Is it proper to say I baptize you with the Spirit into the Name of the Spirit Q. Yes if thou hast the Spirit unless thou wouldst make a counterfeit Christiaen of him whom thou without the Spirit baptizest into the Name of the Spirit wouldst thou have a Man baptized into the Name and not into the Nature of the Spirit Can a Man baptize into Spirit and into Life without Spirit and Life God did convert reconcile baptize beget and build up Thousands to himself by them unto whom the VVord of Reconciliation was committed and who were Embassadors in Christ's stead Now as for Water-Baptism what Paul sayes of himself I may say of his Commission It was not behind any of the rest yet he denies Water-Baptism to be any Part of it and is as plainly rejected of him in Point of Institution as any Thing in Scripture So that either Water-Baptism is none of Christ's Institutions or else Paul had no Commission to perform Christ's Institutions which were strange T. Collier determines this The Baptism of Christ is the Baptism of the Spirit But if any of you can shew a larger Commission then Paul had let him produce it if not I must conclude they Run and are not Sent. §. VII Of the Doctrine of Justification I Perceive â—y what thou hast writ of Justification thou intenâ—st to end at the rate thou hast manag'd the Controversie all along I mean with the same shuffles and injustice I will set down thy Charge the Answer thou makest me give and thy Reply C. Thou hast holdly affirm'd that Justification by that Righteousness Christ fulfilled for us wholely without us to be a Doctrine of Devils Apol. pag. 148. What sayst thou is this Q. This Apology cited was written against a malitious Priest in Ireland Reas ag Rail p. 68. If thy Position cannot be prov'd it will be no Excuse to say It was given to a malitious Priest yea thy Folly and Rashness is the more aggravated c. p. 96. Q. As if I had given that Answer not to inform Persons against whom the Book was writ and the Occasion of the Passage but as one unable to say any thing in my Defence to extenuate the Fact and Excuse my writing it I perceive rather then want Occasions to Abuse me thou wilt make them But what sayst thou concerning Justification C. Thou supposest the Doctrine of Justification by that Righteousness which Christ fulfilled wholely without us to be a Sin-pleasing and dangerous Notion What Reason hast thou so to esteem it p. 67. Q. I do so taking my Words in my Sense and my Reasons are 1st Because wholely witâ—out us is an unscriptural phrase 2 dly It takes away the necessity of all Inward Work 3 dly No man is justified without Faith No man hath Faith without Sanctification and Works therefore the Works of Righteousness by the Spirit are necessary to compleat Justification C. Whether a sincere Faith is necessary to our Justification is one thing But whether such a Faith be our sole Righteousness by which we are Justified is another p. 67. Q. And whether T. H. be not aâ— idle Shifter is another thing Was it the Question Whether our Faith were the sole Righteousness to Justification or whether Justification were by a Righteousness wholy without us and our Faith too If a sncere Faith be necessary then because Faith is not Faith without Work Justification is not wrought wholely without I told thee before that this Doctrine of thine speaks Peace to the Wicked whilst wicked But there is no Peace to the Wicked saith my God C. It is horrible wicked to conclude that what Christ hath done and suffered without us is to speak Peace to the Wicked whilest such
Q. Râ—gâ—t but who is the Man Not W. P. for opposing a Doctrine which leaves men as wicked as it found them yea encourages them in it I appeal to the sober Reader if it be all one to say that Justification by the Righteousness of Christ wholely without which leaves the Conscience as polluted as ever is to speak Peace to the Wicked whilest Wicked and to affirm that what Christ hath done and suffered without us is to speak Peace to the Wicked whilest wicked Thy indirect Consequences T. H. are to obvious and numerous to deceive any ordinary Reader But what sayst thou to my Distinction about Justification Christ's VVork was two-fold 1st to remit forgive or justifie from the imputation of sins past such as truly repent and believe 2dly By his Power and Spirit working in the hearts of such to destroy and remove the very Nature of Sin to make an end of it to finish Transgression present and to come The first removes the Guilt the second tne Cause of it Me thinks this should a little allay thy Clamours C. This Distinction of the Work of Christ proves not what thou hast asserted viz. That Justification is not by imputation of anothers Righteousness much less that such a Justification is a Doctrine of Devils p. 72. Q. This shews thee weary of the VVork or else â—hou wouldst not so soon after my Distinction continue in thy mis-construction of my VVords for the clearing of which my Distinction was made I grant that such as Repent and Believe receive Remission or a justifying from former Sins through the Righteousness of God declared in and by Jesus Christ But is this Compleat Justification it is a making Inwardly Just through a Purging out of Iniquity and Mortifying of Corruption and bringing in Christ's Everlasting Righteousness If not then to exclude this and yet conclude men compleatly