Velata quaedam Revelata pag. 13. of which he is very cheery As to the Spirit of Man which concurs to the Constituting of Man in his primitive Perfection it is the Breath of Life which God breathed into his Soul after he had formed him as to his Body of the Dust of the Earth whereby he came to be a Living Soul a Soul that did partake something of God's own Life This Spirit of Man is that living Principle of the Divine Nature which Man did before his Degeneration and shall again after his Regeneration partake of This Charge sayes our Adversary being of so black and horrid a Nature I did judge it meet to prove it by abounding Instances and now Reader put on the largest Charity and give me thy Verdict if I have not made appear that the Quakers are gross Idolaters c. To answer which briefly and to Purpose and to close this Chapter with a contrary Conclusion I say That the Spirit of Man is not to be taken as of or from Man or that it is any part of Man's Nature take Man in an Abstractive sense And had he been so fair as to give us S. Fisher's Words at large they would have prov'd themselves of Age enough to answer for themselves S. Fisher is to be understood of that Spirit or Breath of Life not that made Man simply a Living Creature of a meer Reasonable Capacity but that Divine Life or Breath which makes alive to God and gives a kind of Heavenly Animation Motion or Life to live to him which constituted Adam not a meer Man but a blessed holy heavenly-minded Man before his Degeneration And that S. Fisher did never intend it of the Natural Soul of Man but rather of the Divine Life of the Soul without which the Soul is destitute of the Knowledge of the True and Living God his own Words very plainly show For if S. Fisher intended that Spirit which is the Divine Principle that Man did partake of before his Degeneration certain and clear it is that since Man did under that Degeneration partake of his own Soul or else he could not have been a Man S. Fisher never meant the meer Soul of Man but the Life of that Divine Principle which regenerates and renews the Soul unto a Life of Purity and Blessedness So that we conclude the Quakers not believing any such Strange and Unscriptural Doctrine as that the Soul of Man is the God that made the Heavens and the Earth for so it would make it self and what is greater then itself They are not those Idolaters they have been represented and fouly charactered by J. Faldo But Innocent and Free of all such Imputation and he their Accuser most of all Condemnable yea and that for Idolatry too who professeth no Knowledge of God but from Outward Sense by Hearing Reading c. p. 91. So that being destitute of the Revelation of the Son that only can make known the Living Father what Apprehensions he has of God are not Experimental but Imaginary and worshipping such an Idea he worshippeth not the true God but the Images of his own Brain therefore an Idolater See Bish Andrews upon the Command and Pagnin upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. XXI Our Adversary at a loss to prove his Charge We own so much of the Resurrection as the Scriptures express more Curiosity Dangerous and Condemnable Eternal Rewards own'd by us J. Faldo's Book will prove it to Him and our Tribulations to Us. § 1. THe two last Charges of this second Part of his Discourse are our Denyal of the Resurrection of the Dead that is Dead Bodies and future Rewards To the First he brings in I. Pennington thus We say that Christ is the Resurrection to raise up that which Adam lost and to destroy him who deceived him viz. Adam so Christ is the Resurrection unto Life of Body Soul and Spirit and so renews Man c. Princ. Elem. Peop. cal Quak. p. 34. Upon which he comments What is this Resurrection but what they call Regeneration it seems he does not and the Resurrection of the Body is but in the same sense as the Soul and Spirit is raised I can't help it if J. Faldo has made so unapplicable a Quotation out of I. P. to his Business I hope none are so Blind or Partial as to be angry that I. P. did not write to his Purpose it was sufficient that he spake to his own or rather to the Truth 's Our Adversary falls down right upon us with a Charge of Denying the Resurrection of the Body and is angry that the Place he produces helps not his Design Certainly with sober Men the Blame will not lie at our doors for not making good his Charge but at his own that he exhibited one he could not prove But will he deny the Resurrection in I. P's Words If he does I pronounce him no Christian nor indeed will a bare Confessing to it render him One And where he stands I fear