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
was done to the Prophets and Apostles Therefore G. F. in the very beginning of his Mystery as I hinted before showing the ground of difference between the Priests and Professors and all Sects in these Nations and the Quakers saith That the controversie on their part is just and equal against them all and that they have sufficient cause to cry against them and to deny their Ministry their Church their Worship and their whole Religion as being not in the Power and by the Spirit of the living God Compare this with what I have cited before and then it plainly appears that all right Quakers in G. Fox's sense have renounced or denyed their Faith Worship and whole Christian Religion which they had before they were Quakers as being grounded as ours is upon Reason Scriptures the Preaching of Jesus and his Apostles and Prophets and Tradition with an assistance of the Holy Spirit elevating the mind but not upon immediate objective Revelation such as the Apostles and Prophets had and such as the Quakers now pretend to have For we and those that differ from them profess those things before mentioned to be the ground of our Faith they profess the last of Immediate Revelation to be the ground of their Faith and Religion and deny ours to be Divine Faith or true Religion Nay they cry out against it as foolishness and darkness literal and lifeless So then W. P. doth but make a fair flourish when he faith p. 39. The Scriptures we own and the Divine Truth therein contained we reverence and esteem as the Mind and Will of God to men For they cannot according to their Principles esteem any saying of Scripture be it that God raised up the Lord Jesus from the dead or any other word of any Apostle or of Christ himself I say they cannot esteem it as the Mind and Will of God except they have an immediate Revelation dictating the same unto them Which if they have then the Scripture is superfluous to them and they do no more esteem it the Mind and Will of God because it is written in the Bible than if it had been written in any other Book among Fables and Lies These things considered I argue thus If among the Professors of Religion in these Nations there be those that sincerely confess the Lord Jesus and heartily believe that God raised him from the dead upon the grounds forementioned and not upon the ground of immediate objective Revelation of God's Holy Spirit then G. Fox and the Quakers deny and cry out against true Christian Faith and Religion and consequently cannot have them Again If men in general cannot savingly believe without hearing a sent Preacher then men cannot believe by immediate inward Revelation and then they that assert they can and do and deny the Antecedent cannot have saving Faith The Antecedent is true from Rom. 10.13 14 15. The Consequent from the opposition between mediate and immediate 1 Cor. 1.18 They to whom the preaching of the Cross is foolishness and not the Power of God cannot have Gospel-Faith But to G. F. and some Quakers the preaching of the Cross without immediate Revelation is foolishness and not the Power of God Therefore G. F. c. cannot have Gospel-Faith Let us proceed now to the other Instances of Scripture abus'd and show the tendency of it to false Doctrine Inst 29. Next he would vindicate G. F. in correcting the Translators for rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I protest by 1 Cor. 15.31 saying there is nothing in the Greek for I protest and yet Mr. P. cannot but grant that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is commonly at least a particle of Swearing and if but so it follows that there is something in the Greek that answers I protest by for supposing that not to be the sense of the place which the current of Interpretors say is yet there is that word there which will bear such a Translation there is something in the Greek for I protest which G. F. denies and therein imposes upon his Reader which is enough for my purpose Here W. P. p. 91 that he may be true to his presumptuous way of arguing though he venture the abusing God and Men tells us That an Oath having been made from the distrust of honesty in him that was to take it where the cause Lyes Equivocations c. is removed the effect Swearing should cease As if Christ or rather God himself had distrusted his own honesty when he sware unto Christ Thou art a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedec or the Patriarch Abraham the Father of the Faithful had distrusted God's honesty and therefore God sware to him to free him from his dissidence and not because as the Scripture speaks God was willing more abundantly to shew unto the Heirs of Promise the immutability of his Counsel Heb. 6.17 30. Next we come to that Text in Matth. 