justified by what Christ hath done wholely without is a Doctrine of Devils for it leaves men in an impure state and allows the Devils Kingdom to continue in being In short it is as much as to say that W. Pen calls what Christ hath done for Men without a Doctrine of Devils because W. P. asserts that to be a Doctrine of Devils which maketh all that is necessary for Mans compleat Justification before God to have been wrought by Christ wholely without thereby excluding the necessity of the Just-working or Just-making Power of Christ from Man to that VVork Well but I also told thee of the necessity of Faith and Repentance even to the first part of Justification consequently that men cannot be justified in any sense without regard had to any inward VVork viz. Of Sanctification without which there can be no true Believing C. Though this be more close to the point then any thing thou hast spoken yet it is not close as to prove thy Position For if Repentance be but a Condition then it is not the sole Righteousness for which we are justified p 73. Q. Produce me but one Passage of ours that ever spoke that Languâ—ge and I will yet say thou hast not wronged us Besides this Answer is wide from thy purpose though it comes very close to mine For from contending for Justification by a Righteousness wholely without the Question thou art come now to contend against a Justification by a Righteousness wholely within which was not the Question C. But thou sayst Abraham 's personal Obedience was the Ground of his being accounted Righteous If so Then we are not made Just by a Righteousness perform'd without us but by a Righteousness perform'd by our selves But then What wilt thou say to this Text If Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory but not before God Rom. 4.2 p. 77 78. Q. The Apostle James beares me out in what I said for if Abraham were justified by works as said James then his Obedience to God's Spirit which makes up those VVorks gave him acceptance in God's sight and let T. H. say if he dare that Abraham was not justified in God's sight in his resigning up Isaac for a Sacrifice and if he were how do I err But that I might not be thought to oppose one Apostle to another know Reader that the Apostle James speaks of such Works as were not performed in Abraham's own strength but through Faith and his Obedience to God's Spirit and therefore Evangelical And the Justification they lead to was a daily Acceptance with God The Works the Apostle Paul speaks of were meerly Abraham 's in his own power as those of the Jews from the Law therefore not justifying before God in any sense least of all could they merit Remission or purchase Abraham those great Blessings and peculiar Favours that it pleased Almighty God to bestow upon him above others Works and Justification thus distinguish'd and allow'd prevent Mens setting one in oppâ—sition to the other and here Paul may come in without contradiction to James If Abraham were justified by Works he hath whereof to glory but not before God The whole Chapter concerns a justifying by the Remission of Sins that are past as the following Verses evidâ—nâ—e Even as David also describeth the Blessedness of the Man unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without Works saying Blessed are they whose Vnrighteousness are forgiven and whose Sins are covered Blessed is the Man to whom the Lord will not impute Sin Rom. 4.6 7 8. So that the Righteousness not obtainable by the Works of the Law ver 16. and the Justification which Abraham's own works could not procure which is obtain'd by Faith in the Love of God is here explain'd to be the Forgiving of Iniquity and the covering of Sin But this is far from maintaining thâ— Compleatness of Justification from a Righteousness wholely without Testimonies concerning Justification Erasmus We grant to be justified by Faith that is Hearts to be purged See Fascul rerum expetend p. 129. De amabili Eccles concord The Fathers were just by the Righteousness of the Law in them Iren. l. 4. c. 30. Noah Abraham c. were just by the Law natural that is eternal Tertullian Adv. Jud. p. 184. Clem. Alex. saith That Abraham was justified by Faith but that Faith he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a perâ—ect purgation lib. 1. praed Justin Martyr Defens ad Anton. saith Socrates â—ved with the Word and that he knew Christ in part Defens ad Senat. That was by the Light within How could he know him otherwise Scultetus p. 38. of his Medulla saith There are some at this day of his Opinion and that do reckon Melchizedek Abimelech Ruth Rachab the Queen of Saba Hiram Naaman c. among Christians H. Bullinger Dâ—cad 1. serm 6. de Justif To justifie signifieth to â—â—mâ—t offences to clense to sanctifie and to give utterance of Life Everlasting Again Justification is taken for Remission of Sins for Sanctification and Adoption into the number of the Sons of God §. VIII Of Personal Reflections T. H's Scurrulous Language The
