divine and supernatural Faith as doth most plainly appear not only from the Text but also from the context as we have shewn Thus Reader see how the Bp. has mistaken plain Scripture no wonder then if he mistake us c. The Bp. proceeds P. 5. Again saith the Bp. The acknowledging of future rewards and punishments no more infers the resurrection from the Dead or eternity of Torments to the Damned then any of the former points imply what W. P. would have comprehended in them Answ If they imply but as much we shall easily clear our selves from the Bp's suggestions of Heathenism or Sociniasm for we think the other points are plainly comprehended as we have above shewn so by this rule there needs no farther return to that to an unbyassed Reader However we will attend the Bp's Arguments who proceeds to tell us of one Synesius a Christian Phylosopher to say no more who profest he could not believe the resurrection of the Body and of Origen and the merciful Doctors who believed future rewards and punishments yet believed not eternal torments it had been necessary therefore saith the Bp. for him i. e. W. P. and his Brethren explicitly to have declared their belief of these main Articles the Resurrection and eternal Torments even among the Truths chiefly believed by them that we might have known the Quakers to be neither Heathens nor Socinians in these points which herein it is plain they may be notwithstanding their belief that God is a rewarder of them who seek him Answ Synesius was not only a Christian Phylosopher but a Bishop too which we suppose the Bp. was willing to hide with his Parenthesis to say no more the story we have in Evagrius Ecclesiastick History Lib. 1. C. 15. The old Edition tells us he could not believe the resurrection of the flesh how stated to him we have no account but if in so gross a manner as some have done it in our days we cannot wonder he did not receive it However tho' he did not receive the vulgar opinion for so we have it in Vallesius his notes in the new Edition Yet we find the Christians in those times viz. about the Year 412. perswaded him not only to be Baptized but to take upon him the Office of a Bishop and he did so whence we observe that the vulgar opinion or the Doctrine of the resurrection of the Flesh was not then held so Essential to the Christian Religion but that a Man might be both a Christian and a Bp. too tho' he neither did nor would believe it But to proceed what ever opinion in reallity he held or others did or do believe is nothing to us we are not accountable for their Faith but our own 1st then then As to the Resurrection from the Dead we have always believed and owned it by word and writing according to holy Scripture and which was again fully owned by W. P. in his Defence p. 47. 48. Where he also shews 't was sufficiently implyed in Gospel Truths by future rewards and punishments And so say we too otherwise we must disbelieve the immortality of the Soul and believe that it dies with the body which we firmly deny 2ly As to eternity of Torments to the Damned we have likewise also stedfastly believed it and W. P. in his Defence p. 43 44. hath shewn it is fully implyed in Gospel Truths which we will not farther enlarge upon here because we will cut short and tell the Bp. tho' we will not downright charge him with Insincerity what ever it deserves yet we think we may safely with great partiality to charge us with shortness in this point while he had in his possession before his Testimony or Reply was writ a Book called the Rise and progress of the Quakers which in page the. 38. hath these words This leads us to the acknowledgment of Eternal Rewards and Punishments for else of all People certainly they i. e. the Quakers must be most miserable who for about forty years have been exceeding great sufferers for their profession c. Now for the Bp. after this to make this objection against us looks indeed very strange and to be sure like one that was willing as W. P. says to represent us wrong rather then we should be in the right But farther as to Eternal Torments tho' what is said before is sufficient yet we cannot but observe how unreasonable the Bp. is to Quarrel with us for not expressing that as an Article of Faith which is not expressed in his own Creed if that called the Apostles be his for what word in the Creed is there of Eternal Torments 't is indeed said therein I believe the Life everlasting but not a word of Punishments being everlasting If the Bp. say that the reward of Life to the Righteous being everlasting implies the punishment of the Damned shall be everlasting may we not then with a great deal of reason return his own words p. 3. and tell him Thus much as to that point once for all Implication of Faith is not a profession of Faith at least ought not to be claimed by him that will not allovv it to others Again How hath the Bp. caught himself in his own Trap for while his own Creed is silent in so main a point as Eternal Punishments as he tells us that is which way will the Bp. Extricate himself and his brethren to give him his own phrase from being suspected to be either Heathens or Socinians in that point If he say that this which he calls a main Article is explicitly declared in some other Creeds or Declarations of Faith the Answer is So are they also in other Books and writings of ours and if the Bp. would have given to others the same measure he takes himself he might have forborn this unnecessary wrangle The end of p. 5. and most of p. 6. is about the Trinity in which point we find the Bp. still resolves to have us short and imperfect tho' it be by telling of us again much of it word for word as he did in his Testimony Thus 1 John 5. 7. Is not saith he the summ of what the holy Scriptures teacheth nor a sufficient confession of Faith of the holy Trinity Then adds He meaning W. P. insinnuates which is utterly false that the Bp. slights that as a by passage or of little credit upon which the Bp. appeals to his own Paper then tells us of the Nicene Creed and Thirty Nine Articles then to W. P's demand from the Bp. of the occasion of the Apostles speaking as he did 1 John 5. 7. the Bp. returns thus The Bp. answers out of Vers 1. 5. It was to prove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and after some more to the same purpose the Bp. concludes that paragraph saying p. 6. This was his purpose i. e. John viz. to settle the Believers Faith in Christ and not fully there to declare the Doctrine of the Trinity
