upon the uncertain report of such an open and unwearied Enemie of G. F. as T. C. hath been known to be for many years In pag. 112. 113. he raises a mean Argument out of a quotation he produces out of G W's book Intitul'd Quakers Plainness pag. 14. on this wise It seems they have how lost this visible miracles and other Evidences of the Spirit if ever they had them â—or he there says and what if God will not bestow such Gifts and Signs now must we therefore be no Christians c. Answ D L's conclusion will not hold first G W did not in the least grant that God would not bestow such Gifts now but only askes what if He will not secondly but if he had granted it it does not therefore follow that the Quakers had lost other Evidences of the Spirit for surely the Spirit of God witnessing with our Spirits that We are the Children of God may be known now as well as of old and this can never be without such suitable workes as may be sufficient Evidence to the People of God at least that they are the Children of God whether the Lord be pleased to bestow such Gifts as were allways perculiar to few or not And to such as had such Gifts bestowed on them Christ Said In this rejoyce not that the spirits are subject unto you but rather rejoyce because Your names are written in Heaven Luke 10. 20. His 14. Chapt. Intituled Of Life and Doctrine he begins with a Base Insinuation viz Much more than formerly do my old Friends the Quakers cry out This Life is the Onely thing that is our all in all 't is no matter for Doctrine or Knowledge in this or that Principle away with Creeds and points of Faith so that we feel Life in our Bosoms and flowing from Vessel to Vessel Answer Herein D. L. shews himself to be a more than Ordinary Scoffer a Mere Ishmaelite and a false Insinuator as if we opos'd Doctrine relaing to and knowledge in the things of God to the Life that we feel many times in our Bosoms O ungodly man Let him prove if he can that ever one owned amongst us thus expressed himself But by his thus flouting at us about the feeling of Life among us it 's to be feared if ever he knew what it was that he is now much degenerated and far gone into the state of those of whom the Apostle speaks who were Alienated from the Life as God and past feeling Ephes. 4 18 19. And tho in his pag 115 he Compares in some sense our Friends Testimonies with an affecting sermon of a Debauched Priest which caus'd weeping eyes on every hand yet his Comparison will prove but lame for since we read that Sathan himself is transformed in to an Angel of Light 2. Cor 11 14. is it therefore a great wonder that his ministers should be sometimes transformed in to the Likeness of ministers of Righteousness But doth not this as much reflect upon Peter's preaching mentioned in â—â—â—s 2 where so many were pricked in their heart in so much that they said unto Peter and the Rest What shall we do And might not such as D. L. with this kind of Arguing as well have Incens'd the minds of the People against what the Apostle delivers when speaking of the powerfull effect their Ministry had upon the people He saies But if all Prophecy and there come in one that believeth not or one unlearned mark unleaned he is Convinced of all he is Iudged of all and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest and so falling down on his face he will worship God and report that God is in you of a Truth 1. Cor. 14. 24 25. And doubtless were those hearers now alive D. L. would say of them as he does to us Even such is the Devotion of all Zealous but Ignorant people Yet of this we are well assured That tho' God gives the Increase upon the Labours of his Ministers and that Paul may plant yet there are also Apollo's that water as truly now as of Old As for what he saies of Thomas Mâ—sgroves Preaching at many Meetings about Delaware That the flesh of Christ was a Constant enduring Paitence and his blood a Lively operating Spirit of Life or Divine operating Living Loâ—e I Answ I have been at many Meetings with him but never heard any such thing as D. L. expresses as I remember from him nor of him before neither can I hear upon Inquiry of any one that ever heard him speak so I am now come to his 15 th Chap. 1. 〈…〉 Sabbath day wheel turn'd round where speaking of some Quakers formerly having opened their shops followed their usual employments on the first Day both in Old England elsewhere he Crys out But behold how the wheel is now turned for the Quakers at Delaware being the Commanding Party of the Assemblies have lately made Law to prefer the first Day before others calling it the Lord's Day c. Answ We never preferr'd the first day above others for any holiness in it self as a day Nor do we commonly call it the Lords Day though in the Law he mentions we used that Word as the most proper of those that are generally given to it to explain more clearly to all what was meant by the preceeding word the first day But if D L will have the Instance of two or three who in the Beginning opened their Shops on a first day to be a proof of our Degeneracy because none do so now we may certainly much more reasonably alledge the Practice of all our Friends from the beginning except those two or three in keeping their Shops alwayes shut on that day till this very time as a stronger Argument to prove we are not degenerated in that point The occasion of making that Law he hints at amongst us will be best spoken in its own words as follows To the end that Looseness Irreligion Atheism may not creep in under pretence of Conscience in this Province Be it enacted That according to the Example of the Primitive Christians and for the Ease of the Creation Every First day of the week called the Lords day People shall abstain from their usual and common Toil and Labour that whether Masters Parents Children on Servants they may the better dispose themselves to read the Scriptures of Truth at home or frequent such Meetings of Religious worship abroad as may best sute their respective Perswasions And truly notwithstanding the Clamor D. L. makesabout it now I love Clamor so little that I should not have been vvilling to have ventured made anexchange vvith him for the Clamors he vvould have made if there had been no Lavv at all made here about it For I see there is such a Spirit enter'd him and others of them that vve must never expect to tread such such stepps as will prevent their finding fault with us In pag. 119. he brings in G W querying
extemt extant  1â— preferible preferrable  1â— preferible preferrable  17 preferible preferraâ—le  17 18 metals mettalls  ◠scripures scriptures  25 Cristendom Christendom  36 oâ— to 54 20 21 condamnes condemns  29 the worldly that worldly  â—â— Châ—istian Christian 5â— 4  truly â—ook 57. 16 uâ—derstood undeâ—stood  30 trough through 59. 1 Cristendom Christendom  ib about above 61. 21 wether whether  22 â— but this I can tell he is  62 19 â—here there  Memorandum p 63 by mistake is placed before p. 62.   63. 23 discource discourse 64. 34 Thoâ— Thou 65. 11 suffering sufferings  16 testefied testified  18 plase place  23 4 L 6 4 L 6d  29 coâ—ld could 66. 7 thiir their  ib arfaelsehood or falsehood  3â— massaere massacre  ib Paplst Papists  34 as tendincy a tendency  35 corruxtion corruption 67. 1 wearing swearing  ib giving against against giving  3 whâ—tis what is  ◠insufficient sufficient  1â— 13 whatsoewer whatsoever  17 28 thennemies the enemies  ib affection affections  29 â—ich indeed rich indeed  33 friends friend 68. 1 Then next thee Next  18 â—o or  29 Englesh English  31 3â— mentioned mentions  ib the this  3â— troth truth 69. 1 temtation temptation  â—â— unterly utâ—erly  16 apoint appoint  â—1 ende avoured endeavoured  31 thruth truth  33 pudlick publick 70. 26 For â—â— st For iâ—st  33 sin his  37 38 renders the death of Christ useless  71. 14 justifiatioâ— justification  â—5 alate a late  ib a ccusation accusation  34 many by by many 72. 1 doctâ—ines doctrine  3 nere here  10 righieousness righteousness  26 answeringall answering all 73. 17 18 thesefore therefore  26 havenly heavenly 74. 4 argment argument  ib balyed belyed  5 accouâ—ed accused  16 weilest whilest 75. 13 a as  14 hein he in  18 reised raised  19 pladed pleaded  ib incinuates insinuates  29 thesewith therewith  34 performall perform all  35 thatthe that the 76. 8 for far  9 aeshame a shame  18 Worldlyt Governmement Worldly Government  26 oirginal original 77. 6 honorable honourable  18 in habiting inhabiting  19 where were  24 agread agreed  31 coording wording  32 uâ—terly utterly 78. 9 houest honest  21 Carpeter Carpenter  25 cofidently confidently 79. 8 after deal d. of   12 after till and till  13  and separate  15 said saith  21 nired hired 80. 1 and 2 Cerimonial Ceremonial  10 thiths tithes  22 tihts titlres  26 fâ—iends friends  30 Heb 7 2 Heb 7 12  31 13. th 13 th  â—4 redicule ridicule  35 thereof therefore 81. 34 enemie of G F enemy of G F's 82. 18 perculiar peculiar  24 This T is  31 relaing relating 83. 7 in toan into an  18 prophecy prophesie  19 unleaned unlearned  31 paicence patience 84. â— party parts  9  the first  10 cal lit call it  12 prove proper  13  to explâ—in  15  three who in  18 he practice the practice  20 they this  22 after making d. the   23 incits in it s  26 examele example  27 after first adde day of the week called the Lord's day people   29 childer children  ib servant servants  ib htey they  30 frepuent frequent  31 word ship worship  34 Inow this I â—â— 85. â— prodaced produced  12 I H. T H 87. 