him for this great Scandal to their Profession But suppose I meant the whole Law of God in that place I see no worse Consequence from my words then this That so far as man's Obedience to God's Law is requisite to his Acceptance so far only Christ became our Example For as he was not our Pattern in things that more peculiarly related to him to perform and finish so was he no more then our Pattern in that which is our constant Duty to do Now let T. H. snap and catch what he can with all his Legâ—rdemains pag. 69. only take this along with him That by his Reflection upon that Argument viz. That Christ hath not SO fulfilled the Law for us as to exclude our Obedience from being requisite to our Acceptance he implies a Denyal of the Nâ—cessity of Obeying the Law of God to Acceptance with God A Doctrine suited to his Practice contrived and continued to the Ease of Hypocrites no wonder he struggles so hard for it for without it nothing but Horror would surround him though at this rate he must not alwayes expect to escape the Blow I mean not assassinating of him a Trick that lives nearer his Complexion then mine but that Vengeance Which is the Recompence of every Soul that loveth and maketh a Lye With you the People called Anabaptists I leave this Section Right us Right your selves Right our Profession of such an Unfair Adversary and your selves of so Scandalous an Advocate § II. That T. Hicks has grosly Perverted our Writings TO Forge is bad but to Pervert may in a Senâ—e be worse since it is to mis-use true words and by Disguise twist them to a Sense never intended when many times that which is false it undiscernably swallowed for the sake of something that 's true This was another Charge I exhibited againâ—t T. Hicks and an Argument by which I proved him no Christian I frequently in my Book took Occasion to detect him of this Unworthy Practice and more especially by 26 instances under a distinct Head containing ten pageâ— our Principles in one Column and his Perversions in another but he seems dumb to the Charge Shall I enter him mute that may alter but not excuse the Punishment Assâ—ssinating always excepted I shall Reader for thy sake and the Truth 's produce some of them that those to whom this may come may have some Account of his Carriage in his former Dialogues I. From our Belief of the Light 's Sufficiency to save he infers That all other Means are needless Dial. 1. p. 36 37. not considering it was not the Light 's Insufficiency but man's Weakness that occasion'd them He might object Insufficiency as well against God Christ Spirit Grace c. II. From our making the Illumination in man to be a natural Emanation or Product of the divine Word which made all things he wickedly turns it to An Effect of God's Power and so sayes we would make Beasts and Trees c. also divine Ibid. p. 4. III. From our asserting that the Light of Christ shineth within the Hearts of Wicked as well as Good Men He tells People in our Name that he is in the Heart of every Wicked Man as he is in his Saints Cont. p. 45 46. Though through Rebellion they partake not of his Life Power c. IV. From our affirming that God is the Teacher of his â—eople He infers That we deny all Ministry and Visible Worship though they stand in God's Power and Spirit 1 Dial. p. 42 43. V. From our believing Christ to be in his People according to express Scripture and that as such he is crucified by Wicked Men He infers That we deny Christ to be as well without as within or that he was ever crucified in the Flesh 1 Dial. p. 44. Contin pag. 37 40 42. VI. From our denying of their rigid Satisfaction that is that Christ was punished by his Father for our Sin and that Sins past present and to come are answered for And that men may be Holy by Virtue thereof though not new but old Creatures and so unholy in themselves He unworthily concludes That We disown Christ's Death and Sufferings as a Propitiation that it carried away Sins past and sealed Remission in his Blood to as many as believe And that we expect to be both forgiven and accepted not for Christ's sake nor in his Sacrifice Righteoussness but our own Works 1 Dial. p. 9 10. Contin 48 49 50 51 52 53. VII From our pleading for a Perfection from Sin and the Duty of growing to the Fulness of the Measure c. He infers Our Denyal of Perfection in Degrees and our Belief of as high a Degree of Perfection in this World as hereafter Dial. 1 pag. 48 49 50 51. VIII Because we say that such Works as are wrought by the Holy Spirit in us are necessary to Eternal Life and may in a sense be said to obtain it since the Lord hath â—o freely offered it upon the Condition of believing and â—being which are the Fruits of the Spirit of God in man T. Hicks suggests in our Name That we expâ—ct to merit â—ternal Life by our good Works and those of our own Working as the Spider weaves his Webb out of his own Bowels Dial. pag. 38. Contin pag. 51 52. IX Because we say All Spiritual Liberty stands in God's Power that redeems from Sathan's Snares He inferreth That who are not of our Way should have no Liberty Cont. pag. 85. X. Because we say The Scriptures are not the great Gospel Rule but the Spirit The Dispensation of the Spirit being that of the Gospel more peculiarly and that without it we cannot understand or savingly believe any thing declared of in the Scripture and therefore that it is our Rule for believing the Scriptures them selves He basely suggests That the Quakers cast off alâ— Precepts in the Scriptures and so will not bring their Cheats and Impostures to the Test thereof counting them of no more Authority then Esop's Fables Dial. 1. p. 20 21 22 23 24 30 31 32 33 34 35 36. Contin Epist to the Reader Behold your Anabaptist-Preacher XI From our preaching men to a lost God and Christ that is to God and Christ whom they have lost Fellowship with He perverts it to our believing That God and Christ were in a lost or undone Condition Cont. p. 49. XII From our asserting that what was a Command to any Servant of God in old time is not so to us because so to them that is such as Moses's going to Pharoah the Performance of Types Shadows and Figurâ—s appointed for a Season and to pass off unless requir'd by the same Spirit anew He falsly infers That those Moral and Eternal Precepts Thou shalt have no other God but me Thou shalt not Murder Commit Adultery Steal Bare False Witness c. are not binding upon us but that we give our selves the Liberty of such horrid Principles as the contrary to those Principlâ—s and
