The invalidity of John Faldo's vindication of his book, called Quakerism no Christianity being a rejoynder in defence of the answer, intituled, Quakerism a new nick-name for old Christianity : wherein many weighty Gospel-truths are handled, and the disingenuous carriage of by W.P.

THE INVALIDITY OF John Faldo's Vindication Of his Book, called, Quakerism No Christianity. (Book 2)

PART II. (Book 2)

CHAP. I.

of Gospel-Ordinances in general, such truly embraced.

THis second Part of my Rejoynder is a Consi∣deration of his Defence of his Charge, of our Denying Gospel-Ordinances, the True Christ, with his Transactions at Jerusalem; also, that we are guilty of Idolatry, and own not the Resurrection of the Dead. The Work of this Chapter will be to see, how he will make good our Denyal of Gospel-Ordinances in general. Be pleased to hear how he hand∣leth both me and the Matter.

Reply, pag. 49, 50.

The first Proof is out of Fox Myst. p. 2.

He hath triumphed over the Ordinances, and blotted them out, and they are not to be touched, and the Saints •• Christ in them, who is the End of outward Forms.

This saith W. P. pag. 103. is Scripture Language. But why so? because some Scripture-words are in it, al∣though the Text be mangled, Corrupted and abused to the Contradiction of Scripture-Truth. Thus they apply sin∣fulyenough False Prophets, Dogs, Serpents, Hypo∣crites, Devil, Lyar, &c. But if I should call W. P. Thou Child of the Devil, Thou Enemy of all Righteous∣ness, he would not therefore allow it to be all very true, though so applyed, it looks much more like Truth then G. Fox's scriptural Language, who hath these Words about Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Rejoynder.

For his Proof as he calls it, it is not in pag. 52. of G. F's Book, which were Answer enough to so shuffling an Adversary. I confess in page 16. I find it, but it is so far from being immediately directed to either Bap∣tism or Supper, that there is no such thing mentioned, much lest insisted on from the Beginning of G. F's An∣swer to J. Timson's Book, to the very place wherein the Words are found: Now, what to call this piece of Invention, is sest with every Readers Discretion: But it is not less worth our notice, that of all my Explanation of G. F's Words, he only reports these three, viz. is Scripture Language, who further told him

Christ did blot out the Hand-writing of Ordinances, Collos. 2. 14.

That he was to the Saints then, and is to those now, who rightly believe in him, the End of all Meats, Drinks, Washing, Dayes, or any other Temporal Elementary or Figurative Worship according to, verse 16, 17.

By this it will appear, whether of us two have most honestly and most truely applyed Scripture; I in thus expositing and vindicating G. F's Passage, or J. Faldo in calling me (by Implication) a Child of the Devil, and an Enemy of all Righteousness. But again.

Reply p. 50.

I also told Mr. Penn, That if the Saints having Christ in them, were the Consideration, of which the Ordinances were not to be touched, then not only we, but even all other Saints under the Mosaical Administration sinned in their Practices of God's Ordinances also; for they had Christ in them in those Dayes in the same Sence as the Saints in these.

Rejoynder.

This Saying carries with it a large Concession to Christ's Manifestation in the Hearts of his People, as well under the Mosaical Administration, as that which we call, for Distinction, Evangelical; Indeed larger, then true, if by the same Sence, he understands, that all that he was to his Apostles, and the Churches by them planted, he was to the People of Israel under the Con∣duct of Moses; for first, it is manifest they were not capable of such Discoveries, being weak-Sighted, car∣nal and greatly addicted to embrace the Fopperies of the Heathen; Secondly, There would have been no

need of shewing forth a further Glory by Types and Fi∣gures, or to entertain minds so enlighted and Heaven∣ly with such low, and as the Apostle phraseth them beg∣garly things, had they enjoyed Christ under the Admi∣nistration of Moses, as in more Gospel Times. But above all, that J. Faldo should plead for the Continu∣ance of Ordinances after Christ had blotted them out, and such Meats and Drinks, &c. as Christ ended, (be∣ing the Substance of them) because Christ might be in some measure known to the Saints of old, at what time such Ordinances were given forth, and such Meats 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 ma∣king Christ's Coming of none Effect. But to pro∣ceed.

Reply. p. 50.

Yet though P. give me bad Words to strengthen his Ar∣gument, he grants what I say to be true in his Anger, for (sayes he) Christ is to the Saints now, who rightly be∣lieve in him, the End of all Meats, Drinks, Washings, Dayes; Here Lord's Supper, Baptism, Christian Sab∣••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 gran∣ting 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,* 1.1 (Col. 2. 16, 17.) Let No Man therefore Judge you in Meat or in Drink, or in re∣spect of an Holy Day, or of the Sabbath Dayes, which are a Sha∣dow of things to come, but the Bo∣dy is of Christ; and to the He∣brews, Chap. 9. vers. 10. which stood onely in Meats, Drinks, and divers Wash∣ings, and Carnal Ordinances, im∣posed on them un∣til the Time of Reformation. I say, here the four Words are denyed to be E∣vangelical, viz.

Meats, Drinks, Washings, Days; & since J. F. will have the Supper to be consider'd under Meats & Drinks, Baptism under Washings, and the Christi∣an-Sabbath un∣der Dayes, ei∣ther He must with us, Deny them, as Meats, Drinks, Wash∣ings and Dayes, that are abolish, & therefore not fit to be continu∣ed under the E∣vangelical Administration, or maintain the Continu∣ance of Meats, Drinks, Washings and Dayes to keep up the Supper, Baptism and Sabbath, and thereby e∣spouse the Jews Quarrel against the Christians, and defend the most Rank, Childish and Carnal Part of Ju∣daism 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 con∣tinue, 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 Ele∣mentary, 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 main∣tain 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 Rea∣der 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 Evi∣dence 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, Di∣minishing,

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 Figura∣tive 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 E∣ternal 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 Al∣mighty 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 VVor∣ship 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 Abomi∣nation, that is, saith J. Faldo, Visible Worship, as if they were Synonimous, or Terms of equal Significati∣on; City of Abomination, that is, Visible Worship; back again, Visible VVorship, that is, City of Abomi∣nation. Is this Man fit to write of Religion that adven∣tures 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 en∣deavours 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. But this Shift will not serve J. Faldo's turn, since G. F. meant a visible changeable, and not a visible permanent Wor∣ship; This Passage relates to Figurative and Tempora∣ry

Services, standing in those things, which were but Signs of the Substance to come, and which are finished by it: So that the Apostle did indeed labour to bring the Jews and other weak Christians off from their Vi∣sible, Typical or Legal, to the more Spiritual VVor∣ship of the Gospel; not that they should be debarred from expressing that VVorship; for while Bodies* 1.2 and Souls are toge∣ther, there is (as I writ at large in my Answer) a Necessity of some Bodily Demonstration. I will yet give one Relish more of the Man's Disingenuous Spirit, before I con∣clude this Chapter.

Reply, pag. 50.

Before W. P. parts from this Argument be grows kind, and shews the Power of Condescension to have place in him (by these words)

Yet thus far we could go, That Visible Worship (as such) without a due Regard to what kind of Worship it may be, and what is the Root from whence it came, cannot be well-pleasing to God;

A great Compliance indeed, which is thus much just, and no more, a man's filling a Dung-Cart, or W. P's acting on the Stage, or the Table in their Meeting-place, as like a Fencer as ever was seen, are not Worship because seen, though they should by some be so called; for every thing that is seen is not therefore Worship.

Rejoynder.

His Acknowledgment of my Condescension is a small Artifice to insinuate my yielding him the Cause. But what Reason he had to commend me would be

better seen by considering how aptly and honestly he hath replyed to that little piece of my Answer he found in his Heart to give us. He thinks to fling us off with his dirty and vain Similitudes; I writ of Visi∣ble Worship, as Praying, Speaking, &c. on a Reli∣gious Account, he turns it to any visible thing, as Fil∣ling a Dung-Cart, Acting on a Stage or Table as a Fencer (Similes right-well suiting his Disposition) as if I denyed that to be Worship, which was seen, because seen, which was the farthest thing from my Thoughts, and is not at all deduceable from my Words, Yet hath this Man the Confidence to tell his Reader, that they signifie just thus much, and no more.

But in good Conscience, Courteous Reader, can this Man think to escape the Hands of God that acts with so much willful Baseness against me, as to make no Difference between my saying, That visible VVor∣ship, as such, unless proceeding from a Right Root, cannot be well-pleasing to God; and saying, That visible VVor∣ship is not Worship because Visible, though it should pro∣ceed from never so true a Ground, which he makes my Answer to speak, at least he infers so from it, though •• direct Contradiction? Is it one and the same thing to say, Visible, VVorship is not therefore true VVorship, be∣cause Visible, and concluding filling a Dung-Cart is not true VVorship because Visible? is it honestly done to ••pply that to Acting upon Stages and Fencing, which ••lly me was joyned to Worship? If I had said Visible Fencing, as such, is not Worship, because seen, his ••y Shift might have had something in it; but to make Difference betwixt saying, that Visible Prayer is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 true VVorship because seen, and Fencing or filling Dung-Cart is not true VVorship because seen (there∣by

turning what I said of VVorship, to every Trivial or Common Action among Men) is unworthy of an In∣genuous Disputant, much more an Humble Christian, and least of all a Christian-Minister. In short, I spoak against Visible VVorship, not Rightly Grounded (a Position as true as Scripture it self; for it is Scripture twenty times over) and he twisteth it, to my Denyal of VVorship because visible, be it grounded as it will, as his last words in the Chapter tell us, For every thing) sayes he, as the sense of my Answer) that is seen is not therefore VVorship; instead of this Every VVor∣ship that is seen is not therefore true VVorship. But his extending the Major Proposition to every visible Thing, and not to visible Worship only, opens a Gap for his wild and extravagant Similes. I will lay down our Propositions, that the whole VVorld may see his Un∣just VVay of Dealing with us.

My Proposition lay in form thus.

That Visible Worship, which ariseth not from a Right Ground, is not acceptable with God.

But John Faldo's Visible Worship (say) ariseth not from a Right Ground. Therefore,

John Faldo's Visible Worship is not Acceptable with God.

The Argument, as he gives it in my Name, formed, lies thus.

That which is seen is not Worship.

But a man's filling a Dung-Cart, &c. is seen. Therefore,

Filling a Dung-Cart, &c. is not Worship.

Which Argument makes nothing Worship that is seen, or visible, however truly grounded, because Vi∣sible, instead of making such Visible Worship not true, which doth not proceed from a right Root.

Now be pleased, Friendly Reader, to observe whither this Evasion drives the Matter.

If that which is seen be not therefore Worship (as says J. F. in my Name) then publick Praying or Preaching, though of never so True a Kind, or arising from never so Right a Ground, because seen, is not Worship, much less True Worship.

By this it undeniably appears, that my Adversary hath at best mistaken my Answer, which abundantly confesseth (as he himself hath observed in his Reply, pag. 50.) That there will be, there must be, and there ought to be a Visible Worship; and that such Visible Wor∣ship only is rejected, which ariseth not from a Right Ground in the Heart: But how can this be, if publick Praying and Preaching, springing from never so spiritual a Root, because seen, must be no Worship (which J. F. tells the World in my Name) How can these so grand Opposites meet? Or, how is it possible to reconcile things as contrary as this; William Penn owns Visible Worship: William Penn denyes Visible Worship? For it is no less then to make me renoun••e Visible Worship for Visibility's sake, who by my Prin∣ciple and* 1.3 Writings hold and main∣tain such Visible VVorship as is of a true Nature, or springs from a good and spiritual Ground: So that it is not the Visibility, but the Ground or Nature (not being as it should be) that is the Reason of our Exception.

Dr. Everad's Sermons.

Beloved, I would have you ponder these things well: If ye set up Ordinances, &c. so as to build and rest in them, ye do make Idols of them, or at best, you play the Babes and the Children with them, by resting alwayes on such Crutches and Go-bies, and never come to be Young∣men, much less as Fathers in Christ, pag. 562. And truly, with some men herein lies the Top or Quinte∣scence of their Religion, making such ado about Shadows & Figures and Resemblances, and they let the Truth, the Substance, the thing pass, and regard it not; forasmuch as they are so zealous and hot about Forms. But if they are by any drawn up to speak of the Substance, they are as men lost, cold and heartless; which is a plain Evidence to me that they prefer the Shadow before the Substance, being meerly exercised about Childish things, and are not willing to come up to the Truth, to the Excellencies and Glories, of what Baptism and other Ordinances sig∣nifie, &c. p. 560.

C. Goad's Last Testimony, p. 76.

Ordinances are Vails, Man's Ministry is a Vail, if we see God in it, it is but darkly.

C. Goad's secret and safe Chamber, p. 72.

The Carnal Jew looks for the fulfilling of the Letter, the spiritual Jew looks for the Spirit: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob sought a Country, not an Earthly one, but an Heavenly: We pitch upon Figures and Vails, and en∣ter

not within the Vail. These outward things are a Vail, a Table made a Snare; but when we are turned to the Lord the Vail shall be taken away. All Man's Teaching, Wisdom, &c. makes the Vail the thicker: Those that only feed upon the Vail, upon outward Things, in which God may appear, their Life shall be de∣stroyed, when others are fed and feasted.

Joshuah Sprig, pag. 142, 143, 144, 147, 148.

The Design is to cupple the Lord and Ordinances together; and we cannot endure to hear of the par∣ting of them. Swear by the Lord, and swear by Mal∣cham, so we have but Ordinances we are well; some∣thing from the fleshly Form and Appearance we do promise our selves, and so like the Israelites hanker af∣ter the Flesh-Pots of Egypt, though they had as good Meat in the Wilderness: So though God offer him∣self, and Christians tell you, they cannot find God in such Forms, but find him abundantly good in the Spi∣rit; and though he be gone out of the Temple, yet they find him in their Hearts, they press you to wait till God appear to you in the Spirit; O, say you, I can never believe it, that God should do it without an Ordinance. This is to say, that the Fleshly Form doth add something to God, who being all in all, is sufficient without it—You are like a Man that is kept up with Cordials, not to be compared with him that is in a Way of Recovery, when you want the Physitian it is as much as your Life is worth; and the Cordial if it be long a fetching you begin to faint; you have not your Strength with∣in you, but in Cordials without you; So is the Case between you that live upon Ordinances, and they that live upon Christ in the Spirit; Christ

is never in a Journey, or to fetch a great Way off.

T. Colliar's Works. p. 46.

The Christians Priviledges under the Gospel they are all spiritual, and so are their Ordinances.

T. Colliar's Works, p. 241.

God was in Christ reconciling men to himself; yet this Dispensation of the Father was but a fleshly Dis∣pensation, comparatively with a more spiritual, this fleshly Righteousness answering a fleshly Transgression. Thus likewise hath he given Ordinances answerable to this fleshly Dispensation, wherein when he pleaseth he appears in and through these Ordinances; yet note, that God never appears in any fleshly Dispensation to keep them in the Flesh, but that through these he might bring up Souls to himself in the Spirit.

Sprig's Testimony to the approaching Glory, p. 55.

Ordinances are but the Shadow as it were of the I∣mage, therefore take heed of idolizing Forms: Your In∣terest lieth in knowing the Father, not in knowing of the Form whatsoever; and take heed of censuring and judg∣ing spiritual Discoveries.

CHAP. II

Of true and false Ministry.

OUr Adversary endeavours to strengthen his gene∣ral Charge considered in the former Chapter, by proving our Denyal of each Ordinance in particular. He begins in his other Book with the Ministry; His Proofs, as he calls them, were these,

And their Call to the Ministry we deny which is Mediate, J. Parn. Shield, p. 16. Also G. Fox in his Gr. Myst. p. 45. But who can witness an Immediate Call from God, and speak as they are moved from the Holy Ghost, and such travel from place to place, having no certain Dwelling-Place;

This Ministry we own and witness.

Now, without reporting one Word of my Answer, he concludeth his first Paragraph, concerning J. Parnels Words, thus: Having this Charge confessed there needs no further Debate. O disingenuous Man! What! On∣ly repeat the Charge, and the pretended Proof out of J. P. without inserting any Thing of my Defence or Explanation, and then cry, having this Charge confessed there needs no further Debate. Poor Brag! yet nimble and notable Way of contracting Controversie indeed: what is this but saying the same thing over again. But as a Man that hath forgot himself in his next Section, he thus recollects.

Reply, p. 51.

To my Proof of a Call by men, W. P. sayes nothing;

but that he may not seem to have nothing to say, he tells us

It is not, Go ye forth into all the World and preach the Gospel, that belongs unto all Men, no more then be∣cause Princes send Ambassadors to Princes with their Credentials, that therefore every Man ought to do the like in Imitation, without considering necessary Qua∣lifications

(thus far W. P.) Did you ever meet with so ignorant and impertinent an Answer? Did ever any of us take those Words for our only Call? Or pre∣tend, we had a Call thereby, to preach to all Na∣tions?

Rejoynder.

VVhy so much Contempt? I have hitherto thought that Christ's Commission to his Apostles had been pretend∣ed by you to be a Successive Commission; if neither the Spirit of God within, nor the Scriptures without, give not that Call? what doth? It had much more concern∣ed J. F to declare what he meant by his mediate Call, and not to ask, if ever any met with so ignorant and im∣pertinent an Answer. But let this suffice that he denies that any of them pretended a Call or Authority from Christ's Commission to his Disciples to preach, &c. Next, That be can only mean by a mediate Call, that of the People, since he had excluded a Call by the Spirit with∣in and the Scriptures without: But because the Call of a People is neither that which qualifieth, nor authorizeth any Man in himself without the Commission of God's Spirit in a Man's self, it is the Commission immediately received from God's Spirit, and proper Qualifications that make the Minister, and not the Desire of the Peo∣ple, that is an Invention hatcht in Babylon, whereby as well blind Pharisees as true Disciples; base Hirelings

as Godly Shepherds may be made Ministers. There is this further lazy End in it, that being once called by any People, they think themselves only obliged to re∣side there, where they may take their Ease, unless, a fatter Benefice present it self, at which they have been alwayes wont to catch with Greediness, still with this Design, that they might live with more worldly Peace and Fatness. This was one of those Doors by which the Apostacy crept in; for the whole VVorld God's Field or Vineyard, and such as he calls to Labour, neither will nor ought to be limitted by men, but alone, by the good Husbandman, who has called them into his Vine∣yard. But he proceeds.

Reply, p. 52.

Did we ever say, it belonged to all men to ordain Mi∣nisters, and without considering Qualifications.

Rejoynder.

Did I ever say you did? VVhat Trifling is this? But did not J. F. charge my Answer just now with Imper∣tinence and Ignorance for making them to ground their Call upon the Apostles Commission only, and does he not now make me to accuse them with holding, That all Men may ordain Ministers? What Agreement can there be in this? Especially when there are no such Words in my Answer? But it shows the poor Man is hardly put to it: For his inferring that not only it belongs to all Men to ordain Ministers, but also without conside∣ring Qualifications, is utterly false; for J. Faldo, to his apparent Overthrow, pag. 9. as I have observed in my Answer, p. 106. grants us in so many Words, that all true Ministers of Christ ought to have an immediate

Call, such as consists in Grace and Gifts; and such 〈◊〉〈◊〉 have not this immediate Call, we account unworthy of the Thing and Name. Thus hath he given away his Cause, yet still he swaggers like a Conquerer: But may I ever be thus overcome? for if this immediate Call constitutes both the THING and NAME then a medi∣ate Call (let him understand what he will by it) neither worthily gives Thing or Name, else what means his re∣puting such as have not this immediate Call unworthy of the Thing and Name; It is to say, if I understand any Thing, and that in so many Words, Mediate Ministry and Ministers are unworthy of being called Ministries and Ministers, because the immediate Call only makes worthy of both Thing and Name.

Reply, p. ead.

But W. P's Comparison exceeds, because Princes send Ambassadors to Princes, That is, Gods send Ministers to Gods, therefore every Man ought to do the like; a rare Similitude-Maker.

Rejoynder.

A rare Similitude-Taker! Reader, I would not have diverted thy Eye from the Controversie, but that he forceth me to shew, how much more like a Vain Whif∣fter then a grave Divine he governs himself; I have hi∣therto learnt, that Similes run not alwayes upon four Feet; should they, what havock might we make in ho∣ly Scripture? Similes ought to be taken where the Si∣militude lyeth; It had been but leaving out two Words, that is, to Princes, and he had lost his quibble; for all sober Readers will discern, that the Force lay, upon pri∣vate Persons imitating Princes in sending out Ambas∣sadors;

that is, because Christ sent forth his Disciples, and Princes their Ambassadors, therefore every Man must turn Disciple and Ambassador, which we call acting without a Commission, and which J. F hath sufficiently rated us for; and what is worse, forged in our Names, that without an immediate Commission we deny Obedience to all the Commands in the Bible; but that we have already considered in our Chapter of Com∣mands.

Reply, p. 53.

In VV. P's Answer his Passion so blinded him, that he tells me, I therefore pretend to refute G. Fox, and therefore was impertinent, and that the Words were Scrip∣ture Words; whereas I quoted J. Parnel for those Words, not G. Fox. But for VV. P. to call them Scripture-VVords, which are neither in that Order, nor so much as relating to such a Subject, much less to the same End in any Place of the Scripture, is such an impertinent Whi••sie, as becomes one, who is resolved to say something, no matter what.

Rejoynder.