7 comdemn condemn  12 spooken spoken  14 yoâ—r your  15 Procesytes Proâ—elites  2â— signefie signify  26 〈◊〉 the said book  2â— wroet wrote 88. â—7 or as 89 â—2 soliccit solicit 90. 24 slighring slighting it 91. 12 Bâ—rruughs Burroughs  15 are were  1◠〈◊〉 directed to  22 Auswer Answer  24 Counse Counsell 92. 14 Acts 20. 23. Acts 20. 32.  21 evencut even cut  27 28 anointieg anointing 9â— 10 tought taught  11 sorroy sorry  16 plâ—â—nly plainly  18 thogh though  23 delevered delivered  24  no more  â—â— Ftrthermore Furthermore  32 delive deliver 95. 5 forrver forever  19 tho that he that hath the  24 peofessing professing  29 witiness witness  31 ceratures creatures  â—â— Â and that  32 cleare clear  33 gâ—ieviously grievously  37 unteâ—â—nce utterance  â—â— prosess proâ—ess 96. 3 youâ— your  â—7 forgiviness forgiveness  12 heave have  20 theie their  â—4 becaâ—â—se because 97. 14 â—5 insinutates insinu  34 into unto  â—â— inabâ—ngs inablings  â—5 iife life 98 19 dly 2 2dâ—y  â—â— twhen when 99. 9 and to please to please  14 that twentieâ—h part of the the twentieth part of thâ—t 10â— 2 parpose purpose  25 sevice service 102. 2â— truih truth  2â— know knew  26 expactea expect a  30 He had books books He 103. 23 limpose impose had  15 toour to our  16 on t out  20  the Controversy 114 8  God man  10  God man  13  God man  14  God man  21  God man  25  God man  26  God man  32  God man  33 and 34  God man 106. 10 Nigh boâ—rsin Neighbours  11 Provinceof Province of in  29 ns us 107. 7 peculiary pecuniary  18 snpposition supposition 108. 18 nighbours neighbours  19 proceeding proceedings  31 â—â—onhim upon him  32 disire desire  35  by Daniel Leeds 109. 22 of several sorts several in use sorts of  2â— Â Â 110. 5 6 and 7. wo Counties which I suppose is two about the   1â— Sebtember September  22 that the 111. 18 By thâ— But that  â—â— Woo Wood  25 too told  26 Woo Wood 112. 10  whom it  12 Ionhn Iohn  26  and not take  â—â— Â hurt their cause  30 kurt hurt  33. n it 113. 28 Nighbours neighbours  31 Nighbours Neighbours 114. 8 Londen London Note in many places comma's c. are misplaced sometimes not inserted at all of which had I taken notice it would have much swelled this Errata already too big therefore the understanding Reader is desired to supply by his â—udgment what is deâ—â—cient here
SATAN'S HARBINGER ENCOVNTERED HIS FALSE NEWS OF A TRUMPET DETECTED HIS CROOKED WAYS IN THE WILDRNESSE Laid open to the view of the Impartial and Iudicious Being Something by way of Answer to DANIEL LEEDS his book entituled NEWS OF A TRVMPET SOVNDING IN THE WILDERNESSE c. Wherein is shewn How in several respects he hath grievously wronged and abused divers eminent worthy and painfull Labourers in the work of the Gospel in many places by false Citations out of their books and in many other places by perverting their sayings and expressions besides his otherwaies basely reflecting upon several antient Friends by name By C P. And the men of Israel said Have ye seen this man that is come up Surely to defie Israel is he come up 1. Sam 17. 25. Behold he travaileth with iniquity and hath conceived mischief and brought forth falshood Psalms 7. 14. Printed at Philadelphia By Reynier Jansen 1700. THE PREFACE Friendly Reader Although â—â— be true which Solomon saith Eccles. 12 12 Of making many books there is no end and much study is a weariness to the flesh Yet I hope none can justly blame me for publishing this when they seriously consider that the drift of it is only to clear the truth and those many good men grossly as persed from the envious insinuations cast against it and them and the wrong inferences pretendedly drawn from their writings by our present Adversary Daniel Leeds who has hand over head in a very palpable manner to his own shame ventured to abuse our friends at a very shamefull rate not only by wrong meanings put upon their words and doctrines but also by false Citations out of their books thereby endeavouring to make them speak what they never spake nor I beleive ever thought in order to represent them to the people greatly contradictory to one another Of which false Citations I shall in this place produce one and but one referring thee to the following book for a view of many more of them It is in Number 58 where he quotes William Penn his Sandy Foundation p 20 saying W. P. there calls the man Christ The finite impotent Creature Whereas there is no such saying or irreverent expression in the whole book for where W. P. uses the words Finite and impotent Creature The subject he was there treating of plainly shews that he meant it of us sinners that need forgiveness but not of the Man Christ who never sinned Than which what greater abuse could be put upon any mans writings Reader The substance of this book was wrote near two years ago but being backward in my self to appear in print aâ— also the press being long expected here before it came and when come taken up with other important matters intervening occasioned the delay of its publication till now As for the Errours of the press which are many especially in the former part of the book and more especially in one place which is very material to be corrected without which it will read so as will make it look very gross and appear to be false doctrine it is in p. 17 l. 9 where after works sake the Printer hath omitted but for his sake which words are in the written copy by which he printed it I must desire thee Reader upon occasion to take the trouble of â—urning to the Errata where I hope thou wilt find the most material collected The chief occasion of there being so many errours was the Printer being a man of another nation and language as also not bred to that employment consequently something unexpert both in language and calling and the corrector's not being so frequently at hand as the case required all which I desire thou wouldst favourably consider The Intent of publishing this was chiefly to prevent any from being deceived and also to undeceive those that may have been already deceived by this unfair man's abusive book for such it is and as such let it be added to the Catalogue of those many envious and abusive writings that have been sent forth into the world from time to time to hinder the spreading of truth and the progress of Gods people in the way of it all which will surely be accounted for one day and not witstanding all which the truth remains the same and I am satisfied will more and more spread it self and prevail in and upon and the hearts spirits of people notwithstanding the various and restless attempts of its Opposers to hinder it And as the way of its working is to cleanse and purify mankind in soul body and spirit and make them fiâ—â— temples for God to dwell in by virtue of his holyspirit in us and also entitle us effectually to partake of the great and unspeakable benefit that accrues to mankind by that one offering of our Lord Jesus Christ on the tree of the Cross So it is highly necessary that we more and more come to experience this cleansing work to be wrought in us in order to be entituled to those afore said benefits For although our blessed Lord Jesus Christ then offered up himself for the sins of the whole world yet we read of none wbo by that offering are for ever perfected but those who are sanctified Heb. 10 14. Caleb Pusey SATANS HARBINGER ENCOUNTERED c. Before I come to the Book it self I shall touch a little upon the Preface and begin with an expression of Daniel Leeds's which runs thus It is my real belief That the Quakers at first came forth in life and power and made a good beginning Answer Did they so How comes it then to pass that the first Instruments of that good beginning in life and power as G. Fox G. Whitehead E. Bourough R. Hubberthorn Is. Pennington c. and their antient works and Writings must be thus brought upon the stage by this Daniel Leeds himself even in this very book endeavouring thereby to prove their doctrine false inconsistent and little less than a meer heap of confusion Can such things be an effect of life and power And if he say They lost that life and powr again before those books were written It may then be observed how in the same Page he insinuates as if the loosing of it again was through their contending with one another about trifles and Ceremonies instituting this and that order and getting into form c. Whereas it is well known that many of the above named Friends Books were written before the Institution of those Orders as he calls them Besides I find in a Paper entitulad A breif Admonition c. delivered to Friends here at the yearly meeting in the year 1696. Which as I am credibly informed was written by Daniel Leeds there being also the two letters of his name with two letters more subschribed to it after having expressed what an healthy flourishing Country this was about eight years before this passage viz Doubtless it might have so continued if the kernell of life and love had not took wing