all this wreâ—â—ing Is it to conclude therefore the Light within is insufficient which may as well be inferred against God Christ and the Holy Spirit for he makes me to exclude all other Wayes of Diâ—covery theâ— what is made by Scripture If an Account be wanting the Light of Christ is as sufficient now as it was in the Time of Moses and the Prophets who wrot both of Things past and to come But a Relation being with us the Light of Christ doth nâ—thing unnecessarily But 't is like T. H. degenerates not from his Ancestors he can cry Come down and save thy self c. 4. From our asserting the Works of the Spirit in us necessary to our compleat Justification or Acceptance with God he insinuates Our making those Works the meritorious Cause of our Salvation Dial. 3. p. 69. which is manifestly denyed and rejected by me in my Answer p. 72 73 82 83 86. whiâ—h he no more regards then if it never were The Trick of an unfair and shuffling Adversary 5. From my asserting the Necessity of an inward Work of Righteousnesâ— by the Power of Christ in these Words of the Apostles to the Galatians Let every Man prove his own Work then shall he have Rejoycing in himself and not in another He to make his Ends upon me infers That the Doctrine of Christ dying for Sinners hath nothing in it as the Ground of our Rejoycing For our Rejoycing must be in our selves not in another Dial. 3. p. 69 70. That Reader which aggravates this wretched Consequence by him charged upon me is first that he sayes it is plainly deducible which is so plain a Wrest And next that they are the Apostle's Words and not mine of which he makes so ill an Use Is this to make the Scripture his Rule that is so unruly in his Abuse of them I am sure a lying and an abusive Spirit has been his Rule throughout his three Dialogues which God rebuke 6. The sixth Perversion is as follows Being formerly assaulted by T. Hicks Cont. p. 50. for having said in a Book entituled The Serious Apology c. p. 148. That Justification by a Righteousness wholy without us is a Doctrine of Divels I undertook my Defence and performed it in my Answer to his other Dialogues from p. 68. to p. 98. I distinguished upon the Word Justification first as it might be taken barely for the Remission of Siâ—s or the acquitting Men of the Guilt and Punishment due to Sin which was the free Love and Mercy of God upon Repentance dâ—clared in Christ's Death as a Propâ—tiation for the Sins of the whole World and therefore not to be merited by the best Works we can perform 2dly As it imported a being made inwardly just by the bringing in of Christ's Everlasting Righteousness to the Soul To leave out this latter and make the former only sufficient whereby Men are left in an unjust and unrighteous State I affirmed to be a Doctrine of Devils But notwithstanding this plain and scriptural Distinction to satisfie T. Hicks would he but be satisfied what I meant by Justification He is so unjust to me as to infer in my Name That I account the Doctrine of Christ's Death in the Nature of a Sacrifice to declare the Righteousness of God for the Remission of Sins that are past because transacted without us a Doctrine of Devils Dial. 3. p. 72 73 74. Canst thou Reader in earnest think this Man makes Conscience of his Endeavours against us who commits these frequent Abuses against our Books Persons and Principles As if because I acknowledged Christ's Death to be in the Nature of a Sacrifice to declare God's Righteousness in the Remission of Sins that are past unto them that believe c. to be one Part of Justification that this Transaction was confessedly without us even while we were Sinners c. that therefore I should call this the Doctrine of Devils because without us though the Word wholy be not there upon which lay the Stress and which was only said by me of a Justification that wholy excludes Christ's Righteousness revealed within to the making Man Just unworthily applying that Reflection to the beginâ—ing of Justification that I have so expresly owned which was made against a Doctrine no wayes concern'd in this true and Gospel-Justification In short If Justification by Christ's Righteousness without us be the same with being justified by Christ's Righteousness wholy without us then T. H. is not so bad a man as I have represented him But if there be any Difference as undeniably there is aâ—d a material One too then T. H's Inference and Conâ—luâ—ion in my Name make a foul Perversion 7. The last Perveâ—sion I at this time think fit to mention is his last both in his Epistle and Book to wit from my saying upon a sad Consideâ—ation of