If any Passion I had, he was unfit to see that Mote in my Eye, who discovers so great a Beam in his own. The Mistake was inconsiderable, for it was not in any Alteration about VVords or Matter, but the Person that should write them, which so long as he was one that J. F. calls a Quaker, was altogether as much to his Purpose. But I have this further to say, he led me into that Mistake by putting G. Fox. Mys••. p. 45. right against J. P's Passage, and so connected them without any Mark of Distinction, that he rather deserves to be

blamed for Negligence, then I to be reflected upon for Passion or Blindness. But be it J. Parnel's Saying and not G. F's sure I am J. Faldo hath very untruely cited it. Thus it begins;

But who can witness an Immediate Call from God

(leaving what follows in a differing Character quite out)

from the Outward Callings and Countries, Lands, Livings and Possessions, into several Countries to preach the free Gospel as they have rece••••ed it by the immediate Inspiration of the Spirit

(now comes in another Peice of J. Faldo's citing)

and speaks it forth as they are moved from the Holy Ghost

(here he lets fall again)

And as the Spirit gives them Vtterance, freely, as they have received it freely; by which Ministry many are convinced; and as they abide in it are con∣verted, as Many in the Nation can witness to the Ho∣nour and Glory of God, who are now new Creatures; and this Call we own and witness, and this Ministry we own and witness, which is immediate and stands in the Will of God; And such covet no man's Silver nor Gold, neither could be hired to a certain Place

(now comes in another Peice of J. Faldo Citation)

but travel from Place to Place and have no certain Dwelling Place

(here he drops again)

and such are the true Ministers of Jesus Christ, who make the Gospel free and without Charge

(now comes the last Parcel of his Citation)

and this (Ministry) we own and witness.

This Reader was J. Parnel's Doctrine, which, if it be contrary to a Gospel-Ministry, there is no Gospel-Ministry can be proved by Scripture; read these Scrip∣tures, Isa. 35. 2 Mark. 16. 25. Amos. 3. 7, 8. Amos 7. 14, 15. Gal. 1. 11, 12, 1 Cor 1. 17, 18, 19. Chap. 2. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, &c. 2 Pet. 1. 29. Acts 2. 4. Acts 20. 33. I Thes. 9. 6. J. F. should have proceeded,

and have given us four Lines more of this young Man's Discourse; but as he left out what bore most closely and hardly upon HIRELINGS before, so would it not have been for the Interest of himself and his Brethren to have brought in this little of a great deal that immediately follows, viz.

[

And for the Testimony of this true Ministry, some of us are imprisoned, some stoned, some stocked, whip∣ped and shamefully intreated as Vagabonds, and D••luders, and Wanderers, and Raisers of Sedition, and pestilent Fellows, and esteemed not worthy to live in the Nati∣on, both by Priests, People and Rulers.

]

A Shame to Independents that then ruled, and which is worse, the Guilt of the Blood of this Innocent Man lyeth at the Door but of too many of them, about Coxel and Colchester in Essex, who by their cruel Im∣prisonment (scarce to be paralelled by any Story) brought this godly young Man to an untimely Death. I need not tell you why, he hath done it to my Hand;

because, sayes he, we declare against all who come not in by the Door, but seek to clime up another Way by their Study, Inventions, and Sepentine Wisdom and Know∣ledge, and so are Thieves and Robbers—Such Ministers and their Ministry we deny; for the Hand of the Lord is against them, &c.

Great and true Words; No Man can minister that which he hath not; no Man can have those things which qualifie him a true Minister, but by the Inspiration of the Almighty, and the effectual Operation of his Power and Spirit: God's Messengers were ever led, taught and furnisht by God's Spirit, not by human Invention and Acquisition, which Paul coun∣ted Dross and Dung in Comparison of the Exc••llency of the Knowledge of his Lord Christ Jesus, through the Reve∣lation

of the Eternal Spirit. But that J. Faldo may be the better understood about the Ministry he pleads for, take, Reader, a Passage he cites out of G. F's Book, cal∣led Gr. Myst. which doubtless he reputes very hetrodox or he would never bring it to prove a Charge contain∣ing such Matter as he counts so.

Thou [the Priest] art corrected by the Scripture, and the Apostle corrects thee, who said, I have not received it of Man, nor by Man, and bid others look at Jesus, the author of their Faith;

Their Writings, saith J. Faldo, are abounding with Matter of this Nature; So much the better say I; for it is old Scripture Doctrine, and J. Faldo gives us plainly to infer by his Dislike of this Passage, that he maintains a Ministry received of man and by man, and that People ought to look unto them, and not to Je∣sus the Author of their Faith. If this be one of J. F's Christian Ordinances, as his Discourse evidently makes it, I hope, my Reader will the less wonder at those hard Names he gives us in it; for the plain English of his Charge against us is this, The Quakers deny the Ministry that is of man, or by man, therefore they deny the Gospel-Ministry. Poor Man! what a pass hath he brought his Affairs to? Indeed I pitty him, and fear the Conse∣quence of his Disappointment, since a Man of his Sto∣mach to charge so high and make so little of it, may with the Loss of his Honesty for ought I know hazard his Wits too.

To wind up this Chapter and prove to all the World I have not mistaken him, hear him.

Reply, p. 55.

W. P. produceth one of my Testimonies out of J. Parnel, yet but by halfs,

And here is the Difference of the Mi∣nisters

of the World and the Ministers of Christ—The one of the Letter, the other of the Spirit.

To which he replies, Strange Impudence to call this a Proof; But I cannot help it, if P. will say the Sun is Darkness: Before I part with him here, I will furnish my Reader with that part of the same Testimony he treacherously leaves out;

for they are meer Deceivers, and Witch∣es, bewitch People from the Truth, holding forth the Shadow for the Substance; and what is the Chaff to the Wheat?

Add this to the other (as it was in my Book) and I dare trust my Reader that is willing to speak Truth to pass his Censure; It follows in the same Author before quoted:

And so the Devil takes Scripture to mantain his Kingdom, and this he delivers by the Mouth of his Ministers, which he sends abroad to deceive the Nati∣ons leading People in Blindness.

Rejoynder.

Let the Reader observe, that what he here pretends to quote out of J. P. follows as himfelf said, what we have just before transcribed. Three things contain my Rejoynder.

First, He reports not my Answer which was to this Purpose.

It is a Proof indeed, but against him; for if a false or worldly Ministry under the Form of God∣liness may not be, farewell Scripture; But if such a Thing will be allowed us, then since the Letter or Scrip∣tures are not by such rejected, but in Shew most highly admired, and that they pretend to collect all they believe or know from thence (though indeed they understand them not) we have great Reason to say, That those who are Ministers only from the Letter, with what they ima∣ginarily comment upon it, they are not Christ's Ministers,

p. 110. Of which and much more he hath not given us a Word; how can he reply honestly, and intelligi∣ble, who neither gives nor takes notice of the Answer he should reply to. J. Parnel's Words plainly relate to a Ministry not gifted nor qualified by the holy Ghost; and J. Faldo tells us in so many Words, that without it none are worthy of the Name or Thing; Yet doth he make it as unreasonable for me to say J. Parnel's Words prove not our Denyal of a Gospel-Ministry (which so obviously own it) as for him to assert the Sun is Darkness.

Secondly, I did not leave out that which he chargeth me to have done Treacherously, the best Word he can afford me on the like Occasions; he must be quite berea∣ved of his Sences, that thinks I should fear defen∣ding J. P. in calling such Dec••ivers and Witches (as bewitching the People from the Truth) who are made Ministers by the Will of man, without the Inspiration of the Spirit, Gift of the Holy Ghost, Will of God, and are Coveters of men's Silver or Gold, Preachers of their own Inventions, Persecutors, Revilers, stirring up of the Magistrates to stone, stock, whip, imprison &c. all which J. P. gives as the Character of the Ministry he writ against; for if this be the Gospel-Ministry, the Devil is a Saint: The Truth is, John Faldo's Book is generally to be read backward.

Lastly, There is no such Passage of the false Ministry much less of the true in page 15, 16, or 17. of J. Par∣nel's Shield, &c. as J. F. suggests; however I believe the Devil useth sometimes Scripture, and that he hath had and hath many Ministers whom he sends abroad to deceive the Nations, leading and keeping People in Blindness, under a Pretence of Christianity and Con∣formity

to the Doctrine of the Scriptures, in order to maintain his Anti-Christian Kingdom, all true Pro∣testants were of that Mind; but J. F. is none of that number. Doubtless the poor Man is brought to a low Ebb, that brings this to prove we deny Gospel-Mini∣stry, which the honest Martyrs, primitive Reformers, and what is more to our Purpose, the Scriptures them∣selves say again and again; The contrary will unavoi∣dably prove, the Ministry of the Church of Rome to have been not Anti-christ's but Christ's true Ministers, since they both use Scripture, preach Scripture, and call themselves the Ministers of the Gospel by Apostolical In∣stitution and Succession, In this disarmed Condition we leave him and the Chapter, confessing to all the World, that such a Ministry as hath effectually known the Ope∣ration of the Spirit of God in themselves, as to those things which concern Redemption and Eternal Salvati∣on; and that he draws sorth by his holy Spirit, indues with his Heavenly Power, for the turning of Men from Darkness to Light, from the Power of Satan unto God, we own, honour and love, and only deny and reject that Ministry which is by the Will, Study or Acquisition of Man in his unregenerated State, who not being ac∣quainted with the Effectual Operation of the Word of God in themfelves, are wholy dark as to those things which relate to the true Ministry, not knowing what they deny nor whereof they affirm; which doth not edifie, but hazard the immortal Souls of Men: And as they want the Inspiration of the Almighty, to instruct them, so (being Strangers to the Work of God in themselves, and not waiting to feel an Enduement with Divine Power from on high) there proceeds no spiritu∣al Life or divine Vertue from them, to make their Mini∣stry

effectual, which is the Cause of that Lamentable Decay of holy Living that is in the World, and great Increase of all manner of Unsavoury and Irreligious Conversation. I will conclude with two or three Testi∣monies given by men once in request with Separatists.

Christopher Goad's Invalidity of Church's Cen∣sures, pag. 64, 65.

It is the Spirit that makes Ministers, and those Mini∣sters that remain by the Spirit do minister the Spirit, and that is ministring of the Gospel, when we miuister the Spirit.

I am a Minister of the new Testament so far as the Spirit speaks in me and by me.

In whomsoever the Spirit stands up and speaks, that Person for the Time is a Minister, a true Minister. The Spirit doth not regard Sexes, the Spirit regards not Age, Learned or unlearned: 'Tis not Age nor Sex, nor any major Part can minister Spirit, but whom the Spirit pleaseth.

Christopher Goad. Right Spir. &c. p. 21, 22.

The Ministry that is calling us off from Man, from the Gloworm Light of this Creation, from Man's Parts an Gifts into the Spirit, that is the Ministry we should look after.

The Truth is, there is no true Prophet, no true Te∣stimony given of Christ, but by those that see him, and the nearer to him the clearer Sight of him, the more clear and powerful is the Testimony given of him: That Testimony that is given to him by those

that do not see him present and come, is not in deed a Testimony to Christ, but to Anti-christ; he is such a Prophet as Balaam was, that had nothing but No∣tion.

All true Prophets that prophesied of Christ saw him, and he was in them.

Christopher Goad's Paraphrase upon Act. 17. p. 18.

We know no other Guide but the Spirit: There is not any Minister in the World that is our Guide, or any Company of Ministers, ••ut the Spirit, if he speaks in them and by them; VVe have but one Master, that is Christ.

T. Collier in his Works, p. 47, 48. and p. 430.

Upon that Scripture, Mal. 27. The Pri••st's Lips should preserve Knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his mouth; for he is the Messenger of the Lord of Host. Now this usually is applyed to the Ministers, who have given themselves the Title of Priest's, and that the People should seek the Knowledge at their Mouths, and indeed they themselves have done what in them lies, not only to bring People into this Error and Ignorance, but to keep them in it, whereas Christ is indeed the alone Pri••st, the Substance of the Jews Type, and the People are to seek the Law at his Mouth; but he is the Messenger of the Lord of Hosts; he is called the Messenger of the Covenant, Mal 3. 1. the alone Pro∣phet and Teacher of his People.

The Spirit being lost, Anti-christ sets the VVisdom of the Flesh (human Industry, Tongues and Arts) in

room of it, it is the Anointing of Anti-christ; for in all things Anti-christ seeks to imitate Christ, as well in the Flesh as in the Spirit.

Again, The Saints are made partakers of the same Spi∣rit the Apostles were.

W. Dell's Sermons, pag. 16, 17, 18.

There is a Necessity of this Power of the Holy Spirit for Ministers. For first, If they have not this Power of the Holy Spirit, they have no Power at all; for Christ sent them only as his Father sent him. Without this Power they are insufficient for the Ministry; for no Man is sufficient for the Work of the Ministry by any natural Parts and Abilities of his own—but only by this Power of the Spirit; and till he be en∣dued with this, notwithstanding all his other Accom∣plishments, he is altogether insufficient—but only by the Power of the holy Spirit coming upon them.

He cannot speak the Word of God but by the Power of God.

Christ him••elf without this Power of God could not have spoke one VVord of God.

W. Dell. Stumble Stone, p. 8.

The Ministry of the new Testament is a common Ministry, belonging equaly and the like to all the Seed of Christ.

W. Dell. Tryal of Spirits, p. 17, 18.

The true Prophets speaking the Word of God by and in the Spirit, as Paul sayes of himself, and other Believes who had received the Spirit, We have the mind

of Christ; But the false Prophets, though they speak the Word of the Letter exactly, and that to the very Original and Curiosity of Criticisms, yet speaking it without the Spirit, they are false Prophets before God and his True Church; seeing all right Prophecy hath proceeded from the Spirit in all Ages of the World; but especially it must so proceed in the Dayes of the New-Testament, where∣in God hath promised, the largest Effusion of his Spirit.

Greenham, Serm. 1. p. 51.

Without this Spirit of God, no Holy Exercise can have its full Effect; for the word works not where the Spi∣rit of God is wanting—when we have not the Spirit of God to teach us, speak of the Law or the Gospel, &c. we are little affected therewith, unless God give us of his good Spirit to profit by the same.

CHAP. III.

That we own a Gospel-Church, contrary to our Adver∣sary's Charge.

THe next thing our Adversary charged us with a Denyal of, is a Gospel-Church; one of his Proofs, as he will have them called, was in J. N's Love to the Lost, pag. 17.

And the Chruch so gathered into God is the Pillar and Ground of Truth, where the Spi∣rit alone is Teacher.

Upon which he argued thus, The Gospel-Church is a Church which had other Teach∣ers, and not the Spirit alone; Therefore the Quakers deny a Gospel-Church, and they contradict themselves; for they have more Teachers then all others: Thus his

first Book, pag. 16. To which I returned, That such as are not blinded with Prejudice, may discern that from our speaking of the Universal Church of God, which (sayes the Apostle as well as the Quakers) is in God; he in••ers,

That we deny all Visible Religious So∣cieties, commonly called by the Ancients, Asia, Thessa∣lonica, Ephesus, Corinth, &c.

Now observe his Reply.

Reply, pag. 59.

Not one word of this in all my Book; My Charge was, That they deny a Gospel-Church, not Visible Religious Societies.

Rejoynder.

Confidently said; but if all the Words be not there, doth it follow the Matter they import is not there? If he doth not mean, That we deny a Visible Religious Society to be a Church, what makes him to infer our Denyal of a Gospel-Church, from our asserting it to be Invisible. Two things must follow from this Reply: Either a Gospel-Church is not visible, and then he breaks his own Neck; or not a Religious Society, and so he is impious: If then a Gospel-Church is a Visible Religious Society, and we deny a Gospel-Church, it must follow, that we deny a Visible Religious So∣ciety, which in John Faldo's Opinion makes up a Gospel-Church. To conclude, a Gospel-Church and a Visible Religious Society he makes to be quite dif∣fering things: But perhaps, he will come off thus; I did not say, ye denyed the visible religious Societies, called the Churches of Asia, &c. but that you deny them, or such as they are to be Churches: But neither will this serve his turn; for we both own them to have been Gospel-Churches, and are taught by J. F. to believe, That a Gospel-Church

is not only not invisible but an other Thing then a visible religious Society too; It is worth our while to, hear his Reason for it.

Reply, p. 59.

Religious Societies may be as far from a Gospel-Church, as half a dozen Christian Friends associated together to eat a good Dinner, or carry on a Trade; yet he dirts me with want of Honesty to grace his Forgery.

Rejoynder.

He might as well have said to the Ale-House or Ta∣vern, whether he invited a Friend of ours after disputing with him, doubtless not out of Love to our Friend, but the good Liquor, a Sort of Liberty once counted Scan∣dalous by many of his Pretensions, especially when just after so serious an Exercise; but it is grown familiar with Men of his Coat, to fall from the Bible to the Pot, and so back again. But, Friendly Reader, what sayst thou of this Man's Evasion? Who will have me to mean by visible religious Societies, visible civil Societies; for such I count good Men at an Ordinary, or a Committee of Trade; Vain and Shallow Man! Did I not give Intima∣tion enough what Religious Societies I meant, when I instanced the Churches of Asia, Thessalonica, &c. to explain what I meant thereby? Whether I did play the Forger, or my Adversary the Dishonest Shifter, Let the Impartial Reader judge. Again,

Reply.

W. P. proceeds, p. 113. in the same Evil,

And from our asserting the Spirit to be the only Gospel-Teacher, he concludes that we deny all Preaching of

men though by the Spirit;

the four last Words though by the Spirit are added by him, and meerly forged.

Rejoynder.

They may be added, but not forged; One would think it is only then, when without the holy Ghost that we deny it by his Words, and that hurts us not; but I take it the other way, and the Truth is, it is a Mistake he commits against us, where-ever the like Subjects fall in his Way; for this implies, as if we denyed Preach∣ing by Inspiration, and that he all along had mantained it: A Doctrine, he ever now and then flings in our Dish, scorns and derides: Thus can this Man's Conscience sail by any Wind to gain the Shore; and after all these Shuffles dares to conclude, That we in Terminis deny all Preachings of men, because G. F. said, cease from man, when there is nothing more palpable, then that G. F. meant man considered in his own meer Ability; that is, from such as the Prophet forbid, not from true Prophets; but our Adversary the Preachings of Men, though by the Spirit of God; for how can he make us to contradict our selves in saying, man is the Spirits Instrument (which he understands to be the Preaching of Men by the Spirit) if he doth not make us deny all Preaching though by the Spirit. In short, I hope my Reader will think it no For∣gery, whatever my Adversary may, (who ever and a∣non would hide his own weakness by hard word flung upon me to amuse the credulous Reader) to say that from our Asserting, The Spirit to be the only Gospel-Teacher of all who believe, he concludes, That we deny all Preaching of Men, though by the Spirit; else there would be no sense in his charging us with a Con∣tradiction, because we say, The Spirit is the only Tea∣cher,

and yet that the Spirit teacheth by Men, if he did not understand our Ceasing from Men, or Denying Man's Ministry, to be our Denyal of Man's Preaching by the holy Spirit. But he will not give over yet: These words, The Spirit the only Teacher, he often flings up as words indigestible by his foul and phlegma∣tick Stomach; for upon my saying, That such as preach by the Holy Spirit are rather the Instrument then the Teacher, or Man is that by which the Spirit con∣veyeth his Teaching unto others, he replyes thus.

Reply, pag. 58.

So that after W. P's own strict Account he allows their Practices, viz. Preaching of Men, to give the Lye every Day to their Tenets.

Rejoynder.

If Preachings of Men by the Spirit be the Preach∣ings of Men, such Preachings we shall alwayes allow, and think it no Lye or Contradiction to our Tenets; But if he that dictates a Letter of Intelligence be the Informer, and not the Scribe, the Holy Spirit must be the Teacher, and Man but the Instrument. True Teachings are not only Words, but Matter, and that accompanied with Divine Power, which flow from the Eternal Spirit; Men give them but the simple Cover∣ing of Expression, and that by the Spirit's appoint∣ment; therefore not so properly the Teachings of Men by the Holy Spirit, as the Teachings of the Holy Spirit by and through Men; consequently not Man's Teach∣ings, but the Spirit's.

Again, Because we charge him with bringing in ot her Teachers then the Holy Spirit, contrary to ex∣press Scripture, the Promise of God, and the very End of the Blessed Gospel, he replies.

Reply, pag. 58, 59.

Can you think this Man worth Disputing with, who rambles and talks he cares not how? If what P. said be true, the Exhortations to do the Work of an Evange∣list, feed the Flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them Over-seers, were not intended of Man's Teach∣ing; but the Spirit of God only exhorted the Spirit of God to these Actions, and Man had not, hath not any Agency in Teaching.

Rejoynder.

But did we ever say, Man had no Share in being taught, whatever we have said against the utmost of man's natural Ability, considered separately from God's Spirit about his Teaching? We never yet said, That Man was not to be taught: Is there no Difference be∣twixt Men's Teaching without God's Spirit, and Men's being taught of God's Spirit? At whose Door then should we lay this Absurdity, The Spirit of God exhor∣ted the Spirit of God? What an Idle Non sequitur is this?

Nor do we deny all Agency in Man, when manna∣ged by the Holy Ghost; A Man might as well argue (following J. Faldo's Steps) against the Apostle Paul, when he said, It is no 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, 'Tis not I that speak, but the Father in me; Again,* 1.4 It is not you that speak, but the Ho∣ly Gost in you; For, after J. Faldo's Para∣pharase,* 1.5 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 Teach∣ings 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 dis∣covered.

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 Cha∣racter of the invisible Church, he owns not a Gospel∣Church, whose Order and Frame is according to the Do∣ctrine 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 Defi∣nition 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, wash∣ed in the Blood of the Lamb, grafted into the true Vine, & bring forth Fruit unto Holiness, and yet no wayes concer∣ed in the Gospel-Church; in short the Gospel-Church is not the Vniversal Church, nor the invisible Church a Gos∣pel-Church; and what is his Reason, if any there can be, for all this pernicious and Anti-christian Doctrine? Be∣cause 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 im∣pious 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 Hy∣pocrites.