23. Neither be ye called Masters c. Here as his manner is he abuses my words as if he came out of Bedlam and then my Argument must be a Bedlam one Read both and compare for I may not now repeat If the Quakers restrain the Text where they have reason why may not others restrain it where they have as good reason and that without blaming the Text or strange irreverence to Holy Writ If my Neighbour be a Master of Servants why may I not treat him in compellation as such and not as if he had no Servant and were himself a Servant And by Mr. P's favour I count it no sin to call another Man's Wife Good Wife or another Man's She-Servant Maid Mr. P. doth but no sin to tell me I have told a plain lye when himself has made my words so by detracting from them And therefore the Reader has no reason to believe him when he saith Civil honour namely of calling Master is repugnant to common Truth and Christian Religion But I wonder W. P. should take so much pains to vindicate Stephen in calling the Counsel of the Jews Men Brethren and Fathers who yet were not his proper Fathers for he might with more ease have done it by saying He had a special impulse for it as the Quaker that came many score of miles as they said to perform his obeysance to Margaret Fell at her own House where at a solemn Meeting the Man rose up from his Seat and went and fell down upon his knees with his Hat in his hand directly before Margaret Fell and made his humble address to her by the compellation of my dear Mother and beseech'd her to pray for him In like manner on the third or fourth day after John Stubs at another Meeting requested the like favour of her with his Hat under his Arm standing and calling her My dear everlasting Mother The truth of these things can be prov'd by eye and ear-witnesses and I suppose there are some Quakers that will attest them This is that Margaret Fell who was formerly Judge Fell's
omitted his many reproachful and virulent expressions Besides I doubt not but to make it as evident as the Sun at noon that W. P. is himself guilty of those very Crimes which he falsly charges upon me and in those very Instances Before I came to the main Argument of my Epistle to the Quakers I addressed my self to them by way of Introduction wherein I gave some reasons of that manner of Argument which I intended This Mr. P. first falls foul upon and by the honesty and discretion he useth here we may judge of his performance in the whole Treatise In his first and second Sections the Reader may take notice how greedily he catches at the commendations I give of some of them I said there were honest-hearted amongst them and he saith He is pleased to allow us at least a great many among us to be honest-hearted It may as well be understood of some few Is he not a modest man If his Neighbour say Honest-hearted he will have it at least a great many honest-hearted I said Whilst some of you excel in many things c. But W. P. like a man that will rob his Neighbour for praise rather than go without it saith thus Sect. 2. If we excel in all things as he confesseth Here W. P. has committed a double falsity 1. He puts all for many and 2. the Quakers indefinitely for some of them I have look't among the Printers Errata's whether he had not corrected all by many but find no such thing And if I should grant him that error without good reason yet the other piece of falsity viz. putting we the Quakers in general for some of them will abide by him to the gross injury of me and the shame of himself Doth he call me idle Boaster and at the same time vainly boast of the praise I never gave them In his third Sect. He calls those praises which by falsifying my words he wrings out paying them their due In his fourth Sect. he saith of me Nor doth he less then palpably belie us in telling the World we condemn all virtuous Persons whatsoever if not of our own Perswasion And yet I cannot understand his Answer to be less than an implicite concession of the Charge Sure I am G. F. denies the Worship and whole Religion of all Sects that differ from the Quakers It seems I belie them with a matter of truth which because it is not plausible W. P. would palliate You may see what he 's resolv'd on He saith Sect. 5. Christ's Person which he meaning me prejudicially sayes we deny is c. My words are these But you seem at least to deny his Person Is there no difference between denying and seeming to deny But I shall have occasion to speak further of this matter Only the Reader may take notice all along of his great honesty in quoting my words But this is a trivial fault in comparison with that which follows W. Penn Sect. 8. But saith he he promiseth for the future to decline this way of proceeding and withal to avoid the use of both Scripture and Reason c. I will not saith he give him the lie but I hope he will not say I am uncivil if I tell him He has already â—â—ntradicted himself and broke his word with us for within eight lines he that promised to relinquish all personal reflection layes to our