have our Being for we are also of his Off-Spring Erasmus in Deut. saith non supra â—e sed intrate est Sermo valde i. The VVord is not above thee but very within thee The Samaritan Coppy hath it not the Word but the Thing is in thee according to the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is often so translated Fagius upon the Place in Deuter. thus In Corde dicit quia Legem cordibus Judaeorum inscripserat Dominus priusquam in Tabulis illis lapâ—deis Decologum insculpsisset i. e. In the Heart saith he because the Lord haâ—â— written the Law in the Hearts of the Jews before he had graven the Decalogue in the Tables of Stones For its being such a Word as useth to be in the Mouth I must tell him that is such a Word as useth to be in the Heart too which he takes no Notice of in my Answer and I am sure it is not so impossible for the Eternal Word to express it self by the Mouth of a Man and so may be said to be in the Mouth as it is for the Book of written Laws and Statutes to be in the Heart Besides the Commandments are mentioned verse 10. but this Commandment or Word verse 11. 14. which cannot in good Sense be called the same but rather that Law Word or Commandment mentioned by the Apostle Rom. 2. 14 15. which he acknowledgd the good Gentiles both to have had written in their Hearts and to have lived up to in good Measure unless we can suppose that God hath been less propitious to the Jews then to the Gentiles I mean that God gave the Gentiles an inward and the Jews only an outward Law But suppose what our Adversary sayes of the Word in Deuteronomy to be true he hath confounded himself in this That he makes the Word Rom. 10. 8. the same with the Word mentioned Deut. 13 14. The one is as sayes J. F. the Word of Jewish Statutes among whom is the Hand wring of Ordinances the ceremonial and judicial as well as morral Law The other is the Word of Faith which blots out the Hand-writing of Ordinances and ends the Ceremonial and Judicial Law But because these two Laws or Words cannot be one and the same and yet that the Apostle alludes to the Words in Deuteronomy it follows that it cannot be the Book of written Laws but the Word that begets Love to and Faith in God for that was the Word the Apostle preached Nay we may go further yet and assert the Word mentioned in Deuteronomy to be Christ himself for if that be one with the Word of Faith the Apostle writes of to the Romans then because the Word of Faith Rom. 10. 8. is Christ the Word mentioned in Deuteronomy must also be Christ that are one and the same Word the Apostle's Allusion proves and J. F. confesseth and that the Word of Faith Rom. 10. 8. is Christ let the two fore-going Verses of the Text be consulted But the Righteousness of Faith speaketh on this wise Say not in thine Heart who shall ascend into Heaven that is to bring Christ down from above or who shall descend into the deep that is to bring up Christ again from the Dead but what saith it The Word is nigh thee even in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that is the Word of Faith which we preach verse 6 7 8. where nothing is more clear then that the Word nigh in the Heart is Christ the Word for the Question here is how they shall get Christ as it was in Deuteronomy how they should get the Word The Apostle answers it though not under the Name of Christ yet under a Name attributed to Christ If our Adversary count Christ and the Word of Faith two differing things by the same Reason may we say that the Word in Deuteronomy concerning which none needeth to ask who shall go up in Heaven to bring it down and the Word nigh are two Words but if that Question be needless Who shall go up into Heaven to fetch it down unto us ver 12. be answered in ver 14. viz. but the Word is very nigh unto thee and consequently that it is but one Word or Commandment that is understood in the Question and the Answer then may we with good Reason conclude that Christ in the 6th and 7th Verses and the Word of Faith in the 8th Verse are one and the same thing under two Names else there can be no Sence or Coherence in the Apostle's Words for what Answer is this But what sayes it The Word is nigh thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that is the Word of Faith which we preach to this Question Who shall ascend to bring Christ down Who shall descend to bring Christ up If Christ and Word of Faith are not Synonimous or equivalent Terms The Question the Apostle makes the Righteousness of Faith to forbid is about Christ's Absence or Remoteness from the Heart Say not in thy Heart and it is answered and resolved with the Nearness of the Word in the Heart which could be no answer or Solution in case that Word was not Christ or Christ that Word for the Reason why the Righteousness of Faith saith on this wise Say not in thy Heart who shall ascend to fetch Christ down implies that he is not shut up in some remote place but that he is nigh and needs no fetching and if nigh then not another from the Word nigh which is the Answer to the Question To make it yet plainer and detect my Adversary I will parrallel the Case Jacob being ancient desired to see Josâ—ph before he died suppose him to have askt how shall I do to see Joseph and that some body answered Do not ask how â—hou shalt see Joseph for thou seest Reuben Tell me if this would be thought a fit Answer to Jacob's Question yet this must be the Cause of those who deny Christ and the Word to be one in this Place But if some body should have said to him Do not ask who shall show thee thy SON JOSEPH for the RVLER of all Egypt standeth nigh thee Would not every Body think the Person meant Joseph that was so This is so plain to our Pupose that every common Understanding may discern the Reasonableness of our Interpreration For the Greek being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it makes nothing against us in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same Significaiton with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Scapula informs us out of Plato Clemens Alexandrinus Admon ad Gent. on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls it the Word of the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. the HEAVENLY WORD the true Contender for Mastery crowned in the Theater of the whole World and in his Strom l. 2. speaking of the same Place Rom. 10. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The DIVINE WORD cryes calling all Men without Distinction which must needs be Christ the
went too far In his second he has done little else What shall we say of those whose Pride has brought them to such a pitch of Passion that Rage must follow Reproof and Revenge a Confutation Without out breaking one part of the Law of Modesty I may say for I know he is irrecoverably gone in my Answer Not one Charge can he prove nor one Friend of ours can he make to speak to his Purpose He was for having us to assassinate our selves our Friends he would fain have to turn Executioners to their own Principles This Fool 's Paradise pleased him but the Discreet know and think better Some were startled at the Pretences of the first wherein nothing less then our own Books wâ—â—e to bear Witness against us who are now great Abominators of his Injustice and Railing Blessed be God for that Good Success we hope the like of our following Endeavours I have for the sake of such as expect an Answer sent forth this Rejoynder wherein several weighty Points are as clearly handled as Time Place and other Occasions would permit It greatly concerns all to be fully satisfied therein And I hope there is enough said for all Impartial Readers to reap that Benefit I seek no Revenge I aim not at Reputation God is Record neither has he done enough to raise up the One or question the Other yet he has done doubtless what he could and I must take the Will for the Deed. I shall not show my self so Personally concerned in this Rejoynder as his Personal Reflections would make me 't is below the Spirit of a Christian Man to be disturbed by such Barks of Malice Curs yelping at the Moon neither questions nor ecclipses her Light 'T is a sort of Suffering I must expect to undergo and the best is I find little Difficulty in it And though I shall not cite all his Injustice towards me for that were well nigh to transcribe his Book yet that which may be requisite to give a further Relish of this pretended Christian may be done in its proper place In the mean time I shall betake my self to the Consideration of such Passages in his Reply as may be thought to call for my Rejoynder and that without those insolent Checks frequent Abuses and very vain and gingling Taunts he has cramb'd his Pamphlet with For I can suffer that my self I cannot let the Truth suffer Nor can I think my Silence to his Revilings the worst Answer especially when my Religion will not allow of a like Return in Vindication For though Scoffs and Abusive Reflections may discredit an Adversary with the Weak or Prejudiced yet with a Serious Reader such rather pollute then defend a Cause I will leave the whole Honour of that Way of Confutation to my Adversary not being in such Necessity for Conquest as to take that Dishonourable and Dishonest Way of procuring it If I can make my Rejoynder a little more intelligible then he has done his Reply defend the Truth I own and honour so as to answer my Reader 's Conscience I shall have obtain'd my whole End and maugre the Impetuous and blustering Humour of a few Enraged Adversaries my Mind will sweetly rest in Peace with God in whom I have believed and for whose Cause only I am thus warmly concerned in the World CHAP. I. Of Christianity in General JOhn Faldo in his Book entituled Quakerism No Christianity begins with his Account of Christianity What it is as I honestly observed in my Answer called Quakerism a New Nick-Name for Old Christianity What he laid down was this By Christianity we are not to understand all those Matters of Faith and Practice which Christianity doth obliege us unto for Christianity is a large and noble thing and takes in all that 's worthy in those Religions which it hath out-stript To which I gave this Answer though disingenuously mangled and transposed by my Adversary A strange Definition of true Christianity For if to Believe and Do all Christianity requireth be not Christianity then there is something beyond all that Christianity requireth to be believed and done that is Christianity else I understand nothing This is all he brings of my Answer to ground his Reply upon omitting that part of his Definition and my Return to it which in Honesty stood him most upon to consider But first let us hear his Reply to what he has quoted for Reply and Rejoynder distinguish our matter Reply You may as well affirm a Finger to be a Man when separated from the rest of the Man as common Justice Truth c. to be Christianity Rejoynder Though the Finger be not the Man yet it is Part of the Man therefore common Justice Truth c. by his own Instance are a Part of Christianity but if no Part of Christianity then may Christianity be without Justice or Truth My Drift was in my Answer and is in my Rejoynder That something of what was at Antiâ—ch called Christianity was in the World before Chrst's Visible Appearance at Jerusalem And that his Coming was but to bring the World to a more improved Knowledge and large Enjoyment of that Divine Power Wisdom Life and Righteousness which former Ages had comparatively but an obscure Sight and imperfect Sense of and this was my Reason because the contrary Opinion excludes all antecedent times from any Share in Christianity and plainly shuts them out of all Hope of Eternal Salvation which my Adversary takes a little notice of in these words Rep. If the Scripture had any where said that none but Christians shall be saved his Consequence had been grounded But he might have found asserted in my Book THAT SALVATION DEPENDS ON A RIGHT BELIEF AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE COVENANT OF GRACE Rejoyn The Scripture saith as I instanced for Proof of that little Part of my Answer by him considered For there is no other Name under Heaven given among Men whereby we must be Saved neither is there Salvation in any other Now how to distinguish betwixt a Man being saved by Christ and his being a true Christian I must declare my Ignorance Nay John Faldo though in Contradiction to himself tells us That Salvation depends on a right Belief and Acceptance of the Covenant of Grace Let him either show how a Man may rightly believe and accept of the Covenant of Grace and yet be no Christian or else he does nothing to his own purpose whatever he does for ours Christ is called God's Covenant The New Covenant stands in him How a Man may believe in the Covenant and not in Christ How in Christ and not be a Christian concerns John Faldo to reconcile only Reader let me tell thee that of about Six Pages concerning Christianity this Man has not undertaken Eight Lines to reply to neither are those the Strength of my Discourse To conclude I dare not repute Enoch to be no Christian who walked with God Abraham no Christian who saw Christ's Day and rejoyced
unworthiest Reflections however unprovoked without any Reproof is to merit their sharpest Retorts in the most vilifying Terms I know not what to infer from such an humorsome Carriage but that it is expected from the Quakers Religion it should bear that which J. Faldo's Vindication tells us his cannot a great Credit to our Cause against his Will Thus far of Christianity and Quakerism as they are contra-distinguished by our Adversary CHAP. III. Of the Scriptures MY Adversary begun his first Chapter in his former Discourse upon this general Charge The Quakers deny the Scriptures The Proof he offered was this The Quakers deny the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God and therefore they deny the Scriptures Upon this account I thus delivered my self He entitules his Chapter That the Quakers deny the Scriptures I was almost astonished at it because he pretended to prove all out of our own Books and none such had ever come to my Hand but upon Perusal I found this to be the Upshot That the Quakers deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God My Adversary's Reply is Rep. This is not the first Cordial you have made of a wilful Vntruth nor yet the last by a great many And you who summed up nine Arguments of mine more which were the Contents of the nine Chapters next following should have been ashamed of calling this one which was the first of ten the Vpshot and then insult But I shall try how you break this single Cord this one of ten Rejoyn I will not say he has Wilfully wronged me but Wronged me he has I did not say that it was the Upshot of his whole Discourse concerning the Scriptures but of that single Chapter For had I reputed his nine following Arguments undeserving of any notice I might have called this single one the Upshot but having singlely refuted his subsequent Arguments I could not in good sense call the First the Vpshot 'T was not therefore the Vpshot of the Whole but of that Chapter in which the Word is used I had good Reason so to term it since the Proof was too particular for the Charge It was not my wilful Untruth but his Mistake His suggesting as if I only encountered that single Cord is very Disingenuous for I throughly considered Nine following Chapters Hear him further Rep. That you deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God you grant But you say pag. 25. I declare to the World that we own them to be a Declaration of the Mind and Will of God with many other things which I have shewed to be short of the main Ends of the Scriptures Rejoyn Whether those other things left out are short of the main Ends of the Scripture or no will best be seen by considering what those Things are I do declare to the whole World that we believe the Scriptures to contain a declaration of the Mind and Will of God in and to those Ages in which they were written being given forth by the holy Ghost moving in the Hearts of holy Men of God That they ought also to be Read Believed and Fulfilled in our Day being Useful for Reproof and Instruction that the Man of God may be perfect Now if this belongs not to the main Ends of Scriptures either there are none or they are unknown However it was 〈◊〉 much the End as name of Scripture that was then controverted Again he goes on thus Rep. I shall easily grant that one Word may stand representative of many An odd Phrase that represents him not able to express himself congruously I have heard of Persons as Parliament-men but never of a representative Word before Rejoyn He might have pardoned me an Incongruous Phrase if such it had been for I have twenty times over been so kind to him But I must tell him it is not less proper though less used in Words then in Persons He shews Ignorance in that Philosophy he pretends to be a Master of where there are many single words or Terms that are significative of entire Sentences but argumentum ad hominem granting to the Scriptures that they are the Word of God does not our Adversary repute that Title Representative as well as Expressive of those many thousand Words contained therein if so then there is a Representative Word If not it can never be called so in our Adversary's sense Again he brings me in thus I think it is as good sense to call a King's Letters King as the Scriptures the Word of God Rep. But by your favour Mr. Penn It is neither non-sense nor bad sense to call a King's Letter the Word of a King Rejoyn This is nothing to the purpose the Stress lies here The Word of God being a Title given to Christ as the Title King is to a supreme Magistrate whether it be Reverent or Significant to call the Declaration Christ the Word of God any more then to call the Declaration of a King by the Title of King For we therefore decline to give that Title to any thing below Christ himself to whom the Scriptures most emphatically ascribe it Because I said that it might be the Word of Advice Reproof Instruction which Christ the Great Word of God livingly sows in the Hearts of Men and Women that Christ spoke of when he said The Cares of the World choak the Word and it becomes Unfruitful He replyes Rep. Here you have yielded the Cause to save Christ from being the choaked and unfruitful Word Rejoyn I need not have done so for any such Reason since Christ may in a sense as well be Choaked as by Sin afresh Crucified and the Spirit Quenched Nor could unfruitful obliege me to give away the Cause since the Word is alwayes Vnfruitful where rebelled against But is there no Difference J. Faldo between a Word of Advice spiritually livingly and powerfully sown in the Heart by Christ the great Word of God and that Advice Reproof or Instruction declared by Writing This brings to the Point Whether the Scriptures or Christ may most deservedly be stiled the Word of God Christ is God's living Oracle and rightly called the Word of God because that which livingly speaks forth the Will of God to the Souls of Men The Scriptures are but that Revelation declared and recorded consequently they can have no right to that Title which is so suitably ascribed to the Author of that Revelation To be sure J Faldo acknowledges that they are not the Living Powerful Self-sufficient Word of God Nor does he pretend to dispute for them to be such a Word of God as the Quakers deny them to be Though it seems very strange to me that there should be Two Words of God the one quite differing from the other or that any Word of God if two there were should be of it self Impotent or Insufficient as he seems to allow in his first Book pag 20 27. Vind. pag. 14 16. That the Word of God