By this Argument Elias and the Seven Hundred, who had not bowed their Knees to Baal (so invisi∣ble as Elias himself knew not of them) were Sch••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 E∣nemies 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 Chri∣stian, and consequently the Antichristian-Church; But that could not be, because she fled from Antichrist: If the Gospel-Church, then may a Church be Go∣spel 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 Wilder∣ness Estate, have been destitute of that Visible Or∣der. 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 up∣on the Word Gospel, as if external Order and Go∣spel were synonimous, or of equal force; whereas the Gospel is called in Scripture The Power of God to Salvation, from that Spiritual Redemption it effica∣tiously 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 Sin∣ner, then to be eased of his former Iniquities, by Re∣mission, and purged from the Nature and Ha∣bits 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 Re∣medies 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 Consti∣tutes of a Gospel-Church? By which he denyes a Go∣spel-Church to have been antecedent to that Exter∣nal 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 on∣ly 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 Eng∣land 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, conse∣quently Mungrils. He still forgets what he promi∣sed, 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 Vi∣sible; 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 wor∣thy 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 constitu∣ted of People, no matter (how Vnregenerated if) sub∣mitted to an Eternal Structure of Order and Discipline; A Cover for all the Wolves, Antichrist's and Hypo∣crites, that have been, are, or shall be to the End of the World. In short, No Position can be more destru∣ctive 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 Re∣lation to a Gospel-Church, whilst in an Un-gospel Spi∣rit, 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 graft∣ed into the true Vine, and made to drink into the one Spirit, bringing forth Fruits unto Holiness. To con∣clued, After this sort of Doctrine Men may be Mem∣bers 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 ex∣actly 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 Mean∣ing of himself.

Rejoynder.

I had no Reas••n to meddle with what I could not, no•• 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 Tr••••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 m••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 se∣cond, and then abuseth me, as if on purpose I had avoi∣ded the Di•••• of an Authentick Testimony, hitherto not produced? But suppose G. F. hath ever written any such 〈◊〉〈◊〉 doubtless by Invisible Over-seers he only mean••, 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 Spi∣rit, 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 Disinge∣••••ous Reflection; Next, That we do not affect such Ob∣••curity; Lastly, The Divine Light, Power or Spirit in∣••ardly manifested, is the one Tongue to the Children of Light. This he calls Foolish, Antiscriptural, Ridicu∣••us; But if it be so, I owe it to him alone, who hath ••ade so Foolish and False a Citation of my Words; ••owbeit, he saith nothing to what he hath cited, his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Words set aside. His Reflection was Disinge∣••ous, because such a Practice is not common or usual ••ith us; Nay, that was accidental: Therefore to ••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 Malici∣ous, 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 de∣crying of Dark, School-Phrases, and turning Rheto∣rick, by which great Writers wrap up their Matter from the Vnderstanding of the Vulgar. That the Di∣vine 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 A∣postle 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-Wo∣man spoak in an English Meeting: Do we Hold, Teach or Practice any such Thing? Besides, the A∣postle tells us, That though an Vnknown Tongue might render him as a Barbarian to him that understandeth him not, will it therefore follow, that he was a Barbari∣an, or that he had not the Spirit of Christ dwelling in him? By no means; for he might speak Mysteries in the Spirit, as saith the Apostle, vers. 2. Men may al∣so pray in the Spirit in an Vnknown Tongue, vers. 14. A Man may Bless, Praise and give Thanks to God in an Vnknown Tongue, vers. 14, 15, 16, 17. Nay, the Apostle saith of such a one, Verily thou givest Thanks well. Now, how all this can be, and yet that such a Person should be acted by another Spirit then the Spirit of God and the Apostle, for my own part I

cannot see. In short, The Apostle tells us, That Tongues are for them that believe not, vers 22. But our Friend spoak among them that believed; and though they did not all know what her bare words im∣ported, yet they might be and were sensible of the Divine Power in which she spoak, which gave a gene∣ral Refreshment unto them of that Assembly, that were acquainted with it; otherwise all Fellowship in Spirit must be renounced: But 'tis to be any thing J. F's Froth will have it, because its unknown to his thick and carnal Understanding. However, the want of a Known Tongue may render one less Profitable, but not less a Christian; for a time should come, the same Apostle said, that Tongues should cease, but never that Christianity, or having the Spirit of Christ should cease; Therefore to re••ute all that cannot speak in a Known Tongue Antichristian, or of another Spirit then the Spirit of God and his Apostle, is unworthy of any Man that makes any the least Pretence to the Christian-Re∣ligion, indeed to common Sense.

One Passage more then we conclude this Chapter.

Reply, p. 60.

To my Reflection upon their affirming she spake by the Spirit, because they all found Re••reshings, viz. so have Children many a time of Puppet-Plays, W. P. calls me all to nought, especially because I could not (as he saith) but think it meant by Refreshings, what came from God. But let not Penn think we take our selves bound to reverence such Fooleries.

Rejoynder.

That it was a Reflection he confesseth; whether it

were not an Unseemly one I refer to every Man of Con∣science. I did not intend to obliege J. Faldo to be∣lieve what we say, but reprove his prophane Scoffs at what we believe. I would have so much regard to any People seriously professing Religion, as not to ex∣plain what they mean by their Refreshment, by the Pleasure some irreligious People take at the vain and frothy Sport of Puppet-Play; And the worst Word I gave him and his Comparison, was Prophaness, fur∣ther adding,

that it out-did Ben. Johnson's Alchimist

(a Play made in Scorn of Puritans) which all good Men detest, and himself dying abhorred.

But why may not People be refresht in their Souls from that divine Power, which may attend a Person speaking in a Language unknown? Suppose a Godly Assembly of English People and an English Preacher endued with God's holy Spirit, and there happen into such a Congregation some serious Forreigners of the same Judgment, is it absurd to say, That notwithstand∣ing their Ignorance of the Signification of the Words spoken, they may have an inward and spiritual Sence of the Zeal, Power and Spirit that eminently attends the Preacher▪ if it be, how much more ridiculous is it then for People to say, It glad••ed their Hearts to see such a Godly Countenance, or to hear the Voice or Sound of this or the other good Man, though they had no distinct Understanding of his Words? I am in this Case a more allowable Witness then J. Faldo, who have seen Sinners struck, the Weak strengthned, and the Strong confirmed at the hearing of the Truth of God declared in a Language they could not understand; The divine Power and Vertue went forth, and they were judged, comforted or confirmed in themselves,

and they no Fools (though J. Faldo calls such things Fooleries and Pupppet-Playes) To deny this is to over∣throw Spiritual Fellowship in the Ground of it; and to center in this Atheistical Notion, That all our Know∣ledge of God comes in by our carnal Eyes and Ears; that is, What others have written, and what others have told me, that I believe, and therefore I believe, and not from the Testimony of this Infallible Spirit of God in my self; which Credulity renders him more like Rome in that, wherein she is condemnable, then any thing he can truly suggest of us; but this gross Doctrine being so obviously taught by our Adversary in his first Book, second Part, p. 91. we have the less Reason to wonder that Fooleries and Puppet-Playes are the best Words he can bestow upon the divine Consolation, Re∣freshment and Communion of the holy Spirit within Men.

We will add these Testimonies, as the Conclusion of this Chapter.

W. Tindal in his Works, p. 250.

Church, the Elect, in whose Hearts God hath writ∣ten his Law with his Holy Spirit, and given them a feeling Faith of the Mercy that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

D. Barns's Works, p. 244.

The Holy Church of Christ is nothing else but that Congregation that is sanctified in Spirit, redeem∣ed with Christ's Blood, and sticketh fast and sure, alonely to the Promises that he made therein.

So that the Church is a Spiritual Thing, and no ex∣teriour

Thing, but invisible from Carnal Eyes (I say, not that they be invisible that be of the Church, but that holy Church in her self is invisible) as Faith is; and her Pureness and Cleanness is before Christ only, and not before the World; for the World hath no Judgment nor Knowledge of her, but all her Honour and Cleanness is before Christ sure and fast.

Peter Martyr, fourth part of Common Places, cap. 1 pag. 1.

The Name of a Church is derived of the Greek verse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, to call; for none can be Par∣takers thereof, which come not thereunto by the Cal∣ling of God. And to define it, we say, that it is a Company of Believers and regenerate Persons, whom God gathereth together in Christ by the Word and the Holy Ghost—It is every where called the Body of Christ, because all the Members thereof have him for their Head, of whom by the Joints and Sinnews they take their growing, and attain unto Life by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Christoph. Goad, p. 37.

'Tis a sad thing that there are Churches—that think it is enough there is a Form of Godliness, that we are in Church-Fellowship, and so lie down together and sleep; I have no Quarrel with Churches, or any Form, but such as have not the Spirit in them; here are all a∣sleep, asleep in Death.

T. Collier's Works, p. 42.

The Church of Christ under the Gospel are the Spiritual Seed, the Seed according to the Pro∣mise.

T. Collier, p. 102.

The Church, which is Christ's Kingdom, are a People (Saints chosen) called out of the World; they are not of this World, as he is not of this World.

W. Dell's Sermons, p. 152, 156, 186.

The Church is a Spiritual Invisible Fellowship, gathered together in the Unity of the Faith, Hope and Love.

Christ and the Spirit are the only Officers.

CHAP. IV.

His Charge of our Denying to Hear the Word of God, examined: True Preaching acknowledged.

HE hath maintained this Charge against our An∣swer with the same sort of Jeers and Florish (but manifest insuccess too) that he hath done what went before. His words are these.

Reply, pag. 61.

Concerning denying the Ordinance of hearing the Word preached, to my Proof from G. F. We must not hear Man, &c. W. P. saith, That is so far from making against us, that it makes for us at an high rate. Much like the Mad-man of Athens, who called all the Ships that came into the Port his own, while he was for all that, but a poor Thred-bare Gentle-man. I proved, that they asserted the Light to be only preached, to be the only Preacher, and only ••eached to; yea, and the only Obeyer.

Rejoynder.

If this be done, Erit hic mihi magnus Apollo; If to cease from Man be not false Doctrine, then not to hear Man is no false Doctrine; for Man is taken in the same sense in both places; For as God never intended by ceasing from Man, that they should not regard his Prophets, who were Men, when they came to declare his VVill; so neither did G. F. intend that Man ought

not to be heard when he comes on God's Errant or Mes∣sage in the Name of the Lord, but meer Man, Man in his Natural Capacity and Ability without the Holy Spirit and Power of God, which is but a carnal, humane and worldly Ministry.

To say we only preach the Light is no more then to report, The Quakers preach Christ; for our Doctrine directs People to the Knocks of Christ, the true Light, at the Door of the Soul, who is the Saviour, Redeemer and Preserver of them that believe in him, and keep his Commandments. But that we ever said, That it was only preached to; yea, and the only Obeyer of such Preaching, is as false as any Thing that can be said. He tells us he proved it; I will give the strongest Passage he brought, J. Parn. Shield, &c. Epist.

To the Light of God in all your Consciences I speak:

Very well; and what then? Is the Light therefore preacht to, taught or instructed, when he only appealed to the Light in all their Consciences, concerning the Truth of what he said, as the Apostle did? To the Light I speak, that is, To the Light I direct my self, To that I make my Appeal, if what I write be not true? for what soever is reproveable is made manifest by it, Ephes. 5. 13. This Construction is Natural, Our Adversary's forced; for nothing is more common with us in General, and that Author in particular, then to turn People to the Light, pressing their Conformity to the Reproofs and Instructions of it, alwayes respecting it as given us of God to be our true, certain and constant Teacher, and alwayes have we been reproacht by such as J. Faldo for doing so. But above all, that this Passage should be brought to prove the Light is the Obeyer of such Doctrines and Instructions, who is the Author of

them, is an Absurdity that reflects great Ignorance, or something worse upon our Adversary.

We have already declared our Faith so freely and plainly in this Matter, besides the Testimony of our dayly Practice, that we need say no more then this: A true Living Gospel-Ministry we own; and the Ser∣vice and Benefit of such a one we have enjoyed; and beautiful are their Feet who come in the Power and De∣monstration of the Spirit, that open the blind Eye, turn People from Darkness to Light, and from the Power of Satan unto God, Act. 26. 18. that He may be their In∣structer according to that Promise, They shall be all taught of Me, which is the chiefest End of all External Instrumental Ministry. To prove our Sence of true Preaching, we may add these two following Testi∣monies out of that renowned Independent Dr. Everad.

Dr. J. Everad's Sermon Militia Coelestis

Truth it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 many toss and tumble the Letter— and make you believe they expound it, and give you the Sense and Vertue; yet how shallow, how literal, how humane, how low, how sensual and carnal do they make the Worl•• to be? Even your Rabbies, your Doctors, your great Schollars; which shews, if God himself, if the Lion of the Tribe of Juda, if the Root of David do not open the Seals, 'tis not all the Lear∣ning, or all the Universities in the World can help us to the Mystery, and the Mind of Christ as the Apostle calls it, Shadows vanishing, &c. p. 326.

I dare not offer at any Method in the whole, nor at any Connection in the Parts: For I find that all the cu∣rious Dichotomzers do but dream and play with the

Scriptures, feeding themselves with Fancies and not Truth; for, Sure I am, the only Method that holy Men of old observed, was to speak as they were mo∣ved by the Holy Spirit—There be many Expositions on this Place, which I will not trouble you withall, for Men speak according to Men; but the Scriptures were written by God's Spirit, dictated by his own Fin∣ger: We must therefore labour to find out what is God's Mind in the Scriptures, whatever Men say, pag. 369. 370.

CHAP. V.

Of True and False Prayer.

HE pretends in this Chapter which containeth not a page, to refute several pages in my Book, rela∣ing to Gospel-Prayer, in which if I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not, he hath done me and the Truth I defend the greatest Ser∣vice, that a reasonable Man would desire at the Hands of his Adversary; for the Truth of the Matter is, the Man hath shrunk from his Post, and deserted his Colours, which we shall make appear by comparing his first Book with his Reply.

Reply.

VV. P. according to my Charge disowns man's Wil•• and the Vse of his Conceptions to have any thing to do in Gospel-Prayer, pag. 122. and disowns all Prayer that is not by and in the Light within, The Quakers Christ

The Reasons he gives are as Witless as his Assertion Truthless. Thus;

Now, unless Men may perform Gospel-VVorship without the Spirit and the Truth; or if in the Spirit and the Truth, yet not by the Motion of either, a thing absurd, it must needs be that Men ought only to preach and pray by the Motion of the Spirit and of the Truth.

How absurd is W. P's Reaso∣ning here? as if the Vnderstanding, Conceptions, Will of Man in Prayer must needs exclude the Motions of the Spirit, or the Motions of the Spirit exclude them.

Rejoynder.

The first Thing our Adversary charged upon us in his former Book was our Denyal of Gospel-Prayer, to prove which he cited W. Smith, who in his Catech. p. 107. spoak against Prayers of Man's forming, in his own un∣clean VVisdom to be performed at his own Time, and in his own Will; which I answered thus.

It seems then, that what Prayer W. Smith's Passage reflects upon, is Gospel-Prayer in J. Faldo's Account: Of this he takes no notice; he might think it is his In∣••••st, but I am sure it was not his Honesty to omit it; for it was to entitle Prayers hateful to God, Gospel, that he might have his Will of us, in making the World be∣lieve that we deny Gospel-Prayer; he was far from the Carriage of a worthy and generous Adversary in this, that knowing how apt many are to receive any Charge against us, would have acted deliberately and faithfully, as one concerned by the Constraint of Conscience, when he (alass) sent his many Charges as false as black, to incense the Ignorant and Credulous against us, Revenge for the Loss of some Hearers, and that which follows, animating him to this Unchristian Essay.

But he proceeded thus; That we own no Prayer that is not by immediate Inspiration and Motion of the Spirit, and without the Vse of our Conception and Dire∣ction of our Understanding. He brought two or three Testimonies to confirm this Limb of his Charge; I avoided reporting them by confessing the Matter; my Business was therefore to mantain our Assertion, in or∣der to which I produced John 4. 24. The Worship of God is in the Spirit and in the Truth, which he left out, and from thence I gave the Argument by him repeated, which he is pleased to call Witless and Truthless, as if sayes he, the Vnderstanding Conceptions and Will of man in Prayer must needs exclude the Motion of the Spirit, or the Motions of the Spirit exclude them. But this Rea∣der, we will easily scatter; for if Man offer up his own Conceptions, he cannot be said to offer up what is in∣jected by the Holy Ghost, by whom alone God's Chil∣dren cry, Abba Father; for by Man's own Con∣ceptions, I mean what simply proceeds from man, and where any man prayes such Conceptions, he must needs exclude the Injections and Motions of the holy Spirit, and offer up an unclean Sacrifice; else there would be no difference between the Prayers of the righ∣teous and the wicked.

The Will of man in Prayer was not mentioned in the first Boook; But if by Will he means, Man's Praying in his own Power, and how, and when he pleaseth, we also deny that; for how can he be said to pray with th•• Spirit, and worship in the Spirit, who acts without the Will, Guidance and Motions of the Spirit: And if h•• means the Will of man subjected to the Will of God an•• R••le of the Spirit, then we say, Such Prayer is not in t•••• Will of man properly, but in his Will, to whom the Will••

man is subjected; That is properly done in the Will of Man, which is done at Man's Disposal, or is in Man's Power to perform; but it is not within the Compass of Man's Will to offer up a spiritual Prayer, consequently, it belongs to the holy Spirit to furnish Man with that Capacity: So that by the Will of man we do not under∣stand the Will subjected, but the Will absolute, and that we exclude. The Will of Man in that Case is swal∣lowed up in the Will of the Spirit, as the Apostle Paul's Life was swallowed up in Christ; It is not I Paul that live, but Christ in me; It is not I, Paul, that pray, but the Spirit that prayeth in me; that is, I Paul live by and through the Life of Christ Jesus, and in Subjection to him; and I Paul pray by and through the Spirit, and in Subjection to its holy Motions. I distinguish between things being done contrary to the VVill of Man, and not according to the VVill of man; for Paul might pray not according to his own VVill, but the Mind of the Holy Spirit, and yet not pray contrary to his own VVill, because resigning of his own Will unto the Power and Leadings of the Holy Spirit (To be acted by that, where∣by he receives a new Will, even the Will of the holy Spirit) he does not resist or act contrary to the Will of the Spirit, though not according to his own Will.

But for our Adversary to say we deny the Vse of our Vnderstanding in Prayer, is a great Mistake, if not a Slander, That which I objected against was an other VVord by him carelefly or designedly omitted, to wit, the DIRECTION of our Understanding; for there is as much Difference between the USE of our Understanding and DIRECTION of our Under∣standing, as between a Master and a Servant as to

command & obey, Understanding is alwayes made Use of by the holy Spirit in Prayer; for without it there would be no Subject for the Spirit to act or work upon. But the Direction of our Understanding in Prayer, is perfect∣ly exclusive of the Direction of the Holy Spirit, for there cannot be two Directors; Besides, if the Direction in Prayer, be ascribed to the Understanding, there is nothing left that may be attributed to the Spirit, where∣fore say we, The Vnderstanding is not to direct, but to be directed in Prayer to Almighty God by his own holy Spirit, according to that notable Passage, Rom. 8. 26, 27. The Spirit also helpeth our Infirmities, for we KNOW NOT what we should pray for as we ought, but the SPIRIT IT SELF MAKES INTER∣CESSION for us with Groanings which cannot be uttered, and he that searcheth the Heart knoweth what is the Mind of the Spirit, because he maketh Inter∣cession for the Saints according to the Will of God.

I offered Eight Arguments in Defence of this Do∣ctrine, whereof he cited but one, and said no more to it then I have reported; For that little he added, was but an Aggravation of his Fore-mentio∣ned Consequence.* 1.6 Seven then of my Arguments remain unmedled with;* 1.7 I will hint at three to show not any Reason but my Adversaries Shuffle.

If the Children of God are led by the Spirit of God (and not by their own VVils, Conceptions and Directi∣ons) then no Access to God without it, consequently, Prayer without the Leading of God's Spirit is not accep∣table with him.

Again; If no Prophecy or Preaching was to be of old but by the Revelation or Motion of the Spirit, though but

to mortal men, of far greater Reason should not any Pray∣er be made to the Eternal only Wise God, without the Mo∣tion of the Holy Spirit.

Lastly, Man of himself is Vnable to think a good Thought, and as the Professors say, from the Crown of the Head to the Sole of the Foot, altogether Vnclean; therefore he can not perform Gospel-Prayer by the Direct••∣on of his own Understanding, Vse of his own Conceptions, and Strength of his own Will.

To this Purpose was my fourth Argument, which, with those that went before, and follow after it, my Adversary unmanfully declined. I will conclude this Chapter with six Testimonies; the first out of a venera∣ble Author (with almost all Nonconformists) J. Calvin.

In one of his Sermons upon Job 32. 8.

It is the Spirit of God who dwells in Men, &c. Man (sayes he) cannot discern any whit of God's Secret until he be enlightned; we can never by our Will reach so high as to know God, we must put our Reason from us and renounce it utterly (what sayes J. Faldo to this Doctrine of his Father Calvin) Again, If we will have our Lord to fill us with his Wisdom, it behoveth us to become Fools; that is to say, We must not bring any thing of our own, for that were the shutting of the Door against God.

H. Bullenger's 4. Decad. Serm. 5. p. 665.

The Spirit of Man praying in this World, being en∣lightned and kindled with the Spirit of God, groaneth and maketh Intercession for the Saints.

W. Perkins the English Calvin in the same men's Thoughts, p. 336. 21. writes thus.

All Exercises of Christian Religion are to be in the Spirit. The Inward Motions of the Spirit, are of themselves the Worship of God, whereas our Words and Deeds are not simply, but so far forth, as they are found in the renewed Motions of the Heart.

Gualt. Cradok upon Ephes. 3. p. 169.