charge c. And in p. 92. he has it up again and gives me the lie in plain English which he saith here he will not give me He words it thus First Then he has broke his word with us which in plainer English is he has told us a lie in assuring us at the beginning he would deal with us neither from Scripture nor Reason and yet undertakes both Now Reader have patience to hear my words which run thus But it is not my design at this time to take a full view of you And indeed I have found it very fruitless to deal with you by way of Reason and Scripture for your leading men c. It follows in my next page I will not therefore now deal with you so much by Arguments drawn from Reason and Scripture and depending purely upon the understanding and mind but by such Arguments whose evidence depends mostly upon the outward Senses Now let the sober Reader judge on whom the lie is to be fixed and whether I have not sufficient reason to tell him He is both uncivil and unchristian Behold here the infallible Minister the Censor of the World and of other mens foul language Behold the Spirit of Truth vindicated Let me beg of thee Reader to read his Book See how he treats me and what himself deserves Acknowledge the special hand of our Lord Jesus in giving up this man to these shameful failings in the very entrance of his work Pag. 15. Upon occasion of my savine they look upon themselves as led by an infallible Spirit this plain English-man takes up his Post and will defend this That God's Holy anâ—Vn-erring Spirit is or should be the proper Judge of Truth Rule of Faith and Guide of Life among men I commend him for his wit I have charg'd G. F. with about fifty such failures as for which he condemns his Adversaries to be perverters of Scripture and consequently Deluders and Blasphemers W. P. here in vindication of him enters into a long discourse of two and thirty pages to prove from Scripture Reason and humane Authority That G. F. is or if he is not should be led by an infallible Spirit for his Hypothesis is no other way to his purpose 1. I do not only willingly grant but contend for it That there was in G. F. at that time when he wrote his Mystery c. a Conscience which had he hearkened to he should thereby have been a Law to himself and it would not have suffered him to be guilty of such things as he condemns in others 2. I grant also that this Rule is infallible viz. That he that judgeth another for any thing is inexcusable if he do the same thing himself I grant 3. that God is the Author of this Conscience Light or Knowledge 4. That G. F. might have known the Rule aforesaid by a good use and improvement of his own understanding but I suppose he came to the knowledge of it by some outward Teaching or Tradition especially by the Scriptures And so 5. the Spirit of God may in a true and good sense be said to have taught G. F. that Rule because it inspired those that preached and wrote that Rule in the Scriptures 6. That the Spirit of God was ready to have assisted him in walking according to that Rule 7. That it may be God did by his Power and Providence work upon him toward obedience Lastly Perhaps the Spirit of God did at that time when he was about to disobey suggest to him his Duty and Rule But there is little reason to think so
because that Rule was sufficiently know to G. F. by the means aforesaid and God is not wont to give that special Gift but to his humble Servants and Friends or to those whom he will imploy upon some special business in the World And if he had such a suggestion the more notoriously wicked was he to disobey so great a Light Now if any judicious Reader will take pains to consider the 25 Texts W. P. has quoted and he may add 25 more to them with their Contexts I am perswaded he will find them every one to intend some of the Cases I have mentioned Now let us see if we can understand what W. P. intends by the terms of his Position for we must understand him as he understands the Scriptures not Literally but Mystically 1. We are to know that by God's Holy and Vnerring-Spirit he means if he means as the leading Quakers neither Hypostasis nor Person nor any thing else but God himself who is the Father 2. By Judge of Truth Rule of Faith Guide of Life he means That God doth immediately teach G. F. and every man to judge infallibly of all Truth what is to be believed and what to be practised For otherwise it is not intelligible That God should be the Judge of Truth c. among men And therefore 3. that the Scripture is as he saith pag. 38. much like the shadow of the true Rule which may give us some ground to guess what the Rule if self is In the next page he saith in effect That the Teachings of God are like the knowledge of the Princes Will and Secrets viva Voce or immediately which he that hath and every man ought to have heeds not so much the same when he meets it in print that is in the Scriptures They are like a