his many Miscarriages towards us That his Head shâ—uld not go down into the Grave in Pâ—ace he thus interprets my Words I must take them either as a Prediction or as a Menace of some Mischief he himself or sâ—me influenced by him intend to perpetrate upon me The former I fear not the latter is most Probable as if Reader his not fearing a Prediction implies my not meaning a Prediction But why is the former not feared the lattâ—â— more probablâ— because he would render me a Murderâ—r as his following Words sufficiently evidence Wherefore sayes he I desire all to whom this Book may come that if at any time they hear of any Violence offered me or that I be ASSASSINATED they would remember these Words of W. Penn. that my Head shall not go down to the Grave in Peace Epist Book End Now though this miserable Construction be ridiculous with wise Men and rejected of several of his own Way and so unlikely a Thing in it self that I should proclaim that to be my Design that leads to tâ—e Gibbit viz. Murder yet I was unwilling to pass it by since first it rather renders him to be the Mâ—n he suggests me to be And secondly It aggravates the Sin of his false Construâ—tion because to insinuate it the better he has left out all these Words going before anâ— afteâ— that had they been mentioneâ— woâ—ld have detected his Malice viz. Though thou hast bestâ—wâ—d much Time to abuse our Friends in general aâ—d my self in particular a Stranger to thee yet I can forgive thee Oh that these heavy Things might not be laid to thy Charge God will visit for these Vnrighteous Dealings if thou desist not Now Reader if I forgive how can I Assassinate and if it be God's visiting Hand how can it be mine or any influenced by me Again these following Words were the next to those by him cited viz. Yea the Light within will bear Witness to the Truth of these Things on thy DYING-BED and then remember me How comes this T. H. to be omitted Dying-Beds do not use to be unnatural Deaths Nor will the Light within
which hath been the Cause why so many have been bewildred about the things there declared Spiritual and heavenly Things are not diâ—cernable by carnal Men they are hid from their Eyes till the Light shine out of Darkness to give them the Knowledge of the Scriptures they are as a sealed Book and they labour in a Labyrinth of Uncertainties I do say again The Light in all Ages hath made known Doctrines fit to be obeyed though not the Histories and Narratives of other Mens Actions which is thy silly Objection against the Light 's Sufficiency But one thing I must not forget on which thou didst not depend a little as an Instance to prove thy Conceit viz. How could we have known that Swearing in any Case were unlawful if it had not been written in the 5th of Matthew Swear not at all Dial. 1. p. 22. But this I proved to thee to have been revealed above 400. Years before that was written but what is the Reason thou over-lookest that Answer Clinias was taught by it rather to suffer a great Fine then swear the Essaeaens had rather dye then swear which was long before Christ came in the Flesh Was not the Light then a sufficient Rule for their practising of an Evangelical Doctrine by thy own Argument But T. H. art thou not greatly ashamed that because I supposed upon thy Principle thy Light and Rule to be two Reas against Rail p. 39. That therefore I contradict my self and overthrow mine own Opinion saying If Light be given to understand the Rule then it self is not the Rule much less greater then the Rule and as if thou hadst come rightly by this Consequence falling into thy customary Insults telling me Tâ—is is so far from being Truth against Fiction that it discovers me to be a rash heady confident and ignorant Man one that neither cares what he sayes or affirms Hadst thou any Regard to God thy own Conscience thy Neighbour or thy own Reputation thou wouldst never commit much less continue to practise these horrid Wrongs against me However as I said before so again I affirm that supposing the Scriptures were the Rule that which informs me of the Rule and teaches me how to use it must be greater then the Rule in that it teaches me to know and do what the Rule cannot do of it self I query then if tâ—is Light be not the Rule how and which way I come to understand and use the Scriptures c. therefore eminently the Rule the Terms of my Argument for the Question lay not upon particular Rules C. The Primitive Christians took not their Measures from the Light within but from the Will of God revealed to them p. 46. Q. This is Confusion it self Are the Light within and the Will of God revealed inconsistent things Who was it revealed to them Paul turned from Darkness to Light the Will of God but the Light And what was it taught them the Truth when John said They had received an Anointing which abode in them and taught them all things unto which he directed and with which he left them John 1. 