Reasonable or Understanding Part is a Wrong that would have drawn a whole Chapter of Railing from him had he been so serv'd by a Quaker And for Faith how can a Man have it and not know he hath it and which way may he possibly know it and not experience it As to the Scriptures they may both be instrumental to Experience and with respect to what they declare of be also experienced Two places more and we leave this Chapter in which it will appear that his Courage is as much upon the ebb as his Envy was before upon the flote In his former Book he was so unhappy in his Cause as to let fall this Expression That God above and the Scripture without have taught us better things The use I made of it in my Answer he takes a little notice of I mean to recite not confute it Now what is the Teaching of the God above said I If it be in the Scriptures it was impertinent to say any more then that the Scriptures have taught them better things But if he meant that God taught by his immediate Discoveries with and beside the Scriptures then wherein do we differ To which I will faithfully set down his Reply that if there be any Reason in it I may lose none of it in Transscription Rep. W. P. thinks now he has me upon the hip this Phrase he calls assisting to my own Confutation If joyning the Teachings of God and the Scriptures alwayes together be Self-confutation let me be ever so Confuted Rejoyn This is both Evasion and False Doctrine Evasion in putting alway together in the Reply which was not in the first Passage and very much alters the Case since to say the God above and the Scriptures without have taught us better things and to say if joyning the Teachings of God and the Scriptures alwayes together c. are vastly differing For the first Saying or Passage is general and leaves God at Liberty to speak beside with or above the Scriptures but the Reply tyes God alwayes to the Scriptures that he cannot speak otherwise then by them nor the Scriptures be without him which makes up the False Doctrine I charged upon him But if he means that God speaks nothing contrary to his Mind declared in Scripture and the Scriptures nothing contradictory to the Mind of God I acquiesce yet this Concession not only brings him upon the Hip but upon the bare Ground too for it confutes him without Controle inasmuch as he grants that the Scriptures without are not sufficient to teach without the God above the very thing in Controversie almost from the beginning betwixt us so that I return his own words upon himself pag. 40. of his Reply All this ado is to make the Scriptures nothing without immediate Inspiration implying that we hold them to be profitable as God is pleased to discover unto us and breath into our Hearts the true Meaning and Vertue of them for our Instruction and Comfort and what short of this doth John Faldo's Expression import that makes the Teachings of the God above necessary to render the Scriptures truly profitable unto any And what is this but to say with us that they are of no value not in themselves but to us unless the God above unfold them and brings our Souls into a sense of those States and Truths they declare of I leave my sober Reader to make his Judgment of this and so proceed to the next Particular which will end this Chapter I will set down his words Rep. He quarrels with my Mannagement of Ephes 6. 16 17. thus And a Shame it is that this Man should bring these places to prove that the Scriptures are Means whereby to resist Temptation The Words are Wherefore take unto you the whole Armour of God And among the rest is reckoned the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God Why doth he not say it is a Shame I produce any Scripture at all which is like a Quaker throughly but the Matter is it a Shame to call the Scriptures the Word of God or a spiritual Sword Rejoyn No such Matter The Shame was that J. Faldo perverted and mis-apply'd Scripture and the Shame still is that he should so bungle and bogle in the Business as of Two Pages to take Two Lines that concern'd not either the Exposition or the Argument and when he has done say nothing neither to it Is this Man like to acquit himself with Advantage against the vain Attempts of W. P. as he is pleas'd to call them Reader I have often complain'd and yet shall have Cause enough of my Adversary's unfair Dealing in not reporting the fortieth part of what I urge and that he is sure to take not what is most but least material to my Cause and then bestows a Squib or two upon it instead of taking my Strength or giving a sage Reply and that I complain not without Just Cause be pleas'd to consider my former Answer with what he first writ to occasion it by which his Honesty in reciting and Reason in replying may be most impartially judged of Thus he pag. 113. Above all take the Shield of Faith which is able to quench c. and the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God Observe saith J. Faldo Faith in the 16th verse is preferred above the Word of God in the 17th verse therefore it is not Christ the Word but the Scriptures the Word for Faith is not above Christ Jesus Christ who had less need of Scripture then any of us all resisted Satan ' s Temptation by Scripture It is written it is written Mat. 4. To which I gave this following Answer But neither will this do his Business and a Shame it is that this Man should bring these places to prove that the Scriptures are Means whereby to resist Temptation which Rebuke was the whole he recited that concerned them not especially this in Hand unless he would have Faith to be the Scriptures or Word of God in his Sense which as it is absurd so it will by him be deny'd since he allows the Faith to be preferr'd before the Word of God therefore distinct from it and consequently not the same with it And should we grant to him that Christ is not understood by the Word of God but the Scriptures yet observe the fatal Blow his Cause receives at his own Hand Every true Christian hath Faith that Faith is above the Scriptures therefore every true Christian hath something in him above the Scriptures Again True Faith overcometh the World and quenches the fiery Darts of Satan consequently Temptations therefore not so properly the Scriptures as true Faith which is preferred above them by John Faldo himself and which resists Temptation and overcomes the VVorld is c. Once more the Just they live by Faith but Faith is above the Scripture saith J. F. Therefore the Just live by that which is above the Scriptures
and consequently the Scriptures are not the Rule of Faith for how can any thing be ruled by that which is inferior to it Thus much we get granting to him that the Scriptures are the Word of God in the Text. Now Reader tell me of this Argumentation what has he taken what has he replyed to Yet this man is deem'd worthy by the Professors of our Times to act the Tertullus against the poor Quakers For those words The Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God I told him then We rejected his Gloss for the spiritual Sword as he sayes Beza renders it must be of the Narure of the rest of the Armour mention'd in that Chapter that is invisible and Spiritual which the Bible or meer VVritings we know are not To which let me add that I know no Reason why the Shield of Faith should be preferred before the Sword of the spirit unless it be because that 's in the Verse before this if we consider them in an abstract Sense or as they are in themselves For Above all is not a preferring the Shield of Faith in Dignity before the Sword of the Spirit respecting their own Nature and Quality but with regard to the Creature For if Vnbelief enters how can the Loins be girt with Truth the Breast arm'd with Righteousness the Feet shod with the Preparation of the Gospel of Peace the Head covered with the Helmtt of Salvation or the Enemy encounter'd with the Sword of the Spirit So that respecting Man not respecting the Dignity of the several parts of the Armour Faith is above all or first necessary for though God Christ the Holy Spirit Eternal Salvation be all or either of them greater then Faith as in themselves yet without Faith no interest can be had in them Wherefore our Adversary's Preference vanisheth and his Consequence about the Scriptures being the VVord of God falls to the Ground Concerning Christ's Answer to the Devil It is written it is written I shall desire the Reader to observe in my Adversary's Reply what of my Answer he trans-scribes which I gave to the use he made of that Scripture and what sort of Treatment he affords me These are his words Rep. Once more and I have done with this Chapter But said Christ to the Devil It is written VVhat then sayes W. P. Therefore must the Quakers needs deny the Scriptures to be any means to resist Temptation pag. 90. You may fear the Man is craz'd or was almost asleep when he wrote this I produced the Example of Christ to prove that the Scripture is a Means for resisting Temptation he resisting so effectually with It s written it s written But Penn would make you believe I intended it to prove that the Quakers deny the Scriptures to be such a Means Can you think such a Man to be sinlest yea Infallible Rejoyn His Froth and Reflection I am no otherwise concern'd at then that it ill becomes a Pretender to Divinity It is enough for me to shew that he has willingly conceal'd my Answer and hath made a Reply as if he had taken in all that was fit to be consider'd my Answer lay thus But said Christ to the Devil It is written VVhat then Therefore must the Quakers needs deny the Scriptures to be any Means to resist Temptation Here J. F. leaves me but I go on or rather are they not such Means which I am sure no right Quaker ever deny'd Now Reader mark Besides it was reasonable that Christ should so answer set that Power aside which filled up those words and chain'd Satan because the Devil used Scripture to prevail upon him as the place proves However we deny not but confess that where-ever God is pleased to speak by any place of Scripture to a Tempted Soul it may very well be acknowledg'd to be a Means by which God scatters such Doubts and Despondences and gives Power over Temptations and that it may often so occur yet we would not have People fly to them as what of themselves may be sufficient but rather have Recourse to that Divine Faith which the Scriptures testifie is able to Quench the fiery Darts and which J. F. himself has largely confest is to be preferred above the Scriptures themselves Now I desire the Reader to consider First That he gave not the 10th part of my Answer in any respect 2ly That what of it would have prevented his reflecting upon me he wholy omitted He seems di pleased that I made such a Question upon his citing Christ's words to the Devil as this therefore must the Quakers needs deny the Scriptures to be any Means to resist Temptation telling Folks They may fear I was craz'd or a sleep when I wrote it asking If they think such a Man to be sinlest or infallible as thinking it improper to his Quotation and yet would take no notice of these words that were directed immediately to it viz. it was therefore reasonable that Christ should so answer because the Devil used Scripture to prevail upon him the very Answer in his pretended Reply was wanting VVith what Face then can our Adversary over above his other ill words charge me with designing to render him impertinent by making him endeavour to prove that the Quakers deny the Scriptures to be such a Means by the Question I ask'd as if I had wrong'd him that he never intended any such thing through the bent of the Chapter And what can be clearer then that he on purpose avoided the shock and took notice only of that part of my Answer which being torn from the rest he thought fittest for him to play upon But I see no VVrong I did him in so asking what I did for I am sure it was one End for which the Scripture was quoted by him and the Jeers he bestows upon me and it besides his wilful Neglect of the rest of my honest Return and yet complain for want of it when he had done so is a pittiful come off for a Man of his Pretence to Controversie CHAP. IX Not we but our Adversary opposeth the Teachings of the Spirit to the Doctrines of the Scriptures The Testimonies brought by him cleared and delivered from his Application Our Doctrine proved from Scripture and several Testimonies His frequent and gross Perversions of our Words and Writings discovered and justly rebuked VVE are now got to his last Chapter relating to the Scriptures in which he pretends to justifie his Charge by further evidencing a Consistency between it and William Smith's Doctrine which I utterly deny'd to have been William Smith's VVords or Meaning The Charge was That the Quakers put the Spirit of God and the Scriptures in Opposition to each other His Proof of the Charge lies in these words Traditions of Men Earthly Root Darkness and Confusion Apostacy the Whore's Cup the Mark of the Beast Bastards brought forth of Flesh and Blood c. which sayes John Faldo in his first Book would amaze a
Earth and that those very Bodies the Molds being turned aside shall start out of the Grave This Doctrine the Atheist very dearly hugs as a Pledge in his bold Conceit of the Falsness and Vanity of all the other Articles of Religion wherefore he fancying the upshot of Christianity to be so groundless and incredible he fairly quits himself of the Trouble of all and yields himself up wholely to the Pleasures of this present World To the Objection of Atheists who play hard upon J. Faldo's Carnal Resurrection First In that Canables proper Bodies are made up the Flesh of other Men so as if every one had his own he would have never a Body in the Resurrection Secondly That it implies that all Men are buried when as Myriads are drowned in the Sea and eaten by Fishes Thirdly That Men's Bodies are passing like Rivers consequently no more the same Numerical Bodies then the Water that runs away is the same River and upon this score the Body of an Old Man must pay for the Sine of a Young Man whose youthful Body felt the Pleasure and is gone He thus answers out of the best sort of Philosophers That the Soul of every Man is his individial Person and that she alone it is that sees hears enjoyes Pleasures and undergoes Pain and that the Body is not sensible of any thing no more then a Man's Dublet when he is well Bastinado'd and this Answer sayes he takes away all the first and last Cavil he goes on and why do Men plead for the Consociation of the Soul 's numerical Body in Reward or Punishment but that they fancy the Body capable of Pleasure Pain but they err not knowing the Nature of things the Body being utterly uncapable of all Sense and Cogitation as not only the best Platonists but also that excellent Philosopher Des-Cartes hath determined and is abundantly demonstrated in my Treatise of the Immortallity of the Soul See Book 2. Chap. 2 4 5 6. To the second Cavil I answer That the Universal Expression of Men's rising out of the Grave is but a Prophetical Scheme of Speech the more strongly to strike our Sences as I have already intimated in my Exposition on the 1 Cor. 15. against the Psichopannachites see Book 1. c. 6. § 3. This Succour saith he we have against the Atheists out of Philosophy but I answer further as concerning the Scripture it self That I dare challenge him to produce any place of Scripture out of which he can make it appear that the Mystery of the Resurrection implies the Recessitation or raising up of the same Numerical Body The most Pregnant of all is Job 19. which late Interpreters are now so wise as not to understand at all of the Resurrection And for 1 Cor. 15. that Chapter is so far from asserting this Curiosity that it plainly sayes it is not the same Body But the Atheist will still hang on and object further That the very Term Resurrectio implies that the same Body shall rise again for that only that falls can be said properly to rise again Where let the Reader take notice that D. More calls J. Faldo Atheist for it his Objection against me Rep. p. 89. But sayes D. More The Answer will be easie the Objection being grounded meerly upon a Mistake of the sense of the word which is to be interpreted out of those higher Origiginals the Greek and Hebrew and not out of the Latine though the word in Latine doth not alwayes imply an Individual Restitution of what is gone or faln as in that Verse in Ovid Victa tamen vinces subversaque Troja resurges But this faith he is not so near to our Purpose yet it excludes the same numerical Troja Let us rather consider the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which resurrectio supplies in Latine and therefore must be made to be of as large a sense as it Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so far from signifying in some places the Reproduction or Recovery of the same thing that was before that it â—ears no sense at all of Reiteration in it as Mat. 22. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and shall raise up Seed unto his Brother Also Gen. 7. 4. there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies meerly a living Substance and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an active signification according to this sense will be nothing else but a giving or continuing Life and Substance to a thing The word in the Hebrew that answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Translators translate a living Substance whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to this Analogy may very well bear the same latitude of sense that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they being both words that are rendred Resurrectio but simply of themselves only Vevification or Erection unto Life Thus far D. H. More against John Faldo's Carnal Resurrection of whose Philosophy Scripture-Challenge and Criticisms let him clear himself if he can I shall also produce a Testimony out of T. Collier T. Coll. Works pag. 169. This Doctrine of the Resurrection of this Body is by some denyed by others too Carnally looked upon some thinking that our Bodies of Flesh shall be raised in the same Form in which it dyed others that it shall be spiritual yet question whether it shall be of the same Substance therefore it will be necessary to consider two Particulars for the clearing of it First By what Power we shall be raised Secondly With what Bodies 1. By what Power Answ 1 st By the same Power by which Jesus Christ was raised which was by the Power and Spirit of God 2dly By the same Power and Spirit that the Saints are raised from the Spiritual Death of Sin and Self Phil. 3. 10. Rom. 8. 11. This being a Truth that they shall be raised by the same Power it may somewhat direct us to the Form in which they shall be raised which is the second Particular that is in a spiritual Form not in a Fleshly for as the Spirit of Christ raiseth us up in the Spirit while we are here so shall it raise up our Spirit in the last Day It is sown a Natural Body it is raised a Spiritual Body Our vile Bodies shall be changed and made like his Glorious Body D. H. Hammon also denyes a proper and strict Resurrection of Bodies and consequently is guilty of that horrid Principle as J. Faldo calls it which may be seen at large in his Comment 1 Cor. 15. Among other things he tells us of one Synesius out of Vossius who was made Bishop not withstanding he refused to subscribe the Article of the Resurrection of the Body which shows how much greater Charity they had for Dissenters then our rigid Adversary whilst a Dissenter for indeed it was very diversly thought on and very obscurely laid down in the beginning of the third Century sayes P. D. Huetius in Origenianis p. 132. Farrellus Calvin's Predecessor at Geneva
