Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A54082
|
Exceptions against Will. Rogers's cavills at J.P.'s complaint &c, taken out of his sixth part of his Christian-Quaker.
|
Penington, John, 1655-1710.
|
1682
(1682)
|
Wing P1226; ESTC R34072
|
11,675
|
18
|
a part saith he but is mistaken though I never said 't was the whole he would prove me worthy of worse reflections than he saith I gave him I do also acknowledge that some passages of my Fathers quoted even by W. R do make against W. R nor do I wonder at it he being not the first Adversary by many that hath given occasion to be beaten with his own weapon What he terms page 21. undeserved reflections as if I and others had our Educations at Billingsgate among the Scolds I return as frothy envious and unsavoury who though I had a just disrelish of the man's unworthiness yet wrote those lines in great calmness and serenity of mind and was never scurrilous to him in my language nor yet sharp but where my matter spoke for me And better were it for him to clear himself of my Charge of dealing fallaciously surreptitiously and unrighteously than to term it Billingsgate language which I believe he never heard there In the same page he quibbles at my saying He leapt over some leaves Explanatory of the rest as if it were Non-sense but it is true enough for the beginning shews the occasion of what followed and surely a Question and the first part of an Answer must needs be explanatory of the rest of the Answer as well as that it did not become one who promised to take it all as it lay to begin his quotation with the latter part of the Answer Surely by this means his quotation whatever he pretend see page 21. cannot reasonably be termed Explanatory of what did precede but what did precede might open that which did succeed Now to that last clause of my Father's which he left out he after he hath told me he made no Deduction from it of which let the unbyassed judge urgeth in excuse that the words are Prophetical signifying what will come to pass not what was come to pass page 21. and adds in the next page Since the occasion of my citing his Father's words was only in relation to a Discourse touching what had been I should have shewn my self very impertinent to quote his words Prophetically spoken O William this is a false gloss in God's sight and I fear thou belyest thy own Conscience herein for how can it be said to Prophesie what shall be any more than to tell what hath been The words are these And the Vnity being thus kept all will come into one outwardly also at length as the Light grows in every one and as every one grews into the Light c. which is as much as to say This is the natural tendency and effect of keeping the Unity both where it hath been as well as where it is kept And what Prophecy is there in all this Cannot he distinguish between a consequence upon a thing premised and a prediction or foretelling a thing to come from the Mouth of the Lord But he would fain have it so which if it were granted would neither help his cause nor lessen his guilt in leaving out the last Sentence when he promised to give us all together word for word For how shall that which he terms a Prophecy be fulfilled if the means be rejected and withstood How shall all come into one outwardly also at length if the diversities of administrations gifts and operations which jar not are not contrary though various for the same fountain cannot send forth sweet water and bitter I say how shall it be effected if these Diversities must be urged as opposing the breaking forth of that day W. R sayes He should rejoyce to see wherein we might all so be led by the appearance of Christs spirit in us under his Government c. as that this oneness might be witnessed among all the Families of Gods people See par 3. pag. 83. To what end should these things be prophesied of if none are to press after the mark or that diversities of Gifts wrought by the same Spirit hinder this work What is this but to say the Spirit of God through bringing forth these diversities of Gifts and Operations in the body obstructs that oneness which his Soul should rejoyce to see O Confusion O Darkness that may be felt I wave the reflection and Marginal Note that followes pag. 22. on G. F. and others not being privy to the matter nor do I know what he would be at it being only in general terms and he may remember the old Maxime Sub universalibus latet dolus And I presume it is Answered elsewhere by another Pen. Now to come to his Observations on what is Written in Relation to my Mother M.P. which he toucheth very lightly and wholly waves my Postscript which summed up the thing He begins pag. 23. thus The Title Page imports That I have suggested that Mary Penington did shun suffering for Truth 'T is a very false Representation of what I have said concer-cerning her For there cannot be a shunning of Suffering for Truth unless one shun that Suffering which Truth requires which I never did charge Mary Penington with And yet in pag. 5. he saith Witness his viz. G. F's advice to Mary Penington to secure Worldly Estate from the Spoiler when 't was likely to be seized for obedience to Christs Commands c. What is Suffering for Obedience to Christs Command no Suffering for Truth But hear him once more at the letter end of pag. 23. and pag. 24. We cannot forsake the Assembling of our selves together and in pursuance of Christs command we cannot swear and in BOTH THESE our Testimony for Truth is concerned And therefore I cannot but conclude that as it related to avoid Sufferings by reason of obedience to Christs Command George Fox's Counsel to her was not justifiable in him c. Here 's strange work say and unsay give and take one while I never did charge Mary Penington with shunning that Suffering which Truth Requires another while Suffering for not Swearing is Suffering for Truth as well as Suffering for Meeting Even now It was a very false Representation to say he suggested M. P. did shun Suffering for Truth Anon He cannot but conclude that as it related to avoid Sufferings by reason of obedience to Christs command G. F 's Counsel to her was not justifiable in him O whither doth not prejudice and envy carry men What blindness is happned to him thus to grope at Noon-day and so palpably to lay himself open to the lash of every half-sighted Reader But to return to pag. 23. where he saith G. F's Paper of Queries reflects so far as Queries could on such as secured any part of their Estates from the Spoiler What upon any Consideration whatever Consult them again Or did thy Credible Friend in Truth inform thee so Bring out thy Informer and let us know Did he imply 't is in no Case lawful to secure an Estate from the Spoiler without any limitation whatsoever What not from a Thief nor from a man that claims by a