before to which we refer Lastly as to his Calling the Light within a Poysonous Pill we hope he will not blame W. P. or any other for saying he has no share in it while he thus reviles it and how far the Expression may Affect the Bp. in the sight of the Lord we Love But to be plain had we who believe in the Light of Christ uttered such words we should have concluded our selves guilty of little less then Blasphemy Nor do we see how his salvo of calling it the Quakers Light will excuse him since we have always declared it to be the Light of Jesus Christ and universaly given to all Men often testified unto in the holy Scriptures The latter end of p. 13. and 14. The Bp. exclaims against W. P. for mentioning many Reformers and Martyrs in concurrence with us as to the double and agreeing testimony of the Spirit of God within and the Scriptures of Truth without but says the Bp. without producing one word out of them or referring to any Treatise or Page Answ If the Bp. had first confuted the Scripture Testimonies W. P. laid down directly proving the sufficiency of the Light Grace and Spirit of God within he would have had the better pretence to have harrangued upon W. P. about these Authors but that he did not for a good reason indeed because he could not And as to those Authors if the Bp. had published his Answer while W. P. was in England he might have receiv'd a fuller answer from himself then we can give he being a Person to be sure better read then we are However we question not in the least but W. P. had good ground for what he asserted tho' at the same time we think 't is plain he laid no such great stress upon their Authority seing he referred not to particular Treatise or Page and what need for it since he quoted Chapter and Verse of an undeniable authority viz. the Scriptures But why is the Bp. so loud against W. P. for what he is so guilty of himself he tells us That Luther Melancthon Zuinglius and Calvin as well as other Reformers and Reformed generally hold among other points Three that are expresly contrary to what the Quakers teach of the Light within And so goes on to tell us what those Three points are and after all not one word in what Book Treatise or Page we should find any one of them Now is it not strange the Bp. should so inconsiderately fall into the same Errour he but just before charged upon W. P. or must it be a Fault in W. P. and none in the Bp. But the Bp. tells us he fairly avers it and takes upon him to prove it if Mr. P. or his Abetters shall deny it c. Answ If he does it no better then somethings we have noted him not only short but unfair in before we have but too much cause to believe his proofs will be very lame But to end this Dispute and come nearer home let the Bp. but fairly refute the many Scripture Testimonies quoted by R. B. W. P. and some by us to prove the sufficiency of the Light Grace and Spirit of God within Man given as a sure Guide and Director c. to him and he will do the work fully without either troubling the Reformers or Martyrs P. 15. The Bp. goes on thus If they i. e. the Quakers shall say the Bp. wrongs them in saying they make their Light within the rule of their actions at any time without or against holy Scripture besides what may be produced out of their Books by way of Doctrine and particularly W. P. p. 105. let them answer among others to these two matters of fact One Knight on a certain Lords day in the time of Divine worship came into the Congregation And stood there stark naked Crying out behold here the naked Truth Again one Workman in the town of Ross Gave out for a miracle he would fast Forty days But tho' he gave off before the Forty Days were near at an end Yet it was discovered that in a Rick of Beans near his Chamber he had made a great hole and devoured a suitable quantity of them Answ 1st As to W. P's Doctrine p. 105. If false Doctrine why does not the Bp. confute it he tells us in p. 2. he ought not to connive but why then doth he do it here and not only here but before for this is the place we complained of before wherein he made a great Out-cry against W. P. for falsifying the Sense of the Scripture John 3. 21. about the Light And at the same time was wholly silent to the many other Scriptures which followed and which W. P. brought to prove the Light and Spirit of God within Men Doth the Bp. think to come off thus by calling it false Doctrine without proving it such we think 't will hardly pass unless with very credulous Readers Surely if the Bp. had well considered what he said or well observed what the holy Scripture saith he would scarce have quoted that page for false Doctrine above any other in that Book great part of it being Texts of Scripture so full to the point he had in hand that hardly any thing can be more plain Reader see 105. first and 115 116 pages second Impression 2ly As to the Story of Knight the Instance of which looks as if the Bp. would go far rather than want matter to defame the Quakers withall it being about 26 Years Old we hardly suppose the Bp. gives this story of Knight's nor yet Workman's from his own certain knowledge if from report as we understand he doth would it look well in a Quaker to take a story out of the Cobler of Gloster concerning a Priest or Bp. and spread it as the Bp. hath done let him consider of it As to the Story it is not true in all its parts as laid down by the Bp. according to our best Information for we have made full enquiry into the matter and do find that altho' he did go and stand naked before the Congregation yet that he never said these words behold here the naked Truth for the Bp. may assure himself had Knight spoke such words the Quakers would have been as ready to disown him with abhorrance of such Expressions as the Bp. is to Asperse the Quakers with the Story and how ready he is at that we leave the Reader to judg But as to John Knight for so was his name the Man is dead and cannot answer for himself but his Widow gives the relation of the words he spoke as he gave them to her which are these As odious as I seem in your eyes so odious are your actions in the sight of the Lord. And how odious the Actions of that Congregation was in the sight of the Lord the Lord best knows And as to Knight's call to that service we shall leave it to the Lord But this we can say we
replied that they Preached no New Gospel but the same which was confirmed before by Miracles and therefore needed no new ones to confirm it and also that John the Baptist with many of the Prophets tho' immediately and extraordinarily called yet did no Miracles that we read of and the same answer may serve for us while we have always been ready to confirm our Doctrine by holy Scripture but altho' such extraordinary Gifts of Tongues c. are ceased yet it doth not therefore follow we ought to neglect the inward teachings and dictates of the holy Spirit of God which is given to Christians as a standing perpetual rule and more immediate guide under the New Covenant to walk by and without which they cannot rightly perform their duty to God as we have shewn before p. 54. As to that Text 1 Cor. 13. 8. brought by the Bp. 'T is plain those Gifts there mentioned were to cease by giving way to what was more excellent more perfect see p. 10. 11 12. following vers and not by being succeeded by what is more carnal and destitute of the Spirit but leaving this at present we shall attend the Bp's Objection which relates to the Ministry viz. that none can now Preach in the Demonstration of the Spirit and power To which we answer If that were so then none can preach as the Oracles of God nor in preaching be beneficial to the People since the holy Scripture tells us that the Spirit is a necessary and essential qualification to constitute a Minister of Christ which we shall prove 1st from Jesus Christ himself when he gave the Apostles that commission Matt. 28. 