chosen by Man though he be thereto 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 that is any of our Sayings or VVritings in Proof of his Exposition if he can otherwise be hath Slandered Us and Our Principles For the Wâ—ll of the Flesh is that which is quite Contrary to God and inconsistent with the Good of the Creature How well he hath acquitted himself in point of Honesty as well as Ability first in so maiming my Answer and next in saying nothing to it is still referred to my Reader 's Judgment and so we proceed Reply pag. 92. The second is pag. 249. CHRIST THE OFFERING i. e. the Light within W. P. calls this no Quakers Expression that it is take this Proof We believe that Christ in us doth offer himself up a Living Sacrifice to God for us Smith Cat. pag. 64. Rejoynder I still say it is no Quaker's Expression Though the Light that shineth in our Hearts be Christ the true Light But that which I most insisted on he hath as he useth to do quite left out viz. for he would by this insinuate that we deny Christ to be an Offering as in the Flesh and that Body then offered up to be concerned in our Belief of the Offering but I do declare it to have been an Holy Offering and such an one too as was to be once for all therefore let none receive his Abuse of us for our Faith He that hath half an Eye may see how poorly and meanly he hath shifted off the Weight of my Answer Again Reply p. 92. The third MEN-PLEASERS Sense They who comply with Men though in things not only Lawful but also to Edification This W. P. calls an arrant Lye but the ground is provided J. F. meaneth by Lawful unto Edification what we do I am not so silly to put such Bonds on the Truth Rejoynder Indeed I never took him to be so Silly as Mischievous in the Matter not to use his own Phrase more then Ignoramus for instead of putting Bonds on the Truth he hath broken all Bonds of Truth he pretends to give our Sense of Men-Pleasers and substitutes his own in the room of it and when we tell him that if he means by Lawful and to Edification what we do he belies us he confidently replies I am not so silly to put such Bonds on the Truth as if in rendring our Sense of words he were not bound to keep to our Sense of them how is it our Sense if it be his and not ours and how truly ours if it be putting Bonds on the Truth to render ours truly But the Man's present Hardiness is beyond wondring at To the next Reply p. 92. TRADITIONS OF MEN i. e. The Scripture or written Word p. 250. To this W. P. adds But to say they are the Traditions of Men in the sense Christ forbid the Pharisaical Religion God forbid I had rather my Tongue were cut out of my Head Oh base Man to abuse an Innocent People thus grosly I have already proved the Phrase to be the Quakers viz. Smith ' s and Nailor ' s. Rejoynder This answers it self if he had taken off the Force of my Words I might have bestowed a Rejoynder upon him in the mean time I have disproved his pretended Proof where I met with it and what I find here is but a meer begging of the Question The fifth and last Particular he thus endeavours to vindicate is this Reply p. 93. THE VAIL IS OVER THEM p. 251. Their Sense I give of this he presents the greater half of which explains the other by an c. to blind the Reader and make the Quakers believe I deserve the Imputations of Malice and wicked Man which it seems he is resolved afore hand to bestow on me Rejoynder The Man is weary of his Work as we may see by the great haste he makes over every particular No Man living that hath not read both our Books can make any Sense of this Hodge-Podge Section that ever any Man should touch with Religious Controversie that is so visibly defective in it My Answer shall be my Rejoynder for sure I am he hath overlookt it and therefore yet to be replyed to J. F. p. 89. THE VAIL IS OVER THEM that is sayes J. Faldo the Belief of the Man Christ Jesus which was of our Nature to be p. 251 252. the Christ c. W. P. Let this be the last though several more might be observed which at this time shall be considered in which we shall see that J. Faldo has done like himself and the Man we have all along taken him to be The Vail is over them it is a Scripture-Phrase 2 Cor. 3. 15. used by the Apostle to express the Darkness and Ignorance that to that time remained over the Understanding of the Jews in reading the Law and this Vail he makes us to interpret after this gross and absurd manner namely that the Vail is the Man Christ Wicked Man Did ever Quaker so irreverently express himself Give us his Name or tell us in what Book we may find it What greater Malice couldst thou have shown then thus injustly to pervert the Scripture in our Name abusing both As if because Christ's Flesh is called a Vail and the Ignorance of the Jews a Vail that therefore the Quakers must of Necessity mean by Vail in the first Sense Vail in the second Sense as if the Way to have the Vail rent were to deny the Man Christ Jesus All this my Adversary thought fit to conceal left his transcribing it into his Reply would have made that Discovery of his Baseness which he should never have been able by all his Shifts to palliate I think I did not nick-name this Chapter when I called it a Representation of his whole Reply He ends as he begun with Squibs Puns Evasions and Ill Language for unless the Goodness of a Book be to be measured by the Paint of a Title-Page or bare Writing reputed Replying he might with more Sense and Reason have called it Froth Folly and Fiction then a Religious Vindication c. No Man I ever read of hath exceeded the Bounds of Truth by obtruding Falshoods and wandred from the Dâ—corum of a fair Adversary by unfair Citations and obvious Wrestings betaken himself for Sanctuary to such silly Shifts School-boy Jeers at the rate this Adversary hath done And I have no Reason to Doubt of others being of the same Mind since the World is not so destitute of Understanding as to be cheated with his hocus-pocus Tricks to take Tin for Silver or Copper for Gold or Froth for
cannot grow old decay be lost misrendred corrupted transcribed reprinted But hear what he sayes to me Rep. Did we hold as you that it is to be understood of no other but Christ it would be an Absurdity but upon our Principles none at all Would you say that the Scripture is absurd For we are not as many that corrupt the Word of God 2 Cor. 2. 17. Many did so and many do so still of who you are a Ring-Leader Rejoyn Truly if I am I would be glad to know it that I might be sorry for it I would not willingly deceive my self and others both of the Joyes of this Life and that to come But I would desire J. Faldo to consider if his Greek Testament will allow his Translation and least of all his Argument which is this If Christ cannot be corrupted soÌ„mewhat else besides Christ is in Scripture called the Word of God I am not so lean with my Learning but I will spare him a little I find Valla Erasmus Vetablus Castalio Clarius Zegerus and Grotius say the Greek word there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not adulterantes but cauponantes vel abutentes re quapiam ad quaestum that is We are not as many who Merchandize with the Word of God or use it to self Ends making a Trade of it or as several of our Old English Translations have it chop and change which more sorely reflects upon my Adversaries Profession then mine For though I am a Corrupter of Scripture in his sense I am sure he is a Trader with it in its own sense I might instance to my Defence in several other Languages particularly the Italian Spanish and ancient French Translations but I will be brief Now unless it be absurd to assert that some Men have and may make worldly Advantage to themselves from that place the Living Eternal Word of God hath ministerially given them in the Hearts of People and false to affirm that the Scriptures of the New Testament were not then all written nor gathered or compiled as now they are or made canonical and publick till the Council of Laâ—dicea about the time of Julian the Apostate Anno 364â— I cannot see how any may justly blame me for denying the Scriptures to be the Word of God from the Passage cited by my Adversary that men may make so ill an use of the Living Word of God none dare deny Now that the Scriptures were at that time Imperfect and scattered is clear They were Imperfect in as much as but five of twenty one Epistles were then writ besides John's History of the Gospel and his Revelation and Luke's Acts of the Apostles J. F. may hence see what a lame imperfect kind of Word of God he disputes for But I would query Was there not a Word of God before them What was that Word of God that grew and multiplyed before any New Testament Writings were in being Did not the Apostles preach it Therefore I rather take it to be such a Word of God as attended the Prophets before them in an inferiour Ministration namely the Living Powerful Quickening Word who from its various Operations is said to be as a Fire an Ax an Hammer a Sword a Word of Reconciliation of Patience of inward Washing of Faith that overcomes the World in true Believers that was with God in the beginning and was God which at sundry times and in divers manners spoak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in and by the Prophets and Apostles which was the Author of the Scriptures and therefore before them So that the Scriptures are no more then the Mind of the Living Word of God declared by Writing upon several occasions consequently to call them an Holy Declaration of the Word of God is a more Evangelical and suitable Title then the Word of God whose Declaration they are That they were scattered and several Centuries or Ages uncollected History tells us particularly we find it in the Council of Trent which is given us by the Learned and Juditious Pietro Soane Polano They could not run their Canon higher then the Council of Laodicea which as we said before was about 364. years after Christ at what time sayes a great Author Ambition prevailed with the Doctors of the Church and they began to think de pijs fraudibus of holy Cheats and would have their Doctrines pass pro legibus non pro consilio for Laws not Counsel I could prove as much and more out of several Independent Authors who seem to give all for gone before the end of the third Century though if some of them should now stand to the purest Tradition they must needs give their present Practice for gone I cannot but observe after what a suspected rate the Scriptures have been both first collected and then convey'd through the several succeeding Ages â—twas well said of my former Author Dubium igitur non est quin Testamenta vetus et novum monumâ—nta vera sint earum rerum quae dictae et factae sint a Prophetis et Apostolis Where though he calls them not the Word of God yet allows them to be Monuments of those things which were said and done by the Prophets and Apostles But as he and others so I may well object Are we sure that the Judgment of those who collected them was sufficient to determine what was right and what not For that which gives Scripture its Canon is not Plurality of Voices but that Word of God which gave it forth If that Divine Counsellor presided not what Assurance have our Anti-revelation Adversaries of their Doctors Câ—oce And granting that they have not rejected any Writing given forth by the holy Ghost which is a great question and that what they have given us was in the main writ by Inspiration which I believe yet how we shall be assured that in above three hundred yâ—aâ—s so many hundred Copies as were doubtless taken shoâ—ld be pure and uncorrupted Considering the private Dissensions the Readiness of each Party to bend things to their own Belief with the growing and succeeding Faults of leaving out adding transposing c. which Transscribers might be guilty of perhaps more through Carelesness then Design is beyond J. Faldo's Skill upon his Principles to inform us From hence we may observe the Vncertainty of J. Faldo ' s Word of God who by Authorities can never prove the Scriptures to be given forth by Inspiration nor that they are truly collected neither could those Persons who first made them Canonical be assured of the Exactness of those Copies they then found extant nor was the Collecter's Judgment Infallible and to come nearer to our times Learned Men tell us of little less then Three Thousand several Readings in the Scriptures of the New Testament in Greek Far be it from me to write this in any the least Vndervalue of that holy Record It s only to shew the weak Foundation my Adversary's Faith stands upon I
Rule and Controversie on foot were manifestly implyed especially when I made no Advantage to my self by it But every such little thing must be called by a hard Name or John Faldo would have little to write and but a few to believe his Books But to the Point avoiding many Occasions for severe Reflection Perhaps he grants us what we can desire For upon my asserting that what was and is more general then the Scriptures is most properly the General Rule he replies Rep. I never affirmed them to be a general Rule nor is it that I charge the Quakers for denying but I charge them with denying them to be any Rule at all of Faith and Life he mistakes the Question and yields my Charge to be their Principle and pleads for it p. 54. Rejoyn If that be not the Question how have I granted the Question Do I plead for his Charge because I plead against the Scriptures being the General Rule p. 54. which he sayes is no part of the Charge and what himself undertakes not to contradict But sure I am if the Scriptures be not the General Rule as he implies and thereby cuts his own Throat and grants to the Quakers the Question as largely as needs to be They are not The Rule by way of Excellency or the Rule by which God's People in all Ages have walked for that was and is General So that the Scripture upon his own Concession is but a particular Rule and therefore must be subservient to the Spirit who is the great Evangelical Rule as are many other Instruments that have been made use of upon several Occasions He might have learn'd thus much in p. 53. of my Answer where I say that we acknowledge the Scriptures to contain many Holy Rules for Godliness I would know of him how that could be and yet deny them to be a Rule in any sense But we have good Reason to deny them to be the Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies who can neither give nor govern Faith nor Judge of Controversies as the many different Perswasions in the World fully prove for then all that have the Scriptures would be of one Perswasion as it is most certain those are who have and walk by the One Spirit VVherefore since the Scriptures themselves testifie to the Spirit as the great Judge Rule and Leader especially under the New Covenant where the Law is not written on Tables of Stone much less Paper but of Flesh to wit the Hearts of the Sons and Daughters of Men the Spirit and not the Scripture must be the Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversie In short The Scripture cannot try a present Motion or Prophecy Bad Spirits are wholely hid from it For Instance Paul reproved not the Spirit that cryed These are the Servants of the Most High God that shew unto us the VVay of Eternal Life from the Scriptures neither did Peter Deceitful Ananias but from the heavenly Instinct and Savour Relish or Discerning they received from the Spirit of God within them 'T was in a Case of such Difficulty that some in these late Times have writ That the Scripture gave no general standing Rule for all particular Cases in fleeing or standing in Times of Persecution but that it was the Frame of the Spirits of the People of God to retire at that season which whether it be true or false that the Spirit of God did so influence them two things are undeniable first That it was the Frame of their Spirits witness their Practice secondly That the Scripture was not sufficient for them to square themselves by on that Occasion And what else do Professors mean when they advise People to seek the Lord in this or the other Case why do they not go seek the Scriptures rather Doth not such a Practice manifestly detect the Scriptures of Insufficiency and evidently prove their Acknowledgment both of Revelation and their Recourse to a more Living Spiritual Immediate and Sufficient Rule VVhy else do they seek God's Mind say they by Prayers not formal but by the Spirit But this is become despised Heresie with J. Faldo For Faith in his Sense rises no higher then so many Articles laid down suppose truly according to the bare Letter of the Scriptures which the Devil can believe as well as he This Faith I call meerly Verbal and Historical of which the Scripture may be a Rule but not of Saving Faith for of that Faith only the Spirit can be the Rule and why because the Spirit of God alone reveals him to the Soul who is the Object of Faith and works Faith in the Soul upon that Object and as this only begets Faith so it increases enlivens rules governs and strengthens Faith unto Dominion This alone unfolds those Mysteries spoak of in the Scriptures Wherefore answered the Eunuch unto Philip when he queried Understandest thou what thou readest How should I unless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I had a guide as sayes our old English Translation which implies That the things declared of by the Scriptures are not to be understood from the Scriptures but a more Living Spiritual and Certain Guide Wherefore we affirm That Repentance Faith Sanctification Justification Redemption Regeneration c. are all a Mystery never to be disclosed but by the Revelation and Operation of the Spirit of God in Man the Scripture can only testfie to such things that they are but it is the Spirit alone that works them and illuminates guides governs and rules the Soul in and about such things 'T is true all the Spirit leads to is according to the Scriptures it overturns them not for they declare of most of these Operations yet because we believe know and witness them from the Conviction and Operation of the Spirit before we can possibly understand them in Scripture therefore the Scripture is but a Declaration and not the Rule of Faith c. And the only best way to determine any Controversie on foot about Repentance Faith Sanctification Justification c. is the Judgment of that Spirit which works them For how can the Scripture that has so many Meanings put upon it determine which of those meanings is the true Let them shew me that Scripture that plainly and uninterpretatedly tells me such a Proposition is True and such a one is False that consists only of their additional Meanings such a new Nick-named People right and such wrong and they do their Business if they cannot as it is impossible they should they must have recourse to something else to rule determine and what can that be besides that Eternal Spirit which worked the true Faith and ruled the holy Life of those Ancients who gave forth this Declaration of Faith and Life Can any Man tâ—ll another's Mind better then himself or resolve any Doubt or clear up any Mis-understanding concerning what is delivered better then he that spoak it To understand those holy Men's Mind and disprove them that mistake it