That you may see the greatness of his Power, what a World of Prayers doth the Spirit of God put into thy Heart that thou art never able to utter with thy Mouth. All the Wisdom of the World cannot make one spiritual Petition. We may make Forms of Prayer, but now the Spirit of God that knows the Mind of God, THAT makes Prayers according to the Will of God, and HE (Spirit) prayes with Sighing and Groaning un∣utterably: I speak to them that know the working of the Spirit. If the Lord should only hear the Pray∣ers thou makest with thy Mouth, thou wouldst be a Poor Man, but the Lord respects the Prayer of thy Heart.

W. Dell. Serm. Christ Spirit, &c. p. 35.

When God hath a Mind to give us the Spirit, he puts us in Mind to ask it; yea, God gives us the Spirit that by it we may ask the Spirit, seeing no Man can ask the Spirit but by the Spirit, Acts 1. 14.

Dr. J. Everad, the great Spiritual Separatist in King James and Charles the firsts Time.

Be assured whatever Prayers, whatever Sighs, whatever Groans thou puttest up to him, he loaths all but what his SON MAKES; but all his Requests are heard and granted, pag. 225;—Be sure that your Prayers be such as become God's Ear to hear; for all the Prayers of ALL FLESH through the whole World, is displeasing to God, pag. 243.—Not the best Duties you can perform will please him, except they be salted and seasoned by his own Son, p. 9.—Never think that all your Prayers, your Tears, your Alms, &c. pleases him, but only that which is his Son's own Action and Work in you, p. 355. But know, he (God) regards none of these Prayers: But when his Son, in whom he is well pleased, when he prayes, he hears him alwayes; but if any other Prayes, he re∣gards not, p. 438. 442.

Again, It must be his Son's Work in us, else he loaths all, even the best of the Sacrifices; if it be not Jesus Christ in us that doth all, viz. that loves God, and fears God, and obeyes God, and believes in God, &c. his Father regards it not

But what thinks J. Faldo of all these Things? J. Cal∣vin, W. Perkins, H. Bullenger, Gu. Cradok are un∣questionable, W. Dell Master of Cajus Colledge in late times; And for Dr. J. Everad his Works were licen∣ced, Decemb. 6. 1652, by no less Man then J. Caril; and approved by Tho Brooks and Mat. Parker, all three Independent Pastors; the first lately deceased, the other two not many dayes ago living, who I hope

are able to justifie their Kindness to that notable and doubtless very religious Man.

Perhaps the Truth may find better Quarter for these great Authors Sake, therefore I bring them, though in∣deed it is truly lamentable, that the Professors of our Age will not know the Doctrines of Men they hold in great Admiration, when they meet with them in the poor Quakers Writings; but instead of acknowledging miseraby brow-beat them with oppobrious Language, thereby bringing the greatest Truths into Suspition with the Vulgar. But, Oh Lord God of Truth, This hath been the Portion of thy People, and Lot of thy Children, whom thou hast gathered out of the World in all Ages, at the Hands of those, who boast themselves in other Mens Labours, and have a Name to live, but are dead to that Life in which they should live to thee: They seem to ho∣nour the Prophets, and garnish the Sepulchres of thy Ser∣vants that are at rest; but having erred from the Conduct of thy Spirit, and resisted the holy Motions of it; they are become the greatest Persecutors. Resisters and Vilifi∣ers of thy holy, living, pure and spiritual Way. Oh Lord God arise for thy great Names Sake, seaze upon their Con∣sciences by thy Invisible Word of Power; Lay Judgment to the Line and Righteousness to the Plummet, Dash their fine carved Images in Peices, and let thy consuming Fire take hold on their Chaff and Stubble, and bring them to thy righteous Ballance, that they may see they and their Religion to be lighter then Vanity; that they may witness thy mighty Work of Redemption and Salvation, before they depart hence and are never seen more, through Jesus Christ, the alone Advocate and Mediator, Intercessor,

Redeemer and Saviour of all thy dear Children, who have believed in his Heavenly Appearance, by whom be Ever∣lasting Honour, Glory and Dominion, Amen.

CHAP. VI.

Of Positive Ordinances as our Adversary calls them, to wit, Baptism and the Supper.

HE introduced his Discourse of Baptism and the Supper with an Account of the Nature of these Ordinances, distinguishing them by Natural and Posi∣tive. He excepts against my reporting of one part of his Doctrine, calling it by no milder a Name then For∣gery. I will give both our Quotations, that my Rea∣der may the better see what Ground he hath for such se∣vere Reflection; I cited him thus,

The Ordinances hitherto considered are called Mor∣ral from their Natural Obligation, although respect∣ing their Substance, they deserve a more Evangelical Denomination, without which we cannot call them Christian Ordinances.

This he calls Forging, Corup¦ting his Words, and that he that hath the Conscience to deal with such an Adversary, may make him say what he lists, Reply p. 56.

I will now puncually transcribe his Words as himself hath quoted them, and a plain self-Defeat will lye at the bottom of all this Displeasure.

Reply, p. 66.

My Words were these to a Letter, The Ordinances I

have hitherto considered are called Morral, from their Natural Obligation; although that Substantial and Es∣sential Part and Qualification of them, their Respect to a Mediator will require a Denomination more Evangeli∣cal, and without which we cannot call them Gospel or Christian Ordinances. Let VV. P. make the best Ad∣vantage for his Causes these Words will afford him and spare not.

Rejoynder.

Having his Leave, I hope he will not be angry if I take him at his Word; but before I proceed, I cannot but declare my Amazement in calling this circumstanti∣al Omission by no milder term then Forgery, who God is record between us, of 50 Testimonies, which he he hath pretended to take out of our Friends VVritings, hath miscited or misreported one half of them, and im∣posed false Glosses upon the other.

Now lets see wherein I have wronged him. I will observe every Variation; The First lyeth between the Ordinances hitherto considered, and the Ordinances I have hitherto consid••red; It seems I have was left out, but this is not one Step to Forgery. The next lyeth be∣twixt these two Passages, although respecting their Sub∣stance they deserve a more Evangelical Denomination, and his Saying, although that Substantial and Essential Part and Qualification of them, and their Respect to a Mediator will require a Denomination more Evangelical; the Difference lyeth here; first, that I have put but the VVord Substance in the room of Substantial Essenti∣al Qualification, their Respect to a Mediator; wherein I conceive I have not wrong'd his matter; for the substance of the Morral Ordinances, & the Substantial or Essential

Part or Qualification of the Morral Ordinances are equivalent: The Difference only lyeth that I did not ra∣peat his four Terms, when one would serve, but used the VVord Substance, as carrying in it the import of the rest; For the Moral Ordinances Respect to a Medi∣ator, I say, they either respect the Mediator from the Substance or Circumstance of them, not the Circum∣stance to be sure, therefore the Substance, and that VVord I used in the Place of Substantial or Essential, as before. I cannot yet see where the Forgery lyeth; but let us proceed; The next Variation lyeth between will require and deserve. Now I know not any VVrong I did him in saying, those morral Ordinances deserve, instead of those morral Ordinances will require. The harsher Word of the two is in his own Quotation; There be yet two Faults more that I have committed that help to the Forgery in my Adversaries Opinion; The one is this, I cited it a more Evangelical Denomination instead of a Denomination more Evangelical; The other was this, instead of Gospel or Christian Ordinances, I did only set down Christian Ordinances. All these things considered, I cannot believe these Omissions are able to stain my Credit in the Judgment of any sober Reader, though J. Faldo tells me, They are enough to stain any man which is not all black already.

This miserable Shift and causless Cry of Forgery, de∣signed to amaze & divert the Reader from calling upon him for a more serious Reply to the Use I made of his own Doctrine against himself, cannot take me off from persuing my Advantage; for I think those Omissions so little to his Prejudice, that the inserting what I left out, would, if possible, have made more to my Purpose. The Use I made of it was this:

First, That a Ministry grounded internally upon the (special) Grace and Gifts of God, externally upon the Scriptures of Truth. 2ly, That a Well-ordered Church consisting of Religious Members, preaching, praying, and that scripturally too, are by him called Christian Or∣dinances, and made natural to all Nations before Christ's visible Coming; and consequently, there was the Thing Christianity before the Name of Chritianity, which pleads our Cause against his first Chapter and his gross Contradiction to himself. 3ly, Those he calls Natural Ordinances, and that are of universal Obligation, are far more substantial and necessary to Salvation then those two of Water-Baptism and the Lord's Supper, upon which he more peculiarly bestoweth the Title of Christian; Since no Man can ever be saved without the one, I mean those Natural Ordinances, as he calls them, grounded inter∣nally upon the Grace and Gifts of God, and any Man may be certainly saved without the other that he so peculiarly calls Christian Ordinances, viz. Water-Baptism and the Supper.

I say, his Citation hinders me no more of this Advan∣tage then mine he excepteth against; for if the Sub∣stantial and Essential Part and Qualification of them, and the Respect to a Mediator will require them to be Christian Ordinances (that Part I left out, and for which he quarreld me) what Reason can there be for his coun∣ting me a Forger, and telling the World, that I first cut off his Matter, and then tell him of self-Contradiction, when the Words omitted give a further Weight to my Consequences, and justifie them beyond all Oppositi∣on: For if these Ordinances be Morral, naturally ob∣liging with all, Gospel and Christian from their Substan∣tial and Essential Qualification, and the Respect to a

Mediator, then there must needs have been Christian or Gospel-Ordinances from the beginning of the World. In short, Since he denys not my Consequence upon that Citation I made; and that we have shown the Diffe∣rence to be little, and what there was to make for me, I think I may well conclude, that my former Argumen∣tation was found. Thus much for this Cavil. He go∣eth on.

Reply, pag. 66.

A Passage pag. 133. (in W. P.) I cannot Per∣swade my self to let pass; W. P. thus, It is no less then Blaspheming in our Adversary, and an evident Contra∣diction to himself, to assert, That the Light he grants those immutable Ordinances to result from, may be doubtful or decay, respecting it self, since it were to say, that God—were doubtful, and liable to decay. (Thus far W. P.) The Light I spoak of was Natural Light, or the Light of Nature in express Terms, which we dare not, nor the Quakers do not say is God, but a hu∣mane Faculty.

Rejoynder.

He might very well have perswaded himself to have let this Passage pass, unless he had given it a better Re∣ply: He is willing to bring us in for Stars, but we reject his Kindness.

The Quakers say, That God is the great Sun of Righ∣teousness, and Fountain of all Light; That he enligh∣tens all with a Measure of his own Divine Light, and that from thence proceed these Moral, General and Obliga∣tory Ordinances, which J. F. himself confesseth to be

Gospel and Christian; and therefore it is both a Contra∣diction, and little less then Blasphemy to call the Light a Sinful, Sordid and Ridiculous Thing, as p. 47. of his Reply, and yet say so much in Praise of these Natural and Universal Ordinances.

But above all, that he should say, the Quakers Deny the Light to be God, & own it but for a Humane Faculty, who imployes many pages to prove the contrary, and not above two pages off, expresly calls it the Quakers Christ, shows him either to have been very careless, or not well himself, when he writ so extravagantly.

We are now come to consider the Ordinances them∣selves, and first that of Baptism.

Reply, pag. 67.

Water-Baptism W. P. disowns to be a Gospel-Ordi∣nance, his Reasons I shall answer briefly. Christ never was Administrator of Water-Baptism, p. 133. It is Christ's Command, and not his being immediate Admini∣strator that constitutes an Ordinance.

Rejoynder.

He should have given my first Reason before he had pretended to answer it. I further told him,

That wa∣ter-Batism was John's the Fore-runner, used figura∣tively and preparatively to the Visible Coming of the Messiah, which being past, that preparatory Dispen∣sation is gone with it; and lastly, that the Fore-runner is not to continue, but give way to him and his Admini∣stration that was so fore-run, which were Christ and his Baptism. That John was to dicrease, that is, Wa∣ter-Baptism;

and Christ to increase, that is, his E∣vangelical 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-Bap∣tism is therefore Legal, because Christ is not its Ad∣ministrator; for the Legal Dispensation came by Mo∣ses, but the Evangelical by Christ, not his Disciples; and this not coming by Christ, it cannot be Evangeli∣cal, consequently no Gospel-Ordinance. Besides, I de∣ny that it is Evangelical because he is not administra∣tor; for Christ is the alone Administrator; of all things relating to his own Kingdom, the Temple-Worship Altar, Circumcision, Baptism, &c. are invisible, an∣swerabel to the Nature of his Priesthood and King∣dom. Again.

It is said of John, That the least in the Kingdom of God is greater then ••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 Condi∣tion, but of his Water-Administration; therefore Wa∣ter-Baptism is not Evangelical. I might tell him in short, That he has given away his Cause in this Par∣ticular, by rancking Water-Baptism among the divers Washings pag. 50. The Apostle (Hebr. 9.) accounts Legal, and abrogated by bringing in of a better Co∣venant, 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 re∣ported.

Reply, pag. 67.

Again, W. P. pag. 136. saith, That Baptism men∣tioned 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 Wa∣ter-Baptism and his own, but betwixt any Water-Bap∣tism 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 ma∣king 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 un∣derstood as it is? But thus hath he dealt with me from time to time, which I will not call Forgery, but Dis∣ingenuity 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 Bap∣tize with that Baptism wherewith they were to be Bap∣tized 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 as∣sembled 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 immediate∣ly 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 Narra∣tive the Commission given us by Matthew is whole∣ly omitted, which doubtless was spoken at the same time; for we frequently find, That what one Evan∣gelist 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, respect∣ing this Text, Matthew 28

That the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or into the Name, &c. could not be said of Water, therefore no Water-Baptism;

which he takes a lit∣tle 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 san∣ct••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 Regenera∣tion is wrapt up in the Text: Besides, that it is unwor∣thy of the Spirituallity of Christ's Ministration and Kingdom, that he should make Water-Baptism two thirds of his Commission, which Men may be bapti∣zed with, and yet be as great Strangers, yea, Ene∣mies to Father, Son and Holy Ghost, as the most im∣pious 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 unsanctifi∣ed, 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 particu∣larized 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 Bap∣tized 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 contradi∣stinguisht.

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 De∣crease, Christ Increase. I will not allow of J. Faldo's word proper at this time, though allowable enough a∣mong 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 com∣mon

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 up∣on his use of the word proper, and leave it with my Rea∣der 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 Let∣ter, 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 Expo∣sition of that Passage of the Apostle to the Ephesi∣ans, 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 Ju∣daism, as I suppose no Man pretending to be a Christi∣an, 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 Pra∣citce. 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 pur∣suance 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: How∣ever, 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 po∣sitively layes down in the second Part of his first Book, pag. 39. this Argument; Because Paul di•• ••••aptize some, therefore it was an Ordinance. Now what can we call this but a Contradiction to himself, who mani∣festly infers Institution from the Apostle's Practice, and yet sayes, He doth not say that Practice is an Instituti∣on; 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 equi∣vocates.

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 in∣feriour to no Apostle in his Works, why should he be reputed so in his Co••••ission? That the Priests gene∣rally

allow them to have been all extraordinarily cal∣led (it has been their Plea against our Call in these dayes) That no Man in our Dayes has a larger Com∣mission 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 Wea••••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 insti∣tuted, and Faith in Jesus Christ was required in all be∣fore 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 ••a∣ter-Baptism was but a Figure. I grant that the Sign ended not so soon as the thing signified began, in Point of Pra∣ctice; 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: Where∣fore 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 Rea∣son 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, with∣out 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 ••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 so∣lid: But if this be not crying out—first, there is no such thing, as I will make appear in this very Chap∣ter. I brought several Reasons to justifie our Discon∣tinuance 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 him∣self 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 E∣lementary Nature and Substance, may in Comparison of what they signifie, be very properly termed, Na∣tural and Carnal. Upon which he bestows this Reply, after his wonted Modesty.

Reply, pag. 69, 70.

Very well becoming Penn's knowing Divinity and Phi∣losophy; 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 Signi∣fication.

Outward relates to the same thing, and so doth E∣lementary, as vulgarly understood, and by me appro∣priated. 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 Spiritu∣al; Outward to Inward; and Elementary, which re∣lates 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 Phi∣losopher.

His next Testimony was out of VV. Smith's Prim∣mer; 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 Inven∣tion 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 Pop••s Invention? And doth he now tax my Honesty in saying, That he makes us to call he Bread and VVine Christ bles∣sed, 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 Sup∣per? 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 Inventi∣on 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 Di∣sciples 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 Christ's eating the Supper with his Disciples just before his Death? and their breaking Bread together soon after his Death? Not a Year; whereas the Pope showed not himself till near six hundred Years after. I cannot see, Friendly Reader, how much more criminal I made my Adversary by charging him with saying in our Name, The Bread and VVine Christ blessed is the Invention of the Pope, then he hath made himself by his own Saying, That we call the Lords Supper eaten soon after his Death, the Popes Invention; unless he should deny the Latter to be the same Sort of Supper with the former. In short, We cannot but repute this an Injury too apparent for John Faldo's utmost Invention to cover. But that

he may not suffer the Imputation of Forgery, at least a very gross Perversion, he thus braveth me.

Reply, p. 70.

If Pen dare deny it to be in W. Smith's Book which Iquoted three or four times over in pag. 39. I shall prove him a Deceiver to all that will but read it, W. S. answers to this Question,

I would know Father how it is con∣cerning these things called Ordinances, as Baptism, Bread and Wine, which are much used in their Wor∣ship? Answ. Why Child, as for those things they rose from the Pope's Invention.

Rejoynder.

This Citation as rankly and partially as he hath put down, doth not prove that we account the Lord's Sup∣per, either as it was eaten by Christ and his Disciples before his Death, or by his Disciples after his Death, to be the Pope's Invention. How can it, since we know the Pope's Date to have been so many hundred Years af∣ter that Practice; His Citation must therefore be un∣derstood of such a Baptism and such a Supper as the Apo∣state Church hath presumed to practice; and that I put not a fairer Gloss then his own Answer will allow, observe these Words;

and the whose Practice of those things AS THEY use them had their Institution by the Pope, and were never SO ordained of Christ:

strongly implying, that what was of Christ's Ordination was not of the Pope's Invention and Institution; conse∣quently, That the Lord's Supper was neither a popish In∣vention nor Institution; which is yet plainer from his following VVords;

For he did not ordain sprinkling Water in a Child's Face, or to make a Sign of the Cross

in his Forehead, nor God-Fathers and God-Mothers to undertake for it; Neither did he ordain Bread and VVine to be SO (or after that Manner) used and re∣ceived.

So that nothing can be plainer then that his Reflection lies against their Manner of practizing and u∣sing them, & not against the Things themselves, as at any time practiced by Christ or his Disciples & Followers: Therefore he is quite beside the Truth, in telling the VVorld that he doth but apply these VVords Pope's In∣vention to the Name, that is, Lord's Supper, which the Quakers apply to the Thing; since we so clearly distin∣guish betwen Baptism & the Lord's Supper (Name and Thing) and these Practices and Usages of them, which have risen since the Apostacy; Now it rests with thee, Friendly Reader, to pass Judgment, which of us two hath acted the Deceiver (to leave out a great many more of his hard VVords) he that affirmed VV. Smith cal∣led that Baptism and Lord's Supper, which was in Use some time as well after Christ's Death and Ascension as before, the Pope's Inventions, or I that affirmed, and from VV. Smith's own Book have expresly proved, that there was no such thing said, as Primitively practi∣ced, but only as they have been since abused by the Apostate Church. For the Supper it self I refer the Reader to the sixteenth Chapter of my Answer, and shall only say at this Time, that as it was a Comme∣moration, or Remembrance of Christ to the Disciples, who were at that Day so weak in Faith, as Luke 24. 11. Mary Magdalen's news about Christ's Resurrection seemed to them as Idle Tales; yet that the Service and consequently the Institution of it were of, as they came to witness him the Evangelical Supper of Passover to their Souls, and that we therefore discontinue it. First,

Because the false Church hath made Market with her imitating that primitive Practice, drawn the Minds of People abroad from the Heavenly Bread of Life, which is only to be received within, and hath been shedding so much Blood about it, rendring it and Water Baptism the Seal of Christianity, thereby puffing up People to believe that of themselves which they are not; Next, we have the Testimony of God's Spirit that he is withdrawn from such Observations that have been so much insisted on and magnified in the World; Lastly and eminently we discontinue it, because Christ is be∣come unto our Souls that very Thing, which it was most truly and properly the Sign of, to wit, the Heavnely Bread and Passover, which nourisheth the Soul unto Eternal Life. Where by the Way it must not be for∣gotten how perversly he wrongs Christ and Holy Scrip∣ture, who turns this Passage, Do this till I come, after this strange Manner; The Lord's Supper is a Remem∣brance of Christ's Death past, NOT TO COME, Rep. p. 71. wherein first, he makes as if there were a Death to come; Next, Instead of exhorting People to look for his Coming, until which he bid his Disciples practice it, he turns back their Eyes from that Expecta∣tion, and makes the Sign wholy to have Reference to what was past, and not what was to come, thereby seek∣ing to perpetuate his Absence, and bar out his Appea∣rance (implyed in these Words, till I come) which ends the Absence, during which the Institution lasteth; For the plain English of it framed into an Argument is this: The Supper is to remember Christ's Death that is past, but that will be alwayes past, therefore it ought to be alwayes so remembred. The like may be said upon the Word Remembrance, for if it ought to be practi∣sed

because of remembring Christ's Death, then forever, because his Death ought never to be forgotten. Thus it perverts the Text, in that it makes not the outward Supper to cease upon his Coming, as John 14. 23. Rev. 3. 20. (which is the Evangelical Supper) till whose Coming Christ bid his Disciples do it: But to continue upon the Score of remembring Christ's Death only (which as I said before, ought never to be forgot∣ten) is consequently to continue it upon Institution forever.