19. to Preach he tells them thus Vers 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and lo I am with you alway even to the end of the World We hope none will be so trifling as to say this Command extended only to the Apostles if any so weak to think so then the foregoing Vers 19. about Baptizing which they suppose Water must likewise extend no farther but supposing none so weak thus to object yet some mâ—y Query how was Christ to be with his Ministers to the end of the world Was it not by the holy Scripture the outward means now left to Christians To this we answer 't was by his Spirit which we prove from Christs â—wn words John 14. 16. I will pray the Father and he shall give you another comforter that he may abide with you for ever Vers 17. Even the Spirit of truth he dwelleth with you and shall be in you Ver. 26. The comforter the holy Ghost he shall teach you all things saith Christ John 15. 5. Without me saith Christ ye can do nothing from these with more Texts of Scripture 't is plain that Christ by his Spirit was to be with his truly constituted Ministers to the end of the World by whom they were taught all things and without whom they could do nothing and pursuant to that commission and promise of Christ the Apostles were called commissionated and did Preach by the Spirit according to 2 Cor. 3. 6. Gall. 1. 11 12. 1 Cor. 2. 4. and we do not find the Apostles did confine the Spirit to themselves only but did recommend the same Gift of the Spirit as the necessary qualification to the constituting a Minister of the Gospel thus 1 Peter 4. 10 11. As every Man hath received the Gift even so minister the same one to another as good stewards of the manifold Grace of God If any Man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God If any Man minister let him do it as of the ability which God giveth that God in all things may be Glorified Which we take to be as much as if he had said none ought to speak or minister about the things of God but by the Gift of his holy Spirit and who ever doth not so speak or minister cannot in so doing do it to the Glory of God We could cite more Scriptures to the same purpose which for brevity sake we omit these may suffice to shew that whoever pretends to be a Minister of Christ cannot be truly such without the Qualification of and being Commissionated by the holy Ghost And as to the Bp's saying that W. P. nor none can now Preach in demonstration of the Spirit and Power 't is but his bare assertion and more then he can prove But as to the Bp's part we may be sure he cannot so Preach since he denies it to all and while he thus asserts he will do well to consider how he came by his Ministry since Christ promised to be with his Ministers to the end of the World and that his Spirit was to continue with and in them for ever from which Gift of his Spirit they were to speak according to the Apostle as the Oracles of God which to be sure cannot be but in demonstration of the Spirit and Power Having thus Proved the Spirit to be a necessary Qualification to the constituting a Minister of Christ we now come to consider the Bp's outward way to Holyness and Spirituallity in which we shall find him as much out of the way as in the last The Bp. Proceeds P. 23. People are now made holy by the use of outward means and grow up in Grace by degrees yet in both cases as to Gifts as well as Holiness there are those who by Analogy and Proportion may still be termed Spiritual that is there are persons who by study and industry attain to speak with tongues c. Others who having from the holy Scriptures which were indited by the Spirit of God learnt the mind of the Spirit and being in their hearts perswaded of the Truths and Duties they have thence learnt and felt their Soul strongly moved by the Power of the Spirit under the Ministry of the Word to the performance of such Duties have yielded themselves and submitted to the Conduct of the holy Ghost leading them by Scripture into all truth as well as Holiness Thus Reader we have given thee this long Citation of the Bp's that his own words may fully speak his mind Answ The Bp. hath here asserted upon his own authority and without proof that People are now made holy by the use of outward means and that there are those who by Study and industry attain to speak with tongues may be termed Spiritual But contrary hereunto the holy Scriptures do abundantly prove viz. That People are made holy and Spiritual by inward means as we shall plainly shew only before we proceed we will here again give the holy Scriptures their due place and allow them to be whatsoever they say of themselves according to these or any other Texts Rom. 15 4. 2 Tim. 3. 15 16 17. believing them to be the best Writings extant in the World and we love honour and esteem them beyond all others and are so far from laying them aside as useless that we say they are
prevent the prejudices that the attempts of a course and scurrilous Pen at Dublin just before might provoke in some against us As to the points touched upon in the Gospel Truths Thus W. P. Now Reader we do not blame the Bp. barely for taking no notice of this part but we think it became him either to have disproved what W. P. here said or not continued his Reflections now in his Reply for the brevity of that Paper while he had not only the above notice but had also Robert Barclay's Apology and the Rise and Progress of the People called Quakers which fully and clearly vindicates at large some of those Tenets he now again censures as short exprest in that Paper as we shall shew in their places But the Bp. proceeds thus Ibid. 2 The first charge in his Book against the Bp. is that he did not prove such a Reader as he profest himself Mr. P. would have had him such a Reader that had rather they should be in the right then in the wrong the Bp. never profest himself such Answ How will the Bp. be able to Reconcile this to the Words in his Testimony where he says in the begining of it Friends I am such a Reader as in your Paper you desire This in Answer to Gospel Truths which desired a Sober Reader in these Words If thou hadst rather we should be in the right then in the wrong c. Manifest Contradiction But the Bp. to bring himself off goes on thus Ibid. 2 Mr. P. desires a strange partial Reader who should have more inclination and affection to the Quakers that is his Adversaries Opinion then his own or who would rather be in an Error himself then that his Adversaries should be in any Answ Is there no difference betwen desiring a People were in the Right then in the Wrong and between chusing rather that Himself were in the Wrong then his Adversaries should be so certainly a great deal and it looks as if the Bp. were hard put to it when he thus argueth Did W. P. intend or desire such a Reader as the Bp. stateth No but such an one that had rather we were in the Right then in the Wrong and explains it thus One that thought it but reasonable we should be Heard before Condemned and that our Belief ought to be taken from our own Mouths and not at theirs that hath prejudged our Cause In short 't is very plain he only desired an Impartial Reader such as the Bp. only pretended to be Ibid. 2 The Bp. tells us He neither had nor has any personal quarrel with W. P. But says the Bp. all he