2 27. And doth not the same Apostle tell us If we walk in the Light we have Fellowship one with another c Was not the Light then the Rule of their Obedience and the Way in which they were to walk for the Accomplishment of that Prophetick Speech Isa 2.5 Oh ye House of Jacob come ye and let us walk in the Light of the Lord. And is there any thing plainer then that the Apostle Paul describes the Children of God to be such as are led by the Spirit of God Rom. 8.14 and that he exhorts the Galatians to walk in the Spirit chap. 5.16 and the Ephesians to walk circumspectly which was according to the Manifestations of the Light chap. 5.14 15 16. Finally does not the same Apostle pronounce Peace on as many as walk according to the Rule of the Nâ—w Creature Gal. 6.16 I further told thee that the Waldonses Lutherans Protâ—stâ—â—ts â—alvinists c. made the Testimony of God in their Consciences the chief Ground of their Belief of the Scriptures Reas against Rail pag. 48. C. That the Waldenâ—es c. made the Testimony of their Consciences the chief Ground of the Belief of thâ— Scriptures is confidently said but more then ever W. Penn is able to prove Q. But if W. Penn is able to prove that the Waldenses Lutherans Protâ—stants Calvinists yea and Independents and Anabaptists too have made the Testimony of God in their Consciences the Ground of their Belief of the Scriptures wilt not thou then appear to have told a confident Untruth Let us hear what they say That the Waldenses held so thou mayst inform thy self if thou pleasest out of their History penn'd by John Paul Perin of Lyons lib. 1. cap. 1 cap. 11 cap. 13. Luther taught That the Spirit is required to the Vnderstanding of the whole Scripture and of every part thereof Again The Scriptures are not to be understood but by that very Spirit by which they were wrot Tom. 3. fol. 169. John Bradford a worthy Martyr thus answered the Arch Bishop of York who catechised him how he came to know the Scriptures We do believe and know said he the Scriptures as Christ's Sheep not because the Church saith they are the Scriptures but because they be so being thereof assured by the same Spirit that wrote and spake them Book Mart. vol. 3. p. 298. William Tindal another faithful Martyr in Hen. 8 his time writes thus It is impossible to understand the Scriptures more then a Turk for him that hath not the Law of God written in his Heart to fulfil it Again Without the Spirit it is impossible to understand them W. Tind Work p. 319. p. 80. B. Jewel against the Papists hath this Passages Fâ—esh and Blood is not able to understand the holy Will of God without special Revelation therefore Christ gave Thanks unto his Father and likewise opened the Hearts of his Disciples that they might understand the Scriptures Without this special Help and Prompting of God's holy Spirit the Scriptures are unto the Reader be he never so wise or well learned as the Vision of a sealed Book Calvin saith It is necessary that the same Spirit that spake by the Mouth of the Prophets should pierce into our Hearts to perswade us of the Truth of what they delivered Instit lib. 1. cap 8 Beza saith That the understanding of the Scriptures should be fetcht from the same Spirit that dictated them Bez in Nov. Test 2 Pet. 1.19 Pet. Martyr taught That it is the Spirit of God that reveals the Truth in the holy Scriptures Com. loc p. 2 cap. 18. H. Bullinger asserted in his 4 Decad. 8 Serm. dedicated to K. Edw. 6. That men fetch the Vnderâ—â—anding of heavenly things and Knowledge of the Holy Ghost from no where else then from the same Spirit What sayest thou to this T. H Can the Holy
Conclusion THou accusest me with defending and jusâ—â—â—ying E. B. in Cursing Railing and Lying and that in the Name of the Lord Dial. 3. p. 10 82 83. where it is to be observed that thou doest not onely esteem it so thy self but supposest me both to confess it to be such and that notwithstanding I warrant it from the Lord. These are thy black and odious Insinuations and Conclusions as may at large be seen in the pages before mentioned as if to deny them to be such were to affirm them such for I know not by what other Figure I allow them such But because this cannot appear less then an absurd and incredible Lye to all that have their senses I shall the less heed it But what Proof doest thou bring that E. B. curses lyes and railes To call what he sayes by such hard Names concludes no such thing All I see is that thou ryâ—'st to the words by him utter'd as if a Repetition were a Proof Poor Man This it is to be upon the Fret Proud and Passionate E. B. must curse lye and raile because thou sarst so Is not this to act the Dictator with a witness The Truth is I scarce think there ever was a fouler But thou stomackst my saying that the Scripture allows those Names and retor'st it seems you can make the Scripture your Rule for Lying Cursing and Railing But this is as irreverently said of the Scripture as abusively of us and absurdly in it self can any man make them his Rule for that which is impious I had thought that at what time any act wickedly thâ—y cease to make them their Rule Shall I make one of thy Conclusions now against thee T. Hicks says the Scripture may be a Rule for Lying Cursing and Railing But is every Example a Rule a Rule always relatâ—s to Duty a President or Example not Is it my Duty to call bad men by all the Names mentioned in Scripture because there are such Examples VVhat then should I call Thee that art as bad a man every jot as the worst of them This shews that the Scripture cannot be a Rule in an hundred such Cases but the particular measure of Wisdom from God that is always present and gives to undâ—rstand and apply things suitably and not upon mere Imitation where thy Religion such as it is stands I say that