I shall only leave two things with my Reader, and so proceed to the next Chapter; first, That from our discontinuing the Practice of these outward and tempo∣rary Observances, J. Faldo concludes, our absolute and general Denyal of them. 2ly, Because some of our Friends have denyed, rejected and termed Popish the long Abuse of these Things, he makes no Difficulty of charging us in so many Words with calling Water-Baptism and the Lord's Supper, as laid down in Scrip∣ture and primitively practised, Popish Inventions, &c. God if he please make this Man sensible of his notori∣ous Injustice towards us.

CHAP. VIII.

Of the Doctrine of Justification.

HE introduceth his Chapter of Justification in these Words.

Reply, p. 71.

Vpon the Point of Justification I cited 18 Proofs to my Charge, To three of which W. P. answers by Way of Evasion and Railing, being silent to the rest.

Rejoynder.

Icited but three, & thought them as sufficient as three∣score, sure I am, they carried the Sence of the other fifteen, if not, he did ill to produce them. I have answered the Law in the Point. And for Evasion and Railing, if ever I used either, it was not in this Chap∣ter, where I have bestowed ten Pages of Sober and Christian Discourse; unto which he returns me but three Pages in Defence of his former Application of our Friends Writings, for Maintenance of his Charge; and what his Carriage in this particular is, I will leave with my Reader.

His Charge was, that we denyed the Transactions of Jesus Christ in the Flesh to have any Influence into our Justification before God. Three of his Proofs I conside∣red, and rescued from his Tyranny. The first was this:

All that are called Presbyterians and Independents, with their feeding upon a Report of a Thing done many

hundred Years ago, E. Bur. Trump. p. 17.

This J. Faldo called Reproaching such as act Faith on Christ's Righteousness and Sufferings by him wrought and suffe∣red when he was in the World: An Answer that suits all Hypocrites at what time their Historical Faith is struck at; but what said I? why thus he brings me in.

E. B. meant no more then their Excessive Admiration of and Regard to what Christ did without;

Thus far J. Faldo quotes me, and then replyeth.

Reply, p. 72.

Thus W. P. thinks to salve all with his Meanings which are well nigh as corrupt as the Quakers Text; for the Admiration of what Christ then did, will admit of no Excess.

Rejoynder.

There is much more Reason that we should give our Meanings of our own Writings then J. Faldo for us, since he is alwayes sure to make them against us; if he will not allow us to explain our own Minds, but make it the Priviledge of an Adversary, we are sure to be worsted, be it right or wrong, nor can he escape by his own Practice: But why is my Meaning corrupt, or the Text either? May not, nay, do not People rely upon those external Transactions of Christ, (as recorded in Scripture Story) so as to neglect the whole Work of Redemption and Sanctification by the Power o•• Christ within? Or is it false Doctrine to affirm tha•• those who hold the whole Work of Man's Salvation to have been throughly wrought by Christ's visible Trans∣actions in the VVorld (thereby excluding the most ne∣cessary Opperation of his Power and Spirit for the

Redemption of such as have been imbondaged by Sa∣tan, are Excessive in their Apprehensions of what Christ did for Man-kind, when visibly in the VVorld? If it be, we must ingenuously confess, we are Holders and Mantainers of corrupt Doctrine. But whilst Scripture is of any Value, that denyes Heaven to wicked Workers (though fair Professors) that says, with∣out Holiness no Man shall see the Lord;* 1.8 and without being born again no Man* 1.9 shall enter the Kingdom of God;* 1.10 That Men shall reap what they sow;* 1.11 and that Men are sanctified before they are compleatly justified; We need not much fear to say, That such as attribute all unto Christ's visible Transactions, when he was in the World, are Excessive in so doing. And if this be true, how unfair was my Adversary in leaving out that Part of my Answer, which would have further explained my Mind, and prevented his making so ill an Use of that which he did report; but perhaps, this might be one Reason for his Omission, which ought to have been a Reason against it; for to these Words E. B. meant their Excessive Regard to what Christ did without; I added, whilst they neglected, undervalued and decryed for Blas∣phemy and Enthusiasm the Appearance, Work and Righ∣teousness of Christ within, p. 148.

To be short, friendly Reader; J. Faldo, either de∣signed to drop this Part of my Answer, that he might the better rack the other to his own End and our Disgrace (which if he did, it was unmanly, much more unchri∣stianly done) or, he intended his Reply for my whole Answer; and then his Doctrine will ly thus: Whoever so regards Christ's Transactions without as to neglect, un∣dervalue and decry for Blasphemy and Enthusiasm, the

A••pearance, Work and Righteousness of Christ within, are not Excessive or out of the Way in their Apprehension of Christ's Transactions; But J. Faldo hath that Re∣gard to the History of Christ's Transactions, whilst he neglects, undervalues and decryes for Blasphemy and En∣thusiasm the Appearance, Work and Righteousness of Christ within; Therefore J. Faldo's Regard to Christ's Transactions, whilst he so neglects, undervalues, &c. is not Excessive or out of the Way. Thus it lyeth for him; Let us now see how his Reply formeth it for us.

Such as say, We ought not so intirely to regard, or rest upon Christ's visible Transactions in the World, as to neg∣lect, undervalue and decry for Blasphemy and Enthusiasm the Appearance, Work and Righteousness of Christ with∣in, hold and mantain corrupt Doctrine; But so say E. Burroughs and W. Penn; Therefore E. B. and W. P. mantain corrupt Doctrine.

These Arguments are the Natural Import of J. F's Reply; how sound and consistent with Scripture and Reason, is left to the Judgment of Impartial Men. Had E. Burrough's VVords been more ingenuously weigh'd, he would have seen them to have bin no witnes for his turn; for may not Men feed upon a Report of good Things, and for want of unfeigned Repentance, true Faith and humble Obedience, never be benefitted by them? If J. F. denyes it, he consequently excludes the In∣ward VVork of Faith and Repentance to be necessary (sayes he and all such Professors) to apply Christ's Trans∣actions beneficially; and if he confesseth Repentance and Faith to be requisite for the right and profitable Ap∣plication of Christ's Transactions, then is not feeding upon a Report of them sufficient (for at that rate all the Hypocrites and Lord-Lord-Cryers in the World, how∣ever

impious, would be certainly saved) doth E. B's Reproof of such who vainly hope thereby to be justi∣fied and saved in the Sight of God deserve to be stiled corrupt Doctrine. I could here produce many solid Testimonies out of the Writings of several ancient and worthy Protestants, but shall confine my self within the Compass of a Passage given us by a present Writer, quoted by our Adversary in his first Book, p. 58. and that is Dr.Stilling fleet in a Discourse called his six Ser∣mons,

If they did believe Christ came into the World to reform it, that the Wrath of God is now revealed from Heaven against all Unrighteousness, that his Love which is shown to the World is to deliver them from the Hand of their Enemies, that they might serve him in Righteousness and Holiness all the Dayes of their Lives, they could never imagine 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 no∣thing 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 Excep∣tion 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 Justificati∣on,

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 A∣dornment the Soul actually receives from Christ, &c. Take Justification in this Sense, and not for Remissi∣on —and let our Adversary do his worst. There needs a Diver of Delos to make very good Sense of these words. I am so w••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 Acc••ptance then what is subjected in Men, and is therefore their own Righteousness.

Rejoynder.

The words he charged upon R. Farnsworth, I de∣fended 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 Salvati∣on he understood, were not from the Guilt of Sin past by Christ's Offering, &c. but from the Root, Nature and Power of In-dw••lling Sin, through the Powerful O∣peration 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 Ex∣pression, 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 Adorn∣ment, 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 with∣in the Power and Ability of Man to bring forth; (for I know no other Righteousness that can be sub∣jected 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 Ra∣tional.

In short, The Everlasting Righteousness which Christ brings into his People, by which he fits them for his Father's Communion,* 1.12 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 Righteous∣ness 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 Chap∣ter he pretends to answer, but he forbears it among many other, which say more for my Purpose then he dare trans∣scribe.

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 An∣swer, which stood us most upon to be cited, and al∣together 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 be∣fore we have Motion to act or do any thing that is pleasing unto God.

What, Reader, can be clearer, first, then his De∣nyal of our Dependance upon Good Works for Life and Salvation? Next, What plainer, then that he ex∣cludes 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 Ho∣liness? 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 de∣pend upon what we do for Life—But do all things which he commands us from the Motion (or first set∣ting on work, of his Life; and this is Life before A∣ction, which moves us to Action, and not Action be∣fore Life, thereby to attain Life, Catechism, page 73, 74..

Now, Reader, this considered, give us thy Judg∣ment 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 Con∣science 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 to Mis-eite, Mis-render or Mis-apply our Writings?

To conclude; He seems to write at all Adventures,

supplying his VVeakness with Confidence, and drown∣ing the Noise of his own Forgeries by his vehement Clamours against such imaginary ones as he hath pro∣vided for me, to go under my Name, which is his greatest of all. I heartily pray to God, that he may be stopt in this Unconscionable Course, and come to find true Repentance, that Eternal Anguish do not ir∣recoverably over-take him, as the Just Recompence of such Unjust Dealing with us.

His third Citation was out of I. Penington;

Can outward Blood cleanse the Conscience? Can outward Water wash the Soul clean?

His Comment upon it is this, A plain Denyal of the Efficacy of the Blood of Christ shed on the Cross to cleanse the Soul from the Guilt of Sin, by its Satisfaction to the Justice of God. To which I answered,

Doth I. P. deny or any way meddle with the outward Blood concerning the Guilt of Sin past, how far it had an Influence into Ju∣stification, taking Justification in that Sense. But doth not I. P. treat of the outward Blood with re∣spect to Purgation and Sanctification of the Soul from the present (Nature) Acts and Habits of Sin that lodges therein? Is there no Difference betwixt being pardon'd Sin past, and the Ground of it, and being renewed and regenerated in Mind and Spirit, and the Ground of that Conversion?

His Reply to this, though he gives not two Lines of what I now repeated out of my Answer, lyes thus.

Reply, pag. 74.

And if we allow Penn's Construction, that he denyed the Blood of Christ, which he calls outward, to have an

influence into Sanctification, he commits a foul Error; for cleansing the Conscience by Sanctification is the Effect of the Blood of Christ, as well as the other. The New Te∣stament or Convenant is by Christ said to be the Cup of the New Testament in my Blood, wherein all the Pro∣mises and Mercies of the New Covenant are asserted, of which, I think, Cleansing by Sanctification is none of the least.

Rejoynder.

If by the Promise of Sanctification to be asserted in the Blood of Christ, he understands that both the Promise of Sanctification, and all other Promises relating to the Dispensation of the Gospel, were asserted, ratified and sealed to them that believe, in and by the Blood of Christ, I shall heartily and cheerfully submit; But if he mean that the Blood of Christ, shed so many Hundred Years ago by the Hands of Ungodly Men, is the inherent real Purger of the Conscience from Dead Works, I must deny what he sayes; for the Scripture attributes Sanctification to the Eternal Spirit; It is one Article of the common Creed of the called Christians, viz. the Lavour of Regeneration, which is by the Spirit. But what is all this to J. Faldo's defending himself from a∣busing I. Penington's Words? to wit, that by asking,

Can Outward Blood Cleanse? Can Outward Water wash the Soul?

He would make him to deny Christ's sacrificing of himself upon the Cross to have any In∣fluence towards the Remitting of the Guilt of Sin past, which is quite another thing? as this Argument mani∣fests, which naturally expresseth J. Faldo's wresting of I. P's words?

He that denyes Outward Blood can cleanse the Consci∣ence, denyes that Outward Blood may be a Sacrifice whereby to declare the Remission of the Guilt of Sin past, which is so absolutely and obviously false, that it may be seen of every mean Capacity; Yet hitherto J. Faldo's Reasoning runs. Once again before we leave him, thus.

He that is pardoned the Guilt of Sin that is past by the Blood of Christ as a Sacrifice declaring Remission to all that believe, is by the same Blood washed, cleansed, renewed and regenerated in his inward Man from the ve∣ry Nature, Power and In-dwelling of Sin; which is as untrue as the other; yet both these Arguments follow upon J. F's mis-rendering of I. Penington's words; But his Credit in this Particular is not at all blemisht by his Comment upon I. P's words, if we will believe him; for he thinks it may be justified by a Passage out of W. Smith.

Reply.

Catech. pag. 64.

We believe that Christ in us doth offer up himself a Living Sacrifice to God for us, by which the Wrath of God is appeased to us.

This Passage I cited, which Penn among many others takes no notice of; And if this can be the Blood of Christ shed at Jerusalem, on the Cross of Wood, it is a most incredible Mystery.

Rejoynder.

There is no Difficulty, Friendly Reader, in unfold∣ing his pretended Mystery, if the Question unto which the Answer was made be considered, which was this,

What is your Faith concerning Christ IN YOU as a Redeemer? which relates not to the Blood of Christ shed on the Cross of Wood; wherefore to make the Answer deny Remission of Sins to be declared by Christ's sacrificing of his Body upon the Cross (which was no part of the Question to be answered) is like all the rest of his Injustice towards us; If the Answer had rejected that Sacrifice, we should have condemned it, as much as he hath abused it; But unless he denyes that Christ offers himself in his Children in the Nature of a Mediating Sacrifice, W. Smith's words are so far from Denying the Blood of Christ shed upon the Cross of Wood, that he must allow them to be sound in themselves; for Christ is a Mediator and an Attoner in the Consciences of his People, at what time they shall fall under any Miscarriage, if they unfeignedly Repent, according to 1 John 2. 1, 2. as allowably as that he prayes in his People, as their Head,* 1.13 which A. Sadeel saith out of Augustine, and D. Everad, as anon. So that up∣on the whole, this is as strong and clear a Proof, as others that he hath hither to brought; for as they, so this (in Question and Answer) wholely concerns what Christ is to Man in Man (which was no part of the Question) and not what he was to any in his Visible Appearance, which was the only Question.

Before I leave this Particular, I must again declare, That we are led by the Light and Spirit of Christ with Holy Reverence to confess unto the Blood of Christ shed at Jerusalem, as that by which a Propitiation was held forth to the Remission of the Sins that were past through the Forbearance of God unto all that believed: And we

do embrace it as such; and do firmly believe, that thereby God declared his great Love unto the World; for by it is the Consciousness of Sin declared to be taken away, or Remission sealed to all that have known true Repentance, and Faith in his Appearance. But because of the Condition, I mean Faith and Repentance, there∣fore do we exhort all to turn their Minds to the Light and Spirit of Christ within, that by seeing their Condi∣tions, and being by the same brought both into true Con∣trition and holy Confidence in God's Mercy, they may come to receive the Benefit thereof; for without that ne∣cessary Condition, it will be impossible to obtain Re∣mission 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, com∣pleat Justification hath two parts; the first is, not im∣puting 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 bring∣ing into the Heart, and establishing his Everlasting Righ∣teousness 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 septua∣gint 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 pas∣sing over the Sin that was past,* 1.14 and. that he would be in Christ reconciling the World unto himself,* 1.15 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 Con∣demnation 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 ap∣pears from the 7th and 8th verses, Blessed are they whose Sins are forgiven, and whose Iniquities are Co∣vered.

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 Un∣godly Men, but not to the Benefit of any without Re∣pentance. 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 for∣bid, 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 Righ∣teous 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 com∣mitted 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 Pro∣pit••ation through Faith in his Blood to declare his Righte∣ousness 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 In∣nocent & Righteous slay thou not, for I will not justifie the wicked, Exod. 23. I. Lord who shall, ABIDE in thy TA∣BERNACLE, 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 justi∣fied, 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 Gen∣tiles 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 San∣ctification

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 justi∣fied, 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 com∣pleats Justification. First, In that no Man can have right to Remission of Sins, but upon Vnfeigned Re∣pentance and True Faith begotten in the Heart, which is as well the Beginnings of Sanctification, as Introdu∣ction to Justification. 2dly, That (though we grant as before at large, Remission of Sins, not to be the Ef∣fect or purchase of inward Righteousness and Holiness, for its impossible; but the free Love and Mercy of God yet) without the Holy Sanctifying or Regenerating Work of God in the Heart, by the Operation of his Eternal Spirit, whereby to do the Will of God, as it is in Heaven,* 1.16 it is impossible to have Access into God's Tabernable and Holy Hill, much less to be justified by him. And indeed, as true Repentance, which is the beginning of the Work of Sanctfication, opens the Way for the Remission of Sins that are past, which I call the first part of Justification; so is Regeneration or Sanctification throughout, in Bo∣dy, Soul and Spirit, as well the compleating of Justi∣fication, as Sanctification, consequently it is that se∣cond Part of Justification; because it is a making Man just by Nature, who was before Just but by Imputati∣on; that is, he that was accounted just by not having Sin imputed through Repentance and Faith in the Love of God, declared in and by Christ, is now inwardly made more just, because made Holy, as God is Holy,

Levit. 20. 7. Perfect, as his Heavenly Father is perfect, Mat. 5. 48. Righteous, even as God is Righ∣teous, 1 John 3. 7. through the effectual Working of the Holy Ghost.

There are Two Scriptures which prove this.

The one is, 1 Cor. 1. 30. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us Wisdom and Righte∣ousness, and Sanctification and Redemption; where the word Justification is left out, and yet the Thing Justifi∣cation doubtless included and implyed.

The other is, Rom. 8. 30. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified, and whom he justified, them he also glorified; where Sanctification is left out, yet without Dispute the word Justification includes it. Nor are we alone in this Judgment, since both Ancient and Modern Writers avouch the same.

Irenaeus, adv. Heres. lib. 4. cap. 30.

Irenaeus, Disciple to Polycarpus, who was Disciple to John the Divine Apostle, sayes,

Justiantem Patres virtute Decalogi conscriptam habentes in cordibus s••is legem. The Patriarchs, sayes he, were justified by vertue of the Law written in their Hearts.

Again, (Lib. 3. cap. 4.)

He speaks of many Nati∣ons of the Barbarians of whom they that believe in Christ have Salvation written in their Hearts by the Spi∣rit, without Paper or Ink.

Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. lib. 7.

And sayes Clemens Alexandrinus, who lived in the same Century;

Ye are made of him to be Righ∣teous, as he is Righteous, and leavened of the Holy Ghost.

Orig. Epist. ad Rom. L. 4. c. 4.

And Origen also tells us,

Therefore Christ Ju∣stified them only who have betaken themselves to a New Life by the Example of his Resurrection, and have cast away the Old Garments of Unrighteous∣ness and Iniquity, as the Cause of Death. Thus far of Fathers.

Of the Reformers from Popery.

H. Bullenger, Decad. 1. Serm. 6. de Justif.

H. Bullenger thus;

To justifie signifieth to remit Offences

(that is, as I distinguisht the first part; but hear what followeth)

to cleanse, to sanctifie, and to give utterance of Life Everlasting.

Again,

Justi∣fication is taken in this present Treatise for the Abso∣lution and Remission of Sins, for Sanctification and A∣doption into the Number of the Sons of God.

D. Barns's Works, p. 243, 244, 245.

To him I will add D. Barnes, Burnt in Henry the

Eighth's Dayes, who in his Discourse of the True Church against the Romish Bishops, asserts in full and pathetical Expressions;

That what gives her Accep∣tance in the Sight of God, is her being presented to God by Christ her Head, without Spot, through the Washing of Regeneration.

B. Downam. of Justif. chap. 1.

So Bishop Downam of Justification distinguisheth and determineth this Point almost in the very same Terms.

I will conclude with some Passages out of J. Spirgg's Book, entituled, A Testimony to an Approaching Glory.

J. Sprig. Test. p. 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 88, 89.

We may be bold to say after Christ, That Flesh pro∣fitteth nothing. If you only know Christ's Dying and Rising without you, it will profit you nothing, except you have him Dying and Rising within you. Error in this is the Root of the Dead Faith, whereof the World is full—Paul doth not say, that the Hearing that Christ dyed for the Sins of Men, doth make them free; No, there was the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus—Here is that which puts a Difference, when the Spirit of Jesus Christ brings the Covenant to the Heart of a poor Creature, when the Spirit of Adop∣tion and Sonship revealing us God as our Father, re∣vealing God in Vnion with us, our Righteousness and our Strength, he doth indeed seal us to the Day of Re∣demption;

He sets apart Christ's Sheep, this distin∣guisheth them from the other. So that if you lay your Salvation upon an* 1.17 Historical Christ, ye will be deceived, If you will have that in which you may con∣fide, you must have Christ revealed in you in the Spirit.

This is the sum of all I desire to commend unto you, that we are not justified, we are not sanctified by Christ's dying, by Christ's suffering in the Flesh only, That is not the compleat Ministration of our Salvation (There indeed we see our Salvation as in a Glass, and it is transacted as in a Figure, as in the Hi∣story) but then are we actually sanctified, wher as God doth send that same Spirit of Adoption into our Hearts, revealing unto us the Love of the Father, and revealing unto us our Reconciliation, that Re∣conciliation that was held forth to us on the Cross, but which is dispensed unto us, by our being offered up upon the Cross, as Christ was.

All these Persons put great Value upon the Inward Work of God and Christ in the Heart, and plainly de∣termine Sanctification and Justification to be one and the same thing; but if any one have the Preference, the Scripture it self gives it to Sanctification, 1 Cor. 6. 11. Know ye not that the Vnrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God; Be not deceived, neither Fornicators, nor Idolaters, nor Adulterers, nor Effeminate, nor Abusers of themselves with Mankind, nor Thieves, nor Covetous, nor Drunkards, nor Revilers, nor Extortioners shall

inherit the Kingdom of God; and such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and the Spirit of our God.* 1.18 H. Grotius expounds the word sanctified 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, accepistis spiritum sanctum, ye have received the Holy Ghost, and the word Justified, majores quotidie in justi∣tia fecistis progressus, ye have made daily greater pro∣gress in Righteousness. And D. Hammond, in his An∣notations upon the fifth Chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians, interprets 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Righte∣ousness, a being first sanctified, and then justified.