he is but too far from both Let it suffice that those Words are a modest serious and full Answer to this Caviller since he does plainly acknowledge All that the first Adam lost to be restored by Christ the second Adam and all that the Sin of one incurr'd the Righteousness of the other redeem'd from Now let his Notions of the Way and Method of Effecting this be what they will we desire not to be wise beyond what the Lord sees convenient for us as this busie Intruder into sacred Mysteries hath done that lives in the Land not of Light but gross Darkness within and whose very borrowed made framed Light from Reading Art Study and his own Conceptions is the very Blackness of Darkness § 2. But he affirms that George Whitehead should say being prest in the Matter that he did not believe his Body should rise again after its Death which he can prove by many Witnesses I know not if ever G. Whitehead did so express himself But I see every Expression must be treasured up to defend a decrepit Cause Truth stands in no need of such Watchings that would make a Man an Offender for a Word But what if he did say so and I should second him would it follow that we deny a Resurrection I am sure I will deny all such Consequences Doth not the Apostle say expresly Thou Fool thou sowest not THAT BODY THAT SHALL BE. Is Scripture grown into such mean Request with J. Faldo or doth his Rage against the Quakers so transport him that he knows not Scripture when he meets it from a Quaker But sayes our Adversary upon a like place and to this purpose viz. We shall all be changed I would ask if they would be content to be refused their Debts if contracted before Quakers and demanded when Quakers I suppose they would believe that the Change in a Person is not the Change of a Person and that they are the same still to
the Christ or the Body of Christ onely I leave with Christ Scripture and Reason to determine Certain I am that this Principle must center in that senseless Dream of J. Reeve and L. Muggleton as well as that it makes a perfect Difference betwixt Him that was before Abraham and Him that said so Him that told his Disciples I will not leave you comfortless and Him that said I will come to you again Nay why should Christ say to his Disciples it was expedient he should go away since certainly if some more Excellent and Profitable Appearance of himself had not been to succeed at least as to them it had been far more Expedient he should in that Manner have remained amongst them And why did the Apostle speak of no more knowing Christ after the Flesh and of his being revealed in him and in the Saints as their Hope of Glory and that he was the Quickning Spirit and Lord from Heaven If that Body was the Intire Christ not rather the Body prepared for that Divine Power Wisdom and Righteousness to transact in and appear by and to the Sons of Men which with respect to that great Manifestation was denominated Christ or Anointed shall we dare think that he who so spoak and of whom the Apostle so testified was not the true Christ which to be sure was before that Visible Body God forbid Let that Sin lie at J. Faldo's Door § 2. But he offers to us Scripture And it was reveal'd to him Simeon by the Holy Ghost that he should not see Death before he had seen the Lord's Christ And he came by the Spirit into the Temple and when the Parents brought in the Child Jesus then took he him up in his Armes and said Lord now lettest thou thy Servant depart in Peace for mine Eyes have seen thy Salvation a Light to lighton the Gentiles c. and it is and will be granted that Simeon saw the Lord 's Christ But I hope J. Faldo will not deny unto that good Man who waited for Israel's Consolation that he had as well a Spiritual as Natural an Inward as Outward Sight of Christ For can he think that the Word which took Flesh was nothing of that Saviour and that the True Light which then appeared is to be excluded any Share therein Will J. Faldo or any Man that owns Scripture dare to affirm there was not something belonging to the True and Compleat Christ beyond what his outward Eyes could possibly see Certainly this Allegation from Luk 2. 