our justifying our Practice by the Example of Scripture does not conclude it our Rule or any man's whatsoever in so citing it And therefore thy thread-bare Answer it seemes you are forc'd to make Scripture your Rule to prove this or that is out of doors and to be despised as plausible as it looks Again â—f the Scriptures be our Rule in any particular cases and I think we live up to it more then thou dâ—est witness thy three impious Dialogues yet this concludes not the matter in Question for thee since it proves not the Scriptures to be eminently the Rule or the most eminent or general Rule c. But T. H. why has E. B. transgress'd more than either Prophets or Apostles yea then Christ himself when he to such carnâ—l men as thy self seemed so unkind and harsh in his Answer and Rebuke of Peter's Love and Care of him as to say Get thee behind me Satan The Priest that E. B. gave those Names no one of which was harder then Satan was never half so kind to him as Peter was to Christ Nay they were entrapping Questions such as they used to assault Christ with when they sought occasion against him whom he called Children of the Devil And we know that some of thy race T. H. in the former times when power was in your Hands diligently sought matter against us G. Fox was about the same time indicted for Blasphemy and endeavours great in some of the old Pharisaical stock thy Brethren to take away his Life E. B. knew whom and what he answer'd And I do say that by thy Argument about the Scriptures being the Rule without further Regard thou oughtest to stop thy Mouth unless thou canst prove that E. B. had not the same Warrant the holy men of old had to name thy Predecessors by to do which thou must come to the discerning of Spirits And by what wilt thou perform that enquiry and Judgment How canst thou tell whether a man using Christ's Words to Peter to a loving Disswader of him from Sufferings that onely intends his Good is well or ill done The Scripture is no Rule for our discerning aright this case nor is it his Duty in case he be in the right because Christ's words are there recorded unless he be thereto prompted of the same Power Yet if he say so and be reproved by any 't is and must be granted that there is an Example which shuts the Mouthes or should do of all who respect the Scripture which is our case with thee Well but Christ had no Provocation by Peter's words but the Spirit that lurkt in them which savour'd not the Work of God then doing To relish the like case aright there must be the same Spirit which T. H. rejecting for the Rule of right Judgment to be sure he can be no right Judge of E. B. But upon his own Opinion ought to be silent from further Clamour against him and repent of his scurrulous reproachful Language with which he has so often run over his Grave But thou chargest p. 86. Nicholas Lucas with saying That if the Bible were burnt as good an one might be writ and though he denies it yet thou tell'st us it is never the less a Lye for that and that he knows his Accusers But suppose it were true had it not more become an Anabaptist and a Preacher too especially when one of the Scriptures in thy Title Page is A Man that is an Heretick after the 1 st and 2 d Admonition reject who never dealt so with either him or us that thou so hast publickly writ against as such first to have dealt with N L. about it and granting he had been so obstinate in a wicked Saying as thou Dialoguest him to be had this been a sufficient Ground for thee to charge it upon the Persons and Principles of the People called Quakers But now thou hast given the World a Saying to measure us by that first is of several years standing and but lately raked up and might have been either at first mis-apprehended or some word forgotten or mis-placed 2dly That N. L. denies that he ever spake it by a serious Certificate in G. W's Append. confirm'd by H. Stout appeal'd to by thy Anabaptist Informers which thou hast not so much as attempted to invalidate 3dly That he abhors the Matter contained in the Story and that without all mental Reserves And 4thly That it 's charged upon and made to be the Measure of Vs and our Principles and Motions thereby making us to blaspheme God's Spirit as well as reprobate Scripture and that with no small
Aggravation who are innocent by never speaking the Words by never countenancing such Words by not holding the Matter directly or indirectly contained in them and we do utterly renounce and abhor both the one and the other Well T. Hicks God will plead our Cause against the Malignity of thy Slanderous Spirit No Justice no Discretion could ever have led thee to this monstrous pitch of Abuse thou shewest how glad thou art to bedirt us by making other Folks Lyes thy Charges and then insisting on them with as much Confidence as if thou wert infallibly assured of every jot But we have some cause to suspect thee more then ever thy Tale wears so many Dresses One while it is Thou mayst burn thy Bible and write as good an one thy self Contin p. 5. Another while We may burn our Bible and make as good an one our self Dial. 3. pag. 3. And last of all it is to go thus If the Bible were burnt as good an one might be writ ibid. p. 86. Now T. H. answer thou that pretendest to such punctuality which of these are we to take The first is unlikely because what ever we think we could do to