in his 4 Decad. and 8th Sermon dedicated to King Edward the Sixth accord with me in the Matter The former thus Without the Spiriâ— it is impossible to understand them Then say I They are not a Mean to know God savingly without the Spirit The other sayes plainly Men fetch the understanding of Heavenly Things and Knowledge of the Holy Ghost FROM NO WHERE ELSE THEN FROM THE SAME SPIRIT This hits the Mark But to proceed Of all this and two whole pages more he cites but two Lines and an half included in what I re-cited on which he bestows this notable Reply Rep. This might look like an Argument for his Meaning if it concerned almost any but the Quakers who assert nothing almost but with a Contradiction I should think it as hard a Task to reconcile the Quakers to themselves as to make the Poles to meet or to dig through the Earth with a Spade to the Antipodes Rejoyn Yes J. Faldo it concerns W. Tindal and H. Bullenger thou seeâ—t as well as the Quakers But did ever any Man not miserably baffled put off such serious Matter with such vain Reflections and Pedantick Similes Will nothing serve the Man's Fancy besides Poles and Antipodes Must the Quakers needs contradict to save him from the Discredit of fouly belying them They are there it seems to oppose one another where they will not harmonize to his End Certainly this Reflection can never be consistent with J. Faldo's own Practice who in a Book of nigh Thirty Sheets writ wholely against the Quakers pretends to confirm his many infamous Charges by scores of Testimonies cold out of many of their own Books which must be unanimous or they prove not his Charges as he calls it nay he has again and again brag'd of their Harmony to his Purpose Thus are we in highest Concord when he thinks it makes for his Designs and when against them as opposite as the Poles But blessed be the Lord We have receiv'd that One Eternal Spirit by which we have been Baptiz'd into One Living Body and are of One Heart One Mind and One Sense concerning the Mysteries of God's Everlasting Kingdom But as our Adversary has said nothing sober or rational to what I answer'd in Defence of W. Smith's words so would he make the World believe I dared not to encounter with one of his Testimonies Hear him Rep. I produced many Testimonies to prove my Charge which Penn dares not deal with nor bring to Light take two of them Matthew Mark Lukeand John are not the Gospel but the Letter The next Hebrew Greek and Latine is nothing worth as pertaining to the Knowledge of God J. Hig. VVarning pag. 7. Rejoyn That he so suggests as I said his own Words prove yet that I did examine some of his Testimonies is undeniable and to let him see I dare handle these without fearing they should bite me I say and that not without very good Seconds They are not the Gospel I mean Matthew Mark Luke and John or their Histories for the Gospel of Christ is the Power of God to Salvation so are not the Scriptures The Gospel is Everlasting so are not the Scriptures John saw the Angel flying in the midst of Heaven having the Everlasting Gospel to preach which could not be the Scriptures The Gospel was preached before the Scriptures were written therefore the Scriptures cannot be the Gospel The Gospel is but One but after this Man 's Reckoning there should be Four therefore they cannot be the Gospel Which is further proved from the Signification of the Word Gospel to wâ—t Glad-Tidings which are to be understood of the Coming of him that was the Saviour of the World of whose Blessed Appearance and Wonderful Transactions these Scriptures are but the Narratives Besides one of their Authors Luke expresly calls them a Declaration consequently not the Gospel thereby declared of which Definition Peter Martyr that Superintendent Reformer in England chuseth of all other Part 1. Chap. 6. of his Common-Places Tertullian calls the Scriptures Instrumenta doctrinae i. e. Instruments of Doctrine And the New Testament Writings Evangelicum instrumentum i. e. An Evangelical Instrument And Matthew he calls A Faithful Commentator of the Gospel Chrysostom being requir'd to Swear upon the Gospel both denyed those Histories to be the Gospel and to Swear at all And D. Featly will not acknowledge the English Bible to be the Authentick Word of God because of Corruption consequently not Authentick Gospel therefore not the Gospel for that is Authentick I hope then I may without Offence in Defence of the Trâ—th and that Honest Man now at Peace yet so severely reflected upon conclude that Matthew Mark Luke and John are not the Gospel but the Letter or Declaration of the Gospel For his second Proof viz. That Hebrew Greek and Latine is nothing worth as pertaining to the Knowledge of God I see no Error nor Blasphemy in so Innocent an Assertion This is so like the catching at Twigs by drowned Men for Safety that no Man not as Destitute of Succour would boast of the Evidence of so Speechless a Witness There is not one Word it can speak on the behalf of his Charge He is fled from the Scriptures to meer Language and makes that a Letter indeed which one would think he took just now for all Spirit perhaps with this Distinction though that the Scriptures may be the Gospel in Hebrew Greek and Latin but by no means in the English What becomes of the Vulgar then But what can there be more Sottish then for a Protestant at this time of day to talk of knowing God by Hebrew Greek and Latine but above all 't is unpardonable in an Independent Priest to write at this rate whose Folk for these Threescore Years have totidem verbis in express terms deny'd the Knowledge of all or either of those Tongues to be necessary to the Knowledge of God Alas who once pretended more to the Spirit and was more derided for doing so then some of the Predecessors of these very Independents and Anabaptists now so hot against us What less were the Invectives cast abroad against Ancient Separatists as the Alchimist Assembly-Man Heudebrass with abundance of more serious Declamations against them under the Names of Tub-Preachers Gifted-Brethren c. But if Language learn Men to know God which Christ himself said was Life Eternal how comes it that Schollars are such Ill Christians and Jews the natural Hebrews were such Persecutors in Christ's time and that they remain Infidels to this very day Methinks at this rate the Greeks when God condescended to speak forth the Gospel in their Language should not have counted it Foolishness nor have mocked at his Embassadour when he came on no less Errand then that of Salvation and least of all since they believ'd should they have Degenerated into so much Superstition But why the Latin must be brought in I cannot conceive unless it be the better
to enable People to understand the Romish Translation for we never yet heard of so much as any part of the Scripture that was Originally writ in that Tongue 'T is strange to me he should so much despise the People whose Language he so much extols and count the one serviceable to the Knowledge of God whilst with more Reason he reputes the other such gross Idolaters Luther jerks the Papists for their laying that Stress J. F. doth upon Humane Learning W. Tindal rejects it W. Dâ—ll and T. Collier write expresly and unanswerably against the Necessity of it or that it can give Man the Knowledge of God In short Common Experience and the Christian-Spirit and Conversation of Thousands that understand nor one Sentence of Hebrew Greek or Latine make good the Assertion of our Honest Friend and is a sufficient Rebuke to this vapouring Adversary whose Defiance to me to encounter his Proofs return Weakness with Shame upon his Head For though he thought to fling me to the Dogs or give me a Prey to Fierce and Lyonly Seconds behold they are my Friends and unananimously turn with me against himself who had designed them upon such ill Service a Recompence may he ever find at what time he shall endeavour to abuse our Friends and pervert their Writings And so I shall end this Chapter wishing for his sake as well as mine own that I may meet if not with more Reason yet with more Moderation in the remainder of his Discourse CHAP. VIII That we do not deny the Scriptures to be any Means whereby to resist Temptation in Opposition to and Denyal of our Adversary's Charge THe Charge by him endeavour'd to be defended in his Eighth Chapter is this That the Quakers affirm the Scriptures to be no Means whereby to resist Temptation I will set down his words Rep. He passes over no less then Six Testimonies without a word to invalidate them among the rest this If you use any other VVeapon then the Light within in-this Spiritual VVar you cannot prevail against him that is the Devil So I more then proved my Assertion Rejoyn I therefore avoided considering every Testimony he brought first because many of them were so forraign that there could be no Pretence for bringing them And next that I might not be prolix I thought it sufficient to examine three in six and with good Conscieâ—e I can assure my Reader I took as I thought those he built most upon if he doubted of any he should not have brought them I have answer'd the Law in the case For this now recited 't is as weak as Water to his Purpose though a strong Truth in it self For the Intent of the words could be no other then this that the Armor of Light the Apostle exhorted the Church at Rome to put on was sufficient to Encounter the Power of Darkness and that such as would overcome should not neglect or exchange that Armour for other Weapons thereby not in the least excluding other such Instruments as this spiritual Light might arm or give Strength and Invigourate to our Help And I am so far from doubting that I firmly believe that God's Spirit not only in times past hath made this use of the holy Scriptures to Instruction and Comfort but doth even yet to them who read them in his holy Fear and Wisdom Reader I am truly weary not because I find my way difficult from the great Perspicuity and Reason that are on the Side of my Adversary no nothing less in this VVorld But I know not which way to turn my self but I meet either with School-Boy Jeers Insolent Language Equivocations or horrible Perversions God is Record between J. Faldo and I who of us two hath behav'd himself with most Ingenuity in encountering the strongest and fullest Arguments and shown most Reason and Moderation in Confuting them Two or Three Instances of his Failure in both respects this Chapter presents thee with Rep. The first thing VV. P. deals with is a Passage of James Naylor ' s For those only are the Children of God who are lead by the Spirit of God to whom they who were led by the Letter were ever Enemies From whence saith Penn He concludes that we account it a very dangerous thing to read the Scriptures Now if this Passage hath any relation to his Charge or Conclusion no Man ever saw the like He should have added that was alwayes stark blind Rejoyn Here he has given my Reflection upon his ill Application of the Passage omitting both my Exposition and Argument An Injustice I do affirm every Page of his Book to be guilty of VVhat I said to explain the Sentence was this That there are Children of the Fleshly Literal and Historical Knowledge of the Scriptures and Religion who are Srrangers to and therefore Persecutors of the Children born of the Spirit and that in all Ages there hath been more or less of this among outward Jews and Christians And let J. Faldo deny this if he dare To all which and much more he sayes nothing but to his blind Squib before-mention'd he adds this Wrestâ—ing of the Passage by me so clearly exposited Rep. It is a Sign his Judgment is very feeble that â—ould not or would not know that it is dangerous to be â—od by the Letter if they that were so led were ever Eâ—emies to the Children of God Rejoyn What is this but to make us Enemies to thâ— very Scriptures who without any Distinction gives so Wretched a Meaning to words so far from bearing it whose true Sense was as I observ'd already to which I may add for further Explanation thus That those who have Confidence in the Letter Erring from and Grieving the Holy Spirit are not withstanding Enemies to the Children of God who are led by the Spirit according to the true Meaning of Scripture which the meer Letter-Professor as such can never attain to so that the Danger lies here to be led by the Letter without the true Meaning of the Letter or rather by his own dark Apprehensions concerning the Mind of it in the stead of it As the Jews when they crucified Christ by the Law of God against Blasphemers This is the genuine Sense of our Friend's words For had they been writ in the Sense in which John Faldo takes them we had then as greatly detested them as he has now wrong'd them A second Passage is in his first Book pag. 109. his words these Isaac Penington who speaking of Knowledge gain'd by the Letter of the Scriptures writes thus Making him wise and able in his Head to oppose Truth and so bringing him into a State of Condemnation Wrath and Misery beyond the Heathen and making him harder to be wrought upon by the Light and Power of Truth then the very Heathen Upon which J. Faldo bestows this Comment If reading the Scriptures and getting Knowledge from them puts us into a bad Condition beyond the Heathen I scarce know what is more
as said of the Scriptures out of W. Smith's Book which was one part of my Stress he was willing to shake off but it will not so easily acquit him Observe his Reply Rep. And whereas W. P. saith No such Words can be produced he intends no other but that Smith doth not accuse himself in so many words of Blaspheming the Spirit of God in the Scriptures and the Doctrines from thence received Rejoyn His first Words belye me nor can any Man be so sottish as to believe I intended any such thing as he would have his Reader believe for that were no Answer to the Objection but an arrant yet fond Cheat and Illusion My Meaning went with my Words and my Words meant as I just now explain'd them the substance of which was in my Answer though evaded by his Reply and perhaps my Rejoynder will meet with no better Usage For his Phrase of Blaspheming the Spirit of God in the Scriptures I will tell him and that upon very good Authority that he now playes the Canter with us and that shamefully The Spirit of God IN the Scriptures a Scripture for that I intreat him You may see what a Doctor he is you that believe in him that thinks he can clasp up the Spirit with his Bible It seems thus far John Faldo and Simon Magus agree for the one thought he could buy it of Peter and the other implies he may have it of his Book-seller Indeed if I thought J. Faldo could believe what he sayes I should be the tenderer of him for Ignorance is to be pittied But when he shall shut the Spirit of God out of Men and shut him up in the Scripture though it call Men the Temples or Tabernacles of God and his Spirit whilst it never calls it self so but Holy Writings or a Declaration of things certainly believed he is to be censur'd for his improper and ambiguous Terms and the rather because his Charity is so small to others in Cases more excusable and that no Man acts the Doctor of the Sentences to others more snappishly and imperiously then himself however I shall be so favourable as to take his Words in this Sense else I know not which way he will turn himself viz. The Spirit of God speaking when it pleaseth by the Scriptures which brings him and his Cause unavoidably over to us But let us see if J. F. can honestly fasten any of those fore-cited Epithetes upon W. Smith's Book If he can we will condemn the Book as heartily as J. F. traduceth us in his But if he shall be found to have wrong'd W. S. God that lives forever will avenge our Innocency upon him which we desire may extend no further then to work him into true Repentance and effectually to vindicate us in the Understandings of the Mis-informed His words are these Rep. But that all that Inventory of execrable Names W. Smith doth intend of the Scriptures and the Holy Doctrines grounded on the Authority of the written Word take these Testimonies John 1. 9. He that is John beheld him and his Glory and felt his Power and what his Power took away then he declared him as he knew him and not from any Tradition or Writing before him why then do teach for Doctrines Men's Traditions running into the Lines of what others have written Morn Watch pag. 6. Rejoyn The Passages from whence the particular Epithetes are taken shall be consider'd anon This is one of those Testimonies he brings to prove he rightly cited and apply'd his former Testimonies out of the same Author which had he intended in reallity he should as well have inserted the one as the other to help such as had not seen his other Book into a true Judgment of this but then may he say I should not make the best of my Case which to do him no Wrong he studies more then the Truth or any thing else next to his making the worst of ours And now Reader that this Proof is as lame as his former and wholely as silent to his Wicked purposes consider I entreat thee the Drift of this Man as his Discourse at large manifests Two things he had in his Eye First to beat People off from the Doctrines and Traditions of Men in the Sense Christ once spoke those words to wit not the Scriptures but Men's humane Interpretations of them with such Forms and Worships as they had invented in the Apostacy from the true Spirit of Christianity as these words by J. F. purposely omitted notwithstanding they lay between the two first Sentences which therefore make an absolute Break though he makes none do undeniably evince to wit VVeigh this Truth all ye Priests and Professors and ponder it in your Hearts have you beheld Christ and seen his Glory Have you felt his Power to take away your sin If yea then why do ye teach for Doctrine Men's Traditions Again pag. 16. For they being from the Life that gave forth Scriptures their Vnderstandings are darkened and they err and know not the Scriptures nor the Power of God Lastly in the 14th page he hath these words All the vain Worships and Customs which People at this day are in who yet abide in Forms and Traditions are all come up since the dayes of the Apostles and are after Men's Traditions and not after Christ And the Conception of all hath been in Man's Imagination and hath been brought forth in his own Will and Wisdom By all which Reader it appears that he distinguisheth between Men's Traditions and God's Tradition For first how can he mean the Scriptures in the first Passage the middle of which our Adversary so wilfully dropt when he implies that from feeling the Power of Christ to take away Sin Men would leave off Teaching for Doctrine the Traditions of Men making them thereby sinful and a Sin to teach them when J. Faldo confesses that upon the Spirit 's moving and giving us the understanding of Scripture we do allow the Doctrines therein deliver'd to be rightly preach'd In the second Passage he undeniably distinguishes between the Scriptures rightly understood and their Mistake of them to whom he wrote Not knowing says he the Scriptures nor the Power of God being darkned which imports that truly to know and teach according to the sense of Holy Scripture is a quite differing thing from Teaching for Doctrine the Traditions of Men. Nor is his third Passage less clear in the Point pag. 14. sinâ—â— he explains what he means by those offensive Words to J. Faldo's Ear by such Customs Worships and Traditions as were not of Christ and that took their rise since the time of the Apostles and proceeded from the Imagination Will and Wisdom of Man therefore not the Writings of either Prophets or Apostles that were before such Apostacy and which were given forth as they were mov'd of the Holy Ghost The second thing greatly in the Author's Eye and with which his Spirit seems to be prest through the