fallen out with him about it for some of them were not satisfied with him in that respect Nay if we can beleive this D. L. he himself was one of the dissatisfied persons else what makes him say He had taken in G. K's books equally with the rest but that be found G. K. had promised a Correction of them and that of late his Retraction was come over in prent See D. L. ' s. Preface as before is shewn But there is one thing more which I am sure he ought not only to Retract now his hand is in but alse deeply to lament and that is His so abusing his poor bigotted followers Cas I have already hinted in his thus deluding them by so often perswading them at the first that he was not changed in his Principles and when he hath done this I know not but as to this point he may pretty well pass for such a kind of an honest man as is so vvith good looking to But before he dos thus much I do not see hovv he can be afforded the appellation And novv to conclude I do say that suppose I had seen and took notice of some passages in our Friends books which might seem to me like inconsistencys especially in relation to things not then in controversy I do not look upon my self equally obliged to expose them as I did his which were so palpable and done for the reason aforesaid The next thing I shall take noice of is Daniel Leeds s' pretences in this his Preface now be fore me that His proceeding here in to expose and publish what follows in his book was by amotion heavenly Yet I question not to prove him in his thus doing not only an Accuser but a very false Accuser of the Brethren which to be â—â—re could not proceed from a motion heavenly and scarse think he can be so infatuated as to think it did unless his meaning be That he was influenced in this action by the motion of the starrs that are placed in that â—iâ—mament of haven and yet if his meaning he such it will by no means deserve the credit that was given to his Idle prediction published in his Almanack for the jear 1695 where he saith All lovers of truth are to take notie that from and after the 25. of January no person shall find it safer shrouding under the name and denomination of a Quaker than under the name of any other profession of Christianity what soever c. For we have all along known that no person not only from and after the month he calls January but at no time else hath been is or will be any thing the safer for their being under the denomination of a Quaker any more than that D. L. s words be true were he saies his proceedings in this his book was from a motion heavenly and that 's not at all I come now to his book which he begins under the title of an Introduction in p 3. D. L. fearing that such licke seeming contradictions as he alledges against our Friends books might be found in the scriptures he strugles hard before hand to guard against it by telling us They themselves in their books gave that reason why 't is so with the scriptures bringing reasons to prove them not the same as given forth but altered and corrupted Now this cannot be alledged of their books decause we have the first impression of them and there fore they cannot be altered or corrupted Answ Is he there At this rate then â—s abouts if he should charge seeming contradictions upun us for saying this on the one hand and that on the other and we can prove the both sides are according to scripture yet it seems the must not be allowed because our Friends have told how some scriptures have been altered and corrupted which few professing Christianity I suppose vvill deny to be true â—ever the less if for the reason the Quaker must not bring scripture to prove vvhat he hath vvritten vvhy may not any one else be denyed so to do in defence of any truth vvhat soever and so at this rate any Opposers of the â—learest truths may deny any scripture that may be urged to convince him of his Errour Well but do our Friends sâ—y that some scriptures have been altered and corrupteds What does D. L.'s friend G. K. say less in a passage in one of his books not yet reacted vvhere he hath it thus viz I hope it may be vvithout offence not only queried but also concluded that the translations of the scripture have divers additions which men have added without any pretence to divine inspiration Nor are there wanting divers both judicious and learned men so accounted of good repute even among Protestants who do acknowledge that some particular words have dropt in to the Greek and Hebrew text since their first writing c. All which being granted yet do not hinder but that the purity of the scripture is sufficiently preserved viz in respect of the main and necessary things See Truths Defence p 59 and 60 c. And so we say too see W. p 's Rejoinder q 38 39. Now if D. L. can make appear that any scripture that we have brought or may bring to prove any truth be altered or corrupted he may do it or else what he hath said as to this matter affects us more than it doth G. K. and others that profess Christianity I shall there fore proceed to put D. L. in mind that at this rate all Protestants may be deprived of what proofs they usually bring against Popish Innovations And suppose a Friend upon any occasion should exhort people to serve the Lord with fear c. and upon another occasion should tell them they might serve him without fear all the daies of their lives and should bring Psal. 2 11. for the one and Luke 1. 74 for the other Now I would know of D. L. whether he would dare to call this a contradiction Likewise in John 16. 24 is said Ask and ye shall receive but in James 4 3 Ye aske and receive not Christ saith in one place I fâ—ll bear witness of my self my witnest is not true and in an other place he saith Though I bear record of my self yet my record is true see John 5. 31 and 8 14. Again saith Christ to his discipels I go to my Father and ye sâ—e me no more John 16. 10. yet John saith When he shall appear 〈◊〉 shall see him as he is 1 John 3 2. Many more instances might be brought but these I have menttioned I scarce think D. L. will dare to call contradictions notwithstanding some scriptures may have been corrupted and altered I remember what ado they made of late because a Friend had said The wicked Jews never saw the Worlds saviour Though the scripture saith expresly Whosoever sinneth hath not seen him 1 John 3. 6. and surely the wicked Jews were sinners Now by his rule it is but saying This
scripture may be altered and corrupted and thus this proof will be rendered invalid And likewise suppose the Jews should bring such an argument against any Christan endeavouring to prove to them out of the old testament that Jesus must needs be the promised Messiah or an Atheist against us when we prove out of the scriptures that there is a God at this rate because our Friends as well as GK and other Professours do say some scriptures have been altered therefore our proofs out of them aganst Jews and Atheists yea and Papists too will be of no Authority and but as a meer nose of wax Besides this suppositious excuse of D. L's suggested in the name of some preachers of late with his paraphrases therein will not cover his dishonesty nor cloak his gross perversions and corrupt citatiens Do the Quakers say that the scriptures in some places are alterred and corupted What then Will it therefore follow that they must excuse D. L's alteration and corruption of their writings No such matter Is the scripture in English a translation out of other language consequently but a copy liable to mistakes in transcribing and translating as well as printing And the Quakers books the original impression Will it therefore follow that D. L. may mangle and misrepresent the Quakers writings at his pleasure without controul I know no reason for it and therefore shall take liberty to tell him of his faults whether it please him oâ— no And this further I dare undertake to prove if any â—easonable man after perusal of what I have here offered to his view can doubt it that should I suppose the scrrptures to be wholly clear of any errours either of Transcriber Translator or Printer and D. L. bad the confidence to make as bold with them as he hath done with our Friends writings he might mak a far bigger News book than that which he trumpeted out in the Wilderness against us I come now to his quotations out of our Friends books which he has placed in two columns under the notion of contradictions which how far he proves them so to be or how far he falls short of proof as also how honestly or how dishonestly he deals with them will appear in the following examination of them or at least of so many of them as may give the Reader a sufficient tast of the rest I not having all the friends books quoted on both sides by me and my remarks thereon by way of answer thereunto I begin first which page 7 it should be 6 where he quotes W P s Sandy Foundation p. 22. thus Since Christ could not pay what was not his own Debt it follows that in the payment of his own the case still remains equally grievous since the debt is not hereby absolved or forgiven but transferred only Now to this D. L. opposes G. W's Divinity of Christ in answer to Tho Danson p. 16 thus How false and blasphemous this charge is against Christ I appeal to all sober Professours of Christianity viz. That when God required satisfaction of Christ it was due from Christ Upon which D. L. makes this observation viz That as before Saith he W. P. renders Geo. Whitehead's head 's doctrine ridiculous and shameful so here G. W. renders W Penn's doctrine blasphemous for holding that Christ had a debt of his own to satisfy to God c. Answer It were well if D. L. woud be ashamed as he ought to be of his thus ridiculously and shamefully abusing W. P by his so basely adding