EXCEPTIONS AGAINST Will Rogers's CAVILLS AT I. P's Complaint c. Taken out of his SIXTH PART OF HIS Christian-Quaker Out of thy own Mouth will I Judge thee Luke 19.22 Professing themselves to be wise they became Fools Rom. 1.22 LONDON Printed for Benjamin Clark in George-Yard in Lombard-street Bookseller 1682. Exceptions against William Rogers's Cavils c. TO excuse himself from prevarication where he saith he hath cited my Fathers Testimony All together as it lay Word for Word and not by parts and pieces he would evade the matter by saying pag. 19. of the said sixth part that he called it part of a discourse which I grant him But yet he gives this part of a Discourse as an entire Testimony calling it par 3. pag. 88. A Testimony this Testimony and the said Testimony not part of a Testimony and in the next page the Title is The Testimony of the said Isaac Penington which I urged against him in my Complaint as an additional demonstration of his unfairness and he in his Rejoynder takes no notice of He goes on in the same page saying he began at the beginning of a Paragraph and so quoted about 8 or 10 Sides without adding or diminishing a Word Why did he not tell us so before in his third Part if he had no design of imposing upon his Reader This is far from taking All as it lies to take the middle and leave both ends which did more immediately explain the sense of the whole And so his Reader would have seen at first had he expressed himself as he doth now He would be accounted a very unfair dealer between man and man that had bargained to take a Commodity all together as it lay and yet should cull out the middle Surely the middle lies not next to hand No no William all thy Sophistry will not turn this off It is too manifest an untruth Again why should he take so much pains to Copy our 8 or 10 Sides word for word and at last leave off at the last Sentence if he did not apprehend that Sentence would marr his Cause What could he take so much pains with those 8 or 10 Sides and be at last so spent he could not afford to give us two or three Lines more which wound up the rest and belonged to it Thy Vnderstanding Reader thou appealest to must be a very soft natured man to believe thou wast without guile herein He saith page 20. We put no construction on his Fathers words but left the Reader free without endeavouring to impose any sense relating to these words and yet his weakness if not wickedness is so great as to declare that my Deduction which in reality was none at all was not genuine c. In contradiction whereto he but a few lines before to manifest that no perversion can be proved against him quotes this passage of his out of his former Book viz. Our end in citing this Testimony to wit my Father's is that the impartial Reader may consider whether the said Testimony hath any coherence with that part of the Book of Government which is objected against by us c. Now if citing a Testimony for a certain end implies not a Deduction or Inference therefrom I am weak indeed What oppose him to R. B. and yet make no Deduction at all Say J. P. saies thus and R. B. thus and no Inference in all this Nor is it probable he would bestow the Copying of Eight or Ten sides upon us without drawing any consequence at all And now I am upon this Subject let me examine him yet further and see whether I cannot produce more instances that he hath made a Deduction and a false one too from the said Testimony And first I betake my self to his Title-page of his third part which I referred to in my Complaint to make my Charge good It runs thus The third part of the Christian-Quaker c. manifesting that there is but two sorts of Government owned by the Children of the Light or Christian-Quaker One is the outward Government c. The other is the inward Government of Christ who alone is Lord over the Conscience which is not represented by persons visible by carnal eyes invested with power from him to execute outward Laws Prescriptions Orders Edicts or Decrees in an outward form of Government visible as aforesaid And for the better Illustration of our meaning an Answer to a part of R. Barclay's Book of Government is cited to which is added a Testimony given forth in Print in the Year 1660. by Isaac Penington the Younger From whence these Three Consequences naturally flow 1. Printing a Testimony for better Illustration shews that that Testimony was to make some Illustration Now if no Deduction or Inference were drawn therefrom nor that it had no reference to make good his foregoing Position how could it be said to Illustrate at all 2. If this Allegation of W. R's be repugnant to my Father's sense delivered in that Testimony and he have laboured to insinuate the contrary my charge of his Deduction not being genuine and of his traducing abusing mis-representing and perverting my Father's words will stand the Test Which that it is so give me leave to repeat three passages out of the said Testimony whereof two of them were over-look'd the last cited by W. R. himself The words are these Thus the Apostles and other Ministers of Christ had likewise in the Spirit the care of the Churches and Authority in the Lord by his Spirit to Govern the Spirits of his people Again Every one feeling a measure of the Spirit in himself is thereby taught to own and Subject to a greater measure of the same Spirit in another see part 1. page 238. of my Father's Works This is far from W. R's Position that the inward Government of Christ is not represented by persons visible by carnal eyes because he alone is Lord over the Conscience as if the Government were out of Christ's hands when his Spirit and Power acts through his Members But alike truly may it be urged that because God promised to teach his people himself which John saw fulfilled when he told the Churches Ye need not that any man teach you but as the same anointing teacheth you 1 John 1.27 therefore no persons visible by carnal Eyes are invested with power from him to teach he being the Bishop and Shepherd of the Soul and so exclude the Office of Pastors and Teachers as entrenching upon Christ's Prerogative Yet does W. R. himself part 3. page 94. bring in my Father saying And every Member is to wait in the measure of the Spirit which he hath received to feel the going forth of the same Spirit in him that teacheth and Governeth and so to Subject not to man but to the Lord c. From whence two things are observable which contradict the scope of W. R.'s contest and manifest the wrong use he would make of my Father's Writings The first is That