impleads him of meaning W. P. is his Doctrine by spreading and defending such Principles which tend to the Subverting Christianity at which no Bp. ought to connive Answ As this is only a general as well as a false charge so needs no other Answer here but a positive denial until we come to particulars where we shall see how well the Bp. will prove his Charge As to his not conniving to be sure he 's at his liberty to implead but if he should do so again we must desire him to approve himself a fairer Adversary then he hath yet appeared either in his Testimony or now in his Reply P. 2 Says the Bp. To omit things less material P. 24 He would insinuate the Bp. Guilty of Insincerity in saying it was the first time he ever heard the Quakers own the Necessity of Christ as a Propitiation in order to Remission of Sins and justifying them as Sinners from the guilt and tells the Bp. where possibly he might have read it The Bp. makes Answer thus Possibly the Bp. may have Read more then either he did or now does actually remember he never had so much as many of the Quakers Books much less has he them in his memory Answ Here is first an Instance of the brevity of the Bp's Reply while he takes a large stride from P. 20 to 24 where W. P. Enumerates and Charges the Bp. with unfair dealing by us which the Bp. passeth over without notice with saying to omit things less Material next as W. P. said so say we that 't is next to impossible it should be the first time he so heard of the Quakers since he had read R. Barclays Apology which largely treats of this head But the Bp. Confesseth he possibly may have Read more then he Remembers which seems a tacit granting the matter But suppose he did not actually remember this point can it be possible he should forget that he had Read any of the Quakers Books since he told W. P. so very lately he had Read Robert Barclay and his Book called the Rise and Progress of the Quakers the former largely and the latter as fully as now in Gospel Truths owning the Doctrine of Justification Whence it follows if the Bp. had been an Impartial Reader as he pretended and one that was unwilling to represent us wrong or render us defective in our Belief he would certainly have first searched those two Books before he had made this point a new discovery so to the Impartial Reader we refer the Bp's sincerity or kindness to the Quakers herein and Proceed Ibid. 3 The Bp. tells us That he has a Book now before him Intitled The second Part of the serious Apology for the Principles and Practices of the People called Quakers by W. P. Printed 1671. In which P. 148. are these Words This namely Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us in the Words before We deny and boldly affirm it to be the Doctrine of Devils and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption which does now deluge the whole World Then the Bp. adds This the Bp. does not understand to be owning Justification by Christ he therefore now was glad to find Mr. P. more Orthodox in 1698. Then he was in 1671. Answ We would have been also glad to have found the Bp. more fair and ingenious not to say worse which it will bear then to leave out the Explanatory Part of W. P's Words which is as far Remote from a fair Adversary as an Impartial Reader Whereas had he been so just as to leave them in tho' they would not have suited the Bp's purpose yet together with W. P's plain Sense in several following Arguments would have made W. P. as Orthodox to the Impartial Reader in 1671. As the Bp. allows him to be 1698. For next to the Words i e His own Person for us follow these Words wholy without us which Words the Bp. hath wholly left out and instead of them hath substituted these Words in the Words before and the Bp. hath not only thus done but hath as we believe wilfuly overlooked since the place was before him W. P' s. plain sense and meaning in his foregoing Words in the same Page which are these For in him namely in Christ We have Life and by Faith
poor Evasions contemptible in themselves 't is more then probable the Bp. will come under this Censure and that this unusual way of dealing with an Opponent will be accounted by fair Disputants but a poor Evasion in himself especially if it be remembred how the Bp. hath already given us an instance of the like kind in passing over three or four pages of W. P's Defence in which W. P. enumerated several instances and charged the Bp. with unfair and abusive dealing by us with saying only to omit things less material See p. 9. Thus Reader having given thee this item we desire thy serious perusal of W. P's Defence with the Bp's Reply and thy Judgment is free whether so great a part of that Book which lyes unanswered by the Bp's taking such a compendious way is so poor little and contemptible as the Bp. would make it We now come to consider the several heads or figures of Speech the Bp. in his way has reduced W. P's Arguments to Ibid. 7. Manifest Impieties saith the Bp. are 1st His falsifying the Sence of Scripture and then the words of it so plainly that he cannot well seem insensible of it himself thus Whereas our Lord said John 3. 20. Every one that doth evill hateth the Light neither cometh to the Light lest his Deeds should be reproved which passage to make look favourable to his purpose he corrupts the 21. Vers And reads it thus He that Loves the Light brings his deeds to the Light to see if they are wrought in God Whereas the plain meaning of the Text is no more then they that do evill seek to be hid 1 Thes 5. 7. They that are drunken are drunken in the Night they who do well fear not to bee seen to which Sense every Nation hath Proverbs With us Truth seeks no corners with many more like Thus the Bp. Answ To falsifie the sence of Scripture knowingly and with design is no doubt great Impiety but for the Bp. to tax W. P. as he hath done in the present Case is very Uncharitable if not Worse Now the Impiety Falsifying and Corrupting which the Bp. would Unjustly sasten upon W. P. consists only in saying Loves the Light in stead of doth Truth Pray Reader turn to W. P' s. Defence p. 115. and there thou wilt find W. P's intent was to shew that the Light of Christ was to be judg of the deeds of Men which these two Texts do plainly prove from Christ's own Words Now let us see what W. P. could gain by this alteration which must be his end if true as the Bp. says to make look favourable to his purpose W. P. says Loves the Light and the Scriptures doth Truth Now Vers 20. says every one that doth evil hateth the Light neither cometh to the Light lest his deeds should be reproved Surely then he that brings his deeds to the Light as the doer of Truth did must certainly be a lover of the Light So then he that doth truth loves the Light and he that loves the Light doth Truth where then is the falsifying the sense of Scripture Nay rather if there be any difference we think W. P. had the disadvantage for tho' they do not differ in sense yet we think the words Doth Truth would rather have been more Emphetical in that place then the words Loves the Light Certainly had the Bp. been such a Reader as he promised in his Testimony he would not for this difference have made W. P. guilty of falsifying the sense of Scripture and to aggravate the matter adds impiety and corruption but on the other hand rather have concluded that either the Transcriber mist or W. P's mind ran with the sense and consequence of the foregoing Verse which we believe was the Bp's own case in his Reply where in p. 17. he says Matt. 4. 