in crotchets the word Debt to W. P.'s words which is neither W. P's word nor so much as deducible from his doctrine or argument So this is but a meer crotchet of D. L's envious brain to render G. W. and W. P. inconsistent with each other and also to misrepresent W. P as if he beleived that Christ was guilty of sin when he suffered for our sins which as that passâ—ge of W. P's shows no such thing so the same page proves the contrary for the whole Page is cheifly to shew the ridiculous consequences that attend the rigid Presbyterian doctrine of it's being impossible for God to pardon sins upon repentance without a plenary satisfaction made by another which consequences W. P. calls Irreligious and Irrational in 9. respects the 3d. of which is That it was unworthy of God to pardon but not to inflict punishment on the innocent or require a satisfaction where there was nothing due Now mark These words plainly imply that W. P. counted Christ innocent and that there was nothing of debt due from him which spoils D. L's pretended contradictâ—on Besides was it likely that W. P. must needs by his own mean Christ's own debt and so render Christ a sinner A very idle construction for suppose Christ had a debt to pay according to the Presbyterian strict rigid sence must it needs follow from thence that the debt was his own and so paid it as being due from him Nothing less For is it not common among men for a man to pay a debt for his Friend which though he pay with his own yet the debt was not due from him Even so Christ laid down his live for our sins but yet not to pay any debt of his own for as W. P. there saith there was no such thing due from him no he laid down his live it's true but it was for us he was wounded but it was for our transgressions and Christ him self faith Greater love hath no man than this that a man lay down his life for his friends John 15. 13. Nay though it had been to pay a debt in the Presbyterian strict and rigid sense which as I said was what W. P. there discussed yet it was not his own debt though it was his own life he paid it with as he himself said I lay down my life for the sheep John 10. 15. and if for the sheep then not to pay a debt of his own and that that is W. P's genuine sense in that place I suppose no unprejudiced man will deny and I charge D. L. with most base forgery in this place for his adding the word debt to W. P's words thereby quite altering the true and real intent of them But again He has as basely rendered as well as falsely quoted VV. P. p. 5. where he hath it thus Sandy Foundation p. 14. VV. Penn. saith If the only God is the Father and Christ be the only God then is Christ the Father which is ridiculous and shamefull Now here again I flatly charge him with most grossly perverting VV. P's words sense and meaning for though VV. P. saies If that the only God is the Father and Christ be that only God then is Christ the Father yet that he there called this ridiculous and shamefull I absolutely deny and it lies upon D. L. to prove for the place proves it not and if D. L write again about it I would advise him to insert the
whole paragraph that it may be seen whether any such thing be so much as deducible from what VV. P. there saith And now let me tell him there needs no carious wire drawing mincing nor mangling as he in p 43. insinuates we should be forced to in our answer to him to manifest his abuse to W. P. in this matter Neither was there any occasion for D. L. to talk of our agreeing upon a consistent Creed but if he write again let it be what is agreeable with honesty and consistent with truth that honest men may stand by him in it In p 4 it should be 7 DL saith v In Dirinity of Christ by G. W. and G. Fox they begin in the Epistle with commanding and charging Professours to bring express scripture for their Doctrine saying Whether do the scriptures speak of three persons in the Godhead in these express words And where doth the scripture speak of a humane nature of Christ in heaven c. A little lower D. L. saith Now may not the Professours say Come G. W. Come Quakers where doth the scripture say the distinction of Father and Son is not only nominal but real He having in p. 4. cited these as G. W 's words Answ We know that those Professors would have tyed our friends up to those very terms of three persons and also human nature of Christ in heaven c. And yet at the same time blamed them for not calling the scriptures the only rule of faith So that since they would needs tye our Friends up to those very words 't was but reasonable they should be held to their Rule to prove them by But as foâ— G. VV.'s saying the distinction of the Father and Son is not only nominal but real I question not if the Father Word and Spirit be owned to be one God but G. VV. will rest satisfied without disiring to impose the words nominal and real on any man though he might use them to satisfie the enquirer But since D. L. would make us beleive he is impartial in relation to G. K why must the Quakers be thus struck at and G. K. passed by in this matter For doth not he in his book called Presbyterian and Independent visible Churches c. p 87 say of the scripture That it is not safe to leave the scripture words and go to words of mans wisdom and thereby declare our faith of Christian doctrine And yet doth not the same G. K make abundant use of other words in managing of Controversy and plead for it too as in his book called Antichrists and Sadducees detected c. in p. 19 Where he saith I see not why I should be so confined to exspres scripture words ' in things that I require no man to own or believe as Articles of faith but leave them to their liberty c. And now I dare say G. VV. and all sensible Friends will say as much The next quotation of D. L.'s I take notice of is out of G. F's Great Mistery p 264 c. cited by him in his p 10 thus Priest sayes A man by his own power cannot get into regeneration for they are dead in sins and trespasses G. F. replies some are sanctified from the womb and some children are holy so all are not dead in sins and trespasses c. Now to this he opposes G VV.'s Divinity of Christ in answer to T. D. p 20 thus G. VV. saies Condemnation â—ame upon all men Death passed upon all men for that all have sinned p 24 Again Christ died for all so all were dead in sins and trespasses c. Answ That some are sanctified from the womb according to G F is but according to scripture see Jerem 1 5 Luke 1 15 and 1 Cor 7 15 And also that condemnation and death came upon all men according to G VV is also according to scripture see Rom 12 18 and so according to D L. may not the scripture be charged with contradiction in that respect as well as G F and G VV Then whereas G F said all are not mark are not which is in the present tense dead in sins and trespasses it doth not at all contradict what D. L produceth as G. VV's that all were dead in sins and trespasses were being the time past tho by the way let the Reader take notice that I can find no such words in the place cited by D. L as G. VV's though I have searched for them For those words of scripture being taken in the strictest sense viz If one died for all then were all dead 2 Cor. 5 14 yet it doth not follow that those which were sanctified from their Mothers womb nor those which were passed from death to life are still dead For as G F's following words are hwich D. L. hath left out and hwich had he inserted them would have better explained G F.'s meaning They that are so are but unbeleivers And where as it is said death passed upon all men it this be to be understood strictly and without any 〈◊〉 how is it said of Enoch That he was translated tha◠〈…〉 not see death Hebr. 11 5. 〈…〉 12 he quotes W P.'s Christian Quaker thus Now nothing can bruise the head of the Serpent but something that is also internal as the Serpent is but if the body oâ— Christ were the seed then could he not bruise the serpents head in all because the body of Christ is not so much as in any one c Whom he would make T. Ellwood to oppose in Foundation of Tythes c p. 2â—8 240 thus Nor do the Quakers ascribe salvation to the following the light within but to Christ Jesus to whom the light leads If any one expect Remission of sins by any other way than by the death of Christ renders the death of Christ useless Answ I do affirm if D L or any other comes to know the serpents head bruised in any measure it must be by some thing internal neither doth what T E. hath said as above any waies contradict it For though we ascribe not our salvation to our own following of Christ who is the â—â—ght of the world according to Tho. Ellwood yet that follows not but thath Christ the Light of the world is he thath bruises the Serpents head and to ascribe our salvation to Christ the light of the world who appears internally in order there to is one thing and to ascribe it to our works which Tho. Ellwood and all sound Friends deny is another thing For allthough the Apostle know nothing by him self which is a large degree of growth yet there by he was not justified 1 Cor 4 4. Nevertheless the same Apostle saith By grace ye are saved and thath not of Your selves it is the gift of God Eph 2 8. Yet this is no contradiction And though the Apostle saith We are reconciled by his death yet he also saith we are saved by his life Rom 5 10 which life is internal For in