whole Book is this Men ought to teach and preach to others no further then they have a living Sense or Experience of what they so teach or preach that this was his Meaning by those Words Running into the Lines of what others have written hear the following Words in his Defence How dare any of you saith he make mention of his Name or speak of his Glory or of his Power seeing you have not beheld him yet made manifest in your selves Again thus For John testified that the giving forth of the Law was by Moses but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ John 1. 17. Mark says he Grace and Truth were come unto John by Jesus Christ and he had felt the Vertue of it by which Moses ' s Admistration was fulfilled in him I say Reader his whole scope was to inforce the Necessity of coming into the Enjoyments of the Holy Ancients and an Experiencing of the Truth of those Doctrines they declar'd before Men are fit to teach them unto others And as this is the Tendency of his Words so does holy Scripture strongly warrant the same Particularly Jeremiah and the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians in Jeremiah thus He that hath my Word let him speak my Word faithfully What is the Chaff to the Wheat saith the Lord Is not my Wordlike a FIRE saith the Lord and like a HAMMER that breaketh the Rock in pieces Therefore I am against the Prophets saith the Lord that steal my Word every one from his Neighbour Chap. 23. Vers 28 29 30. The Meaning of which notable place is plainly this Such as have God's Word to declare which is known from all False Pretenders who steal the Word from their Neighbour and then cry he saith as the 31th Verse expresseth by the Resemblance it bears to Fire a thing easily to be felt let them faithfully speak it But those who steal and preach the Word or Testimony that came from the Lord by and through another as if the Lord spake the same by them unto whom the Lord never spoak it such Prophets the Lord is against which strikes J. Faldo dead respecting his Pretence for Preaching who abundantly proves it to be his Belief that such are as Good Ministers as any yea the only Orthodox and the other but a Pack of giddy-headed Enthusiasts The next place is in the Apostle's 2d Epist to the Corinthians Chap. 10. Vers 15 16. Not boasting of things beyond our measure that is of other Men's Labours but having Hope that when your Faith is encreased that we shall be enlarged by you according to our Rule abundantly to preach the Gospel in the Regions beyond you and not to boast in another Man's Line of things made ready to our Hands Of this sort of Boasters is John Faldo who hath nothing for his Religion but the mâ—er Bible and but an usurpt Title to that Reader take notice that all along J. F. hath made no Difference between the Truths the Scriptures truly declare of and Man's dark and unregenerated Conceptions upon Scripture about Truth and Error Thereby confounding that which in it self is most clearly different to the end he may bring all those Blows we give at Men's Traditions and Doctrines which they pretend to be rightly deduced from Scripture but in Reallity are their own Imaginations to bear hard upon the Scriptures themselves and those Doctrines and Traditions that are truly delivered by them which is a wretched begging of the Question that was not about the Scriptures to which he would turn it but his and their way of understanding them as if it were the same thing to decry the Scriptures as to disclaim against J. F.'s false Opinions concerning them But he thinks he has quite done our Business and sav'd himself from the Black Blemish of Forgery by another Testimony produced to the same purpose which is this And reading in the Scriptures that there were some who met together and exhorted one another they observe and do as near as they can what they read of the Saints Practice and so conceive a Birth in the same Womb and bring it forth in the same Strength that others do and in the Ground it differs not W. S. pag. 22. But what of all this J. Faldo Can this Saying rise higher then a Reproof of those who are but in the Form of Godliness whom the Scriptutes exhort us to turn away from But why was he so disingenuous as to refuse us our Friends words at large thereby making People believe that the Imitation reprov'd by W. S. concerns the holy Life and Conversation of the Saints For it s not two Lines before that he tells us expresly what sort of Practice he means when he writes thus And because they Baptists read of some that went into the Water and were baptized they do the same In short The Zeal of his Spirit runs against all Apish Religions and those Persons who take unto themselves the Name and Form they are Strangers to the Nature and Power of being not led by the Eternal Spirit to Worship God but with an Unregenerate Mind and Ambitious Will eagerly rush into those things for which they have neither Commission nor Quallification I could urge several Testimonies out of Authors that neither liv'd nor dy'd in Fellowship with the Quakers as a further Vindication of their Sense in this Particular but Three shall suffice at this time The first is given us by Jo. Canne stiled by Parson Ball an Eminent and Early Presbyter The Leader of the English Brownists or Independents at Amsterdam more then 30 Years ago viz. Labour to Experience the Power and Leading of the Spirit It is very dangerous to rest in any thing that comes from the Creature till you have the Witness of the Spirit which is not fleshly heady or empty but powerful inward and abides and settles the Soul In thy Light shall we see Light and no where else let them pretend never so high Attainments A Knock to J. Faldo The second is a Passage in W. Dell's Tryal of Spirits writ as I take it while he was Master of Cains Colledge in Cambrige They says he who want Christ's Spirit which is the Spirit of Prophecy though they preach the EXACT LETTER of the Word yet are FALSE PROPHETS and not to be heard by the Sheep And one Reason among many for this Assertion was this Under the New Testament we are not to regard the Letter without the Spirit but the Spirit as well as the Letter yea the Spirit more then the Letter And therefore Paul saith That Christ shall destroy Antichrist with the Spirit of his Mouth and the Brightness of his Coming He scarce saith this Author takes any notice of the Letter but calls the true Preaching of the Gospel the Spirit of Christ's Mouth or the Ministration of the Spirit His next Reason is this They that preach only the outward Letter of the Word without the true Spirit they make all things outward in the
of the Spirit to the Scriptures and which he pretends to justifie against my Explanation was this Of this sort are the False Prophets who have their Preaching from Study and other Men's Mouthes charging me that I treacherously left out or from the Letter and not from the Mouth of the Lord. But as I us'd no Treachery neither omitted it in Design nor thought it Prejudicial to his Cause since my Answer as himself hath trans-scrib'd it shews that I understood it to be the Letter of the Scripture that was meant from whence they stole their Preaching and not that they receiv'd it from the Mouth of the Lord so in the end it will prove more my own Disadvantage to have omitted it then any Bodies else I shall set down my Answer as he has trans-scrib'd it and his Reply the equall'st Way of Judging The natural Purport of the Words said I can be no more then this That though the Things declar'd of in the Scriptures were the Word of the Lord to the holy Ancients and Jeremiah as God's Mouth not his Mouth therefore to the People Israel yea much of it mark the Mouth of the Lord to us also yet for Men to say any part of it by rote especially if they add mark their own Comments and Glosses framed from study OF any part of the Scripture and say Thus saith the Lord or Hear the Word of the Lord and not in the same living Sense nor upon the like Commission every such one doth rob his Neighbour and steal his words This is so much of my Answer as he trans-scribes which seems thus far ingenuous that in three times a larger Answer he has not trans-scrib'd one third of this perhaps he thought it not so much for his turn But before I set down his Reply I shall find two Faults with this recital First That he has I will not say treacherously or that I knew he did design'dly mis-give my words as he is frequently pleas'd to charge me falsly set down one part of my Answer for in my Book it is If they add their own Comments and Glosses framed from study TO any part of the Scripture and he trans-scribes it Framed from study O F any part of the Scripture as if the studying O F the Scripture and adding Men's own Glosses TO the Scripture were one and the same thing All I shall say of it is this 'T is a scurvy Mistake and looks very suspitiously The second is That he has left out the most material part of my Answer The Stress of which in brief lay here Parrots imitate Men But if such Creatures are not therefore to be reputed Reasonable though the Sentence be rational in it self because it proceeds from meer Imitation and not a Principle of Reason neither is He a true Prophet nor That the Word of the Lord with respect to that Prophet who has not receiv'd what he delivers from the immediate Word of God himself but by Hear-say or meer Imitation But of all this part he takes no notice I now come to his Reply which I will faithfully set down and I hope as clearly enervate Rep. The Errors Self-Contradictions and Absurdities of W. P. I shall express briefly First what he saith they mean I say they mean also viz. The Scriptures are not the Mouth of God Rejoyn The Mouth of God is a most uncouth Expression for which he has not one Scripture from Genesis to the Revelation nor do I see how he should since it is unsound if not Blasphemons for by calling them not A Mouth but THE Mouth it renders them the most constant necessary and excellent Mouth by which God who is a Spirit utters forth his Mind to his Children thereby excluding the Word of God nigh in the Heart and his Spirit in their Inward Parts But to proceed What does he mean by Mouth or how does he take it Properly or Metaphorically If the first I deny it If the last I thus far concede That the Scriptures as other things may be in a sense so stiled when God pleaseth livingly to speak by them otherwise I chuse to express my self as in my Answer by him also omitted The Eternal Word of God is the Mouth of God and the true Prophets and Apostles in all Ages have been as the Mouth of the Word of God declaring the Mind of it either by Word of Mouth or Writing to the People and the Scriptures are the Writings of those inspir'd Prophets and Apostles What more would he have Nay there is not only no such Negative as he charges upon us in my Answer but I do expresly say The Scriptures are not in a sense without a Mouth and that for God too being a Declaration of much of his VVill and Works though I cannot allow them to be the Mouth of God in the sense my Adversary throughout his whole Book tugs hard to get for by that means we should with him shut up the Mouth of the Eternal Word which is God's Living Oracle to the Souls of his People But he proceeds Rep. VV. P. saith the things spoken of were the Word of the Lord. Then the Word of the Lord is or was more then one a Contradiction to himself Rejoyn Reader take notice that there is no such thing as he pretends to reply to in this part of my Answer he brings into his Book It seems he has left it behind him and I must go back to look for it My words were these The Scriptures then are to us oblieging as the Thing they declare of was the Word of the Lord to several Ages Temporary Commands excepted VVhich import no more then this That the Word of the Lord declared the Mind of the Lord by the holy Prophets And the Mind of the Lord is not distinct from the Word of the Lord though the Declaration be different from the thing declar'd of I cannot see any Contradiction in what I writ Sure I am I meant not by the thing they Declare of the Declaration either by VVord of Mouth or VVriting but the Wisdom Will Glory and Power of the Eternal Word as they are Eternally One with and in the Word before so declared He was a little too nimble in the Business but if I should let him make the worst Construction he is able it can rise no higher then this I should mean by the VVord of the Lord the living Command of the Lord in the Heart of his Prophets afterwards declared by VVord of Mouth or VVriting For Word sometimes signifies Command as thus This is the VVord of the Lord or this is the Command or Mind of the Lord which are equivalent Rep. 3dly That God hath a Mouth in a proper Sense Rejoyn This is untruly charg'd upon me My Adversary's Reason for this indirect Consequence was my saying that Jeremiah was as God's Mouth not his Mouth therefore which to me is a good Reason why he ought to have inferr'd the quite contrary since as his
and Drinks observed is Jewish and as I said in my Answer to plead for a Legal Dispensation and Bondage to the Shadows of the good Things to come thereby making Christ's Coming of none Effect But to proceed Reply p. 50. Yet though P. give me bad Words to strengthen his Argument he grants what I say to be true in his Anger for sayes he Christ is to the Saints now who rightly believe in him the End of all Meats Drinks Washings Dayes Here Lord's Supper Baptism Christian Sabâ—oth or Day of Holy Rest are all denyed in FOVR Words Rejoynder If they be it is his own Fault for instead of my granting what he sayes to be true I never mentioned them and indeed he hath so manifestly given away his Cause by this unadvised Expression as we need no more against him on this Occasion For those four Words by which he makes me to deny the Lord's Supper Baptism and the Christian Sabbath are such as we must reject or we turn the Gospel-Ministration out of Doors They are the Apostle's own Words to the the Collossians Col. 2. 16 17. Let No Man therefore Judge you in Meat or in Drink or in respect of an Holy Day or of the Sabbath Dayes which are a Shadow of things to come but the Body is of Christ and to the Hebrews Chap. 9. vers 10. which stood onely in Meats Drinks and divers Washings and Carnal Ordinances imposed on them until the Time of Reformation I say here the four Words are denyed to be Evangelical viz. Meats Drinks Washings Days since J. F. will have the Supper to be consider'd under Meats Drinks Baptism under Washings and the Christian Sabbath under Dayes either He must with us Deny them as Meats Drinks Washings and Dayes that are abolish therefore not fit to be continued under the Evangelical Administration or maintain the Continuance of Meats Drinks Washings and Dayes to keep up the Supper Baptism and Sabbath and thereby espouse the Jews Quarrel against the Christians and defend the most Rank Childish and Carnal Part of Judaism against Christianity it self My Reader may by this perceive what a Gospel it is John Faldo would have who pleads for the use of those things under the Gospel which are repugnant to the Nature of it for in one place the Apostle calls them Shadows and in another such Figures as cold not make such as used them perfect as pertaining to the Conscience Hebr. 9. 9. which the Gospel doth not continue but make an utter End of by the bringing in a more excellent Covenant Hope and Service His saying I was Angry and gave him bad Words is like the rest What shall I say to a Man that dares say any thing be it never so far from Truth provided it may cast an Odium upon me where he can't confute me The Hardest Words I gave were that he basely wrested our Words of which let the Reader judge And for Anger God knows I had none I pitty him But he goes on Reply pag. 50. W. P. to make a full End adds or any other Elementary Temporary or Figurative Worship Now if he can shew us any Gospel-Worship considered intirely and formally that is not Temporal Worship he will do more then ever Man yet did but in the mean time he hath confirmed my Charge Rejoynder I have confirmed it by the Rule of Contraries or by the same Figure our Friends Writings use to maintain his Accusations Certainly J. F. can never mean as he writes and be knowing and Honest too If to confute his Charge be to establish it I hope my Reader will say I have done it effectually I know not whether to impute it to his Vanity or Lazyness for at every turn we must prove his Charges give Evidence against our selves and dye by our own hands while it is to be remembred that amidst all this Folly J. Faldo must have the Liberty of Tempering with his Witnesses that is Resting Patching Adding Diminishing Transposing Mis-interpreting our Words and Meanings or else he would be wholely at a Loss Many Instances I have given of his Skill herein and his pretty sort of Wresting the Word Temporal in this very Sentence doth make up another for I mean by Temporal as the Words Elementary and Figurative immediately following do fully explain no other then such a Worship as is instituted for a set time till something more excellent and durable comes in the room of it as the Typical Worship of the Jews that served its Season and then gave place to the Spiritual and Eternal Worship of the New and Everlasting Covenant And this Man takes me as if I understood it of a Worship performed within time in any Sense thereby making me to deny the Performing of Worship to Almighty God the time Men live in the World because it may be called from the Word Time or Tempus Temporal restraining that to the Nature of VVorship which only relates to the Act of VVorship As thus The Act or Performance of VVorship may be to day the Nature of that VVorship Eternal so that VVorship may be performed within Time and yet not be by Nature Temporal But the VVorship of the Jews respecting those Exteriour and Shadowy Things was by Nature Temporal Reply pag. 50. VV. P's next Fault he finds is with my saying That Penington meant by the City of Abomination visible Worship If the Worship which he acknowledgeth God to be found in and which Professors about the years 43. 44 45 46 used were visible Worship or any part of it Visible Worship then Penington said it of Visible Worship Rejoynder A Fault so palpable is soon found VVho not stark blind with Envy would make so ill a Construction of so found an Expression I. P. said The Lord would not spare such as do not come out of the City of Abomination that is saith J. Faldo Visible Worship as if they were Synonimous or Terms of equal Signification City of Abomination that is Visible Worship back again Visible VVorship that is City of Abomination Is this Man fit to write of Religion that adventures so boldly to pervert Men's VVritings But he thinks this will excuse him that I. P. meant such Worship as God was found in and which Professors used about 4. 3 44 c. but this is too boldly obtruded for what Man can think I. P. so brutish as to call that Worship in which Himself confesseth God to be found the City of Abomination I. P. spoak of the Nature of and not the Visibility of Worship for there is not a word of it in his Writings so that he endeavours to maintain one Falshood by another But that his Charge is yet true against the Quakers he produceth a Testimony out of G. F's Myst pag. 65. Paul brought the Saints off from the Things that are seen and Water is seen and its Baptism adding Now unless W. P. will say That Things seen are not visible G. F. hath certainly failed W. P.