26. will never prove the Body of Jesus which the Father prepared for him to be the Whole Intire Christ Saviour Light Salvation and Glory of Israel unless Christ under all these Considerations consisted or was made up of the more Outward Body that only was obvious to the Outward Eyes which to affirm were both to deny his Divinity and to conclude Simeon void of any Spiritual Sight or Intendment in these Words of the Lord 's Christ as a Light enlightning the Gentiles and God's Salvation to the Ends of the Earth Though still be it understood that we confess that Child as seen and understood by Simeon with respect to that great End of his Appearance to be the Lord 's Christ Nay J. Faldo himself sayes as much p. 70. otherwise there would be an exalting the Body above the Divinity nay an utter Exclusion of the Divinity with respect to the True Christ Let none then be so Ungodly and Unjust to us as to infer we deny the Lord 's Christ because we rather chuse to say the Body of Christ then Christ for sayes he Christ is God manifest in the Flesh see J. F. p. 72 77. § 3. And lest any should think that therein I contradict the inspired Saying of that Just Man when he said Mine Eyes have beheld thy Salvation the Words import no more then this Mine Eyes have beholden the Manifestation and Breaking forth of thy Seed and Heir who is come to visit the World and bruise the Serpent's Head Mine Eyes have seen him by whom thy Salvation shall be declared through whom thou wilt put forth thine Arm and work mightily for the Salvation of Man And this his other Scriptures prove at large for me the most Considerable of which I take to be this The God of our Fathers raised up Jesus whom ye slew and hanged on a Tree Him hath God exalted with his right Hand to be a Prince and a Saviour for to give Repentance to Israel and Forgiveness of Sin Act. 5. 30 31. which can no more be understood expresly stricktly and intirely so then it would be reason able for a Man to say that when Samuel died the Soul and Body which was call'd Samuel died and not rather the Body of him who was called Samuel And this is the Ground and Reason why the Socinians Muggletonians and several Anabaptists hold the Mortality of the Soul because otherwise those Words which speak of the Death of Christ could not be taken properly as they take and defend them I say then and that with Force of Reason and which at this time may be more to the Conviction of some the Suffrage of our malignant Adversary J. Faldo himself however contradicting to his fore-mentioned Sense the Words are thus to be understood The God of our Fathers who raised up the Body of Jesus from the Dead which ye slew and hung upon a Tree Him whose Body you so cruelly used hath God exalted with his right Hand to be a Prince and a Saviour for to give Repentance to Israel and Forgiveness of Sin To put this out of Doubt hear J. Faldo his own self Let not these Blasphemers of the Lord of Life and Glory delude People with a Fancy as if we believe and preach the FLESH AND BLOOD OF CHRIST TO BE CHRIST SEPARATED FROM HIS SOUL OF THE NATURE OF MAN's SOUL but undefiled OR THAT WE TAKE HIS MAN's NATURE TO BE CHRIST SEPARATED FROM HIS ETERNAL AND DIVINE NATURE One would think I had spent my Time in vain when I set about to prove that the Divine Light Life Power Wisdom and Righteousness were not unconcerned in the true Christ and consequently that the Body which only died was not the Entire Jesus or Saviour since our Adversary calls us Blasphemers and Deluders and I know not for what except it be for Teaching that Doctrine he recommends in the same Paragraph wherein he calls us those hateful Names § 4. But that his great Inconsistency with himself may be further manifest hear him again If Men be so blind as not to see the Error of Disowning Jesus of Nazareth the Son of Mary who was hanged on a Tree put into the Sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathia to be yet alive and the Christ of God by all these Scriptures the most considerable whereof are answerd it is a Blindness wherewith never any before the Quakers who professed the Scriptures to be a true Testimony were smitten
of private Spirits and not rather of the Holy Spirit of God and such only as were conformable to it § 11. His other Cavil confirms the Truth of my former Argument and his own great Ignorance or Baseness My words are these If God sends forth his Spirit into the Hearts of his Children then are they not without an Infallible Spirit grounded upon that Scripture Because ye are Sons God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your Hearts Gal. 4. 