To end this Chapter, serious Reader, It is our Faith, that Christ to conform us to his Heavenly Image, who have by wicked Works degenerated into the Earth∣ly, and thereby rendered our selves Aliens, yea, Re∣bels to his pure Law of Life, first declares or holds forth Forgiveness of Sins past, upon true Repentance, by the laying down of his Life; and then works out, by his Holy Power and Spirit in our Consciences, the Sin that is inherent, and in the room thereof brings in his own Everlasting Righteousness. So that our being accounted Righteous, is as Christ was accounted a Sin∣ner; That is, he was not a Sinner by Commission or Guilt, neither were we as of our selves Righteous by Innocency or Non-commission of Sin; for then there had been no need of Remission to have been declared by his publick offering up of himself: But he was so reputed from bearing away the Sins that were past through the Forbearance of God; and we are accoun∣ted as Righteous (upon Repentance and true Faith) because of that Remission and perfect Acquittance of Sins

that are past, as if we had never committed them. There∣fore wofully will they be mistaken, that shut out the in∣ward Work of God in the Heart, and stretch this to Sins past, present and to come, without any regard thereto; when as the Benefit of Christ's Suffering, can in no sense be known or enjoyed, without the true Faith and unfeigned Repentance, which must precede Remission it self (& by whom, or where is that wrought, if not by Christ within) much more must they go be∣fore compleat Justification, which comprizeth Sanctifi∣cation and Redemption, we cannot but pron ounce it a Dangerous Doctrine; since it flatters People with that being compleated, that is not; thereby deluding their poor Souls into a Perishing Security.

CHAP. IX.

Of the True Christ. We own, and our Adversary prov'd to deny him.

THe sixteenth Chapter of his first Book charged us with the Denyal of the Christ of God; Among other Testimonies that he brought out of our Friends Books, to maintain it, I did eflectually consider two; viz.

This we certainly know, and can never call the Bodily Garment Christ, but that which appeared and dwelt in the Body.

Again,

For that which he took upon. him was but a Garment, even the Flesh and Blood of our Nature, I. Peninington Quest. p. 20, 23, 32.

To introduce my Answer, I observed at the

same time, and in the very same page, He confost, That we don't deny there was such a Man as Jesus, the Son of Mary, and that God, or rather Christ, was in him, which I then said makes up our Christ; I meant, God manifested in the Flesh. He replyeth thus.

Reply, p. 76, 77.

But this I told W. P. was no more then the Quakers profess themselves; We witness (saith Fox) the same Christ that ever was, now manifested in the Flesh.

Rejoynder.

He should have given us the Book and Page, where G. F. hath so expressed himself; however, we deny not that Doctrine; for God doth dwell and walk in his Children, who are called his Temples and Tabernacles in Holy Scripture, 2 Cor. 6. 16. Rev. 21. 3. But we must forever reject J. Faldo's ignorant or worse Con∣sequence; That because we own, that God dwells in his Children, therefore he dwelt no more in that Body of Flesh he prepared to manifest himself by then he doth in his People; Or, that our asserting, that God appea∣red and dwelt in that Holy Body eminently prepared by him, is to be understood in no larger Sense, then that in which we understand him to dwell in his Children. I might as well argue against the Scripture as J. Faldo doth against us; Christ was full of Grace and Truth; therefore when he fills his Children with Grace and Truth, they have as much Grace and Truth in them as their Lord and Master. Or thus, God was in Christ and God was in Paul; therefore he was as much in Paul as he was in Christ. It is after this Rate, Reader, our

Adversary essayes to confute us, as if we made no Di∣stinction between the Fulness and the Measure, the Treasury and the Gift; He was full of Grace and Truth, and of his Fulness have we received and Grace for Grace, Joh. 1. 14, 16.

The next Thing I observed from what he gave as our Confession of the true Christ, was this, That he whom we call Christ, is not John Faldo's Christ; for he was that Body only that dyed; here he cuts my Answer of short and bestoweth this Reply upon it.

Reply, pag. 76.

Here the Word, Only, W. P. forgeth; he makes my allowing Christ's Body to be his Garment, to imply, it is not Christ himself.

Rejoynder.

Why did he not give my Words; who knows by what he quoted of my Answer that he had ever been so kind? the Man knew it pincht him, and seem'd re∣solved to conceal it. It was this:

In the midst of his second Proof, he inserts these two Words VERY RIGHT, as his Assent to that Part of it, which to me seems as inconsistent with his Purpose as may be, to wit, that which Christ took upon htm was our Gar∣ment, even the Flesh and Blood of our Nature; there∣fore said I, John Faldo as well as we acknowledgeth, That the Garment is not Christ, unless there be no Dif∣ference betwixt Christ and his Garment; Or, that Christ was but the Garment of that divine Being that dwells therein; which were unscriptural and very carnal;

and I still say, That Christ's Garment can ne∣ver constitute him Christ. And that, as he darkly calls

it the (intire) Christ (as I shall make appear) so hath he in this Concession contradicted himself, and utterly given away the Cause. But he is of another Mind as his Reply will inform us.

Reply, pag. 76.

The Apostle Paul calls his and the Saints Bodies their Cloathing, 1 Cor. 5. yet they were never the less a part of themselves.

Rejoynder.

A meer Rattle for Children. Did the Body God pre∣par'd for his Son to do his Will in, help to constitute him Christ, as much as the Apostles Body did help to consti∣tute him Paul? If it did, why may we not as well say that Paul was among the Fathers in the Wilderness so many hundred Years before he was born, as the same Apostle doth assert, Christ by Name to have been the spiritual Rock of which the Fathers drank in the Wilder∣ness, 1 Cor. 10. 4. for if the Body constitute him Christ, as sayes J. F. then he could no more be Christ before he had that Body, then Paul could be Paul before he had his Body; and consequently, There is no more Absurdity in affirming, That Paul was Paul so many hundred Years before he was born, then that Christ was Christ so many hundred Years before he was born.

Again, If Paul's Body were but a Cloathing, how much more remote doth J. F's Comparison make Christ's Body to be from his Divinity? since Paul did not preexist, Christ did; but he that took that Body, and that Body that was taken, were not of equal Date; for the Body was taken in the Fulness of Time; but he that took it, and manifested himself by it, was from

Everlasting. In short, Christ qualified that Body for his Service, but that Body did not constitute Christ; He is invisible, and ever was so to the ungodly World; (that was not his Body) as honest J. Bradford told Arch-Deacon Harpsfield. B. Mart. 3. Vol. p. 293. and so much the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or anonted signifieth, which was not outward after the Jewish Ceremony, but by the Spirit and invisible Power of God.

Lastly, I will leave it with my Reader to consider what better terms then Earthly and Perishing. J. F's Comparison implyeth to Christ's Body; for such was the Apostles and the Bodies of those Saints he writ to. But he will by no means have himself concerned with a great Part of my following Discourse, which was, he thinks, in Opposition to no Body; because I argued that the meer Body of Christ could not be the intire Christ (though he makes our Denyal of it to be a dis∣owning of the true Christ) producing a Passage out his Book to my Purpose in Contradiction to himself, viz. p. 72. The Flesh and Blood of Christ we do not be∣lieve to be Christ, separated from his Mans Soul, or that to be Christ separated from his Divne and Eternal Na∣ture; bestowing upon me for so ill employing of my time, these Terms, Vain Trifler—Pedantick Mageste∣rialness, Forger, and that it is a greater Wickedness then being a Thief; to make him assert the meer Body to be the intire Christ; adding, but this is Penn's high-way and beaten Rode One would think after all this, that I had wronged him with all imaginable Baseness, in fast∣ning upon him any such Conclusion; yet if I make it not appear by his Reply (which one would think, he should have penned a little more cautiously after he had given such Occasion by his former Discourse) and that to, in

his very next page, let my Reader say, I merit all th••se hard Words that J. Faldo flingeth so angrily upon me.

He produced several Scriptures to prove (as I under∣stood him) the Manhood to be the Christ of God (or else he did nothing; for without so believing and arguing it was impossible for him to prove our Denyal of the true Christ, because. we asserted Christ to have been before that Body, consequently that it was not the the intire Christ) which I explained and rescued. He omits giving the Reader any account of it, only in ge∣neral Tearms, and that not without Perversion; His Reply unto which will make good my Construction of his Words, or I am greatly mistaken.

Reply, p. 77.

Whereas I produced Abundance of Scriptures to prove that the Man Jesus is the Christ, W. P. will by no means allow them to have that Sence; no, not that in Luke 2. 26. And it was revealed to him (Simeon) by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see Death before he had seen the Lord's Christ, neither that the Child Jesus whom Si∣meon took up in his Arms, was the Christ; Certainly (sayes W. P. p. 161.) This Allegation from Luke 2. 26. will never prove the Body of Jesus, which the Father prepared before him, to be the whole intire Christ, &c. Neither did I produce It to prove the Body to be such; what Disputing can there be with a Man that keeps nei∣ther to my Words, nor to the Question.

Rejoynder.

But is this the great Enemy to Forgery, the express Quoter, one that cites to a Tittle, and scorns, as to Ignore

his own Concessions, so to render his own Conclusions for his Enemies Assertions? who charges me with de∣nying this Passage among others, as any whit proving the Man Jesus to be the Christ, whilst he quotes my own Conclusion upon it to have been no other then the Body of Jesus, to have been the whole and in∣tire Christ. Now he cant compass his End, he produ∣ced not those Scriptures to prove any such Thing; but what is clearer then that it is the same thing with J. Faldo, to deny the Body of Jesus to be the intire Christ of God, and to deny the Christ of God; con∣sequently, that by the Christ of God he understands with L. Muggleton only the Body that died? So that he did but evade, when he said that I argued against no body, in affirming and proving that the Body taken in that time was not the whole Christ of God; and that he produced those Scriptures to that very End, notwith∣standing what he sayes to the contrary; for what else can any infer, when he so obviously makes no Diffe∣rence between saying, The Man Jesus is not Christ, and the visible Body of Jesus is not the whole intire Christ; Thus, Reader, he Faulters at the Entrance. I will give a brief Account of neer two pages of Answer by him omitted.

It is and will be granted that Simeon saw the Lord's Christ; but I hope J. F. will not deny unto that good man who waited for Israel's Consolation, that he had as well a spiritual as natural, or inward as outward Sight of Christ; for it were both to deny Christ's Divini∣ty, and to conclude Simeon void of any spiritual Sight or Intendment in these Words of the Lord's Christ, as a Light enlightning the Gentiles, &c. though still be it understood, that we confess that Child as seen and un∣derstood

by Simeon, with Respect to that great End of his Appearance to be the Lord's Christ; Let none then be so unjust as to infer we deny the Lords Christ, because we rather chuse to say the Body of Christ, then Christ; for sayes J. Faldo as well as we elsewhere, Christ is God manifest in Flesh;

See my Answer, pag. 161.

Nothing can be clearer then that I only argued in Opposition to his carnal Doctrine, against the meer Bodie's being the Christ of God. Now, since he makes me hereby to deny the Man Christ Jesus, I must con∣clude, that by the Man Jesus he understands no more then the meer Body of Jesus, otherwise, how do I deny the Man Jesus to be the Christ of God, in only scrupe∣ling to call the meer and only Body of Jesus the ••hrist of God. His next Animadversion was this.

Reply, p. 78.

Let us observe how W. P. abuses that Scrip∣ture, Acts 5. 30, 31. The words (sayes he) are thus to be understood, The God of our Fathers (who rai∣sed up (the Body of) Jesus from the Dead, which ye slew, and hung upon a Tree, him (whose Body you so cruelly used) hath God exalted at his Right Hand, &c. Beside this Construction, which renders it not to be Christ, but only his Body that suffered, and so Christ never suffered nor dyed, nor rose, he (W. P.) puts in∣stead of whom he slew? which he slew, that it may in∣tend only the Body, and not the Person of Christ.

Rejoynder.

I appeal to my Reader's Understanding and Con∣science, if J. Faldo doth not in this Sentence make the

meer Body of Christ to be the Christ of God; for one Reason why he denyes my Interpretation, is my ma∣king the meer Body only to have dyed, which not be∣ing 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 acknowledg∣eth 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? 'Tis 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 Argumen∣tation 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 Sepul∣chre, 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 ab••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 mor∣tal 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 un∣derstand 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, in∣stead

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, pro∣perly 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 se∣parated 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 materi∣al things; for if the Soul could be properly hanged, she could as well be burnt, and laid into a Sepul∣chre. 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 sensibi∣lity 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 Argu∣ment; The Soul is in the Body, therefore the Soul is as well tyed as the Body; the Holy Spirit and his Com∣forts 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 Testimo∣nies 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 teach∣eth 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 Equi∣vocation 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Anointed, hath a Re∣lation to his being King, Priest and Prophet, which are both of a more Spiritual Nature and Dignity, then the Flesh Christ took of the Seed of Abraham; for he was made the high Priest of the second Covenant, was without beginning of Dayes or End of Life.

Fourthly, Because Christ himself magnifieth the Spirit above the Flesh; They look not farther then his Body, or Flesh as it was visible to the World, and he appointed them to look farther, yea, to his Flesh and Blood spiritually, which is Meat indeed, and Drink indeed, being that Living Bread which came down from Heaven, that who eats thereof shall live fore∣ver, Joh. 6. 48, to 58, & 63. And those that see not through and beyond that visible Body of Flesh, which was the Vail which the eternal Word took to trasact and represent as in a common Person, that which every Child of God ought measurably to witness in his own particular, unto the beholding and partaking of the di∣vine Widom, Power and Righteousness that dwelt therein which are Meat indeed and Drink indeed unto

every hungry and thirsty Soul, they are not yet come to the chief Corner-Stone that is Elect and Pretious, but are carnal, not knowing the Scriptures nor the Pow∣er of God, Mat. 22. 29.

Fifthly, Christ Jesus lay'd far more Weight upon the Coming of the Comforter, or himself, in his second and spiritual Appearance in them, among whom he bo∣dily conversed, then upon the Continuance of his bo∣dily Presence, Joh. 16. 7. intimating that he intended a more spiritual Communion with them, they in him and he in them, even as he was in his Father & his Father in him, chap. 17, 21, 23. a Fellowship beyond what they had already known, how could it otherwise have been ex∣pedient as the Text expresseth it, if the Change from his visible to invisible Presence, had not been both more glorious and advantageous: His Disciples believed him for the Words he spoak, Chap. 16. 30. But ver. 31. 32. Jesus answerd them, Do you now believe? Behold, the Hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered every Man to his OWN; as much as if he had said, You shall then know me and believe in me upon a more clear and certain Ground, when you shall have received thus of my Fulness, and Grace for Grace, Joh. 1. 16. and be scattered to it, which is hard to be done while I stay in this Capacity among you; therefore it is expe∣dient that I go away, as to my bodily Presence, Joh. 16. 7. (on which you have such great Dependence) but I (Christ) will not leave you comfortless, I will come a Comforter unto you, Chap. 14. 3, 18, 19, 20. For lo I am with you alwayes even to the End of the World, Mat. 28. 20. this is the Christ of God.

Sixthly, Because the Apostle Paul desired not, thence forth to know Christ after the Flesh, but spiritually as

he was the Son of God revealed in himself, 2 Cor. 5. 16. Gal. 1. 15, 16. and as the Apostle counted all other Know∣ledge Dross & Dung to that of the Glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ reveal'd in him; so was he not conten∣ted that the Galatians should rest in a fleshly Knowledge of Jesus Christ, but travelled in Birth with them (like a faithful Witness of the inward Work of God) a second time until Christ was formed in them, Gal. 4. 19. who doubtless was the true Christ.

Seventhly, Because that Flesh of Christ is called a Vail, but he himself is within the Vail, which is the Ho∣ly of Holyest, whereinto Christ Jesus our High Priest hath entered, Hebr. 10. 20, 21. And as he descended into, and past through a suffering State in his fleshly Ap∣pearance,* 1.19 and returned into that State of Immortality and Eternal Life and Glory from whence he humbled himself, which was and is the Holy of Holiest (then obscur'd or hid by his flesh or body the Vail) while in the World) so must all know a Death to their Fleshly Wayes and Religions, yea their Know∣ledge of Christ himself after the Flesh, or they stick in the Vail, and never enter into the Holy of Holy∣est, nor come to know him in any Spiritual Re∣lation, as their High and Holy Priest that abides therein.

Eighthly, Because that Christ lives and dwells in the Hearts of his Children, Joh. 14. 23. chap. 15. 5. chap. 17. 21. Coloss. 1. 27. which cannot be said of the Outward Body of Christ.

Therefore I cannot by any means believe that the meer visible Flesh and Body constitutes Christ; though I shall confess, that respecting the Administration, and

the Service of that Holy Body (fitted and quallified of God as an Instrument to usher, introduce and bring it forth into the World) it may very well have attribu∣ted to it the Name Christ, being so nearly related; But rather that Divine Nature, Wisdom, Power, Righteousness, Grace and Truth, of which he is the Fulness (whose transcending Glory was vailed by that Body of Flesh he wore, and was only let forth in that Day as any were capable of beholding and receiving it) which dwelt therein. And those who at this Day do seed upon the History of the Bodily Appearance (yet honourable in its place) & know not a breaking through the Vail, by witnessing a Measure of the same Divine Wisdom, Power, Righteousness, Grace & Truth reveal∣ed and born forth in themselves, they are but carnal and fleshly Christians, being unacquainted with the Forma∣tion of the Christ of God in themselves, which is the o∣pening of the Mystery of Christ, God manifested in the Flesh, and Christ abiding the Hope of Glory in the Souls of his People.

This distinction, friendly Reader, of Christ and his Body, is very unpleasant to me; but I am thrust into it by the loud Clamours of our Adversary against us, & as too short he rests our words so as to rebuke his fond Absurdities, I hope sufficiently detected, and which was more in my Eye, and indeed lay hardest upon my Spi∣rit, to oppose and defeat his Carnal Objections against the Glorious Christ of God; for, by his vehement Out-cries at us, as Persons denying the Christ of God, because we rather chuse to call that Body that was pre∣pared of God, the Body of Christ, then Christ himself, to beat People off at once from hearkening after our Doctrine of the Spiritual Second Coming of Christ

into the Souls of Men; for if his Doctrine be true, Christ doth not really dwell in his Children; thereby depriving the Children of Men from the most Heaven∣ly Enjoyment and Priviledge God hath laid up for them that fear him: For I am bold to affirm, and that in the Name of the only True and Wise God, The True Church is become Christ's Body, and he (the Divine Wisdom, Power and Righteousness) lives, reigns and puts forth himself in and by her; and that all those who come not thus to experience the Christ of God to dwell in them, their King Prophet and High Priest (who is without Beginning of Dayes and End of Life) they are ignorant of God's Christ, do stick in the Vail, and know not any Entrance into the Holy of Holies, where the Divine Vnction from the High Priest is received, and the Blessed, Holy, Spiritual Fellowship of the Go∣spel is witnessed; for which Glorious Dispensation we contend through all Difficulties, making it our Busi∣ness to promote it in the World; and though it be now but as a Cloud of a Span long, yet it shall spread and cover the Heavens, from whence the Inhabitants of the Earth shall receive Refreshment, being bedewed and covered with the Vertue and Righteousness there∣of, for want of which the World is as a Wilderness, being over run with all manner of Impiety under a spe∣cious Shew of Religion, making up that Whore of Babylon and Mother of Harlots, and City filled with all sorts of Abomination, against which the Wrath of God is now, and will yet be more and more revealed. Oh! Compassion to the Souls of Men, our Brethren in the Flesh, opens our Mouthes with frequent Cryes, that they would come out of her, lest they be Parta∣kers of her Plagues; for, knowing the Terrors of the

Lord, we therefore perswade them to a diligent search after the one Thing necessary, which shall never be taken from them, I mean, the Testimony of Jesus in them∣selves, that they are his by the Washing of Regenerati∣on: For with great Sorrow I write it, God he knows; Unspeakable and Irreparable is the Loss Multitudes have sustained by such Carnal Conceits, as their Prea∣chers through Blindness have begot a Belief in them of, and a Zeal for, as sufficient to Salvation, to the suspecting and open decrying under the hateful Names of Error, Heresie and Blasphemy, the very Soul or Substance of True Christian Religion, which only brings to the Inheritance of it.

For us, our Appeal is to God, and that Impartial Generation he is now bringing forth, who will have an Ear to hear, and a Palate to savour and taste the Truth of this Ancient Mystery, Christ in them the Hope of Glory, at what time these testimonies shall be of value, however dis-regarded by the false Jew and Carnal Christian of the present Age.

I will end my part herein with our most solemn Con∣fession in the Holy Fear of God, That we believe in no other Lord Jesus Christ then he who appeared to the Fa∣thers of old at sundry Times and in divers Manners, and in the Fulness of Time took Flesh of the Seed of A∣braham, and Stock of David, became Immanuel, God manifest in Flesh, through which he conversed in the World, preached his Everlasting Gospel, and by his Di∣vine Power gathered faithful Witnesses; and when his Hour was come, was taken of cruel Men, his Body wick∣edly slain, which Life he gave to proclaim, upon Faith and Repentance, a general Ransom to the World; the Third Day he rose again, and afterwards appeared

among his Disciples, in whose view he was received up in∣to Glory, but returned again, fulfilling those Scrip∣tures, He that is with you, shall be in you; I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you again, and receive you unto my self, John 14. 3, 17, 18. and that he did come and abide at really in them, and doth now in his Children by Measure, as without Measure in that Body prepared to perform the Will of God in; That He is their King, Prophet and High Priest, and intercedes and mediates on their behalf, bringing in E∣verlasting Righteousness, Peace and Assurance forever into all their Hearts and Consciences; to whom be Ever∣lasting Honour and Dominion, Amen.