be sure thou canst not think that a Quaker should have so good an Opinion of an Anabaptist Woman as that she could write another Bible as good as this that we are sure understands not this If we must take thee in thy second Account then the Woman is out in her first Story If in the last Relation of this Fiction then it concerns the Quakers no more then the Anabaptists For suppose the World were under one Emperor and he so impious as to enjoyn the burning of all the Bibles and all were burnt I hope they are not so irreligious as to limit God's Power who is Almighty that he could not furnish us with one as good as this especially since Christians would else as you must hold be without a Rule for I would have thee take notice T. H. that thou hast so materially varied in thy Charge that now it is not whether if the Bible were burnt any Man could make as good an one but whether if it were by such Impiety burnt as good an one might not be writ which words are general Here T. H. to give the his due thou hast helpt thy Fiend Quaker by bringing him in saying what T. H. unless he would question God's Omnipotency dare not deny But to conclude either these Mistakes proceed from the first Authors or from T. H. If from the first Authors why should they be credited at all who show such incertainty if from T. Hicks what Reason has he to be so infallibly sure of their Memories who is not sure of his own Books much less of his own Memory being found in such manifest Variations But since every just Judge accounts that Accuser and Witness of little Credit that are found divers and inconsistent in their Stories I hope my sober Reader who is made judge betwixt us will in justice cashier T. Hicks from all Credit with him in these attempts But as against N. L. so against S. Eccles T. H. has publishâ— a foul Slander viz. That he should say the Scriptures are a Lye This G. W. Appeâ—d p. 12. reflected upon thee as an abusive and false Charge To which I cannot find that thou sayst any more then this that one of thy Witnesses against N. L. can testifie that S. E. said he used Scripture onely to satisfie him Dial. 3. p. 86. Doubtless that Witness has long Eares thou hangst so fast by them But he can witness it But why does he not Is that Put-off like to confirm the Charge But granting thy Witness remembers better against S. E. then N. L. Does S. E ' s. saying that he us'd Scripture to satisfie his Opponent prove that he said the Scriptures were a Lye Do men use to prove Truths by Lyes Doth not this make S. E. imply the Lye to his own Principles which he quoted Scripture to prove real Truths What sayst thou T. H. Is this to â—vince the truth of thy Objections and Charges against the Quakers and secure thy Credit with thy own and other People that carries with it what merits the Detestation and Rebuke of every honest mind But that thou mayst go out with the same braving Rant thou camest in with and the like Honesty thou tellest thy Reader that W. P. is guilty of wilful Lying in saving that thou disingenuously slankedst from a publick Meeting and evadedst the offer made thee by G W to that purpose It is not unlikely but thou takest thy old Way of proving which is in the end to detect thy self of that thou chargest me wâ—th the Guilt of First thou sayst that long before my Book was out thou didst desire to meet with me and I refused But doth this prove me guilty of wilful Lying in charging thee with evading the offer made for a publick Disputation Are the termes of a Meeting for a publick Disputation in thy Answer If not How does thy Answer reach the Question VVell But I refus'd to do what To meet a Man in private that had twice printed a Knave a Fool an Heretick a Blasphemerâ— and I know not how much more either in those Termes or in Circumlocution to the VVorld No such matter T. H. I never intend to release thee from the Burden and Shame of so many publick and manifest Villanies as thou hast committed against me a Stranger to thee in all respects and my Friends in general that it may be never heard of such a man Besides Let me tell thee I look upon thee to be so base a Person that as I shall always desire to have nothing to do with thee for that cause and not thy Abilities so I never intend to trust my self in such private manner with any man that is detected of such notorious Perversion Lying and Forgery there being no Security to any one in common conversing with thee save that thou deservest no Credit against any man who hast so publickly forfeited all Credit in thy numerous fictions against us But to prove thou hast not evaded the publick Meeting thou tellest thy Reader that thou didst send six Questions to G. W. to debate them upon notice in a convenient time and place that he refus'd therefore G. W. did both shuffle and lye which is the great shuffle of thy 3d. Dial. in little or the Evasion or thy whole Book Epitomized For as thou hast pretended in thy 3d. Dial. that the Evincement of the own Objections was all that we required or stood thee upon to do so here thou makest as if the Discussing of those Objections herein consider'd had bin all there was any ground to dispute upon which was for thee who art the Abuser to chuse a Charâ—â— for the abused to insist upon But why didst thou noâ—â—ell thy Reader that G. W. first sent thee a Charge in writing and that he offered in a publick