is our faith that we are justified by an inward righteousness wrought by the Spirit of God in our hearts What Saist thou now Daniel Can W P. be heterodox in this matter and G K. orthodox Be impartial for this of G K's is so far from being retracted that it is by him implicitely justified in the Retractation book it self For there he denies that he hath retracted or renounced any one assertion in any one of his former books that was judged by him an Article of faith of which this about justification is one for saith he this is our faith that we are justified by an inward Righteousness c. His next flingh is grounded cheifly upon his abusing G W's words and meaning as well as that he there in abuseth his Reader by his forging words in G. W. s name which are not G. W's words but his own as before is shown and so I shall leave both these misrepresentations of G. W. charged to D. L's account under the one head of Forgery In the same 14th page he cites W. P's Rejoinder p 287 thus No present work how good soever can justifie any man from the condemnation which is due for the guilt of sin that is past To which he opposes Sandy Foundation p 16 thus God's remission is grounded on our repentance Answer Though W P. saies in the one book No present work how good soever can justify any man from the condemnation which is due for the guilt of sin that is past Yet there is nothing in the other book that so much as consequentially doth say it can For though it is there said That Gods remission is grounded on our repentance yet yit is to be observed that it is called Gods remission and so no present work how good soever of ours can either remit or justifie us for it is Gods remission and so called by W P. And although W P. saith it is grounded upon our repentance yet it is to be understood in a scriptural sence and one of the scriptures which VV P. brought to prove what he asserted was 2 Chr. 30 9. For if ye turn again unto the Lord the Lord your God is gracious and mercifull and will not turn away his face from you Where saith W P. how natural is it to observe that Gods remission is grounded on their repentance and not that it 's impossible to pardon without a plenary satisfaction which was his then Antagonist's doctrine and the several scriptures brought by W P. prove clearly that it was upon the wicked's returning again to the Lord that he remitted them had mercy on them and abundantly pardonned them Again p. 15 he quotes G. F's Catechism p 2 The light that shews to every man his evil deeds is Christ In opposition to which he produced W. P's Christian Quaker p 91 We do not say that the light in every man is Christ but of Christ Answer Tho G F. saies The light that shews to every man his evil deeds is Christ yet W. P. saies nothing to the contrary so no cnotradiction And this is certainly true that the great Light that shews to every man his evil deeds is Christ according to G F. tho the measure that is contained in every man W P. chuses here rather to call the light of Christ than Christ in fulness And G K. himself in a late book entituled Heresy and Hatred p 14. say's The light within being God and Christ and yet in the same page he calls it A real measure or the eternal word Christ Jesus No question but this is sound enough in G K. though it would scarce be so in us He adds a citation out of G F's Great mistery p 185 viz The Devil teacheth them in whom he fows his seed not to have the light within them the seed Christ the Root of God Upon which D L. notes Who must we believe G F. or G W. and W P. For here G F. holds the light within to be not only Christ but even the Root of God Answer This is partly answered by the foregoing And whereas G F. calls the light the seed Christ it is according to Scripture which saies Christ is the Light of the world John 8 12 and also it is said Gal 3 16 that the Seed is Christ and whereas G F. saies so of the light within it is no more than to say and that in a scriptural sence Christ within the hope of glory Coll. 1 27. and yet in Ephe. 4 7. it is said But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ and surely D L. will not say this is a contradiction Besides I remember that G K. in a letter to John Delaval which I have by me in G. K's hand writing in the year 1692 saith To say the man Christ is in us or the light in us is the man Christ I do not contradict it in a true scripture sence as he is called the hidden man of the heart and the new man but this is a figurative expression and that in a twofold respect First by a Metaphor or Allagory as he is called a Lamb a Lion 2dly By a Sydechdoche of the giving the name of the whole to the measure Now I say if G. K. be thus allowed to distinguish why may not G F. G W. and VV P. and as for G F's using this expression The ROOT of God I ask Doth not Paul also use this expression viz The Foundation of God 2 Tim. 2 19 and as Christ is Gods Foundation for us to build upon so also he is according to Rom 11 16 17 18 the root for us to grow upon And G K. in his VVay cast up p 114 sais That Christ is the Root and vine into which the Saints are grafted As to the next clash It is also partly answered by the foregoing it relates to something G F. said in answer to a Priest who commonly in those daies denyed God and Christ to be in men according to scripture Though in this case I do confess the Priest's words were true in a sence viz That whole Christ God and Man is not in men yet that God is in men is clear according to Scripture and that Christ is in men is clear according to Scripture and that Christ is in men not only as he is God but also as man is clear according to D L's great Friend G. K. who in his VVay cast up p. 123 saith That Christ is really present in and among us not only as he is God but also as he is man Now since Christ as he is God dweller in us according to Scripture and as he is man he dwelleth in us according to G K. as he is God and man is he not the whole Christ Yet that he doth so dwell in us as that the whole fulness of the Godhead and manhood is contained in men I believe neither G. F. nor G. K. did own any more than W P. Besides
G. F. answer to the Priest was but by way of query which does not alwaies conclude a judgement For when Christ asked the Pharisees what think ye of Christ whose son is he they said unto him The son of David Christ answered by way of query How then doth David in spirit call him Lord Matt. 22. 42 43. Now by this his answer Christ did not deny himself to be the Son of David for that would have contradicted the scripture which calls him the son of David c. Matt. 1 1. And so G. F's asking a question cannot be said to be a denyal of W. P's assertion therefore no contradiction I come now to his p 17 18 to what he cites from G. F about the soul To which I say 1st It hath been often answered by our Friends particularly G. W. and W. P. 2dly Though D. L. slights their answers counting them fallacious c. Yet his peculiar Friend G. K. hath but in the year 1692 vindicated both G. F. doctrine about the soul and also W. P's answers to the Professours about the very same subject of G. F.'s which D. L. cites see his Serious appeal p 60 not yet retracted where it may be seen that what D. L. calls in G. W. and W. P. Fallacious equivocation his Friend G. K. calls a Sufficient vindication Now what curious wire drawing will D L. use here to clear himself from contradicting his great Friend G. K. But since among so many learned and Wise men there have been so many opinions about the Soul unless he could define better than other folks what the Soul is and what the Breath of life is which God breathed into man by which he became a living Soul his raking up seeming contradictions about it tends to no bodies profit that I know of As fot what he tells us of the Raniers saying The Soul is a part of God therefore to talk of going to hell is an idle story is very idle in D. L. to cite For I do believe as man continued a living soul to God by vertue of that life which God breathed into him and as he is restored thereto again by Christ in that state Hell is not his portion Yet till then the Soul is not living to God but death and hell is it's poâ—tion for the Soul simply is one thing and its being a living soul to God is surely another thing In p 18 19 he cites G F again thus Great Mistery p 205 and p. 63. The Saints came to se the end of Sabbaths and New-Moons and witnessed the body Christ before the day was made for the body is the light of the world the body is the life given for the life of the World in whom there is rest Christ gave himself his body for the life of the World he was the offering for sin Now D. L. to make W. P. contradict G F quotes out his Serious Apology p. 146 as follows But that the outward person that suffered was properly the Son of God We utterly deny A Body best thou prepared me said the Son sot he Son was not the Body though the body was the Son's Upon which saies D L. Let W P. reconcile these and also tell us who is the Father of that outward person Answ Easily reconciled For as W P. denies the outward person to be properly the son of God so G F's words as here laid down by D L do import the same For he being there answering a Priest who was mightily crying up the outward Sabbath which according to scripture was a shadow of things to come Coll 2. 