Gazette to a Privy Counsellor But he saith That the eternal Spirit that is these immediate Teachings to be superior to those Writings So that when G. F. saith How can they but delude People that are not infallible This is to be heeded more than any sentence in Scripture and is superior to those Writings 4. He means by his Position that men are to be guided into Truth and Faith and good Life immediately in opposition to their endeavours studying the Scriptures setting themselves to Prayer Reasoning Preaching and the like that is such of these as are performed by us which he calls p. 84. Running in our own Wills poring beating of our Brains and daily striving Now if this be his meaning as manifestly it is then let any man that has read any of those Authors Books tell me whether he thinks that any one of those he mentions was of his mind that is Tollet or Maldonate Beza or Dr. Hammond or Hutchinson Socinus Selichtingius or Crellius Did they not all abhor that Doctrine It comes to this That God has made men with faculties capable of believing and understanding what the Will of their earthly Superior is by the means of Ministers Messengers Proclamations Writings c. and of obeying his Will heartily without immediate assistance But if our Heavenly Superior will have us to know or do his Will he must tell us immediately himself he must go along with us and lead us step by step or else he must expect no Service Duty or Obedience from us at all The truth is This Doctrine of the necessity of God's immediate Teaching doth overthrow the Mediatorship of the Man Christ Jesus our Lord and quite subvert the Gospel for mediate and immediate are directly contradictory Besides still we have gain'd nothing by this doctrine for if men do not hearken to the Un-erring Judge or mistake him or resist him against knowledge refusing to be led by him they fail as much as if they had no such Immediate Guide but a Mediate Guide and Direction Let Mr. Pen be the Example who even in the beginning of his Book has notwithstanding his immediate and infallible Guide run into five or six such palpable Falsities and Calumnics as I am consident the Cobler of Glocester would never have been guilty of nor any man else that had not been transported with pride rashness and revenge What has he gain'd then by his immediate Guide which another man that knows by Nature or Tradition he ought to speak truth is not equally capable of But why doth this Apologist spend so many Pages upon this Point and take no notice of my arguing in the following Lines which he saith I had obliged my self against Must it be past over therefore I am perswaded to use his words he was confounded at it It was to this effect We by your own confession have the Light within or the infallible Guide as well as you why then is not our Doctrine as true as yours You answer That we are not obedient we are in the customs of the World c. and therefore not to be heeded Thus you prove your selves to be in the Truth and us to be in Error not by Divine Reason and Holy Scripture but by the high opinion you have of your selves and your low opinion of others And it indeed they acknowledge that there are vertuous Persons that are of a contrary perswasion to them and none but who are guided by an infallible Spirit then they are no more certain than other men and we need still an infallible Judge I add If every man hath the I have a measure of infallible Light the least measure whereof convinces of sin especially gross sins such as Malice Envy Lying Murdering-Spirit c. which W. P. imputes to me But I am so far from having any such convictions that on the contrary my Conscience hears me witness of a hearty love to Truth and their Persons in what I have done and am a doing Therefore if their Doctrine be true his Imputation is false if his Imputation be true their Doctrine is false But enough of this Having now in this Introduction given the Reader a proof of W. P's faculty in accusing meek language faithfulness in representing my words and sense modesty in praising himself and Party evading of that which is weighty confidence in denying what they are charged with and his sense of the Spirits guidance We are pretty well prepar'd to make a conjecture of what we are to expect from him in the handling of the main Argument which I think fit first to give a short account of And I must tell you that it is Argumentum ad Hominem an Argument against G. F. formed out of his own words and runs thus He that is not Infallible in a Deluder But G. Fox is not infallible Therefore G. F. is a Deluder The Major Proposition as they call it is expresly proved by that Quotation out of G. F's Book where he faith How can ye be Ministers of the Spirit if ye be not infallible And How can they but delude people that are not infallible And again G. F. faith Is is not Blasphemy
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