6. To which he sayes Your Adversaries have not so little Knowledge of the Spirit of God as to say the Spirit of God is Fallible nor yet so Ignorant of your Spirits and of the Scripture as to say you are Infallible Now I have two things to desire of the Ingenuous Reader First to find me out so much as one Syllable in my Argument that infers or concludes the Spirits of such to be Infallible into whose Hearts God has shed abroad his Infallible Spirit whether they are led by it or not or that I could intend a concluding of the Spirit of Man Infallible because God has given his own unto Men that is unquestionably so I am sure such a Thought never entred my Mind as fruitful of them as our Adversary may be Adversary I may well say not only because he is one but that he acknowledges to me as much which let him know however I am not such to him The Second thing I have to desire of the Candid Reader is that he would weigh with himself how Unjust this Man is to me to infer Infallibility to Men from my Affirming it to belong only to the Spirit of God And as if he fear'd I should not be as Heterodox as his Envy would have me to conclude on my Account from what I urged to prove That God's Children in all Ages had an Infallible Spirit to Judge Rule and Guide them the Affirmative of the very Question debated that is God's Spirit That every such one was Infallible in and from his own private Spirit Oh Monstrous Perversion I would impute it to his Mistake of me it being far better to be Ignorant than Dishonest but he will not let me who a little below has Impudence enough to write but we are NOT IGNORANT that your Principles make no Difference or Distinction between the Spirits of God's People and the Spirit of God manifestly intending not that they are at variance for so we should esteem his Charge a piece of Justice but that the Spirit of the Creature and the Spirit of God are but one Spirit An Absurdity that never fell from us How many times hath J. Faldo been guilty in his Discourse of plain Forgery and Dishonesty against us So certain as there is a God in Heaven terrible will his Judgment be in that great Day of Inquest if he repent not § 12. He makes a great Stir about my Checking the late Socinian for making Christ the Head of a Fallible Body saying If Christ be Head to none but the Infallible Wo to the poor Saints who have trusted hitherto they had a Head in Heaven who hath Pitty on the Ignorant and those that are out of the Way and I am sure Christ is then none of your Head We have enough and leave his very Ill Language out 1. It is granted to us that Christ is Head to a Fallible Body or at least to Fallible as well as Infallible I charge him to give us one Scripture for this or he is gone for all his idle Puns Shifts and scoffing Flings at us 2. That a Man may be a Saint which if we take it strictly is one of that Number the Apostle prayed the Churches might be of I mean those which were sanctified throughout in Body Soul and Spirit I say that a Man may be such a Saint and yet be Fallible or Erring 3. That the Saints are Ignorant and out of the Way Truly this Doctrine very well becomes J. Faldo I had rather it should be his then mine I will venture them in the Scale of Truth without thinking I run an Hazard in the Matter especially when if I err that hinders not from being a Saint Member of Christ But J. Faldo can a Man be a Saint and yet Ignorant of so much of God as is requisit to constitute him such Or can he be such and yet out of that Way which renders him a true Saint It is the first time that I ever heard in so many words that a Man might be a Saint and out of God's Way Oh Doctrine of Devils No Marvel so many Unclean Fowls flock to this Carkass What! Saints and err from God's Way Strange Saints and ignorant of God's Mind It seems then that neither Ignorance nor Erring from God's Way indispose any to be Saints If this be not a plain Contradiction to the whole Record of Scripture none ever was is or shall be esteemed such to the End of the World How many how grievous and how sharp have God's Complaints been against those who have left the Right Way of the Lord which has been the Way of Light and Righteousness the Just Man's Path through every Generation No Wonder that such Doctrines are hoth greedily received and furiously maintained that sooth up People in the Belief of such Pernicious Soul-murdering Doctrines And the Truth is and I do boldly affirm it and that in the Counsel of the Eternal God it is our striking so constantly and earnestly at this and such like Sin-pleasing Principles that makes the Devil thus bestir himself in his ready Agents to raise up and bespatter us with such heavy Calumnies as almost every one produceth against us But we lose not an Inch of Ground nor a Dram of Courage our Godly Resolution redoubles with our Adversaries On-sets and whatever may befall us here as our Hope so our Reward is from God in that high and heavenly Place which is above the Reach of Time and every Assault of our Implacable Adversaries § 13. He tells me He might proceed to my fallacious Arguing from the Spirit 's Teaching