more I that live but Christ in me that is The Apostle had no Life in him in any sense Would this be good Doctrine But more openly do the Words of Christ lay to the Exception of such Cavillers 'T is not I that speak but the Father in me Again It is not you that speak but the Holy Gost in you For after J. Faldo's Parapharase we must either deny that Christ or his Apostles spoak those words or confess that they contradicted themselves in saying they did not speak when they did or lastly He must acknowledge to us That such Teachings and Speakings are not the Teachings and Speakings of Men but of God by and through Men. Let him first see if he can reconcile himself to these Scripture-Passages so pertinent to our Purpose and leave off his silly Shifts as easily confuted as discovered Upon my saying That we do believe that there is One and but One Universal Church the Ground and Pillar of Truth and that is in God and that the Members of it are washed in the Blood of the Lamb and grafted into the True Vine bringing forth Fruit unto Holiness p. 113. he thus replyes and I beseech my Reader to consider it Reply p. 59. If he own no other Church but this which is the Character of the invisible Church he owns not a Gospel-Church whose Order and Frame is according to the Doctrine of the Apostles and Practice of the Saints in the New-Testament Rejoynder VVe are beholden to him for this May we ever meet with such kind Adversaries It seems then my Definition hath nothing to do with the Gospel-Church VVhat is it but to say that the Gospel-Chruch is not the Pillar of Truth The Gospel-Chruch is not washed in the Blood of the Lamb The Gospel-Chruch is not grafted into the true Vine that Men may be in the Truth washed in the Blood of the Lamb grafted into the true Vine bring forth Fruit unto Holiness and yet no wayes concered in the Gospel-Church in short the Gospel-Church is not the Vniversal Church nor the invisible Church a Gospel-Church and what is his Reason if any there can be for all this pernicious and Anti-christian Doctrine Because a Gospel-Church is one whose Order and Frame is according to the Doctrine of the Apostle and Practice of the Saints Worse and worse it seems then in J. F's Sence that the Order and Frame the Doctrine of the Apostles brought the Church of Christ to and the Practice of the Saints in the New Testament had nothing to do with the Pillar of Truth dwelling in God being washed in the Blood of the Lamb grafted in the true Vine and bringing forth Fruit unto Holiness What Sort of impious Gibberish is this For according to his Notion of the Gospel-Church the most Satanical Crew may as well be of that Church as the best of Christians since the External Order at most but the Form of Godliness was and is imitable and imitated by arrant Hypocrites By this Argument Elias and the Seven Hundred who had not bowed their Knees to Baal so invisible as Elias himself knew not of them were Schâ—s maticks or Infidels to the then Jewish Church being without all Visible Church Policy or Order and the Jews that had it though Apostatized must have been God's Legal Church It will also follow that for above 1200 Years together since Christ's time there hath been no Gospel-Church yet Gospellers as their Enemies have called them which were to grant to the Roman-Catholicks all they Desire What was that Church that fled into the Wilderness It must either be the Gospel-Church or not the Gospel-Church If not the Gospel-Church then not the Christian and consequently the Antichristian-Church But that could not be because she fled from Antichrist If the Gospel-Church then may a Church be Gospel without punctuallity in visible Order for it is notorious by all Story the Remnant of the Woman's Seed who have born a faithful Testimony against the Spirit of Antichrist in their Sack-Cloth and Wilderness Estate have been destitute of that Visible Order Indeed I hitherto thought that a Gospel-Church constituted necessary external Order and not that meer external Order constitutes the Church Gospel or Evangelical But John Faldo sayes No who seems not to scruple at the Word Church but to play upon the Word Gospel as if external Order and Gospel were synonimous or of equal force whereas the Gospel is called in Scripture The Power of God to Salvation from that Spiritual Redemption it efficatiously worketh in them that receive it from the Bondage of Corruption under which they have fruitlesly laboured which is the Reason and a good one too why it signifieth Glad-Tidings since nothing can be more Joyous to a weary and heavy-loaden Sinner then to be eased of his former Iniquities by Remission and purged from the Nature and Habits of it out of the Soul by the Operation of this Heavenly and Everlasting Gospel which worthy Christopher Goad Right Spirit of Christ pag. 17. calls the forming or bringing forth of Christ in us What is all our Adversary hath said but to make Remedies against or Condescension to the Weakness of the Church's Infancy as sayes honest W. Tindal in his Works p. 9. 436 438. the only great Constitutes of a Gospel-Church By which he denyes a Gospel-Church to have been antecedent to that External Order and consequently that the Believers were not a Gospel-Church when met together on the Day of Penticost not long after since the Gospel had been many years preached Multitudes converted and many baptized by the One Spirit into the One Body of true Gospel-Fellowship before ever those Epistles were written by the Apostle Paul either to the Church at Corinth or to Timothy in which only External Order is mentioned Nay at this rate he hath Unchurched every Party in England but one if yet one may be excepted for if External Order only constitutes a Gospel-Church every Party in England differing greatly in their External Order it must follow that none but one if any one can have any just Pretence to a Compleat Gospel-Church consequently Mungrils He still forgets what he promised that None of them were further concerned against the Quakers then Vindicated Howbeit herein they may hold him excused that he hath equally unchurched Himself and these he preacheth to in Company with all other Parties in England being out of that Order But I intreat the Reader to consider what a Monster he hath made of Christ who describeth him with two such Bodies to one Head one Invisible the other Visible one washed in the Blood of the Lamb grafted into the true Vine bringing forth Fruit unto Holiness Qualifications hid from the Eye of the World as worthy John Bradford told T. Weston as in B. Martyr p. 104 312. That the Church of Christ is Invisible to him that hath not a Spiritual Eye The other constituted of People no matter how Vnregenerated if submitted to
an Eternal Structure of Order and Discipline A Cover for all the Wolves Antichrist's and Hypocrites that have been are or shall be to the End of the World In short No Position can be more destructive to the Power of Godliness the Fellowship of the True Church that lives in God and Pernicious to the Souls of Men by securing them in their Fancied Relation to a Gospel-Church whilst in an Un-gospel Spirit estranged from the Power of the true Gospel and unacquainted with the Congregation of the Faithful who through Faith overcome the World and know a Washing in the Blood of the Lamb and a being grafted into the true Vine and made to drink into the one Spirit bringing forth Fruits unto Holiness To conclued After this sort of Doctrine Men may be Members of a Gospel-Church and not of the True Church Members of a Gospel-Church and not good Christians no nor good Men it self Indeed such a Pastor as our Adversary fuits such a Church and such a Church exactly sits such a Pastor from whom God deliver me and all People and them from themselves I mean the Power and Prevalency of that Pernicious Doctrine and Spirit that now infects them He proceeds however with what success we shall see Reply p. 59 60. To this of their Invisible Church I told W. P of their Officers very suitable to a conceited nothing Fox Myst p. 2. The Holy Ghost made the Officers of the Church Over-seers The Over-seers to be Invisible for they saw with an Invisible Eye and so were in the Spirit which is Invisible and not in the Flesh But W. Perm meddled not with this which I dare say as much as he hath of the Quakers Spirit he cannot tell the Meaning of himself Rejoynder I had no Reasâ—n to meddle with what I could not noâ— cannot yet find I intreat my Reader to consider the Unreasonableness of his Taunts In his first Book he 〈◊〉 me to pag. 8. where no such thing was to be 〈◊〉 yet did I not place it to the Account of his Trâ—â—chery the best Construction he can make of any Innocent Omission on my part In his Reply he sends me to pag. 2. and there I am as wise as I was before no such Words or Matter appearing What shall I say of such an Adversary Was I then to be blamed for not mâ—ddling with what was not to be found Or deserve I 〈◊〉 better Terms at his Hands who made no hard use of it in my Answer Or Lastly Is he not worthy of double Blame that adds to his first Mistake a second and then abuseth me as if on purpose I had avoided the Diâ—â— of an Authentick Testimony hitherto not produced But suppose G. F. hath ever written any such 〈◊〉 doubtless by Invisible Over-seers he only meanâ— Spiritual not Carnal-minded Men who by the 〈…〉 which the True God hath opened might watch over the Flock as to their inward and spiritual Conditions This the following words make good for they saw with an invisible Eye and so were in the Spirit which is invisible and not in the Flesh In short They were not meer outward Officers exercising an Outward Rule and Dominion about outward Things but Men qualified by the Holy Ghost with an inward Discerning to Over-see the Spiritual State of the Church not that their Persons were invisible or their Actions towards the Church but that Heavenly Faculty given them of the Holy Spirit which rendred them Over-seers or Men able to see or discern the State and Condition of the Church was of an Invisible Nature He fell very foul upon us in his first Book because of a Dutch-Woman's speaking in one of our Meetings in her own Tongue charging upon us That we did orderly according to the Popish Mass which was to Pray in an Vnknown Tongue To which I made a large and I hope sufficient Answer of which he reports but these two or three Parcels First That I called it a Disingeâ—â—ous Reflection Next That we do not affect such Obâ—curity Lastly The Divine Light Power or Spirit inâ—ardly manifested is the one Tongue to the Children of Light This he calls Foolish Antiscriptural Ridicuâ—us But if it be so I owe it to him alone who hath â—ade so Foolish and False a Citation of my Words â—owbeit he saith nothing to what he hath cited his 〈◊〉 Words set aside His Reflection was Disingeâ—ous because such a Practice is not common or usual â—ith us Nay that was accidental Therefore to â—arge it upon us as conformable to the Orderliness of the Popish Mass as if it were a Principle with us to teach as with Romanists to pray in an Vnknown Tongue was more then Disingenuous for it was False and Malicious being thrown out by him on purpose to infame and disgrace us That we do not affect such Obscurity I affirmed and our Practice evidenceth it being rather jeered for our too much Rusticity and Plainness and our frequent decrying of Dark School-Phrases and turning Rhetorick by which great Writers wrap up their Matter from the Vnderstanding of the Vulgar That the Divine Light Power or Spirit inwardly manifested are none of my words I will report my Answer both more largly and truly and leave it with the Conscience of my Reader thus The single Power of the Almighty may both strike Astonishment and give Refreshment where the Words utterred are not always understood since he frequently doth both without them Understanding and Inward Sense are two Things for the Devil may speak the best Words in the Bible and be an Undiscovered Devil still except by this Divine Light Power and Spirit he be inwardly manifested consequently a right Sense may be had where Words may not be understood which Sense is the one Tongue to the Children of Light yet we do not only decry all designed Obscurity by Praying and Preaching in Unknown Languages but with the Apostle say That we chuse rather by far to speak in a Known Tongue as well as have the Sense of our Spirits Nor did ever any Quaker yet pretend to be moved to pray in an Unknown Language whilst he was Master of that which was well known to the People Since then we do not affect obscurity the Case of the Papists who pray in Latin rather then in their Native or Vulgar Tongue he is very Disingenuous in that Reflection But in Reply to all this he only gives us thus much Reply pag. 60. Sure I am that the Spirit of God by whom the Apostle Paul was directed is not the Quakers Spirit nor its Doctrine the same with theirs in the same Case I shall be to him that speaketh a Barbarian and he that speaketh shall be a Barbarian to me I Cor. 14. 11. Rejoynder I would fain know by what Means J. Faldo hath that Discerning between the Spirit of the Apostle and the Spirit of the Quakers Is it because the Dutch-Woman spoak in an English Meeting Do we Hold Teach or Practice any such Thing
constitutes an Ordinance Rejoynder He should have given my first Reason before he had pretended to answer it I further told him That water-Batism was John's the Fore-runner used figuratively and preparatively to the Visible Coming of the Messiah which being past that preparatory Dispensation is gone with it and lastly that the Fore-runner is not to continue but give way to him and his Administration that was so fore-run which were Christ and his Baptism That John was to dicrease that is Water-Baptism and Christ to increase that is his Evangelical and Spiritual Administration To all this J. Faldo sayes nothing So that he spoak Truth but by halfs that is what he said was no Answer yet it was briefly said However I do affirm that Water-Baptism is therefore Legal because Christ is not its Administrator for the Legal Dispensation came by Moses but the Evangelical by Christ not his Disciples and this not coming by Christ it cannot be Evangelical consequently no Gospel-Ordinance Besides I deny that it is Evangelical because he is not administrator for Christ is the alone Administrator of all things relating to his own Kingdom the Temple-Worship Altar Circumcision Baptism c. are invisible answerabel to the Nature of his Priesthood and Kingdom Again It is said of John That the least in the Kingdom of God is greater then â—he yet that a greater Prophet hath not risen then John the Baptist Mat. 11. 11. Now this could never be understood of John's particular Condition but of his Water-Administration therefore Water-Baptism is not Evangelical I might tell him in short That he has given away his Cause in this Particular by rancking Water-Baptism among the divers Washings pag. 50. The Apostle Hebr. 9. accounts Legal and abrogated by bringing in of a better Covenant the great Evangelical Ordinance Next let him tell me where it is that Christ commands Water-Baptism But this perhaps he thinks he hath done in his Answer to my second Reason as by him reported Reply pag. 67. Again W. P. pag. 136. saith That Baptism mentioned Mat. 28. was not the Baptism of John but Baptism of the Holy Ghost called the Promise of the Father He distinguisheth not between John's Water-Baptism and his own but betwixt any Water-Baptism at all and his own Baptism of the Holy Ghost Baptism with the Holy Ghost was not in a proper but analogical and metaphorical Sense Rejoynder John Faldo hath done ill to drop my Answer and render it so obscure if not impertinent for by making that Gap in the middle to whom can we refer that Word HE To John That cannot be how can the after Sentence relate to the former or be understood as it is But thus hath he dealt with me from time to time which I will not call Forgery but Disingenuity I am sure it is I said as he reports me That Water was not understood in that Text He shifts it off with saying That the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is not a Proper but Metaphorical Baptism But what is this to his proving That the Baptism in the Text was that of Water and not that of the Holy Ghost which was and is the Question between us I told him That Christ in all likelihood commissionated them to Baptize with that Baptism wherewith they were to be Baptized themselves my Reasons were three First Because his Baptism was That of the Holy Ghost and we are to suppose that he commanded them to Baptize with his own Baptism therefore not with Water Next Because these Words Go Teach Baptizing being some of the last words Matthew reports him to have spoken while in the VVorld they must need have relation to that Saying which Luke recordeth in Acts 1. to have fallen from him immediate before his Ascension viz. And being assembled together with them he commanded that they should not depart from Jerusalem but wait for the Promise of the Father which saith he ye have heard of me For John truly baptized with Water but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many dayes hence I say the other Passage in Matthew must needs have relation to these words inasmuch as they are by two Evangelists recorded to have been spoken immediately before his Ascension it being within four Verses of this Passage that Luke tells us He was taken up out of their Sight For in this part of Luke's Narrative the Commission given us by Matthew is wholely omitted which doubtless was spoken at the same time for we frequently find That what one Evangelist omits the other supplieth Therefore I read the words thus John indeed baptized with Water but ye shall be Baptized with the Holy Ghost Then Go teach all Nations baptizing them c. Unto all this he is so silent as if there had been no such thing observed My third Exception against Water-Baptism respecting this Text Matthew 28 That the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or into the Name c. could not be said of Water therefore no Water-Baptism which he takes a little notice of thus replying Reply pag. 67. Baptism with Water was into the Name c. as a Sign and Baptism with the Holy Ghost which is the Gifts of the Holy Ghost might also be where the Persons so gifted were not really ingrafted into Christ or sanctâ—fied Rejoynder That Baptism with Water may be into the Name of the Father is not sober unless it could baptize into the Nature of the Father for nothing less then Regeneration is wrapt up in the Text Besides that it is unworthy of the Spirituallity of Christ's Ministration and Kingdom that he should make Water-Baptism two thirds of his Commission which Men may be baptized with and yet be as great Strangers yea Enemies to Father Son and Holy Ghost as the most impious of Men. And admitting that by the Holy Ghost is to be understood the Gifts of the Holy Ghost yet is it Heterodox with a Witness to say That a Man may be baptized into them and yet remain unsanctified and ungrafled into Christ for what is it but to say That to be baptized by the Holy Ghost is not to sanctifie Men nor graft them into Christ for such hath been his Carelesness in this Expression that he hath not particularized what Gift Men may have and not be sanctified or grafted into Christ but plainly denyes in general Terms the Baptism of the Holy Ghost to be the same thing with sanctifying and grafting Men into Christ So many as were Baptized into Jesus Christ were Baptized into his Death was this done by Water where is J. F's Figure now he cast to abuse the Text Mat. 28 Again As many as have been Baptized into Christ have put on Christ Gal. 3. 27. I would fain know by what Figure J. F. makes Water-Baptism a putting on of Christ such easie putting on of Christ will fall hard one day upon such as he and the like Christians But why should I expect a better Account of these Divine Mysteries from a