16 17 derected him to Christ the substance or body of that shadow and said the body is the life of the world and the light of the world c. Now what is this to W P's saying The outward person is not properly the son of God For surely the body which is the substance of the shadowy things under the law is Christ indefinitely which G F. calls the light of the world c. But what W P. meant was restricted to his outwatd visible person only which surely none will say that that of its self was properly the light and life of the world so that what W P. and G. F. both do say is true and therefore no contradiction And doth not D. L. know that the words body of Christ have various significations in scripture As first his Church is called his body Coll 1. 18. The bread of the passover is called his body by Christ him self Matt 26 26. And that which suffered on the cross was also his body Again the substance of shadowy ordinances which is Christ is called the body which was the body in G. F's sence in this place mentioned by D. L. And where as D. L. would know of VV. P who is the Father of that outward person I presuming that VV. P hath matters of more weight to exercise him self in than to answer such sort of cavilling folks shall therefore undertake to tell him and that according to scripture He was the son of David Matth. 1. 1 and as Paul said to the Romans 1 3 He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh which was the outward person VV. P. meant Well! but how was he the son of God why the next verss shew viz And dedared to be the son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness c. And now I cannot but often observe how D. L. by his striking thus against the Quakers does often hit his Friend G. K. a greivous box on the ear for in The VVay cast up p. 104. G. K. saith He was the son of Mary David and Ahraham according to the flesh but according to his heavenly nature even as man he was the son of God And in p. 102 he saith It is not the outward flesh and blood that is the man but it is the sould or inward man that dwelleth in the outward flesh and blood that is the man most properly such as Christ was from the beginng Surly now if D L. be impartial he must take in in G. F's errours in his next anniversary book D. L. falls upon VV. P. again p. 19. quoting his Reason against Railing p. 91 as follows Forgive us our debts as we forgive our Debtors were saith he nothing can be more obvious than that which is forgiven is not paid and if it is our duty so forgive without a satisfaction received and that God is to forgive us as we forgive them then is a satisfaction totally excluded Now to make as if he contradicts him self he cites Rejoynder p. 284. where saith D. L. VV. P. cites and defends We believe that Christ in us doth offer up a living sacrifice to God for us by which the wrath of God is appeased to us Where upon saith D. L. Note a self contradiction for in the one he totally excludes a satisfaction and in the other he grants it Answer Can D. L.
G VV. would not have R. Gordon to expect should be as he imagined in his book p 30 viz That Christ as the Son of Mary should outwardly appear in a bodily existence to save But here 's not one word of denying Christ to have the body of man as D L. falsly cites him and sure it 's one thing for Christ to appear to save men by his ingrafted word which is able to save the Soul Iames. 1. 21 which the Quakers press people to come to witness and an other thing to say Christ has the body of man outwardly to come on the last day to reward every man according to his works which the Quakers also believe Then 2 dly in the same page D L. cites the same book in p. 41 thus paraphrasing upon it And in p. 41. he denies Christ's bodily existence without us Answ There is no such word neither But G VV. speaking of R G s pretended adoration and claim of salvation being to Christ only as the son of Mary existing outwardly and bodily without us There upon G VV. saith I ask him if he have so considered God the saviour or the Son from the substance of the Father and then he asks him What scripture proof he hath for Christ's existing outwardly â—odily without us at Gods right hand By all which it plainly appears that G. W. only opposed those terms viz Christ existing outwardly bodily without us because that would seem to exclude his being as he is God and as he is in men and therefore saies to R. G. And is Christ the saviour as an outward bodily existence or person without us distinct from God and upon that consideration to be worshipped as God yea or nay c. Now though G. W. opposes R. G's doctrine of Christ's being or existence to be outwardly and bodily without us yet it does not at all follow from thence that he believes Christ hath not a body that hath a being or existence without us It is one thing to maintain that Christ the Saviour of the World hath a body existing whithout us wich G. W. denied not and another thing to hold or maintain that that bodily existence it self is Christ the saviour of the world which and no less R. G ' s. words seem to import The outward bodily existence of a man cannot be said strictly to be the man for them when it dies and the bodily existence is put off the man would cease to be And where it is said of Christ that he bare oursins in his own body on the three 1 Pet. 2. 24 It might as well be said that the body bare our sins on his own body on the tree So that to conclude I say it is a manifest falsehood in D. L to say that G. W. denies Christ's bodily existence without us Christ's body doth exist without us Yet that bodily outwardly existence is not the Christ without his soul spirit and God head And 3 dly D L. in p. 25 falsly charges VV P. in these words And saies VV P. We deny that person that dyed at Jerusalem to be our Redeemer Referring to VV P s Apology p 146. Answ These are not the words of W P but of his Adversary Jenner cited by W. â— in the aforesaid book Jenner having thrown it upon the Quakers as their principle W. P. in answer thereto calls it a hoâ—râ—d impâ—tation and then acknowledges in these express words That he who laid down his life and suffered his body to be crucified by the Jews without the gates of Jerusalem is Christ the only begotten son of the most high God and though he there denies the outward person that suffered properly to be the son of God yet the stress oâ— the mâ—tte◠〈◊〉 only upon the word outward by which W. P. meant his outward body as is clear from his following words viz A body hast thou prepared me said the son then said W. P. The son was not the body though the body was the sons And if D. L. should say The body was the son theâ— this absurdity will follow viz Christ bare our sins in his own son instead of his own body on the tree And if D. L. say the outward person was properly the son of God and yet will be imparâ—tial then let him fall upon G. K. for asserting That it is not the outward Flesh and Blood that is the man but it is the soul or inward man that dwelleth in the outward flesh or body that is the man most properly such as Christ had from the beginning As his express words are in his Way Cast up p. 102. not yet retracted But whether he will believe his peculiar friend G. K. or not to be sure he has belyed W. P as above is shewn and it is not his pleading â— little failure in Syntax a thing he banteringly accuses G. W. within his book no nor otherwise wording the matter neither will do without an open and free Retraction of these his abuses Furthermore having after I had proceeded a good way in this work met with the book called The Quakers Plainness I have therein found fresh cause to take a little further notice of D. L's perfidiousness which I purpose a little more to detect before I proceed to any other matter see News of a Trumpet Numb 5. where he hath it thus Sâ—ndy Founda p 15 W. P. saith In the fullness of time God sent his son who so many hundred years since in person restified the virtue c. Now to make G. W. coÌ„tradict this he quotes Quakers Plainess p. 24. affirming that G. W. saith The title person is too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God Now Reader that thou may see how unfairly D. L. hath laid down G. W. words taken them as laid down by himself thus That Christ is not a person without â—s p 21. is our doctrine or phrase that I know of or remember only that the title is thought too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God many men having gross apprehensions about the phrase Person without But Christ is confest us both as without us and within us Well Where is the contradiction in all this Why here W. P saies That God sent his son so many hundred years ago in person and G. W saies The title person without is thought too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God Mark person without us was what was thought too low to be spoken concerning the son of God it was not thought too low for it to be said of him that so many hundred year since he appeared in person For it is one thing to say That the son so many hundred years ago appeared in person and another thing to say That the son or Christ of God is a person without us especially when it is spoken in opposition to those who deny him to be within us For though we sincerely believe Christ to be in heaven without us yet