11. which should be Matt. 3. 11. Again p. 22. he cites 1 Cor. 11. and so proceeds upon several verses from that Chapter when we believe he intended 1 Cor. Chap. 2. But did the Bp. consider while he thus vilifyed W. P. for the variation of some words which no way altered the sense that his high charge of Impiety would extend farther and strike higher then he was aware of or we believe would be willing it should for not only Moses in writing the Decalogue in Deu. 5. varies from the express terms wherein 't was delivered in Exod. the 20. but the Apostles often yea and our Lord himself in reciting places of Scriptures out of the old Testament vary in our common Translations from the verbal expressions of the Scriptures they recite and give the Sense in other words Numerous Instances could be given which for brevity we omit and will mention but one and refer to a few more thus Have ye never read saith Christ in Matt. 21. 16. Out of the mouth of Babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise which words are referred in the Margine to Psal 8. 2. Out of the mouth of Babes and Sucklings hast thou ordained strength Then Matt. 11. compared with Mal. 3. 1. Again Matt. 13. 14 15. compared with Isa 6. 9 10. Again Rom. 10. vers 11. compared with Isa 28. 16. Not to spend more time we refer the Reader to the Scriptures where he will find a multitude of Texts which in our English Translation vary in express words but agree in sense If these Instances do not convince the Bp. they may a more equal Reader that in taxing W. P. with manifest Impiety for giving some words of that Text John 3. 21. in other words then the Translation has it while the Sense was no way altered he hath therein manifested his great uncharitablness and disingenuity But before we end we must tell the Bp. if W. P. was guilty of falsifying the sense of Scripture which we do not allow he is much more in putting such gross and carnal meanings upon the words of Jesus Christ John 3. 20 21. for whereas Christ doth there make the Light the judg and tryer of good and bad deeds in manifesting the good and reproving the bad which no other Light can do but the light of his own Spirit and which appears plainly from the Context see the foregoing 16 17 18 19. Verses Which light lighteth every Man and shines in the heart according to John 1. 4. 9. 2 Cor. 4. 6. Contrarily the Bp. will have the meaning of these two Texts like unto proverbial sayings and therewith compares 1 Thes 5. 7. But what if this Text were allowed a proverbial Speech what would this do for the Bp. as it would not be a parallel to John 3. 20 21. so neither do we think 't will answer the Bp's turn while 't is plain the 5. Vers compared with Thes Vers 7. makes it a Spiritual Night and the Bp. opposes John 3. 20 21. to a Spiritual Light if we understand his meaning by comparing those Texts to proverbial sayings But the Bp. has made a great noise of
to his Censuring the Quakers instead of saying common Twelve he should have made the Creed into distinct Articles and laid them down for us But leaving this we proceed to the next Ibid. 10. Inconsequent and trifling inferences says the Bp. of W. P. such are p. 31. we call him the beloved Son of God the only begotten of the Father therefore conceived of the holy Ghost Mr. P. knows Solomon was named Jedediah the Lords beloved David said to be his begotten Son Psal 2. his first born Psal 89. 27. Yet neither conceived of the holy Ghost nor born of a Virgin Thus the Bp. Answ Certainly we believe hardly ever came more trifling 〈◊〉 matters to speak in his way from a Man in the station of a Bp. Be pleased Reader to read W. Ps ' Defence from p. 35. to 39. where he answers the Bp. fully upon this point of the manifestation of Christ Jesus in the flesh and shews plainly that altho' the words conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin be not expressed in that brief Paper Gospel Truths yet they are very fully implied and take but the above words which the Bp. has pickt out of the Defence and they imply no less for who was the beloved Son of God and only begotten of the Father according to John 1. 14. Chap. 3. 16. but Jesus Christ that was born of the Virgin But says the Bp. Solomon was named Jedediah the Lords beloved what then so was Daniel a Man greatly beloved of the Lord and many other servants of God too But where was any of them called the Word made Flesh the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth his beloved Son in whom he was well pleased who tasted death for every Man his office of Justification a Propitiation named Jesus Christ with all this and more of the same kind in Gospel Truths and again repeated by W. P. in his Defence And now for the Bp. a second time to suggest such trifling 〈◊〉 things we should tell him it looks like trifling for trifling 's sake did we not find some of it worse and indeed it looks as if the Bp. would falsify the sense of Scripture rather then want proof to make W. P. guilty of trifling and inconsequent Inferences thus he has cited Psal 2. and Psal 89. 27. to make the Scripture serve his turn against W. P. whereas 't is undenyable what is said in the second Psal is spoken of Christ himself which is fully confirmed in the New Testament in these words Acts 13 33. God hath raised up Jesus again as it is written in the second Psalm Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee Then as to Psal 89. 27. is it not very plain David doth there personate Christ it runs thus Also I will make him my first born higher then the Kings of the Earth We will not enlarge on the matter only add that if the Bp. could have proved such gross falsifying the plain sense of Scripture as this we should no doubt have heard of it very loudly while the Bp. made so much adoe about two words which altered not the sense as we have before shewn But no more of this now Ibid. 10. The Bp. quotes W. P. for another trifling instance He that confesseth him made flesh confesseth him made flesh by God and therefore made holy flesh does not all the World know say's the Bp. that all flesh is made by God and do we hence conclude all flesh is holy or conceived by the holy Ghost many more may be instanced Answ Here 's Instances enough already and more then are consistant with the Bp's Credit as we have shewn and truly we think as little to the purpose as most Men ever wrote and indeed we do begrudg the time we spend in answering such trifling if some of it be not unjust matter were it not for the sake of Truth and for those who may think there is more in the Bp's Arguments then really there is and had we at first only referred the Reader to W. P's Defence for answer to all these trifling Instances it would have fully answered them and so fully too that we must take W. P's own words to answer the Bp. again because the Bp. hath so unfairly pickt out such as he hoped to make some advantage of and not only so but in this instance hath put in a word of his own and left out three of W. P's without which he could not have made good his charge against W. P. And to shew that he hath so done we here give W. P's own words as they lye in his Defence p. 34. Thus. W. P. He that confesses the word was made flesh confesses him made flesh by God and therefore made holy flesh which is found Doctrine and agrees with John 1. 14. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us c. Now instead of these words the Word was the Bp. has only put in the Word him Again had not the Bp. so unfairly left out three of W. P's words the distinction between Christ's flesh and all other flesh was plainly and fully imply'd by saying the Word was made flesh for who was the word made flesh but Christ the beloved Son of God and only begotten of the Father and so W. P. calld him but four lines before surely one would think here was distinction enough between Christ's flesh which was conceived by the holy Ghost and all other sinful flesh to satisfie any who had not a mind to Cavil or trifle for triflings sake Now Reader judg in the matter Did the Bp. deal justly with W. P. in thus doing by him to answer his unfair purposes but 't is no news for the Quakers to be thus abused and misrepresented by their Adversaries as we noted in the begining And now to the Bp. What is become of his trifling and inconsequent inferences where is wilfuly false overlooking the plain Sense where is manifold arts of uncharitabelness and disingenuity where is the falsifying and perverting plain sense of Scripture and consequently impiety and corruption we leave it with the candid Reader who they are fallen upon whether the Bp. or W. P. And so we proceed Ibid. 10. Saith the Bp. of W. P. Contemptious and scornful Language such is that reflection a weak head Which Reader observe W. P. alluded to himself in relation to the Bp's Arguments in case his instances were no better to the purpose then the Bp's upon that expression of the Bp's stomach turning we will not call the Bp. a weak head but we are sure we should think our Arguments weak were they no more to the purpose then the Bp's are in what 's past but in regard the Bp. did not answer W. P's Arguments about the Language Thee and Thou to a single person they remain yet in force agaist the Bp. And as to his Reflections on our conscientious using that Language calling it a wicked kind of weakness together with an
P. rejects all with scorn and vile insinuations Answ Reader be pleased to see W. P's Defence from p. 52. to 65. and whether what the Bp. saith be true or not And since the Bp. hath not answered W. P's Arguments but with reproachful words breaking through and overlooking most of the many Scripture proofs brought by W. P. to demonstrate what he and the Quakers meant by the Light and Spirit of Christ within We say since the Bp. hath so done both W. P's Arguments and such Scripture proofs lye at his door together with those we have added as a farther proof and demonstration of what we mean by the Light and Spirit of Christ within not here to mention our own experience of the virtue and efficacy thereof with the Blessed Effects which to the Glory and Praise of God we have found thereby so that if after all that has been said the Bp. shall still declare his ignorance of what the Quakers mean by the Light within 't is but too evident a proof of the little share he has in or acquaintance with it P. 12. 13. The Bp. brings in R. Barclay for a share reproaching him also with Banter and Cant about the Light within in reading which we could not without noted observation remember how ignorant the Bp. made himself in his Testimony concerning the Quakers Principles and how ready he was to charge and almost unchristian them for the brevity of Gospel Truths notwithstanding he had R. B's Apology which fully handled some of those very points he pretended to make a new discovery of and condemned in that Paper as being short exprest Yet now from the same Book he can nicely pick words here and there some of them many pages distant and put them together in expectation by abusing R. B's sense and making false constructions to serve his turn against the Quakers He tells us p. 12. No rational Man alive can make sense of what he R. B. has writ thereon i. e. Light within Answ The Bp. is here a great undertaker whilst 1st 't is impossible for him to be sure all the rational Men alive who have or may read R. B's Apology on that subject are of the same mind with him 2ly We tell him another Mans affirmative may be as good as his negative and not to mention the most rational Men there are as rational Men as the Bp. not to lessen him who can make sense of what R. B. has writ But we the less wonder the Bp. should not understand what R. B. and others have said of the Light within since he appears so unexperienced about Spiritual matters as to Revile R. B. with being unintelligible and guilty of Banter not only concerning the Light but about Spiritual senses plainly proveable by Scripture as we shall anon evince and in the mean time we shall consider the Bp's next and greatest charge in this page against R. B. which is as he says for perverting Scripture and adding a new term as he calls it namely the word Light to the Text John 3. 16. that he may says the Bp. prove Christ as a Light given to all And yet at the same time he picks out this word he takes no notice of the Multitude of Scriptures which R. B. has cited to prove the sufficiency and universality of the Light only he tells us he R. B. misapplies two or three Texts to prove this Light universal but not a word how or wherein But to the word Light 't is so plain on R. B's side as having no such perverting intention that we cannot believe but the Bp's Conscience must know he wronged R. B. in this case as well as in what follows hereafter which we shall shew only in the first place let us take the Bp. in his own way about the Light Then say we if that Text might have proved Christ a Light given to all had the word Light been there then certainly he 's proved such if we bring several Scriptures as full to the point thus John 1. 4. In him was life and the Life was the Light of Men. Vers 9. He was viz. Christ the true Light which lighteth every Man that cometh into the World What can be more plain as to the universality of the Light of Christ Again Chap. 8. 12. I am saith Christ the Light of the World he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness but shall have the Light of Life which Texts sufficiently prove that Christ is a Light to all And certainly the Bp. sought for an occasion while he pickt out that Word to Accuse R. B. tho' at the same time does not confute those Scriptures with several others brought both by R. B. and W. P. to prove the Light of Christ within unless by falsifying the sense of those Texts noted before p. 29. Now to the perversion and addition charged by the Bp. upon R. B. with much noise observe Reader the word Light is in the Thesis of R. B's fifth Proposition in his Apology where he has no less then five Scripture Texts and there is not any one of all the five laid down in the exact and full words of Scripture some of them very short as well as differing in words and in particular this very Text John 3. 