Man that knows so little of them and sets so sleight by them But let us hear him a little further Reply pag. 67. Many things are expressed by the Word Baptism yet but one Proper Baptism which is Water Rejoynder If he had said one shadowy Baptism it had been better expressed for that he himself elsewhere acknowledges it to be however his one proper Baptism is not the Apostle's One Baptism Eph. 4. 5. unless he will make the Baptism of Water and the Baptism of the Holy Ghost to be but one and the same Baptism if he can he will perform an impossibility if he cannot there will be two Baptisms John's proper Baptism Christ's improper Baptism as J. F. will have them contradistinguisht Now which of these two is the Evangelical and Durable Baptism the one the Figure the other the Substance the one the Fore-runner the other the Thing Fore-runned May we not ask of Water-Baptism as Christ askt concerning John What went ye forth to see one that said of his Dispensation I must Decrease Christ Increase I will not allow of J. Faldo's word proper at this time though allowable enough among School-men because the Philosophical Sense of it is not known to the Vulgar The word proper now bearing a different Signification and in the after common usage of the word Christ's Baptism of the Holy Ghost is the only proper Baptism and that of Water but shadowy and figurative I will give him a like Case upon his use of the word proper and leave it with my Reader what to call this part of his Reply There was but one proper Pascal Lamb and that was a Beast with four Legs Also there was but one proper Circumcision and that was the Circumcision of the Flesh therefore are they Evangelical or to continue But doth not he know that they are notwithstanding abrogated by that Lamb and Circumcision which according to his Language are not proper but metaphorically so Insomuch that after the Apostle's Speech that is no more that Lamb nor the Circumcision that is outward neither Baptism c. but that which is not in the Letter but in the Spirit Rom. 28. 29. I more then hinted p. 138 139. of my Answer at this very thing upon his making the Baptism the Sign and Thing signified but one Baptism as a true Exposition of that Passage of the Apostle to the Ephesians One Lord one Faith one Baptism But he is afraid to meddle with that for indeed never Man more over-shot himself opening such a Gap to Judaism as I suppose no Man pretending to be a Christian ever ventured at But he faintly goes on in these words Reply p. 67. W. P. tells me p. 137. of the Apostle Paul's Pracitce Practice then we see and all the reasonable World knows is not Institution This is not a very sound Expression in it self I do not say that Practice is Institution but the Practice of the Apostles in pursuance of an Institution is a Proof of its Continuance Rejoynder The Expression is sounder then he is Ingenuous He neither sets down his own Passage nor my Answer how then can he Honestly or Intelligibly reply However he tells us that he can beg the Question that is That the Apostles practised upon an Insittution Thus he defends his Assertion by repeating his Assertion We have great Reason to suppose him pincht or else we should not find him so tame Here a Man may handle him without Knocks But why did he take no notice of the rest of my Answer and say so little to this and which is worse an Untruth too For he positively layes down in the second Part of his first Book pag. 39. this Argument Because Paul diâ—â—â—aptize some therefore it was an Ordinance Now what can we call this but a Contradiction to himself who manifestly infers Institution from the Apostle's Practice and yet sayes He doth not say that Practice is an Institution unless he will shroud himself under the doubtful Signification of the word Practice which may as well be used about one thing as another but as I meant it of an Apostolical Religious Practice so he ought to mean in his use of the word Practice or else he equivocates He also told us before That the Reason why Water-Baptism was not laid upon the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 1. was because his Call was extraordinary and out of due time To which I answered That if he was inferiour to no Apostle in his Works why should he be reputed so in his Coâ—â—ission That the Priests generally allow them to have been all extraordinarily called it has been their Plea against our Call in these dayes That no Man in our Dayes has a larger Commission in the Point and lastly That since he was a Gospel-Christian-Apostle if Water-Baptism had been then reputed a Gospel-Christain-Ordinance neither had God omitted that in his Commission nor had the Apostle spoak so sleightly of it as he doth when he thanks God that he baptized so few for sayes he I was NOT SENT to baptize but to preach the Gospel ICor 1. 14 17 Acts 26. 18. But to all this and abundance more he was willing to be silent Yet that he may not be thought to say nothing although he gives not the Reader that part of my Answer unto which he replyes I conceive lest his Weaâ—â—ness should be too nakedly exposed he doth at a venture to bestow thus much at randum upon me Reply pag. 68. If W. P. intended by the thing signified saving Grace then it was come to many before Baptism at all was instituted and Faith in Jesus Christ was required in all before Baptism was offered If of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost the Apostle Peter was so lfar from Arguing after his fashion that he makes it the Ground of Baptizing them Can any Man forbid Water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we But if W. Penn had been there he would have reproved Peter of Ignorance and Sin Rejounder No such Matter But I may well reprove John Faldo as guilty of both who is 〈◊〉 ignorant as not yet to know the Thing signified and so firful as to charge the Apostle Peter with that which his own words will not bear for here is no more of an Institution then there is in Paul's Words to the Corinthians As often as you do this c. Christ's Baptism is the inward Washing by the Word of Regeneration which makes perfect as pertaining to the Conscience of which â—ater-Baptism was but a Figure I grant that the Sign ended not so soon as the thing signified began in Point of Practice but I affirm it did in Point of Institution It is not bright Day as soon as it is Day-break Shadows vanish gradually and Customs especially if grateful as were Signs and Ceremonies to Jewish-christians are not easily left Water-Baptism was the Prologue to Christ's Visible Appearance and when he was come a kind of out ward
Testimonial or Signification of their Belief in the Visible Appearance of the then so much denyed so cruelly derided and crucisied Jesus Wherefore I say it was not Evangelical but an Introductory Ceremony suited to the external State of things in that Day which in some competent Time so varied that there could be no Pretence of Christian-Prudence for Perpetuating the Practice of it much less any Reason for its Institution for as the Christian Power and Spirit then brightned and Christ came to be more and more formed in the Hearts of his People VVater gave way to the Holy Ghost and Fire John to Christ and their Carnal Historical Faith of Christ to the Revelation of the Son of God in them the one thing necessary even the Eternal Substance that as He grew up and put forth himself gradually wore off all Shadowy and Figurative Observations Thus did God restore the Kingdom to Israel and bring back the Captivity of his People having laid Help upon one that is Mighty the Son of his Love who alwayes was the Baptizer of all them that believe in him into his own pure Nature which is that Regeneration without which no Man shall ever enter into the Kingdom of God CHAP VII Of the Bread and VVine which Christ gave to his Disciples after Supper commonly called the Lord's Supper OUR Adversary begins his Sixteenth Chapter thus Reply pag. 69. W. P. having little to any purpose to say upon the Point of the Lord's Supper hath recoruse to his old Shifts First he charges the Independents with the Death of J. Parnel p. 141. But what is that to the Question and I believe as little to the Truth as my hand in the Blood of Kings and Princes Rejoynder Then is John Faldo deeply guilty of the Blood of Kings and Princes for certain Persons of that Way apprehended imprisoned and hardly used him to Death Doubtless no Murderer no Traitor was ever handled at that in humance â—ate by English Men as was this poor Young-man by those pretended Saints I refer my Reader to the second Part of our Serious Apology p. 185 186 187. for further Satisfaction Nor have I used any Shifts to avoid the Strength of J. Faldo's Charges or Proofs I am glad when he meddles with Matter for I find more Trouble Chaff Froth and Pedantry then when I encounter any thing more solid But if this be not crying out first there is no such thing as I will make appear in this very Chapter I brought several Reasons to justifie our Discontinuance of the Supper soberly discoursed in four or five pages He takes no more notice thereof then if there had been no such thing saving that he tells us He neglects them because they be speak the Emptiness of their Author Such a Way of Replying that had I loved Shifts more then honest Answers and could put off my Conscience at that easie but unjust Rate it would have saved me the Trouble of having to do with John Faldo's essayes against the Quakers He bestows his time in making good two Proofs he pretended to bring out of our Frinds Writings how well he acquits himself we will examine J. Parnell it seems said The Bread that People broak in that Observation was Outward Natural and Carnal This he counted most Hainous I told him That the Bread and Wine being of an Outward Elementary Nature and Substance may in Comparison of what they signifie be very properly termed Natural and Carnal Upon which he bestows this Reply after his wonted Modesty Reply pag. 69 70. Very well becoming Penn's knowing Divinity and Philosophy Fire and Air are of an Elementary Nature is Fire and Air therefore Carnal Rejoynder We would not that any should think that we intend by Natural and Carnal the worst Sense that may attend these words for sometimes they import a Wicked and Accursed State but simply as they are opposed to things Supernatuaral and spiritual and in this Sense all parts of this visible World may fall under their Signification Outward relates to the same thing and so doth Elementary as vulgarly understood and by me appropriated I was not making a Philosophistical Lecture but writing of plain and Evangelical Doctrine I know that VVords in Philosophy do carry a quite other Sense then what they bear in common Conversation I opposed Natural to Supernatural Carnal to Spiritual Outward to Inward and Elementary which relates to any of these VVorlds Elements to the Nature of that Food which comes down from above and I think Bish VVilkins's Real Character will vindicate me from the Crowing Charge of this pretended Divine and Philosopher His next Testimony was out of VV. Smith's Primmer They Bread and VVine in the Lord's Supper are the Pope's Invention This I utterly denyed to have been delivered by VV. Smith and did require him in the view of the World to produce any such Words out of the Books of W. Smith or any other of our Friends His Reply is this Reply p. 70. What W. P insnuates I charged them with viz. calling the Bread and Wine Christ blessed the Invention of the Pope I am as little concerned to make Proof of as he is honest to make report of for my Book layes no such thing to their Charge Rejoynder What a silly Evasion is this Did he not charge us with calling the Bread Wine of the Lord's Supper the Popâ—s Invention And doth he now tax my Honesty in saying That he makes us to call he Bread and VVine Christ blessed the Invention of the Pope I would fain know what is the Difference between these two Expressions were not the Bread and VVine Christ blessed the Lord's Supper If not he knows what follows and if they were the Lord's Supper then to call the Bread and VVine Christ blessed or the Lord's Supper the Invention of the Pope is equivalent therefore he ought to think himself greatly concerned to make us Satisfaction for having cast so great a Scandal upon us our Doctrine But he hopes to help one Shift by another Hear him Reply p. 70. But you are to take Notice that W. P's Words import that very same Bread and Wine which Christ and his Disciples eat and drank together at Jerusalem Rejoynder Oh J. Faldo leave of these horrible Falshoods Hath neither Christianity nor thy Profession nor common Reputation Power enough to influence thee into more Justice towards thy Adversary What Man of Sence can think I meant only that very same Bread and Wine which Christ and his Disciples eat and drank together There is no Foundation for this ill Comment And I dare appeal to my Readers Conscience in this Matter And so meanly hast thou managed this Matter that thy very next Words show the slightness of thy Reply Reply p. 70. VVhereas my Charge is of the Bread and Wine used in the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper after his Death among God's People and his Churches Rejoynder What Difference was there in Point of Time between
that Salvation is intailed by the Gospel on a mighty Confidence or vehement Perswasion of what Christ hath done for them p. 160. Thus teacheth D. Patrick D. Tillatson D. Cradock W. Shirlock and others called Episcopalians to say nothing of the general Independents and Baptists how this will agree with J. F. But above all how Episcopalians are no further concerned in his Book then vindicated a Story he hath the Confidence to tell in his Preface whilst they are so manifestly contradicted in the great Point of Justification every common Capacity will see without further pointing And so we proceed to the next Exception he makes against my Defence of a Saying charged by him upon R. Farnsworth as fit for his Turn Reply p. 72. To the second Citation viz. What Righteousness Christ performed without me was not my Justification neither was I saved by it W. P. seeks to mend one Error by another much akin to it thus VVhat gives daily Access and Acceptance to and with the Lord is that Preparation of Clean and Righteous Adornment the Soul actually receives from Christ c. Take Justification in this Sense and not for Remission and let our Adversary do his worst There needs a Diver of Delos to make very good Sense of these words I am so wâ—ll acquainted with the Quakers Meanings as well as their Sayings that I dare affirm he intends by all this no other Righteousness for Access and Accâ—ptance then what is subjected in Men and is therefore their own Righteousness Rejoynder The words he charged upon R. Farnsworth I defended conditionally that is That if ever he spoak or writ them he did not intend any Benefit that came by Christ's Offering of himself by the Eternal Spirit a Sacrifice for all for the Remission of Sins that are past through the forbearance of God which is the first part of Justification But that the Justification and Salvation he understood were not from the Guilt of Sin past by Christ's Offering c. but from the Root Nature and Power of In-dwâ—lling Sin through the Powerful Operation of Christ's Spirit in the Inward Parts in the Heart and Conscience But first let is be remembred that he cited no Book a Fault I found with him before and desired him just where he leaves off that the next time he would let us know what was the Book that afforded that Expression which he hath not done next That he dares affirm we intended our own Righteousness to be that which gives us Acceptance with God whereas in so many words I said that the Clean and Righteous Adornment which gives the Soul Admittance into God's holy Courts must actually be received from Christ the Lord her Righteousness which four words with a great many more he disingenuously skipt For those words of his subjected in Man I know not what he means by them unless it be a Righteousness within the Power and Ability of Man to bring forth for I know no other Righteousness that can be subjected in Men and that this was not my Meaning notwithstanding his obtrusive Confidence my own words plainly evidence He might as properly say that a Child's being washed clean by its Father is its own Cleanness or that it made it self clean or because a poor Man in Rags intreats some better Rayment at the Charity of a great Man and that he would please to take him into the Capacity of a menial Servant therefore that Livery or Apparel bestowed upon him by which he is denoted and hath the Access proper to one of his Family was of his own proper Cost or Working and not the Gift of his Lord and Master If this be Absurd John Faldo's Consequence cannot be Rational In short The Everlasting Righteousness which Christ brings into his People by which he fits them for his Father's Communion is not the less of him nor the more of or from us because in us But that I may not trouble my self to challenge him to prove this Pernicious Meaning to be ours he sayes he will prevent me with a Citation out of W. Smith's Cat. p. 74. Quest What is the Righteousness that justifies in the Sight of God Answ For we have Life before we have Motion to act or do any thing that is pleasing to God and in that Life we have Salvation and so Life and Salvation is freely given us from God Reply pag. 72. This Citation Mr. Penn had to consider in this Chapter he pretends to answer but he forbears it among many other which say more for my Purpose then he dare transscribe Rejoynder If there were others more to his purpose then this he is to blame to conceal them but believe him that will I cannot And we have Cause to think that if he hath misapplyed this he would not have been very faithful in the rest I do seriously profess I never met yet with his Peer for quoting First there is no such Question either in pag. 74. or in several pages before or after that if in the whole Catechism Secondly he hath left out Five Words of the Answer which stood us most upon to be cited and altogether the true Question which was this Quest But whether do you not depend upon the Things ye do for Life and Salvation Answ Nay we do not so for we have Life before we have Motion to act or do any thing that is pleasing unto God What Reader can be clearer first then his Denyal of our Dependance upon Good Works for Life and Salvation Next What plainer then that he excludes Action and consequently Works as in the Creature from so much as pleasing God unless God vouchsafe to breath the Breath of his own Life and thereby impower him to bring forth Fruits of Holiness Lastly That the Reason of Man's Acceptance is not his own Works or Actions but his being found acting and working in the Living Faith which is the Gift of God by and through which Access to and holy Fellowship with God are enjoyed by his Children And thus much W. Smith's following words tell us and so Life and Salvation is freely given us from God and by his Grace we are saved through the Faith which we have in him and that puts us upon Motion and Action to do his Will in all things and yet not to depend upon what we do for Life But do all things which he commands us from the Motion or first setting on work of his Life and this is Life before Action which moves us to Action and not Action before Life thereby to attain Life Catechism page 73 74. Now Reader this considered give us thy Judgment of J. Faldo's daring Proof Doth it not to a Tittle make good his Charge That the Quakers are for Justification by their own Works What sort of Conscience must he have that dares look the World in the Face and obtrude such arrant Vntruths upon it Doth this Scandalous Perversion become a Man who two pages off tells us of his abhorring
they may come to receive the Benefit thereof for without that necessary Condition it will be impossible to obtain Remission of Sins though it be so generally promulgated thereby To conclude As in my Answer at large so here in short I say Justification may be taken in a two-fold Sense Compleatly and Incompleatly or rather thus compleat Justification hath two parts the first is not imputing past Sins or accounting a true Penitant as Righteous or clear from the Guilt of past Sin as if he had never Sinned through the Remission which God declared and sealed up to all such in the Blood of his Son and thus far Righteousness as imputed goes and is the first part or Justification begun The compleat or last part of compleat Justification is the Cleansing of the Conscience and Regenerating the Mind from the Nature Power and In-dwelling of Sin by the effectual working of the Heavenly Power of Christ and bringing into the Heart and establishing his Everlasting Righteousness in the room thereof Some Scriptures considered relating to this Doctrine To the first part belong such Scriptures as these Isa 53. 11. He shall bear their Iniquities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is He shall bear away their Iniquities as did the Scape Goat figuratively under the Law or That God would declare his remitting or passing over the Sin that was past and. that he would be in Christ reconciling the World unto himself not imputing their Trespasses unto them Also Rom. 4. 5. But to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justified the Vngodly his Faith is counted for Righteousness that is God acquitted upon Repentance and Faith in his Promise such as have lived in a Course of Vngodliness For no present Work how good soever can justifie any Man from the Condemnation which is due for the Guilt of Sin that is past So that justifying the Ungodly in this place is pardoning the Ungodly and being so pardoned upon Faith in the Promise of God is accounted for Righteousness or as if the Person pardoned had never sinned and this appears from the 7th and 8th verses Blessed are they whose Sins are forgiven and whose Iniquities are Covered Again Chap. 5. 6. For when we were yet wit hout Strength Christ in due time dyed for the Vngodly and verse 8. But God commended his Love towards us in that while we were yet Sinners Christ dyed for us That is Christ laid down his Life to reclaim Sinners and to declare the Righteousness of God for the Forgiveness of the Sin that is past to all Ungodly and Sinful Men that turn from the Evil of their Wayes by unfeigned Repentance it was done in and by Christ for all Ungodly Men but not to the Benefit of any without Repentance Not that people should go on in Sin but by so recommending of his Love and sealing such Glad-Tidings with his own Blood to allure and engage them from their present Course of Sin 1 John 4. 19. He first loved us men must not therefore continue in Sin that Grace that is Forgiveness may abound God forbid Rom. 6. 1. The last considerable Place is in the second Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 5. 21. For he hath made him Sin for us who knew no Sin That is He was made a Sacrifice for the remitting or passing over of the Sin that was past for such as repent and believe that they might be made the Righteousness of God or rather accounted Righteous in the Sight of God as if they had never committed Sin by not imputing or forgiving the Sin that was past This Sence the two fore-going Verses confirm to wit that God was in Christ reconciling the World unto himself not imputing their Trespasses unto them and hath committed unto them the Word of of Reconciliation Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseeeh you through us We pray you in Christ's Stead that you would be reconciled to God verse 19 20. agreeing with Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a Propitâ—ation through Faith in his Blood to declare his Righteousness for the Remission or passing over of Sins that are past through the Forbearance of God which is neither a rigid Satisfaction for nor a Justification from Sins that are past present and to come as a late shallow VVriter in his Preface to the Hartford self-confuting Pamphlet idlely and falsely called the Quaker converted would have us believe but an acquitting from or remitting of past Sin upon Faith and Amendment of Life which makes up that only imputative Righteousness that the Scripture holds forth or we can allow of The Scriptures that belong to the second Part of this Doctrine which makes up compleat Justification are such as these Keep thee far from a false Matter the Innocent Righteous slay thou not for I will not justifie the wicked Exod. 23. I. Lord who shall ABIDE in thy TABERNACLE who shall DWELL in thy HOLY HILL He that WALKETH UPRIGHTLY and WORKETH RIGHTEOUSNESS and SPEAKETH THE TRUTH IN HIS HEART Psalm 15. 1 2. When a Righteous man turns away from his Righteousness for his Iniquity that he has done shall he dye Again when the wicked Man turneth away from his Wickedness and doth that which is Lawful or Right he shall save his Soul Ezek. 18. 26 27. Not every one that sayeth unto me Lord Lord shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven but he that DOTH the Will of my Father which is in Heaven Math. 7. 21. Vnless a Man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 3 5. If ye keep my Commandment ye shall abide in my Love John 15. 10. For not the Hearers of the Law are justified but the Doers of the Law shall be justified Rom. 2. 13. If ye live after the Flesh ye shall dye but if ye through the Spirit do mortifie the Deeds of the Body ye shall live for as many as are led by the Spirit of God are the Sons of God Rom. 18. 13 14. That the Offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the Holy Ghost Rom. 14. 16. But this is the Will of God even your Sanctification 1 Thes 43. Because God hath from the Beginning chosen you to Salvation through Sanctification of the Spirit and Belief of the Truth 2 Thes 2. 13. Was not Abraham our Father JUSTIFIED by WORKS when he offered Isaac his Son upon the Altar Ye see then how that by Works a Man is justified and not by Faith only Jam. 2. 22 24. In all these weighty Passages there is nothing more clear then that Sanctification both ushers in and compleats Justification First In that no Man can have right to Remission of Sins but upon Vnfeigned Repentance and True Faith begotten in the Heart which is as well the Beginnings of Sanctification as Introduction to Justification 2 dly That though we grant as before at large Remission of Sins not