indefinitely expressed that is by Scripture Visions Providences c. means our Adversary to its Teaching peculiarly frequently in my Pampblet pag. 18 29 c. that is to the Spirit 's Teaching Men and Women by its daily and Inward Discoveries Motions and Operations But he will not the Reason is he dare not For if the Spirit be not an Immediate Living Teacher and works not as such to the Information Conviction and Conversion of Men to God in these dayes let him for Shame relinquish all Pretence to Gospel or an Evangelical Dispensation of which it is the peculiar Promise and Priviledge § 14. Though for want of better Language he is pleased to bestow upon this Godly Proposition the Term of Beetle-headed Saying and affirms that the Scripture knows nothing of it For which I may more reasonably affirm that He knows nothing of it For can this Man be
Let him find me says J. Faldo such a Scripture and I will be bound to turn Quaker I perceive the Man thinks he can turn Quaker much at the rate he can Pray I mean when he will but I will tell him so much that it is as hard a Task for him to turn True Quaker as to be a true primitive Christian a thing most difficult to be sure But to his Quibble about But that J. Parnel has told a I willfull Untruth in saying the Baptism is but One suppose it will be allow'd that there was one Baptism in the same sense that there was one Lord one Faith Now if there is but One Lord One Faith as it is to be supposed J. Faldo believes why should it be so Criminal to say there is but One Baptism If saying there is one Lord and one Faith be synonimous or equivalent with affirming that there is but one Lord and one Faith I cannot see how it should be an Untruth to say that there is One Baptism is one and the same thing wish our saying there is but One Baptism In short if there is more then One Baptism because the Apostle does not say there is but one Baptism then there are more Gospels Lords and Faiths because the Apostle did not say there was but one Gospel but one Lord and but one Faith consequently there may be many Gospels Lords and Faiths as well as Baptisms § 7. Enough of this Weakness His Strength follows Water-Baptism is the Sign the Baptism of the Spirit something but not all signified Now to call the Thing signifying and signified by the same Name doth not make them Two of that Name no more then there were two New Covenants because both the Matter contained in it Hebr. 8. 10. and Circumcision the Sign Gen. 17. 13. are called the Covenant I shall grant to him that the Thing signifying and signified are sometimes called by one and the same Name as Baptism But when distinguisht by Water and Holy Ghost I hope nothing that is not as blind or hardened as J. Faldo if yet he himself will say that therefore they are but One Baptism Christ himself distinguishes betwixt John's and his Baptism and himself and his Baptism And frequently his Apostles yea the Baptist himself seem'd to take all Occasions whereby to let People know that his Baptism was but that of Water and that the Baptism of Christ was not of Water but of the Holy Ghost as the Scriptures in the Margent plainly prove So in the Word Circumcision compounded of the same Letters and Syllables let it be used to express that of the Body or the Flesh or that of the Heart in Spirit Yet it is to be hoped that none will conclude there were not Two Circumcisions and so Two Jews the one Inward and the other Outward Though now he is no more a Jew that is one Outwardly neither is that Circumcision which is outward in the Flesh but he is a Jew which is one Inwardly and Circumcision is that of the Heart in the Spirit and not in the Letter whose Praise is not of Men but of God § 8. And should we grant him what he desires as to the same Name being applicable to the Sign and the Thing signified yet Weak and Wretched must his Sophism appear to all clear-sighted Readers For if therefore the Baptism of Water and of the Spirit are One because the same Word is applicable to the Sign and the Thing signified and in that sense they are both of them One Baptism Then by just Consequence must the Circumcision outwardly in the Flesh and the Circumcision of the Heart in the Spirit be One because the Word of it self is equally applicable to both and Consequently they are both of them One Circumcision And here but must and will be allow'd us What Jew Living could have reason'd better for the Continuation and Perpetuity of Circumcision But because he has said nothing here for Baptism more then what may be said for Circumcision and that Circumcision is utterly exploded of the Christian Religion as