16. cited by the Bp. are neither the full nor yet all of them the exact words of that Text Besides the word Light and indeed the five Texts he there gave were only a kind of References to Scriptures which proved the Argument he was upon namely the universality of the love of God through Christ Jesus who was the Light of the World and Light of Men Now we 'l grant if R. B. had laid down all these Texts as the entire words of Scripture and that he could not plainly prove Christ the Light of Men then had he been in the wrong and the Bp. in the right but since the first are not so and that he as well as we have shewn by plain Scripture Christ to be the Light of Men we think 't is but too plain the Bp. wanted an occasion while he made this one for in reading R. B's Explanation and Defence of this Proposition where in p. 81. We find the full and entire words of that Text laid down thus John 3. 16. God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that who so ever believed in him should not perish but have everlasting Life Now candid Reader judg in the matter which is most obvious the Bp's partiality by indeavouring to misrepresent R. B. or R. B's intention to pervert and add a new term to Scripture when he had not the least need of it and had several other plain Scriptures to prove the point The rest of p. 12. and part of 13. is mostly a recital of pickt words here and there taken out of R. B's Apology and as we said before some far distant added together upon some of which the Bp. puts his own false constructions and
yet in conclusion we do not find he pretends to confute them by any other Arguments then by his own Assertion as p. 12. he tells us by the way he does not think this Scripture Language and p. 13. avers 't is unintelligible that is Banter so that we need take no further notice then only refer the Reader to R. B's Apology where if he be impartial he will find full satisfaction However in regard the Bp. doth greatly abuse R. Bp's sense we will take notice and answer such his recitalls Thus p. 12. the Bp. cites some words out of R. B's Discourse on the sixth Proposition of his Apology where R. B. was proving that the seed Light or Grace of God is no accident but a real Spiritual substance Then says the Bp. of their feeling it yea anon Tasting Smelling seeing it and handling by virtue of it the things of God which yet says the Bp. are certainly all Spiritual things Again the Bp. goes on p. 13. that people should be able to smell and feel and handle things which being intellectual and immaterial can no ways be incident to these Senses nor are so much as ever Metaphorically said to be smelt or handled the Bp. avers unintelligible that is Banter Then he tells us he expects our Reply that he is a carnally minded Man to whom all this seems strange which he will answer anon Answ First the Bp. in this case might as well have expected to be taxed with great unfairness in wilfully abusing R. B's sense as that he is a carnally minded Man and that he is guilty of the first and such a Man in the last we think nothing can well be plainer while in the first he makes R. B. to alsude to outward senses whereas the Scope of his Arguments as well as his plain Words do prove the contrary thus p. 95. R. B's Apology and the same Section cited by the Bp. which he makes 16. but it should be Sect. 14. We come to have those Spiritual Senses raised by which we are made capable of Tasting Smelling Seeing and Handling the things of God And in plain opposition to outward Senses which the Bp. would insinuate he intended says in the next words for a Man cannot reach unto those things by his natural Spirit and Senses as is above declared Pray Reader judg in the matter can there be a plainer abuse put upon a Man while the Bp. opposes intellectual and immaterial things and Spiritual Senses to what R. B. intended when R. B's plain words intends Spiritual in opposition to Natural Senses Next as to the Seed Light and Grace of God which the Bp. cites p. 12. and which R. B. says is a real Spiritual Substance which the Soul is able to feel and apprehend from which that real inward Spiritual birth in Believers arises called the New Creature and New Man in the heart Now for confirming R. B's expressions to be sound and Spiritual both in this Citation as also in relation to Spiritual Senses we ask the Bp. what New Creature the Apostle meant 2 Cor. 5. 17. Gal. 6. 15. And what that hidden Man of the heart was the Apostle spoke of 1 Pet. 3. 4. And what those Senses were 1 John 1. 12. by which the Apostle saw felt and handled the word of Life Then what taste that was Ps 34. 8. O taste and see that the Lord is good And what that sweet savour was 2 Cor. 2. 15. Sweet Smell Cant. 4. 9 11. Chap. 7. 13. Now Reader judg in the matter might not the Bp. with much reason if he had considered rightly have expected to be termed a Carnaly minded Man by us while he rendered R. B. guilty of unintelligible Banter P. 12. the Bp. tells us R. B. will have this Light or Grace the purchase of Christs Death for every Man lightning the hearts of all in a day and subsists in the hearts of wicked Men even whilst they are in their wickedness which the Bp. tells us he thinks not Scripture Language Answ That R. B. hath fully and undeniably owned and asserted the Attonement and Sacrifice of Jesus Christ in p. 96. of his Apology as also in the seventh Proposition about Justification we suppose the Bp. will not deny and in the first doth make an especial exception against being misunderstod in that point while he was treating of the necessity of obeying the Light and Grace of Christ in order to receive the benefits of his death and sufferings for us why then might not he say this Seed Light Grace or Spirit of Christ was the purchase of his death since it came by him see John 1. 17. The Law came by Moses but Grace and Truth by Jesus Christ Again John 1. 4 9. Rom. 8. 9. John 16. 7. 13. And that it subsists in the Wicked tho' in a far different manner then in the Righteous as R. B. excellently shews see Luke 17. 21. The Kingdom of Heaven within The wicked Pharisees Mat. 25. 25. The wicked servant had a Talent tho' he did not improve it Now is it not strange the Bp. should overlook many more Scriptures then these while he was so trifling with R. B. Ibid. 12. The Bp. tells us that R. B. says That the knowledge of Christs death and sufferings as declared in the Scripture is not absolutely necessary for making people partakers of this Light Again P. 13. The knowledge of the Scripture tho' comfortable and profitable is not needful Answ We have already in Answer to the four points laid down by the Bp. as G. K's p. 45. 46. spoken to this point and therefore need say the less here nor do we find the Bp. pretends to confute it Nay tells us as to that part which lyes in p. 12. that R. B. proves it after his way And as to that part in p. 13. the Bp. has neither fairly cited it nor told the occasion for R. B. spoke in reference to such from whom the knowledg of the Death and sufferings of Christ hath been with-held to such says R. B. it is not absolutely needful so as they may be saved notwithstanding they have not the outward History provided they obey the Light and Spirit of God which he plainly proves is given universally to all And thereby from unholy become holy Men We desire thee Reader to peruse R. B's fifth and sixth Propositions for full satisfaction to all the Bp's Objections P. 13. The Bp. proceeds thus By what has been produced out of R. B. in his own words it appears Mr. Penn's double and agreeing Testimony of the Light within and the Scriptures of Truth without is but a New bubble upon the World a thin Leaf of Gold to make the poisonous Pill of their Light within go down with the less reluctancy or even suspition Answ As to the Bp's picking out and putting false constructions upon R. B's and W. P's words we have observed to the Reader already Next as to the agreeing Testimony we have spoken to that