what advantage against W P He cites VV P's Reason against Railing p. 165. where D. L. saies W. P. justifies and declares that he abides by there ill names given by E. Burrough p. 30. c. to wit Thou Iesuit thou Sot thou Sorcerer thou art a Serpent c. And yet saies D L in Address to Protestants p. 242 he at once unchristians himself and all his Brethren for so doing for saith he Men that call names for Religion may tell us they are Chistians if they will but no body would know them to be such by their fruits to be sure they are no Christians of Christ's making Upon which D. L. cries out Good Reader take notice of it Alas how has the man forgot him self Answ Alas how hath D L. abused VV P. and his Reader too For VV P. doth not declare that he abides by any ill names given by Edward Burrough for the word ill is not VVill. Penn's but added by D L which was ill done of him VV P's words in the page quoted by D L. being these viz But let it suffice that Edward Burrouge gave no harder names than the scriptures by Rule allows We read oâ— dogs bears wosves sâ—â—ine serpents â—â—pers foxes childeren of the Devil and such like And as that nature to whom they were then given thought them hard so doth Thomas Hicks now But the same power that then give them hath now used them to the same end and purpose and I abide by it Thus far W P where observe W P doth not declare that he abides by any ill names for he useth not the word ill but hard names 2dly He sheweth how such like names have been given of oâ—d â—y good men yea it was by the best of men and saith that E B. doing it to the same end and purpose he abides by it and since D L. finds fault with it we may easily guess at his reason for so doing viz t was W P. that wrote it For of all the hard names his friend G K. hath given his opposers I cannot if it were for my life find that he blames him for one of them and to shew that not only the scriptures and our friends as above but that also G K. hath given hard names to his opposers I shall instance for brevity sake but one place out of but one of his books entituled The true Christ owned see p. 104. 105 thus His false accusations his beast with seven heads that he hath coniured out of the sea of his trobled imagination his Atheistical and blasphemous creed I have proved him man iâ—estly guilty of Sâ—â—inianisim Arrianisoum Anthropomorphitism Muggletonism Antichristianism and fast of all gross Atheirsm Now where will D L's sincerity and impartiality be if he deal not with G K as he hath dealt with us in this matter Then as to what he offers to prove that W P. unchristians him self and Brethren at once because he saith as D L. quotes him Men that call names for religion may tell they are Christians if they will c. I answer Here he hath very unfairly left out that part of VV P's words which would unquestionably have shewn such men he there discreyd to be no Christians For VV P. being there treating concerning and speaking against persecutors he hath it thus viz Men that call names for religion and fling stones and persecute for faith may tell us they are Christians if they will but no body would know them to be such by their fruits Now these words and fling stones and persecute for faith D L. hath concealed from his Reader and I am sure that is a worse errour than a little failure in Syntax But by inserting them my Reader may see what sort of men they were whom VV P. rejected as unworthy of that honourable name viz Perjecutors for faith flingers of stones as well as callers of names for religon And it is well known that such persecutors in formers and others would not only fling stones but throw diâ—t too and also call such names as these You Quaking Curr You Anabaptist Rogue You Fanatick Dog and the like Now it is clear that this was the calling names for Religion which W. P. meant and not the calling of names after the manner as the Prophet did when he called a sort of men Greedy Dogs c. nor after the manner as E B. did when he called such like men Sot Sorcerer c. But perhaps D L. will say in vindication of G. K that he hath retracted the hard names by him given to his Opposers Answ That Retractation is but a meer flam like some of the rest For how far hath he retracted this Why his words are of so large an extent that 's that I know no Professor of Christianity but both might and would say as much and yet retract just nothing at all neither would there be any service in it in order to give the least satisfaction to any concerned who might suppose themselves abused by hard names published for his retractation is only in general terms viz He retracts in general all the hard names that he hath given to such as did nor deserve them without discharding any particular person or society from the scandal of those hard names For instance G. K. in his Antichrists and Saducees detected hath bestowed many hard names upon me as Antichrist Saducee or rather Atheist Bold Ignorant Miller Philosopher c. Now since there is great probability that he doth not mean me to be one of those upon whose account he hath retracted the hard names given So also any of his former Opponents to whom he hath given hard names may say I know not that he means me to be one of them who have not in his Judgment deserved them and now although he seems to make an acknowledgment and blame himself for bestowing hard names on divers yet since he names none of those divers what satisfaction to me is his pretended retraction in this more than his charging them on me in his former and what sincerity doth he manifest in it For those divers he hints at either did occur to his memory at the writing of his book or thy did not If they did and he sincere in his pretension he should have named them but if they did not then it is a sign he put down what he published by meer rote and in short he had as good have said nothing about it since every particular person concerned in those hard names may say they are never the more satisfied there by and so all of them still lye at G K's door Upon pruisal of his 5th Chapter about prophesies I find not above one that he hath mentioned which hath failed For those he speaks of who have of late prophesied against several towns and places I never heard that any prefixed a time nor otherwaies than upon condition viz unless they did repent which whether there was not so much repentance in so
that very fully in these books amongst many others viz The Christian Quaker W. P s. Invalidity Reason against Raling c. so that I shall need to say the less about it yet I cannot wholly pass it by because I have therein an opportunity offered of discovering his folly as well as great envy manifested in his so ridiculously bantering that faithfull labourer in the Lords vineyard G. F. who I believe is now at peace with the Lord where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary be at rest Whom he puts his profane joques upon in P. 74 as if because G. F. said Dust is the serpents meat the Serpent feeds upon dust therefore G. F. meant the Serpent was literally to feed upon lime and stone houses called Churches and thereupon scoffingly queries Had not the Devil need to have strong teeth to gnaw upon steeple houses Answ O gross perverter I remember he tells me in p. 45. that about the Resurrection I carnally apprehend G. K. Now I appeal to every judicious Reader whether I have not more reason to say that D. L. carnally apprehends G. F. For though G. F. tells the world Their church is dust a heap of lime and stone gathered together it is what is true and obvious to every one that hath eyes And though G. F. saies The serpent seeds upon dust and that is also true and according to Scripture which saith Dust shall thou eat all the daies of thy life Gen. 3. 14. Yet that the consequence is that these two expressions according to G. F. must be fulfilled in a literal sense viz that the Devil is to feed on the dust of those sort of walls D. L. may indeed insinuate but I know not who will be so weak as to believe him And now I shall desire the Reader to excuse my stepping back to p. 70 where I find D. L. falsly accusing Tho. Ellwood of belying the Common Creed quoting his Truth Defended p. 70 on this wise viz The common Creed saies he called the Apostles Creed saies Christ was conceived by the holy Ghost Though born of the Virgin vvhere upon D L. saies Now pray search the Common Creed and see if the word though be there to be found Answer These words though born of the Virgin which D L. quarrels with are not laid down by T E as the express words of the Creed but rather as explanatory in order to shew the import thereof which was That though Christ was born of the Virgin yet he was conceived by the Holy Ghost and that therefore his Generation was not by coagulation of and from the properties of man in Mary as had been suggested since Mary had not known man but the holy child Jesus though born of her was conceived by the holy Ghost And I am sure D L. will be hard put to it to prove T E. a lyar in this case he may as well prove the Apostle a lyar in a passage Heb 4 3 where he hath relation to an expression of the Psalmists Psal. 95. 