a Sign whose Signification is come and therefore no more a Sign our Assertion of the One Spiritual Baptism of Fire and the Holy Ghost as onely upon the same Fundation proper to Christ's Kingdom doth remain fix and Immoveable against all the Batteries of our Adversary CHAP. XVI The Supper he says we deny not deny'd but fulfil'd The Scriptures Consulted No Perpetuity prov'd That it was a Sign And that Signs were done away in Christ demonstrated The present Practice in the Case not primitive Our Faith left with God in the Matter § 1. BUt the Quakers he says disown the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper to be now a Gospel-Ordinance for which he cites J. Parnel a Young Man often in his Eye now dead as he was grieveously so to J. Faldo's Brethren the Independents at Cogshall in Essex who by unparallel'd and never to be forgotten Cruelties murder'd him as may be seen in my Second part of our serious Apology pag. 185. 186. 187. His words as he quotes them are these For the Bread which the World breaks is Natural and Carnal so also the Cup which they drink and here is no Communion but what is Outward and Carnal Shield of Truth pag. 13. Also W. Smith thus They Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper are the Popes Invention His Primm pag. 39. To the first Citation I answer that the Bread and Wine being of an Outward Elementary Nature and Substance may with respect to what they signifie be very properly tearmed Natural and Carnal for so they are And the World that is those who are doing it upon meer Imitation and not from any Heavenly Commission they see no further and their Communion may well be said to be Natural Outward and Carnal To the second I do challenge J. Faldo to make it good and require it at his Hand in the View of the World to produce any such words out of W. Smiths Books and that he may not plead Mistake of Authors I will give him the Scope of all our Books Friends to prove that we ever call'd the Bread and Wine Christ blest the Invention of the Pope O ungodly Man What hast thou done that God should thus give thee up not onely to believe Lyes thy self but to endeavour to make others do the like Thy Book shall be a Milstone about thy Neck in the Day of the righteous and terrible Judgments of Almighty God We deny the Expression and lay the Slander at John Faldo's door § 2. But the Quakers main Objection says he is that Christ is come in Spirit to them and his Disciples were to do it in Remembrance of him till he came therefore this Precept doth not binde them J. Faldo pretends thus to answer But who would think that Christ in the Spirit was not come either in shedding it abroad miraculously as in the 2. of the Acts or as a
the readiest nay the only Right Way to come to true Faith in Christ as he then appear'd and to receive any Benefit by him And it is not another then that Blessed Light Power Wisdom and Eternal Righteousness who then appeared by whom we have received any true Spiritual Benefit How then can our ascribing particular Salvation in this Age to him who thus now appears to our Souls render him no Saviour in that or invalidate his then Appearance whose Doctrine pierc'd whose Life preach'd whose Miracles astonish'd whose Blood atton'd and whose Death and Resurrection confirm'd his then Manifestation to be no less then God who is Light manifested in the Flesh Priest The Quakers set up Works and Meriting by Works like the Papists Whereby Faith in Christ is layd aside Quaker We say That True Faith in Christ cannot be without Works no more then a Body can live without a Spirit Nay by the Comparison if they were separable Works being compared to the Spirit would have the better The very Believing of any is an Act of the Mind and therefore a Work to God and no sooner is that Faith begotten but it falls to Working which is both the Nature and End of it Nor do we say that our very best Works proceeding from True Faith it self can merit No nor Faith joyn'd with them All that Man is capable of Believing or Performing can never merit There can be no Proportion as there must be in Merit between the best Faith and Works of three score and ten and Eternal Felicity Wherefore all that Man can do even with the Assistance of the Holy Spirit can never so merit but that Right Faith and Good Works which will follow it may and do obtain that blessed Immortality it pleaseth Almighty God to give and priviledge the Sons of Men with who perform that necessary Condition and that we groundedly and therefore boldly affirm So that we deny all Merit from the best of Works especially by such as the Papists are wont to