A few Testimonies in Defence of our Sense.

B. Jewel. Serm. upon Jos. 6. 1, 2, 3.

My first Testimony is out of that great English Author and worthy Man B. Jewel, who speaking of what Christ was to the Jews in the Wilderness, sayes thus;

Christ had not yet taken upon him a Natural Body, yet they did eat his Body; He had not yet shed his Blood, yet they drank his Blood. St. Paul saith, all did eat the same Spiritual Meat, that is, the Body of Christ: All did drink of the same spiritual Drink, that is, the Blood of Christ; and that as VERILY AND TRULY AS WE DO NOW; and whoso∣ever then did so eat lived forever.

I think a preg∣nant and apt Testimony to Christ's being the Christ of God before his Coming in the Flesh. But this being the Language of a Bishop, though more then an Hun∣dred years old: Perhaps his Stomach will not digest

it, and therefore let's hear what some considerable Se∣paratists will tell us.

Joshua Sprig. Test. to an Approaching Glory, Pag. 80, 81, 86.

I beseech you therefore, be not offended whenas we say, That Christ according to the History of him only, and according to his Ministration in the Flesh, is but a Form, in which God doth appear to us; and in which God doth give us a Map of Salvation; Thou knowest it not to be thy real Salvation, except it be revealed within thee by the Spirit—A map serves until a Man knows the Country—There is Christ in the Flesh, and Christ in the Spirit; Christ in the Flesh is the Witness, the common Person in whom our Salvation is transacted as in a Figure; Christ in the Spi∣rit, is the real Truth and Principle of Righteousness, and of Life; he is the real Salvation within us.

A∣gain in his Preface he saith,

That in that Degree that the Spiritual Administration takes place, the Fleshly Administration gives place; in that Measure that Christ's Second Appearance draws on us, we are drawn from under his first Appearance.

Thus far Joshua Sprig, whose Book was licensed, as we have formerly said, by Joseph Caril, a reverend Mi∣nister among the Independents.

C. Goad's Last Testimony, pag. 76, 77.

Destroy the Vail, and destroy Death; the taking away of the Vail is the taking away of Death; Death upon a true Account is nothing but a Vail upon

God who is our Life, even Christ's Flesh was a Vail. Ordinances are Vailes. If God be our Life, the less we are in these things, the more we are in Life.

T. Collier's Discovery of the New Creation, pag. 399.

We have had very narrow Apprehensions of Christ, and the Manifestation of the Glory of Christ, limiting it to the one Man, when the Truth is, that Christ and all the Saints make up but One Christ, 1 Cor. 12. 12. And God as Truly mani∣festeth Himself in the Flesh of all his, as he did in Christ, although the Measure of that Manifestation is different.

What sayes John Faldo to these things? Are not we Out-done in our Expressions by profest Mini∣sters, and those of the Independent and Baptist Way? shall we be stiled Blasphemers, that more modestly utter our Belief, whilst these Men notwithstanding pass for Orthodox? I hope J. Faldo has more Reverence for J. Caryl, then to question his Judgment in the License of the first; and not so little Respect for the two last as to cry out, Heresie, Blasphemy, &c.

CHAP. X.

Three Scriptures rescured from the false Glosses of our Ad∣versary; Joh. 1. 9. Rom. 10. 3. 2 Pet 1. 19.

OUr Adversary imployes his 19th Chapter in de∣fence 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 lame∣ly 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 grant•• what we say by contradicting himself; or sayes no∣thing to what we deny, that may strictly merit our no∣tice. 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 Advan∣tage 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 Conces∣sions; What Advantage it is to our Cause, let it an∣swer 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 ano∣ther 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 Di∣vinity as necessary to our Salvation; neither doth his Di∣••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 Sal∣vation, 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-Con∣tradiction, should absurdly add, yea, and as an Ani∣mal 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 Bu∣••••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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 grant∣ing is of those things that are too hard to be kept; how∣ever I accept his Acknowledgment, as also of his Si∣lence 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. That•• 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 Refresh∣ment by a Dutch Woman's Babbling (though understand∣ing 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 in∣dulge in themselves? It is strange to me if my Adver∣sary be not guilty in censuring; but that hurts him more then me. I say again that his Drift was to uncon∣cern, That was the true Light in any other Time then Christ's Coming in the Flesh;* 1.20 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; nay the Evangelist is not yet come so much as to mention any Thing of his Ma∣nifestation in Flesh; and if we will believe J. Faldo the Verse concerns the Word Creator and not Redee∣mer, which he stints to his Coming in the Flesh, see pag. 89. But by his Interpretation THAT is not re∣lative to his Appearance in the Flesh, but to the Word, which was with God, and was God, as p. 84. and so

the Spanish Translation hath it, That WORD was the true Light, &c. so that either the Word was not before that Appearance; or if it were, being that true Light, that true Light was before that Appearance. Therefore Man-kind may very well be said, to have alwayes been enlightned by that Light, or that the Word should be before that Appearance, and that true Light, which is the very Life of the Word, or Word it self, should be stinted to that Appearance, is as ab∣surd as any thing well can be.

Now Reader comes that part which he cited, but more regularly;

That we should take That was the true Light, &c. to de∣ny Christ now to be true Light that enlightens all, be∣cause he was so, is a strange Impertinency and gross Falshood.

In Reply to all which next to what I have already transcribed, he sayes no more then this.

Reply, p. 82.

W. P. should have undertaken to prove that Christ was before that time, and is now God manifest in Flesh, as he was then, and to those Ends.

Rejoynder.

I did abundantly prove it in our Sence, and nothing solid hath been offered to invalidate what I alledged; but let it suffice that he hath granted my Charge. First, In denying Christ to have been either Christ or the true Light before that Time, a manifest Contradiction to himself, p. 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89. of his first Book, second Part. Next, He therefore denyes, that Christ is now the true Light, because, he is not at this Day God manifested in Flesh in the same Manner as he was then,

and thus much further, that he was the true Light before that Appearance (Socinianism in the abstract) I do not say so in Disgrace, but because he pretends to disown it. For his saying, I should have undertaken to prove them is absurd, unless he had denyed them. This with me, is matter enough to impeach my Adversary of blackest Sacriledge. I need add no more, nor no more will I add then this, The Question was not, whether we affirm Christ to be that Light by his visible and bodily Appear∣ance Life, Doctrine, Miracles, Death Resurrection, &c. in this Day, which he was in that. But whether these Words that was the true Light, did not relate to the Life of the Word which was with God and was God (and consequently if he did not enlighten Men) before he took Flesh, in the Flesh, and after his Resurrection and Ascension by his Eternal Power and God-head, as the great Sun of Righteousness and spiritual Luminary of the Invisible and Intelligible World? Unto which his Words bear no Relation, unless it be any to deny the Question.

In short, I told him, the very next Words to those he cited, That should we grant the Evangelist to refer to that Appearance, Joh. 1. 9. yet it would conclude no Denyal of Christ's being the true Light that enlightens every Man that cometh into the World both before and since that Appearance, because it was the most eminent breaking forth of the divine Light; which doubtless had been enough to satisfie any moderate or modest Man, but not satisfying him, I must infer as before, that his Displeasure is against our believing Christ to have enlightned before and since that visible Coming, which if I understand any thing, is in so many Words to deny his Divinity.

The next Scripture by him exposited and by me res∣cued was Rom. 10. 3. The Word is nigh thee, &c. he doth but touch upon it, and gives so little of my An∣swer, that there is scarce Head or Tail to be made of his Paragraph. I will contract my Answer, and give his Reply.

He made the Word to be the written Laws, Statutes and Commandments given by Moses, his first Book, p. 94. I answer'd;

It could not be so understood, for the Questi∣on was not about them, but about the Commandment of Commandments and Word of Words; which he resolves thus: Let none say, who shall ascend, descend, or go beyond the Seas to fetch the great Word and Con∣mandment, but the Word is very nigh thee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies the innermost Parts of Men, whereinto the outward Commandments could never come. Be∣sides, without the Word nigh in the Heart there could be no Conviction upon the Conscience, &c.

Reply, p. 82, 83.

W. P. pu••s to fetch the great Word and Command∣ment, in the Letter of the Text, as the very Words of Moses; A Crime to be abhorred, yet frequent with him that pretends a sacred Esteem of the Scriptures. In few Words to answer all; Moses said of this Word, verse 12. It is not in Heaven, which may be said of the Book of the Law or written Word, but not of Christ the Word—also as I cold him before, 'tis such a Word as uses to be in the Mouth which is the Organ and Instrument of speak∣ing the Greek Word for the Word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is never to be understood of Christ; not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is sometimes intended of Christ the Word.

Rejoynder.

This looks more like a Reply then any thing we have had a great while, yet that it only looks so, will ly on our Part to show. First, He charges me with Forgery; Let's see what it was. I said, to fetch the great VVord or Commandment, and the Scripture sayes, to bring the VVord or Commandment. Now I know no Diffe∣rence betwixt fetching and bringing; 'tis true, I added Great, which of God's VVord or Commandment be not, I did amiss; If it be, he is an idle Caviller, fitter to kill Flies all day with the foolish Emperour then to write Books of Religious Controversie, It is called Commandment, Deutr. 30. 11. and Word, ver. 14.

But it is not in Heaven, therefore it is not Christ, sayes our Adversary: I believe J. Faldo knew in his own Conscience, that those VVords were spoken on purpose to prevent the Excuse of being without a Com∣mandment, and that so nigh as their own Hearts or innermost Parts, and not to exclude the VVord Heaven; but rather thus: The Word is not so in Heaven as that it is excluded your Consciences, or that ye need to say, who shall go up to fetch it down, for it is in your Hearts to instruct you that you may do it, and reprove you if you do it not. God was never the less in Heaven for being nigh unto the Consciences of the Athenians, which was Paul's Doctrine, Acts 17. 27, 28. for sayes he, in the Name of their own Prophets, In him we live, move and have our Being; for we are also of his Off-Spring.

Erasmus in Deut. saith, non supra ••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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is often so translated.

Fagius upon the Place in Deuter. thus, In Corde di∣cit quia Legem cordibus Judaeorum inscripserat Dominus priusquam in Tabulis illis lap••deis Decologum insculpsisset i. e. In the Heart saith he; because the Lord ha•••• writ∣ten 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. Be∣sides, the Commandments are mentioned, verse 10. but this Commandment or Word, verse 11. 14. which can∣not in good Sense be called the same, but rather that Law, Word or Commandment mentioned by the Apo∣stle, 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 Gen∣tiles an inward and the Jews only an outward Law. But suppose, what our Adversary sayes of the Word in Deu∣teronomy 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 Or∣dinances, 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 Apo∣stle preached: Nay, we may go further yet, and as∣sert 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, de∣scend 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 under∣stood 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 Righte∣ousness 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 Jos••ph before he died; suppose him to have askt, how shall I do to see Joseph? and that some body answer∣ed, Do not ask how ••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,* 1.21 for the RVLER of all Egypt standeth nigh thee: Would not every Body think the Person meant Jo∣seph that was so. This is so plain to our Pupose that every common Understanding may discern the Reaso∣nableness of our Interpreration.

For the Greek being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it makes nothing against us, in that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath the same Signifi∣caiton with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as* 1.22 Scapula informs us out of Plato.

Clemens Alexandrinus Admon.* 1.23 ad Gent. on 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 calls it the Word of the Lord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i.* 1.24 the HEAVENLY WORD, the true Contender for Mastery, crowned in the Theater of the whole World; and in his Strom l. 2. speak∣ing of the same Place (Rom. 10.) saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.25 The DIVINE WORD cryes, calling all Men without Distinction, which must needs be Christ the living VVord of God.

Besides, there is but one word in the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 most commonly used to signifie a word; and though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are two words, yet they both are un∣der this one word in the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as in E. Hutter's Translation, John 1. 1. Rom. 10. 8. 2 Pet. 1. 19. But the Weakness of our Adversary in this Particular must needs be obvious to all that consider how poorly he begs the Question, in saying that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not sig∣nifie Christ the Word, which is the Matter disputed;

he appeals to the use of the Word, which helps him not; for sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies as well Christ as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not signifie Christ as well as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; his Reply confesseth the latter, and the Text and Context of this place, with J. F's Inter∣pretation Rom. 10. 8. maketh good the former; I do but herein make use of J. Faldo's own Rule, The Construction of Words of various significations is to be made as most suits with the Context, Rep. pag. 83. and so we leave him in this Particular.

The Third Scripture was, 2 Pet. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This Scripture was effectually rescued in my Answer from the ill use ma∣ny have made thereof against us and the Truth; He sayes little, if any thing, besides meer Cavil, leaving the most considerable part of the Defence of our Translation of the Text behind him. After four Pages escaped, he begins with me thus.

Reply, p. 83.

W. P. tells me,

That though our Translation hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (also) yet it is commonly understood by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (but) it signifies a Comparison, p. 186. If J. F. hath but Greek and Honesty enough, he must needs acknowledge that Positives, Comparatives and Su∣perlatives are used promisucously in the Greek.

This I shall shew it is little to purpose, except his Osten∣tation &c. If Stephanus, Pastor, Schrevelius, Scapu∣la and Leigh understand Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fignifies And, Also, For and If, Although, and many more, yea, and very often But, and is an Adversative Particle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, John 8. 55. Yet or but ye have not known him.

Rejoynder.

Ostentation belongs (with Emptiness) to this Re∣ply; first, I never said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did signifie but in no place, next, I only said, it was commonly by our Adversaries understood so here, and consequently made an Adver∣sative Particle, contrary to the Nature of the Text, and all Translations that I have ever seen or heard of: It had been to his purpose if he had brought Stepha∣nus, Pastor, Schrevelius, Scapula and Leigh to prove that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ought to be rendred But in this Text in or∣der to make good his Adversative Particle, thereby quarrelling the Translation, and continuing a Compa∣rison not well consistent with the Text. Again.

Reply, pag. 83, 84.

But that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be rendred in that posi∣tive Degree, not comparative, W. P. produceth some Authorities. The Syriak and Ethiopick Versions, which gave him little Countenance by we have over and above a sure Word.

Rejoynder.

I told our Adversary in my Answer, That if the Translation were more sure Word of Prophecy, we must either understand it of the Eternal Word, or conclude that the Writings of the Prophets were more sure to the Apostles, then the Voice they heard from God him∣self in the Mount. I produced several Authorities (as he well said) to exclude the Comparison of more sure; some he hath taken notice of, as the Syriak and Ethi∣••pick Versions; but that they give little Countenance to my Attempt is vain and false, unless there be no dif∣ference between saying, We have over and above a sure

Word (which is but an additional Testimony) and We have a MORE sure Word. The Case may be paralelled thus; I have also another Witness, which I desire may be called and heard; and I have also a more able Witness, which I desire may be called and heard: Is there no Difference to be found here? Another sure Witness, another more sure Witness; Is not all Prefe∣rence shut out of the first, and brought in by the last? J. F. must needs be guilty of great Ignorance or Im∣modesty in this Particular.

Reply p. 94.

VV. P. tells me, The French, German, Low-Dutch, Sweedish, have it in the positive (or sure VVord) but I not having his Polyglott Bible cannot easily examine them all, if he doth not wrong them.

Rejoynder.

But if this great Linguist had it, he would find none of those Languages in it; I know not what he means by examining them easily in it, without it; but he spoak more Truth then he is aware of; for if he will go to E. Hut∣ter, he may find them without the Polyglott, though perhaps not easily, as he well sayes; for I scarcely think he masters Twelve Languages. To conclude, This I will assure him, They all speak for me, and I am ready to think they were translated by as able Men as him∣self, at least, let him and them dispute that.

Reply, pag. 84.

He adds Erasmus's Paraphrase, and Beza's, both of whom he abuses. Erasmus renders it by firmiorem, Be∣za

by firmissimum; the one a more firm, the other most firm; in the old Latine it is most sure, in the new Latine more sure. So D. Hammon, Arias, Montam and Piscator.

Rejoynder.

This looks like something, so does Bubbles; but they easily vanish. Erasmus I quoted in his Paraphrase, not in his Translation; but J. F. after his old wont, observes not the Difference, but sets Erasmus against Erasmus; or rather, to put the Trick upon me, would have Folks think, that Erasmus's rendring it by firmio∣rem, was not in his Translation, but Paraphrase, which I quoted; for he is so far from allowing firmiorem, or more sure to be the Word of the Prophets, according to the common Acceptation, at least, that against which we object, that he expresly sayes;

If so be that the Prophets plain Oracles be in great Estimation among you, which Prophesie by Figurative Dark Shadows of Christ, of much more Gravity or Weight ought so evi∣dent a Declaration by the Father himself of the Son be; which turns the Text upside down, as to the Vulgar Sense of it. This I cited out of his Paraphrase upon his Epistle, J. Faldo shuffles from the Paraphrase to his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Translation, which he explains in his Note in Cri∣••cis Sacris thus; Verum Graecis mos est subinde compa∣••••ivum positivo usurpari:

That is,

It is the Custom of the Greeks, sometimes to use the Compara∣tive for the Positive. And if he understands Latine ••e may know, that Senior is also used for Senex.

'Tis true, Beza translates it firmissimum (most sure) (very sure) which also excludes comparison, as Ipsissi∣••us (the very same he, not the most same he) If J.

Faldo denyes this, it will show him ignorant in the La∣tine Tongue; for the Superlative or firmissimum ex∣ceeds 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 Eras∣mus 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 cer∣tain, with respect to the Jews, who had a greater E∣steem 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 him∣self, else they would never have thought to find Eter∣nal Life in them, whilst they neglected, yea, persecu∣ted him, which whether it was their Perfection or Im∣perfection 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 di•• Cause receive more Advantage at the hand of an Ene∣my, 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 Expo∣sition 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 Con∣traries, if he meant it of the Text; for it seems an impossible thing to me, that a Text so plainly expres∣sing 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 ••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 help∣ed 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 reconci∣led to God, &c. Behold your Expositor! I dare war∣rant 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 pas∣sed 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 mat∣ter 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? 'Tis strange that should be reputed most Mysterious which was the Introduction to the

Mystery; and those Transactions counted most dif∣ficult, that were by the Divine Wisdom of God or∣dained 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 God∣liness, 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 Ver∣tue 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 Con∣fidence this Man excludeth Christ the Souls of his People, as well with respect to his Godhead, as Man∣hood; 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 bla∣med, according to our Adversary's Doctrine, for let∣ting

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 o∣ther Creature, endeavour to invalidate the most con∣vincing Testimony Man can have of a Deity, and to principle Men for the rankest Atheism that ever was: Yet such a sort of a Doctor J. Faldo is become, and of all other Texts in the Bible, from which to preach it, hath chosen this Col. 1. 27. This Mystery among the Gentiles is Christ in you the Hope of Glory, which in∣deed of all other doth most oppose and subvert it. Once more, and he hath done with us upon this Pas∣sage, for this time.

—Christ is in his People by his Graces, wrought by his Spirit, which is his Image and Likeness—by the Mani∣festation of his Love and Glory, his Works and Image in and on the Soul—and do as effectually possess the Soul for Christ his Vse and Interest, as a Faithful Friend can do, according so that Text, That Christ may dwell in your Hearts by Faith, Eph. 3. 17.

But I would fain know of J. Faldo, how Christ's Graces, Works and Image can be there, and Christ the Workman excluded? If Christ be not actually there, they can never Actually be wrought there; for none can work them but Christ by his Spirit. In short,* 1.26 either they may be wrought without Christ's Spi∣rit, which J. Faldo disallows or Christ's Spirit may work them, and yet not be where i••

works them; or if the Spirit may be where it work∣eth them, yet Christ cannot be where it works them, and consequently divided from his own Spirit, though indeed the Lord Christ is that Quickening Spirit, which only makes alive again to God, who is the Re∣surrection and the Life. Oh the Dreadful Darkness that yet over-spreads the Hearts of (called) Christi∣ans! It may be as truly said of them as it was of the Jews. The Vail is yet over them, and Christ Jesus the Anointed Saviour is unknown to them by that Re∣demption, which he effectually worketh in all those that hearken to his Voice, and are conformed to his holy Government. They are Witnesses of his Graces, Works and Image, through believing in his Appearance, and giving up (like the Clay in the Hand of the Potter) to be ordered and disposed by him. Nor doth the Scrip∣ture he quotes, impugn the Real Presence of Christ in his People; for, by Faith Christ dwelleth in the Hearts of his Children; that is, by believing in Christ, he co∣meth to live and dwell in us, who through the Unbelief of Men is shut out from being Head and Ruler in them. Our Adversary would make Faith and Christ's real Presence incomparable or inconsistent, whereas the one cannot possibly be enjoyed without the other; Faith being as the opening of the Door of the Heart to receive Christ in, to be Lord and King; and if this be not J. Faldo's Faith, he is void of the Faith of God's Elect, which purifieth the Heart, and gives to see God, according to Mat. 5. 8. Blessed are the pure in Heart, for they shall see God. This Doctrine is the Overthrow of Christianity, a turning back of the whole Stream of the New Covenant, a cutting off the Spiritual Union; for the Christian Dispensation is

IMMANUEL, God with us; the Word is not stinted to Christ as the Head, but concerns the Body also; and God is manifested measurably in his People, as he was in fulness, by and through that holy Body; nay, some eminent Professors have gone so far as to say, They make up but one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Anointed; for the Oyl runs from the Head to the lowermost part of the Garment, which takes in all. It gives the Lye to Christs own Words, who said, He would come and receive them to himself, he would not leave them Orphants; which im∣plies a real Presence.

Testimonies.