Men so hardened as it appears by Mr. P's wresting Scripture to elude the Truth Mr. P. first in a manner confesseth himself put to his shifts I am sensible of the disadvantage I am under c. saith he Yet proceeds he to shift on Answ We have little cause to believe the Bp's mourning is real while he continues to abuse as well as misrepresent us as he doth however let his mourning be of what sort it will 't was needless here because 't is without ground for we deny W. P. doth either wrest Scripture or elude the Truth But on the other hand 't is very plain the Bp. doth here wrest W. P's words to sute his own turn not only in not laying down his following words but wrongly applying those he has laid down Now W. P's words are these viz. I am sensible of the disadvantage I lye under and that I touch a tender place and what I say upon this Head also anon upon the Supper will be against wind and tide with the generality Now Reader judg doth W. P. in a manner confess himself put to his shifts or doth he not rather express himself thus with respect to the people who are generally in the practice of Water Baptism and the outward Supper and consequently therefore did believe the harder to be prevailed upon by his Arguments and this we take to be no more then if the Bp. were writing against the Papists in a received Tenet of the Church of Rome Suppose Transubstantiation might not the Bp. with a great deal of reason say with respect to them I am sensible of the disadvantage I lye under c. would this be in a manner confessing he was put to his shifts but we have more of the same kind nay worse in what follows The Bp. proceeds to vindicate his allegation in his Testimony viz. P. 17. The Bp. had avouched those words of our Lord Matt. 28. 19. was an Institution and command of Baptism with Water and gave two substantial reasons which he holds to Baptizing with the holy Ghost was not in the Apostles power therefore it could not be the thing commanded them 2ly Baptizing with Water was the Apostles and primitive practice and has been ever since the practice of the Church To the first of these Mr. P. answereth it is not true and to make that good alledges Acts 10. 44. while Peter yet spoke these words the holy Ghost fell on all those that heard the word Hence he infers that Peter Baptized Cornelius with the holy Ghost Now was there ever any thing more impertinent and inconsequent while Peter spoke c. the holy Ghost fell on them c. therefore which was the point to be proved was it Peter's act and in his power to Baptize with the holy Ghost no the Spirit breatheth where it listeth John 5. 8. But God says Mr. P. by the Apostles did Baptize Believers with the holy Ghost to which the Bp. answers as we take it tacitly granting the matter Did he so Then 't was God Baptized them with the holy Ghost and not the Apostles they were only instruments at pleasure as long as the act was not principally theirs it cannot be concluded hence to have been in their power Thus the Bp. Answ Reader we must desire thy excuse for this long citation we could not well avoid it for the following reasons 1st Let a Man act ever so warily 't is much if his words be not perverted as the Bp. hath done by W. P. on this point 2ly It will in part appear from the Bp's own words tho' to be sure not designedly how unfair he has been unto W. P. in representing him as if W. P. had said 't was in the Apostles power of themselves to Baptize with the holy Ghost tho' at the same time in a kind of contradiction to himself as a Salvo adds But God says Mr. P. by the Apostles did Baptize Believers with the holy Ghost But then with a short turn Query's as if W. P. had been of another mind before Did he so Then 't was God Baptized c. Now Sober Reader we must desire thy farther patience in citing W. P's own words as they lye in one entire Paragraph of his Defence p. 76. which will not only discover the Bp's false representation of W. P. but fully clear up the matter that W. P. never intended or meant 't was barely in the Apostles power to Baptize with the holy Ghost Thus W. P. viz. I say then the Bp's first reason is not true for God by the Apostles did Baptize Believers with the holy Ghost it fell upon them by the powerful preaching of the word thus act 10. 44. while Peter yet spake these words the holy Ghost fell on them that heard By which it is evident that Peter in that Sermon was the Minister of the Spiritual Baptism to Cornelius and his company Now Impartial Reader judg in the matter was it possible for a Man to speak more plain then W. P. doth here that 't was God by the Apostles they as his Ministers were made able by him to Baptize Believers with the holy Ghost and which was W. P's point to prove and which he did by others as well as this Argument tho' the Bp. has overlookt them and what can be said or who can be safe tho' ever so plain while it hath been the common practice of our Adversaries to misrepresent us as the Bp. hath now done by W. P. as if he should intend 't was in the Apostles power to Baptize with the holy Ghost see the Bp's own words But if we mistake him not the Bp. himself seems to allow that God did instrumentally Baptize Believers with the holy Ghost we are sure we intend not to wrong his Sense but his words to us seems to import no less while he saith Did he so Then 't was God Baptized with the holy Ghost and not the Apostles they were only instruments at pleasure as long as the act was not principally theirs it cannot be concluded hence to have been in their power Nor did W. P. ever intend 't was in the Apostles power only as Instruments in God's hand and by his power and at his pleasure they Baptized Believers with the holy Ghost but whether this was the Bp's Intention or not we will not determine and so leave it and return to the Argument That it is plain not only from this Instance cited by the Bp. but by other Arguments advanced by W. P. which the Bp. past over in silence that God did Baptize Believers instrumentally through the Apostles and therefore the Bp's first reason falls and W. P's takes place Farther whatsoever the Apostles did in the discharge of their Ministerial Office whether as to Preaching Healing or Baptizing they were but Instruments it was all done by God through them God spake through them yet they said to speak he healed through them yet they said to heal so to Baptize through them and