making the meer Body only to have dyed which not being the intire Christ of God it was not He but his Body only that dyed So that either J. Faldo holds the meer Body to be the Christ or else that something more dyed then the meer Body But because he acknowledgeth the Deity could not dye nor that the Soul did dye it must follow that the Body only dyed And since he will strictly have it that the Christ of God dyed the meer Body must be the Christ of God His second Exception is very trivial and what in it can be thought to deserve an Answer is included in what was said before for whom might be attributed to the Body as it represented the whole or intire Christ that is Metonymically spoaken the Thing containing for the Thing contained which is very frequent in Scripture for many times that is ascribed to the Body of Jesus which belongs to the whole Christ This with abundance more of pertinent Answer he takes no more notice of then if it had never been written But a little to give J. F. his Humor and to see if the Upshot rises higher then which What doth he understand by the Person slain according to J. F's own distinctions Was it the Godhead That he denyes first Book part 2. p. 73. Was it the Man's Soul No Reply p. 78. Must it not be the Body then And if so What Corrupting of Scripture is it to say which ye slew instead of whom ye slew 'T is at this slender trifling rate he hath dealt with us throughout the Controversie Two Passages more before we conclude this Chapter Upon my recollecting the whole of this Argumentation and concluding thus Since the Divinity could not dye and the Man's Soul was not Mortal much less could be hanged on a Tree or put into a Sepulchre it follows That it was the visible Body only that dyed c. and that it is therefore the intire Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in J. F's as well as Blasphemous L. Muggleton's Sense he makes this Reply word for word Reply p. 78. But if it follows upon my Sense it follows upon the words and scope of the Scripture which saith the same in so many words and in sense a Hundred Times But there is no such abâ—urdity follows upon either The Soul can't dye cannot therefore the Man dye If not there is no such thing as killing of Men or mortal Men. Rejoynder Man cannot properly be said to dye whilst his Soul lives but he may be said to cease to be in this Visible World or to depart out of it and to lay down his mortal Body so that the Body dyes but not the Man I know it is a common Phrase but synecdochically spoken where that is ascribed to the whole Man which only belongeth to the Mortal part of Man This brings the Business no nearer then it was before for if I understand any thing the Comparison makes the Death of Christ to be the Death of his Body only and that it is call'd the Death of Christ instead of the Death of the Body of Christ from that familiar usage in Speech the Thing contained for the Thing containing that is Christ instead of the Body of Christ In short Because such Murderers who are said to kill Men kill only the Bodies of Men those Jews who crucified Christ properly crucified the Body of Christ only though in a more mysuical Sense they may be also said in that very Action to have murdered the Prince of Life and Glory 1 Cor. 2. His other Passage containeth a Reflection upon my saying that Souls could not be hanged on a Tree Reply pag. 79. I had thought that the Soul being Vnited with the Body till Death where-ever the Body was disposed the Soul was also and therefore the Body so long as it liveth hanging on a Tree the Soul hangs there too also many a poor Wretch can tell him at the Torment of Execution that his Doctrine is False for were but their Souls separated from their Bodies they would feel no Pain nor cry out of their Torment Rejoynder A very Shuffie and nothing to the Purpose The Soul is in the Body so long as the Body is alive upon the Tree and yet it self not strictly hanged on the Tree for if it were then would it be as impossible for the Soul as Body to free it self whilst the Soul by his own Allowance is incomparable and impossible because immaterial whereas Nales Ropes or any other Instruments of Cruelty can only fasten upon material things for if the Soul could be properly hanged she could as well be burnt and laid into a Sepulchre A Man might as well say if J. Faldo were hanged on a Tree his Watch in his Pocket would be hanged or if he were put in the Stocks his Understanding would be in the Stocks Nor hath any poor Wretch reason to complain of my Doctrine at their Executions for I never denyed that Pain was a Sign of the Soul 's not being separated since it is an undeniable Reason why it is not separated however it is not the Soul but the Body through that sensibility the Soul while unseparated continues in it which feels that Pain But I could tell J. Faldo of many Blessed Martyrs that in the midst of Flames were carryed above the Sense of Pain not because their Souls were not in their Bodies at the Stake but from the exceeding Joy of the Holy Spirit which by the way may as well be said to be tyed to the Stake as the Soul because in the Soul for that is the Conclusion of J. F's Argument The Soul is in the Body therefore the Soul is as well tyed as the Body the Holy Spirit and his Comforts are in the Soul therefore tyed as well to the Stake as either Body or Soul In short Souls may be hanged upon Trees as Souls in Scripture are said to dye or be slain an Hebrew Phrase not that Souls really did dye or were slain but that Man is called many times by his nobler Part. I shall conclude this Chapter with a few Reasons for the Hope that is in us concerning the Subject Matter of this Chapter and two or Three Testimonies in Confirmation of them which I offer with all Tenderness of Conscience unto my serious Reader First This Opinion of our Adversary's renders Christ not to have been the Saviour of the World from Abel's Day contrary to Scripture which teacheth us to believe That there was never another Name or Power by which Men could be saved then the Name and Power of Jesus Christ Acts 4. 12. Secondly It makes Christ's Words either an Equivocation or a Contradiction when he said unto the Jews Before Abraham was I am since it makes him that was before Abraham and him that said so not the same Person or Being rather Thirdly Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Anointed hath a Relation to his being King Priest and Prophet which are both of a
Pet 1. 19. OUr Adversary imployes his 19th Chapter in defence of his Exposition of 3 Passages in Scripture against what I offered in my Answer to be the true Scope and Intendment of them But what shall I say so lamely doth he cite me so constantly overlook me that unless he had hop'd to be believ'd write what he would or that what he writ would pass for a Reply whether it deserved to be called so or no I can see no Pretence for continuing the Controversie for either he grantâ— what we say by contradicting himself or sayes nothing to what we deny that may strictly merit our notice But let him speak for himself Reply p. 80. Vpon my Exposition of Joh. 1. 9. That was the true Light c. W. P. makes a huge Brag of the Advantage I give his Cause and thus he argues from my Words If Christ made all things then Christ was before his Appearance p. 168. and consequently Christ was and is the Word which was with God and is God and the Light of Men c. Rejoynder If he saith nothing as nothing he sayes to what he cites blame not me for I would have reported it But whether I had any Advantage or having it bragged of it will be best seen by giving my Answer as it lay If Christ be that Light which is that Word which made all things and therefore God as saith J. Faldo then Christ was before his bodily Appearance and consequently our former Chapter is justified on our Part against his Notions of the Lord 's Christ but J. Faldo expresly sayes p. 84 85. as the Word is the Light of Men so or in that Manner is Christ the Light of Men nay he calls it Christ appearing in the Flesh consequently Christ was before he took that Flesh or appeared in that Body not to constitute him or make him Christ but to transact work declare and bring to pass by and through it as a peculiar Vessel and prepared holy Instrument therefore Christ was and is that Word which was with God and is God and the Light of Men. This was my Argument grounded upon his Concessions What Advantage it is to our Cause let it answer for it self what Bragg I made I know not unless it was my calling his Acknowledgments a Justification of our fore-going Chapter I leave the Meaning of his Silence to my Reader and insert his Reply to another part of my Answer which was this And least we should yet mistake him he calls it God manifested it in the Flesh and that he might speak all for us in a little give the Deaths Wound to his own Cause he tells us in so many Words That the Salvation and Life Eternal of poor Sinners was wrapt up in Christ as God Mark his Reply Reply p. 80. Yea and as Man too yet as this excludes not his Divinity as necessary to our Salvation neither doth his Diâ—ity exclude his Humanity as necessary Rejoynder These Words Yea and Man too are added but with this woful Impertinency that they wholy contradict his Saying Salvation of poor Sinners was wrapt up in Christ as God for they imply a Denyal of Man's Salvation being wrapt up in Christ as Man and that this was his Meaning take his own Words as they ly in his own Book part 2. p. 85. And this I take to be the Import of the 4th verse 10. 1. In him was Life and the Life was the Light of Men That is the Salvation and Life Eternal of poor Sinners was wrapt up in Christ as GOD who being SO QUALIFIED was capahle of working it I say again and all reasonable Men must acknowledge I did not wrong his Meaning but gave his Sense and not mine To be sure there are no such Words as these yea and as Man too which is just as if I should say The Vnderstanding of a Man is wrapt up in him as he is a reasonable Creature being charged with a self-Contradiction should absurdly add yea and as an Animal too There needs so pointing at so much palpable Weakness His other Words about the Divinity 's not excluding the Manhood of Christ as necessary to Salvation is no part of the Question but a meer go by Slip to the Buâ—â—ness for all was necessary that God thought necessary that is instrumentally But will it therefore follow that the Salvation and Life eternal of poor Sinners was wrapt up in Instruments But let us see what he sayes at the Defence I made for my rendring of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enlightned in my Book entituled the Spirit of Truth vindicated Hear him Reply p. 81. I know not any Cause he hath to think me stumbled at his rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enlightned unless for rebuking him for wastng so many pages in quoting Authorities for that which would be granted easily Rejoynder He and his Friend H. H. are the more to be blamed that they put me to so much Expence to make good it at least he intented to grant me but his easie granting is of those things that are too hard to be kept however I accept his Acknowledgment as also of his Silence to what I writ in Defence of our Understanding the following Words so much Controverted by some Every Man coming into the World However there is one Passage that must not slip It is this Reply p. 81. The last part of my Exposition viz. Thatâ— he THAT WAS the true Light points at Christ's Appearance in the Flesh I added in his State of Humiliation This faith W. P. P. 178. stints Christ to that Appearance denyes Christ now to be that true Light that enlightens all and he might as well infer that because the Word was with God and was God therefore he is not now with God or God But to blast all in a Breath sayes he Is this your Tertullus I would have Mr. Penn more solid and pertinent or leave his scribling Humor which at this rate is fit to write to none but those that can find Refreshment by a Dutch Woman's Babbling though understanding not one Syllable upon the Conceit it comes all from the Spirit Rejoynder Whether my Answer or his Reply be more solid and pertinent I shall leave with my Readers to judge Oh how ready are Men to condemn in others what they indulge in themselves It is strange to me if my Adversary be not guilty in censuring but that hurts him more then me I say again that his Drift was to unconcern That was the true Light in any other Time then Christ's Coming in the Flesh to which I opposed about a page and a half of which he hath reported not above four Lines and those not as they lay Take it Reader briefly thus If the Word that made all things which was with God and was God was that true Light as sayes J. Faldo himself p. 84. then can it never be restrained to that Appearance as the Beginning or End of it
ignorant in the Latine Tongue for the Superlative or firmissimum exceeds the positive or firmum by valde very as well as by maxime most However had we nothing of this to urge yet his own use of the Comparison as his Concession to what I said in my Answer and Erasmus and Beza confirmed there at large gives us all we desire for he acknowledges That the Writings of the Prophets are not MORE true in themselves then any other Revelation of the Mind of God but more certain with respect to the Jews who had a greater Esteem for and Testimony of the Writings of the Prophets to be of God and not a Delusion then of Peter's Revelation So that we see from J. F. himself the Scripture is not set above the Spirit as the more sure Word the thing promoted of old by our Enemies and which we only oppose for I doubt not but the Scriptures were more sure to the Jews then Christ himself else they would never have thought to find Eternal Life in them whilst they neglected yea persecuted him which whether it was their Perfection or Imperfection so to do I leave with the Judgment of my serious Reader yet doth the poor Man vainly call this his defending these three Passages from my Corruption and the Quakers Service May my Adversaries alwayes defend themselves at this rate and I shall never fear any loss to the Cause For what with his misrendering of our Writings unfair Quotations plain Wrestings pittiful Evasions and at best weak Replies never diâ— Cause receive more Advantage at the hand of an Enemy then ours hath from J. Faldo I will give one Proof more before we leave this Chapter Reply pag. 84. My Exposition of Coloss 1. 25. Christ in you c. though the most opposite to the Quakers Christ within W. P. hath not one Word of Answer to Rejoynder I know not whether he means the Text or his Exposition to be most opposite to our Christ within The Text is Coloss 1. 27. not 25. and lyes thus To whom God would make known what is the Riches of the Glory of the Mystery among the Gentiles which is Christ IN you the Hope of Glory In which I find not one word that opposeth Christ's Dwelling in his People One would think our Adversary spoak Ironically or by Contraries if he meant it of the Text for it seems an impossible thing to me that a Text so plainly expressing Christ to be in Men should notwithstanding prove Christ not to be in Men. If he understood it of his Exposition how can that truly exposite the Text who exposites it quite to another sense then it will bear at least he should call this a begging of the Question Let us hear what he offers First Book Part 2. p. 100 101. For Christ to be in the Gentiles rightly understood would be no hard Matter for the Gentiles to believe as to believe such a Glory to be attained by Faith in and Obedience to the Laws of a Man who dyed as a Malefactor and that â—his Death of his should reconcile God to Man with the Addition of such a Purchase This sort of Doctrine well becomes J. Faldo I perceive I have not mistaken him What Carnalist in the World could have let drop a more pernicious Sentence to the Doctrine and Kingdom of Christ then to render it more difficult to believe and lay a greater Stress upon the External then the Internal Work of Christ VVe must read the most weighty Scriptures backwards upon this Man's Principles He hath helped us to a new VVay of rendring the Text not this Mystery among the Gentiles is Christ IN you the Hope of Glory but this Mystery among the Gentiles is a Man who dyed as a Malefactor by his Death reconciled to God c. Behold your Expositor I dare warrant this Man's Comment will never trouble the next Collection of Criticks At this rate the Lord-Lord-Cryer is highly priviledged and the Galatians had passed the most difficult Birth before they had known Christ to be formed in them Regeneration is a sleight thing in comparison of the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh This Doctrine brings not Men to Christ in them the Hope of Glory but inticeth them into the Vain Hope of the Hypocrite which perisheth The History is made the greatest Mystery and to believe the one matter of greater Difficulty then to experience the other Besides why should his Dying as a Malefactor render him unfit to be believed since his Vertue was most Exemplary his Miracles stupendious his Doctrine Spiritual and Powerful his whole Deportment amongst the Jews Innocent and Heavenly Did not Tiberius himself move to the Roman Senate his being taken into the Number of their Godds upon the Report of his mighty Works 'T is strange that should be reputed most Mysterious which was the Introduction to the Mystery and those Transactions counted most difficult that were by the Divine Wisdom of God ordained as so many facile Representations of what was to be accomplished in Man In short It is to lessen if not totally to exclude the True Mystery of Godliness which is Christ manifested in his Children their Hope of Glory But he proceeds thus The Man Christ that was nailed on the Cross the Quakers do not believe to be in them for the Godhead if Christ that is every-where and every-where alike he is in every thing at all times and nothing can be void of his Presence So that if this be it you mean the Saints have no more Priviledge then any other Creature whatsoever The second New and Living Man who is the Lord from Heaven the Quickening Spirit the Anointed Saviour whose Body was nailed to the Cross we confess before Men to be the Christ and do by Vertue and Authority of Scripture assert him to dwell in his Children and we see nothing offered by J. Faldo that can induce the weakest of us to desert this Faith having with the Testimony of Scripture that of Christ in our selves But let it be considered with what Confidence this Man excludeth Christ the Souls of his People as well with respect to his Godhead as Manhood but if in any Sense he may be said to be in them as God it is no more then he is in Cats and Dogs Oh Irreverent oh prophane Man Are Beasts and Birds as properly the Temples of the Living God as sanctified Men How can God be said to dwell and walk in his People if so remote from them as J. Faldo represents him to be The Apostle is much to be blamed according to our Adversary's Doctrine for letting fall this Passage I live yet not I but Christ liveth in me Gal. 2. 20. The Upshot of this sort of Doctrine is down-right Atheism for as they that know not God from the manifestation of God within are ignorant of him if Rom. 1. 19. sayes true So those who teach that God is no more in his Saints then in any other Creature endeavour