conceive Meritorious But as we on the one Hand do stifly deny them so neither can we joyn with that lazy Faith which works not Let not Good Works make Men Papists because they make Men Christians I am sure Believing and not Working and conceiving a Salvation from Wrath where there is no Salvation from Sin the Cause of it is no whit less un-scriptural and abundantly more Pernicious and Damnable Blessed is He that hears the Word of God and does it The Blessing is to the Doer Priest They acknowledge no Resurrection nor Rewards to come Quaker In this also are we greatly abused We deny not the Resurrection but are cautious in expressing the Manner Are People angry with us for not Believing or Asserting what is Hidden and they know not themselves THOU FOOL is to the Inquirer We shall be contented with that Body God will please to give us and think it to be both our Duty and Wisdom to acquiesce in that For Eternal Rewards we not only own them but above all People have the greatest Reason so to do for otherwise who so Miserable Do we inherit the Reproach and Suffering of all that have separated from time to time That is Are the Out-crys that have been against the Protestants by the Papists and theirs against Puritans Brownists and other Separatists fallen upon us And shall we hold Principles inconsistent with an Eternal Recompence of Reward By no means It is our Faith and the contrary both a Malicious and Foolish Suggestion of our Adversaries J. Faldo's KEY Prov'd Defective I Was not willing J. Faldo's Key should go wholy Unconsider'd The greatest Part of which I here publickly acknowledge to have done us such Right that if his Explanation of many of our Words be not True I am not asham'd to pronounce that the Scriptures must be False so agreable to and consonant with Scripture has he spoken on our behalf And not only with Scripture but that Sense of it too which the Best Wisest and most Learned both of the Fathers and first Reformers have unanimously had and on which Foundation in some measure both Puritans and Brownists began their Building Low Meek Spiritual and Plain as is yet well remembred But how grosly he has mis-represented us in other Parts that the True may not give Credit to the False with any I will observe a few with what Brevity I may J. Faldo pag. 62. ASSEMBLING says he Meeting in Spirit W. Penn. This is not Ingenuous For with such as know us not nor our Practice it insinuates a Denial of Publick Worship which we ever own'd and hope shall to the End It is well known who have most shrunk from that Testimony And if J. Faldo means that they do not Worship in Spirit because he makes it Criminal in us we have Reason to say He and They are no Gospel-Worshippers For People must either worship in or out of God's Spirit If out of his Spirit then no Worship in Spirit and Truth but the Device of their own Hearts If in the Spirit then the Quakers assemble as they should do and J. Faldo is to be rebuk'd for little better then an Upstart Scoffer at Assembling in Spirit The once avowed Principle of the Ancient Brownists now call'd Independents J. F. pag. 69. THE WILL OF THE FLESH says he All that is chosen by Man though he be thereby disposed by the Will of God revealed in the Scripture W. P. This is false Many things may be and are daily chosen by Man that is not in the Will of the Flesh nor by his own Will much less when any should be disposed thereto by the Will of God revealed in the Scripture An Abominable Untruth and so Notorious that I need say no more only Challenge him to produce any of us in Proof of his Exposition if he can otherwise he hath Slandered us and our Principles For the Will of the Flesh is that which is quite contrary to God and inconsistant with the Good of the Creature J. F. pag. 69. STATE OF GLORY says he The State of Peace and Joy resulting from the Witness of the Light within in this Life W. P. It is true That Glory is revealed from Faith to Faith in this Life But to stint the State of Glory to the Peace and Joy of this Life only may justifie his wrong Opinion of us that we deny Rewards to come but it cuts off from our stedfast Faith in an Everlasting Mansion of Glory and Blessedness which from the Light within to all who obey it shall spring as a River and flow as an Inexhaustable Fountain And J. Faldo shall never know true Peace another way That is the Word of the Lord to him J. F. pag. 70. PREACHING FOR HIRE HIRELINGS says he to have a Provision for the Outward Man as a Maintenance for Preaching though no Bargain be made yea though such who receive it would Preach if they had never a Penny Reward in this World from