11 viz As he said As I have sworn in my wrath if they shall enter into my rest although the works were finished from the foundation of the World Now these words although the works were finished c. are not the Psalmist's words but the Apostles explanatory of what he had before said in the same verse viz For we which have believed do enter into rest And T E's words were much after the same manner and way of speaking therefore how poor mean and pitiful must it be in D L to employ himself in prying into and poring upon our books in order to find matter against us whilest when he has done all he is able he can produce nothing but such weak and silly stuff As wretchedly fordid and base is he in p. 71 in abusing G W. whom he quotes thus Counter Convert p. 26 We prefer the holy Scriptures saith he before all the Books extant in the world Whereupon D L. infers thus Now observe here hovv G W. carries a double face to deceive his Reader for he does not say that he prefers the book called the Bible before all books extemt c. Answer This is a most wicked and base insinuation as if when G W. mentions our preferring the Scripture he did not thereby intend the Bible I am persvvaded it is not only contrary to D L's beleif but also to his very knowledge Besides though other books are and may be written by the assistance and from the dictates of the Spirit of God yet that doth not hinder the book called the Bible from having the preference all things considered Gold and Silver money are both stamped vvith the Kings Image and superscription and both are allowed by him to be current Coin yet the one is preferible to the other And vvhereas our Friends amongst many other have said that some Scriptures are corrupted yet that hinders not but in the main they are preferible to all other books Gold may have some tincture of a meaner metal in it yet in the main 't is preferible to all other metals Again what a gross inference hath he drawn from the words he quotes as Sam Fisher's viz That were their transcriptions and translations never so certain and entire by answering to the first original Copies yet are not capable to be to all men any other than a Lesbian Rule or nose of wax Whereupon D L. saies Mark how he affirms That if the Scripures were never so true yet they are capable of being no other than a nose of wax Answ Mark how D L. belies his own quotation iâ— his pretendedly marking S F's words for the quotation himself offers saies of the Scriptures That they are not capable to be to all men any other than a Lesbian Rule or nose of wax But in his mark to render S F. odious he makes him affirm â—hey where capable of being no other than a nose of wax Oh Infincere man Can he be so ignorant as not to know the difference betwixt saying The Scriptures can not be to all men of service which was S F's meaning in as much as multitudes of mankind never had heard one word of them and his own saying That they are capable of being no other indefinitely than a nose of Wax Well! upon this perversion of the above quotation D L. comments saying Now I dare affirm there is no sort of people else in Cristendom except Papists will speak thus of the Scriptures But experience tells me That all sensible Christians who protest against this Popish principle cannot but have an evidence in themselves to the worth and purity of the Scriptures c. Answ And what of all this The question is not about what evidence sensible Chistians have of the Scriptures nor whether they are to them as a nose of wax But cheifly about what they are to half the world which have them not And what service they can be of unto such D L. were
as certainly true as he is cofidently false in it As first his affirming that the Quakers searcht the Town for arms this I am credibly informed is false and that it was not the Quakers who did so but others 2. dly Supplied them with guns swords c. This was not likely to be true for though perhaps there might be here and there one that had a fowling piece not that I have cause to suspect that any person furnished them with so much as one yet I question whether they had any swords at all to furnish them with The 3 dly is a third lye For he saith they gave them a Commission which was not so but a Warrant to bring them back to justice in their own way they being nor Friends that went by virtue of that Warrant after them Then he adds and hiâ—ed them for 100 pound Whereâ—â— this was not to neither it is true after the men that followed them were agreed to go and in order thereto were got into the boat Sam. Carpenter to incourage them called to them and promised to give them 100 pound if they would bring back the sloop and men And if Sam. Carpenter was to blame in it why did not G. K. instead of commending him and other's for what they did 〈◊〉 deal of with Samuel about it and say his evil actions iâ— they were 〈◊〉 before him in order to have recovered him 〈◊〉 not a word of that then it was Den Samuel with him man months after that after till he began to differ with seperate from Friends and then Samuel not joyning with him he spared him no more than others Moreover whereas D L said Sam Carpenter paid down the 100 pound and that the Assembly have since voted it a debt of the Province Now this is not so neither for there was no such sum voted but the man will be medling with things he knows nothing of Then as for his saying that it was those whom the Quakers got to gether and furnished with guns and swords and who had Commission and were nired for 100 pound to do it that recovered the sloop here in it as worth one's observation how prettily he contradicts his friend G. K. in the matter who saies It was Peter Boss and one or two more vvith him that retook the sloop having neither gun svvords nor spear see Antichrists and Sadâ—cees detected p. 7. Yet in their Appeal to the Yearly Meeting in 1692 G K among others saith as â— L. here saith as to those vvho took the sloop Thus thoâ—gh they â—oth beâ—n false vvitness yet their witness agrees not together I shall next take notice of a passage of his relating to Tythes which may be seen in his p 107 thus I know none in Christe naâ—â— no not the Priests themselves but they will deny that they take Tythes as Tythes but only as maâ—re 〈…〉 to preaching and not as any other part or the 〈…〉 Answ It may be so For what other part of the Cerimonial Law did Tiths belong to except to give part to the Stranger the Fatherless and the widow tho that part our Priests do not care to perform to be Sure But â—â—ee D. L. says he knows none that say they take Tiâ—â—s as Tiths I shall take Leave to tell him That he seems to have pored so long on G. â—'s Great Mystery c. as to have bemudl'd himself or dull'd his sight else he might have there seen and so have known That the Priests take Tyths as Thyths for which I referr him to the following Passages First in pag. 87. G. F. quotes the expression of a Priest thus The Lord hath given Tyths for the maintenance of the Ministry of this Nation And a littte lower he saith The Priesthood is Changed but not the Tyths abolished by the coming of any Substance Secondly in Pag. 245. he quotes Gawin Eaglesheld Thus The Law is not changed that gave Tyths c. Now I hope from henceforth D. L. may be satisfied That the Priests did not deny their taking Tyths as Tyths Besides to talk of not taking Tyths as Tyths is Just as good sense as to say D. L. dos not tell Lyes as Lyes But it is yet further observable That D. L. ackowledged That Tyhts for the Maintenance for Preaching being part of the Ceremoniall Law and consequently put an end to by Jesus Christ's Offering up himself And that being the chief Cause why our Friends refuse to pay them must needs be an Argument to any sensible Man s understanding That we owne Jesus to be the Christ And we know the Apostle saith The Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a Change also of the Law Heb 7 2. I shall now proceed to his 13. th Chap about Miracles wherein he seems resolved to Act the part of one that would be Retrogade to any thing acted or done by a Quaker especially if he thinks he hath found out a way to redicule it thereof I think I shall not need to say much to it only some passages I shall hint at as followeth He begins his Cavills against some passages in G. F's Iournall to which I need say no more than thus That I am satisfied That where at any time G. F. in his Journal hath mention'd any Miracle which God had wrought by him the Intent was not to set up of applaud the Creature nor to boast of the work but to give the praise and honour to God the Worker to whom it belongs As for what he saith in pag. 110 about G. F's being call'd The Father of many Nations c. I answer thus hath been Answer'd so often already particularly by W. P. in Judas and the Jews c. and in Invalidity c. and that to my satisfaction above twenty years ago that I shall say no more of it in this place than to reâ—er the Reader to the Books for his satisfaction also A little lower in the Same page he Insinuates that G. F. should pretend to the Gift of Tongues to Interpret all Languages which I am perswaded he shall never be able to make appear But if he can let him In pag. 111. He pretends to object something worse against G. F. which take as follows But which is yet worse if true I have seen a sheet called An Essay c. lately put out by one T. C. wherein he shows that G. F. in answering Priests and Professor's Books falsly quoted their Words and perverted them c. Which he would have W. P. to appear and clear G. F. from c. Answ If there be such a Book written by T. C. so accusing G. F. I question not but it is or will be Answer'd in the mean time I will assent to D. L's saying if true it must needs be judged wicked c. But I shall likewise add if it be false the reporting it must needs be wicked in his Author T. C. and Idle and wicked in himself also thus to repeat it only