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
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
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
not infallible he is judg'd by himself to be a Deluder and Blasphemer Now hath not W. P. vindicated G. F. to purpose Or has he not under colour of vindicating him condemn'd him and that with the most opprobious terms he could devise This that I say is very manifest so that if I would spend my time or the Readers so unprofitably I might here transcribe almost all that he saith as any way pertinent to the Argument and all his vilifying Speeches on that account and retort them upon G. F. to whom they do in truth belong and not to me For though I have in some instances imputed faultiness to him for small variations from Scripture words because I saw that those variations countenanced some error yet I am confident it would never have entered into my head so to do unless I had first found him blaming his Adversaries for perverting Scripture upon far slighter yea and ridiculous accounts Might I not here tell G. F. as W. P. tells me p. 50. Had he not been void of all sense himself and reason too he would never have suffered so much weakness and untruth to pass the Press without correction And p. 21. That no man in that compass could have manifested more weakness folly malice and untruth as well in defending of his own as in opposing our Principles then G. F. hath done in his Mystery of the Whore Witness the quotations before mentioned and W. P. Again p. 52. with a little variation But that a man should make 22 corrections of so many Texts of Scripture corrupted by the Translators and twelve or thirteen of them to depend upon the rendring of the Greek Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in and not otherwise befits no man that loves to be profitably imploy'd but it therefore suits G. F. which is so over-run with c. That on Ship-board a kind of publick place or else I should not mention it he suffers as the Passengers inform elder men than himself and Prophets too to minister to him in the lowest Offices such as untying and pulling off his Shooes c. But how should Mr. Pen know that I am so over-run with the lazy Did his infallible Spirit reveal it to him for otherwise he doth but guess who I am Here he scorns me with saturnal Dreams See the tender Conscience of this Quaker He dare not use the word Saturn when it is a meer signification of a certain day in the week as John or Thomas is of a man but when if serves to abuse his Neighbour he can use it without scruple Again p. 53. I look upon it saith W. P. as conceited and presumptuous for any man to undertake what he cannot prove and not less base to affirm a man miscites perverts and corrupts Scripture when he renders the genuine sense of it Had Mr. P. so soon forgotten what he had read in the Page immediately foregoing Epist p. 6. Or Doth he think that Destroy ye this Temple is not the genuine sense of Destroy this Temple is this to vindicate G. F. to render him base And may not Mr. Pen p. 62. confess himself troubled as well for G. F. as for me not at his great skill but folly When he finds him asking his Adversaries so like a Critick Where doth the Scripture speak of humane the word Humane And will not W. P's words p. 6 †serve pertinently against G. F. viz Certainly then this word Humane is not of such dangerous consequence nor inconsonant to Scripture-language as this idle and ignorant person would render it But I must hasten And yet give me leave a little to borrow Mr. P's pathetick figure of speaking p. 80. thus And that which is more to be wondered at this miserable man even while he denies G. F. to be a false Prophet or Impostor doth manifestly assert him to be a Deluder and Blasphemer I heartily pity the man and am really affraid he has overcharged the strength of his brain for with me such manifest contradiction is but a smaller degree of distraction O stupendious folly Thus doth Mr. P. treat his Adversary These passages out of many more of the same complexion I have taken out of W. P's vindication of G. F. from the first instance of Scripture mis-recited in his language corrupted taken from John 1.9 which may be by me applyed to them according to truth but are by W. P. to me by abuse of my Words and Person as may casily be perceived by any intellgent Reader But that which is matter of wonder if any thing be so in this Author is That he spends near two and thirty pages upon this Head and concerning the Light and not one word that I can perceive whereby G. F. is any way vindicated from my chief exception which lay in this That every man whom the Light lighteth is not of necessity or effectually enlightned But G. F. reads it Every man that cometh into the World is enlightned I added for explanation of my sense Rom. 2.4 That the goodness of God leadeth to repentance those that are impenitent and not led to repentance I added moreover Mat. 5.15 and Luk. 11.33 36. but of this Mr. P. hath deep silence He spends near 16 pages about the translation and reference of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming whether to Man or to the Light and about the translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lighteth or enlightneth which were transiently mentioned by me in less than three lines and not insisted on and may be determin'd either way without prejudice to my chief Exception He joyns Greece and Italy together calling me Pseudo-linguist to abuse me for my use of the Greek-Tongue yet has not charged me with any error therein which himself or his Authors have not recanted I said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming might refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Light as well as to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Man He wonders that a man so mean in that Tongue should undertake to thwart the current of all indifferent Translators He ostentates his skill in the Oriental Tongues out of the Latin Translations of them which Tongue by the way cannot render the Greek of this Text so well as our English can The question is concerning the Greek The Arabick and Aethiopick as he cites them are on my side The three French and the Low-Dutch Translations as he renders them are for me Erasmus grants that the sense is ambiguous which is as much in effect as I say Mr. P. in translating Erasmus's words saith too ambiguous wherein he wrongs Erasmus Doth he learn that of the New Academy at Paris His Maldonate saith My sense is neither false nor absurd Grotius saith I do much approve of the Exposition which is extant in Cyril and Augustine that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 COMING be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE LIGHT Dr. Hamond reads it so And are not these four indifferent Translators and Expositors
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
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