Good Old Apostolical Ignatius was not of J. Faldo's mind; who in his Epistles produced, and endeavour∣ed to be proved genuine by Bish. Vsher, Isaac Vossius, and D. Pearson, says in that to the Ephesians, pag. 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i. e. Let us do all things, he so dwelling in us, that we be HIS TEMPLES, and he our God IN us. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Corrupters of his House shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Iust. Mart. Expos. Tid. p. 375. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. See, saith he, how he (Paul) is teaching the Edification that is in Christ, whence we are the Temple of Christ, according to what is written, I will dwell in them,; and walk in them, and I will be their God.

The Story of Richard Woodman in the Book of Ma••∣tyrs affordeth us thus much to our Purpose in answer to the Bishop of Winchester: I believe verily that I have the Spirit of God—No Man can believe aright with∣out the Spirit of God—It is impossible to believe in God, unless God DWELL IN US.

C. Goad defends our Faith in these words; The Go∣spel is nothing else but the bringing forth of Christ IN us: It calls us from Conformity to the World, and from walking as Men unto the Life of God, Right Spirit of Christ, p. 17.

T. Collier; God is a Mystery, Col. 22. and it is by the Appearance of God IN US, we come to know God, who is a Mystery The Truth is, that we have had and st••ll have low and carnal Thoughts of God, judging him to be a God AFAR OFF, and not a God NIGH AT HAND. This is that ANTICHRIST WHICH DENIES CHRIST TO BE COME IN THE FLESH. See his Works, p. 399.—Again, God who is in himself, and in the Son not only by Union, but also by a Dispensa∣tion of Grace to Men, is likewise IN THE SAINTS, and that not as in the Creatures, or other Men, BUT HE IS IN THE SAINTS AS HE WAS IN CHRIST. The Saints are TRULY made Parta∣kers of his Nature, hence called CHRISTIANS, they are CHRISTED; and indeed, Christ and Christians MAKE BUT ONE CHRIST, ONE ANOINT∣ED, ONE GOD FILLS THEM BOTH. See his Works, p. 241, 242.

J. Sprig in his Preface saith thus; Those that know Christ in them only immediatione virtutis, not sup∣positi, know not so Full and Glorious a Proportion in him to their End. It is and must be confessed, that God is, and subsists otherwise in Himself then Men; but this hinders not the IMMEDIATENESS OF HIS PRESENCE AND DWEL∣LING IN MEN—If you confine Christ's Dwelling to a LOCAL HEAVEN, you are ignorant of that which is the greatest Joy that can be; CHRIST DWELLS IN THE HEART, Sprig's Testimony, p. 87.

Thus Martin Finch, who stiles himself, Preacher of the Gospel, in his little Treatise, intituled, Ani∣madversions upon Sr. Henry Vain's Book, pag. 81. The Word of God abided and dwelt in them (1 John 2. 14.) If we take it for Christ, they had him (Christ) ABIDING IN THEM; and surely, they that abide in Christ, and have Christ abiding IN THEM, they are true Saints.

Thus, Reader, we take leave of this Chapter, and proceed to examine his next.

CHAP. XI.

That we are not guilty of Idolatry, as charged by our Adversary. True Worshippers. The Charge in∣verted.

IN his former Book he charged us with the Sin of Idolatry; his Argument lay thus, Those who own and profess that to be God which is not God, are gross I∣dolaters; But the Quakers do so, in professing the Light within and the Soul of every Man to be God; There∣fore Idolaters. The Testimonies upon which he insist∣ed, I faithfully and fully considered, in above Seven Pages of Sober Answer; he returns me about Three in Defence of his Charge, not giving above a Dozen Lines of what I writ, and those made up of Scraps, rather contracting what he said before, then making any substantial Reply to them; But however, I will be just to him. Thus he begins.

Reply, p. 84, 85.

To my Charge of Idolatry he answers as one that in∣tended to confirm, not confute it: His very Denyals im∣plying a large Grant of the Question, p. 192, 193. We do forever renounce any such Principle, as that the Soul of Man, simply as such, is the very Essence and Being of God. Then it is with him the very Essence or Being of God, though not because it is the Soul of Man.

Rejoynder.

No such Matter; But it is plain how much the Man is upon the Ketches. His Argument led me to such an Answer▪ for he calls it, The Soul or Spirit of a Man, which is a constitutive Part of a Man, pag. 114. I was therefore led by him to write in that Abstract Sense, which thus far makes for him (in case he can maintain his Charge) that the Idolatry would be the grosser; Besides, God is the Soul, or Life of the Soul, therefore there was a Necessity for such a Di∣stinction.

Reply, p. 85.

W. P. pag. 193. We never did, do, nor shall assert the God that made Heaven or Earth to be compre∣hendible within the Soul of Man—so that when we say the Light is within any, we do not intend the whole Being of Light. All that W. P. denyes here, is but God's being so in the Soul of Man, as that he is no where else or nothing else, yet allowing the Soul and Light within to be God essential.

Rejoynder.

It were heartily to be wished, we had nothing but Ignorance to charge him with in this Passage; but methinks he would not have us to take him for a Man of so little Understanding, as he hath need to have, that writes so much Falshood, and does not know it.

First, He hath dropt the most substantial part of my Answer in the middle.

Secondly, These Passages relate not to the Soul, but to the Light, upon occasion of a place he cited out

of G. Fox the younger, therefore not applicable to the Soul, yet by him as well applyed to the Soul as to the Light.

Thirdly, He sayes, All that I deny in those words, he quoted out of my Answer, is only God's being so in the Soul of Man, as that he is no where or nothing else, which if he had only said it of the Light, it would be no Contradiction to my Principle or the Truth; for the Light is as well on the Earth as in the Heavens, and in my Chamber as in the Firmament, without any Error in Physicks, and so may God, whom in my An∣swer I called the great Sun of Righteousness, that cau∣sed his Spiritual Light to arise and shine into the Souls of Men be God as well within as without the Soul; for where-ever Divine Light is, God is; and where God is, Divine Light is: Howbeit, we do not call the Manifestation of Light, God, though the Manifesta∣tion of God.

Fourthly, His saying, That I yet allow the Soul and Light within to be God essential, is a down-right Fals∣hood, as with respect to the Soul; it is nigh two pages before that I considered his Charge against us about the Soul; What shall I call then his thrusting of it in here, which cannot be concerned in the very Nature of the Answer? as thus appears, If the Soul be God, God is comprehended within the Soul, and is no where, or nothing else but Soul, and where the Soul is; An Absurdity, yea, a Blasphemy, never rightly to be in∣ferred from any thing I ever said or writ, thus scanda∣lously flung upon my Answer by J. Faldo, for want of a better Reply; I cannot think that ever man ad∣ventured (under his Pretences of Religion) so know∣ingly to pervert, wrest and misapply Men's Words

about Doctrines of the greatest Importance. This shows he values Credit more then Conscience, who undertakes to fasten a Blasphemous Consequence un∣truly on my words, lest he should be thought to have charged us beyond what he could prove; but his Weakness bewrayes his Malice: For if the Soul may be God, and yet I deny that God may be nothing else (his very Words in my Name) then may the Soul be God, and God the Soul, and yet God some∣thing else, and that something else God. When or where did I ever give Occasion for such Biasphemish Gibberish? Yet this is the Result of what he dares tell the World is my Meaning. I may say the same respecting Locallity or Place; for what Man not stark Mad, would say the Soul is God, yet deny not but that God may be else-where, which J. Faldo also makes (though an express Contradiction to his wrests) a piece of my Meaning; for, unless God may be divided from God, where-ever he is, the Soul is, if the Soul be God; and so one Man is in an∣other, and every Man ••biquitary, or every where at the same time.

Friendly Reader, none of this Blasphemy and Nonsence belongeth to me, therefore I return it to the True Parent, to maintain it as he is able.

But he would have the VVorld believe that of 23. Citations out of acknowledged Quakers, I did but nib∣ble a little at five of them. I think him not worth proving a L—that have already so many times done it upon unquestionable Ground in this Discourse; besides, I should be necessitated to transcribe my whole Answer; but I beseech this Kindness of the Reader, that he would not think his Time lost in perusing the 20th.

Chapter of my Answer, where he may see himself if I have only nibled, perhaps he will have a better Opinion of my Endeavours. I shall have Occasion here to touch upon some of them, and no more, yet enough to show my Adversary's unfair Dealing.

Reply.

To Fox Junior's, who calls the Light the Eternal God which created all Things. In his continued Discourse (personating the Light) he calls it the Light in you, me the Light in them; which P. would evade by saying, I granted that in the first part within Man was not menti∣oned.

Rejoynder.

Had I said no more then this it might have past for an Evasion; But to pass over a page and a half of perti∣nent Answer to his Application of both Passages out of G. F. and then say I evaded them by urging his Grant, that within Man was not mentioned in the first Passage, is to act the Shifter with a Witness; especially when the little Part he quotes was not said by me concerning the last Passage, in which lay the Difficulty (to wit, me the Light in them) but the first on which he very lit∣tle insisted himself, viz. that the Light is the Eternal God, &c. this transposing of my Answer and exchan∣ging it, was not ingenuous. This, Reader, in short, I offered as the Explanation of G. F's Expression and the Conclusion of a great deal more too large to be reci∣ted, viz.

That he who is the Eternal Fountain of all Life and Sun of Light caused his Light to visit the Hearts, and shine in the Consciences of all Man-kind, as well of such as rebel against it, and scorn it, to re∣prove

them, as of those who receive it, and gladly sub∣mit to it, to direct and justifie them; wherefore we utterly deny that the Manifestation in Man strictly considered, is the most high God, but a Manifestation of God and from God, by the In-shining of his bles∣sed Light; and we cannot be said to worship the Ma∣nifestation, but that Eternal God (who is Light) that is thereby manifested, p. 194.

The next Testimony brought by him and examined by us, was out of E. Burroughs's True Faith, &c. for page he gave us none, neither then nor now; but sup∣posing true Citation, a Thing most unusual with him; I will set down his Words as they lye.

Reply, p. 85.

The next W. P. brings off as clearly:

Every Man hath that which is one in Union with the Spirit of Christ, even as good as the Spirit of Christ, ac∣cording to his measure, E. Burroughs.

Can any Man saith W. P. be so stupid as to think that. E. B. ever intended the Soul of Man that purely and simply consti∣tutes him such; for he is speaking of that universal Grace, Light, Spirit, which God hath given unto all, &c. His purely and simply constitutes, is pure learned Non-Sense. If what every Man hath be as good in kind as the Spirit of Christ, which E. B. confesseth, it must be God and Christ.

Rejoynder.

He should either have past the Manner of my Ex∣pression, or have corrected it better; but I had rather be guilty of Non-sense then horrible Perversion, J. F's Crime; for he applies that to the meer Soul of Man

which E. B. not only intended but expressed of the Light of Christ within Men. I will set down some of his Words, that it may be an indeleable Brand upon J. F. a notorious Abuser of our Writings.

E. Burroughs in his Answer to J. Bunnion and this Passage [Heathens, Turks, Jews, Atheists have that that doth convince of Sin, yet are so far from having the Spirit of Christ in them, that they delight to serve their Lust.] Thus expresseth himself.

Do they serve Sin or Lusts because Christ hath not given them Light to discover their Sin? or because they hate the Light that is given them? Tell me,* 1.27 Is not the Light or Spirit of Christ the only Thing that doth convince of Sin, Or doth any Thing convince of Sin contrary, or besides, or without the Spirit of Christ? If nay, then it must needs be that it is from, or by, or something of the Nature of the Spirit of Christ which is in the Heathens,

E. B. argues and about five or six Lines lower thus concludes.

Till thou provest the Light of Christ, which thou confessest every Man hath, to be contrary to the Spirit of Christ, I shall say, Every Man hath that which is one in union with and like the Spirit of Christ, even as good as the Spirit of Christ, ac∣cording to its Measure.

Now let J. Faldo blush if he can. Certainly, Reader, greater Injustice could not well have been acted towards any Man's Writings, then he hath acted in this Particular; for what is clearer, then that the Soul is no further concerned in E. B's Words, then that it onght to obey the Light and Spirit he w••••••es of. I told him this before, as that Part of my Answer he hath transcribed into his Reply, shows, to wit, that E. B. was speaking of the Vniversal Grace, Light or Spirit which God hath given unto all, &c. of

which he takes no Notice, but thinks an Epitomy of his first Book of Accusation and Wresting Reply enough to my Answer. But which is yet baser; he hath the Confidence for all this, to cry out against Shifting and Evasion. But to make it yet plainer, I will set it down more distinctly.

E. B. Every Man hath that which is as good and like the Spirit of Christ.

J. F. Then every Man's Soul is as good and like the Spirit of Christ, whi••h is God; therefore the Soul is God.

W. P. answers, E. B. understood it not of the Soul, but the Vniversal Grace, Light or Spirit, therefore no Proof.

J. F. If what every Man hath be as good in kind as the Spirit of God, which E. B. confesseth, it must be God and Christ.

W. P. That which E. B. confesseth is of the Light or Spirit, and not the Soul, therefore J. F's Charge is false.

Now Reader, what shall we call this but Petitio prin∣cipii, a begging of the Question, a repeating of his Per∣version, It is so, because I will have it so, as much as if he should say, I have charged them higher then any; more then that, I pretend to bring their own Books for Evidences. If I yeild to have perverted them, my Credit is gone, my Books are despised, and which is worst of all, my Gain is lost. But to the next.

Reply, p. 86.

That of Fox he deals treacherously in leaving out the Proposition to which the Answer is made, and thereby its Sense also. F. brings in the Priest saying, It is an Ex∣pression

of a dark Mind to say, that God is not distin∣guished from his Saints. To which he reples, He is a Reprobate and out of the Apostles Doctrine. What can be better proved? If God be not distinct from them, not only their Souls, but the Composition of the Saints, Souls and Bodies are God: But if this Passage do not prove P. a designed Deluder, none in the World will.

Rejoynder.

The Substance of my Answer took in the Priest's As∣sertion, but that J. Faldo almost alwayes takes Care to conceal. G. F. writ not like a Philosopher, but an honest, plain, Christian Man; Nor is it any Disadvan∣tage to our Cause, that either willingly or through Un∣skilfulness he neglects them; for he meant by not be∣ing distinct, that they were not at a Distance in point of Place, by Reason of the dwelling of God and Christ in his People; It is apparent G. F. intended no more by his Answer, which our Adversary in his first Book gave in these Words. But God and Christ is in the Saints and dwells in them, and he (the Priest) is a Reprobate, and out of the Apostles Doctrine. We see by this that the Question was not, whether the Soul be God and Christ; but whether God and Christ are at a distance from or dwell in the Saints, yea or nay? I leave it with my Reader's Conscience, who hath shown himself the designed Deluder of us two.

Reply,

W. P. tells me, p. 197. That Fisher did not mean the Spirit of Man that is any Part of Man's Nature, whereas his very Words are,

The Spirit of Man which concurs to the constituting Man in his primitive Per∣fection.

I told him also that Fisher allowed no Man in his degenerate Estate to have any Spirit at all as Consti∣tutive of Man.

Rejoynder.

'Tis true, if he puts primitive Perfection to it; for nothing can reduce Man to his primitive Perfection, but that Holy Spirit which he may be said to have lost (that is any Interest in) by his Transgression;* 1.28 but to say he told me that S. F. allowed no Man in his degenerate Estate to have any Spirit at all, as constitutive of Man meerly, is to tell his Reader an im∣pious Falshood twice over, and not to essay the enervating of one of those Reasons by me urged to prove it so: S. Fisher's Words were brief∣ly these:

As to the Spirit of, Man, which concurs to the constituting of Man in his primitive Perfection, it is the Breath of Life which God breathed into his Soul—whereby he became a Soul, that did partake something of God's own Life. This is that living Principle of that Divine Na∣ture, which Man did before his Degeneration, and shall again after his Degeneration, partake of.

I told him that S. Fisher did never intend it of the Natural Soul of Man, but rather of the divine Life of the Soul, without which the Soul is destitute of the Knowledge of the true and living God, his own Words very plainly show; for if S. Fisher intended that Spi∣rit which is the divine principle that man did partake of before his Degeneration; certain and clear it is,

that since Man did under that Degeneration pertake of his own Soul, or else he could not have been a Man. S. Fisher. never meant the meer Soul of Man, but the Life of that divine Principle which regenerates and re∣news the Soul unto a Life of Purity and Blessedness.

Unto which and much more he affords me no other Re∣ply then what I have already inserted, to wit, I told him that Fisher allowed no Man in his degenerate Estate to have any Spirit at all as constitutive of Man; as if his meer tell him were Convincement enough to his Rea∣der, that S. Fisher held all sinful Men to have no Souls, and he knows the Consequence; If no Souls, then no Punishment; for to be constituted a perfect Man to God and a meer Man, is not one and the same thing; nei∣ther can pertaking of the divine Life or Nature be so understood, as that the Soul is that divine Life or Na∣ture it self; or that such as pertake not of it, have no Souls. Such Doctrine better becomes J. F's adven∣tures Abuses then the Writings of that honest and Chri∣stian Man.

He tells us of some other Quotations which I medled not with, particularly, that G. Fox in his Book called the Great Mystery, &c. should say, The Soul was Equal with God, that it was without beginning, infinite in it self and a Part of God; for which he assigns us no Page in his Reply, in his first Book, the 16th; I have diligently perused it and find no such thing; however should he have ever written these Words, I dare say for him, he understood no more by Equality then Vni∣ty; for God is greater then all; by Infinite no more then something that is not finite, or which comes to an End; and by the Soul's being without Beginning and a Part of God, no other then that divine Breath of Life, which

is as the Soul or Life of the Soul, that came out from God, and therefore is of God; that Cause is much to be suspected that props it self with such shallow Ca∣vils; he observes no Nicety of Expression in his Wri∣tings, and it is therefore disingenuously done of any to make this ill Use of his plain and vulgar Phrases.

But least all this should fail, and he had Reason to suspect it, he brings us out a Piece of a Letter, formerly written by Josiah Coal (who lived and dyed a faithful Servant of God, and is now at Rest with him) put into his Hands, I suppose by his Gentle-Man, p. 94. as he re∣ceived it at the Hand, I suppose of some Vagabond-Quaker.

First, That he should call George Fox the Father of many Nations; but what is this more then to say, that Men of several Nations have been begat unto Christ through him, Thus Paul was a Father to the Romans, Corinthians, &c. 1 Cor. 4. 15. for though ye have ten thousand Instructers, yet ye have not many Fathers; for in Christ have I begotten you.

Secondly, That his Life hath reached through his Chil∣dren to the Isles afar off, to the begetting of many again unto a lively Hope. But what of all this? The life of God is one in all; Paul lived by the Life of Christ, and so did Peter; Paul was present in Spirit, though ab∣sent in Body, 1 Cor. 5. 3, 4.

Thirdly, That Generations to come should call him bles∣sed: But is not the Memory of the just blessed? Prov. 10. 7. and did not God by Isaiah promise concerning Israel, I will make thee an Eternal Excellency, and the

Joy of many Generations, Isa. 60. 57. This belongs to G Fox, Josiah Coal, and every Child of God; yea, and J. Faldo too, if he were so good as he should be.

4thly, That his Being and Habitation was in the Power of the Highest: And so it should be; for that is the Habitation of every Child of God; for others dwell in the Power of the World. In short, we are exhorted to stand fast in the Power of Godliness; and we read that it was the End of the Evangelical Ministry to turn People from the Power of Satan unto the Power of God, which is the Power of the Highest.

5thly, That he ruled and governed in Righteousness: This is but what Paul exorts Timothy to do in the Church of Christ, as both his Epistles inform us at large; E∣very Elder, Overseer or Pastor in the Church of Christ is bound to do so; If J. F. can prove he doth otherwise, he may then charge him with uncomely walking, but not J. Coal with Blasphemy for saying, that a good Man governs in Righteousness.

Lastly, That his Kingdom is established in Peace, and the Increase thereof is without End: So is the Kingdom of the Saints of God. That they have a Kingdom and Dominion is clear from several Scriptures: It is the Fathers good Pleasure to give you a KINGDOM, Luke 12. 23. Wherefore we have received a KING∣DOM which cannot be shaken, Heb. 12. 28. The Saints shall JUDGE the World, 1 Cor. 6. 3. The Na∣ture of this Kingdom is declared. Luke 17. 12. The Kingdom of God is within. Joh. 18. 36. My Kingdom is not of this World. Rom. 14. 17. For the Kingdom of

God is not Meat and Drink, but Righteousness, Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost. The Durableness of this Kingdom is laid down by Daniel, and the Time came that the Saints possessed the Kingdom, whose Kingdom is an Everlasting Kingdom, Dan. 7. 22. 27.

Yet upon these so innocent Expressions so scriptural, and therefore so easily defensible, doth this Adversary of ours call an Evidence of the blasphemous unheard of Passages and Principles among our Ministry conceived, vented and allowed, which did the World know, it would make their Ears tingle, and their Hearts ake. But we will see if these Words belong not of more Right to a Passage, that fell from the Mouth of a Court-Chaplain, in the Golden Age of Independency, not in a private Let∣ter, but a publick Auditory, that we may help him to a clearer Sight of his own Folks, and that his severe Ex∣clamation better suits them then us.

After the Death of O. C. that all due Acknowledg∣ments might be paid to his Memory for the noble Acts he did, of breaking all Oaths he made to God and Men, to advance his own Family and Interest, though to the Scandal of Religion and Loss of the Cause, a certain Chaplain of his broak forth with this Extatical and Ele∣giack Assertion, that if that were the Word of God (mean∣ing the Bible in his Hand) then as certainly, that blessed Spirit (the Protector) was with Christ at the right Hard of the Father; and if he be there, what may his Family expect from him? for if he were so useful and helpful, and so much Good influenced from him to them, when he was in a mortal State; how much more Influ∣ence will they have from him, now he is in Heaven? THE FATHER, SON AND SPIRIT THROUGH

HIM BESTOWING GIFTS AND GRACFS UP∣ON THEM.

I will omit naming the Party, he is dead, I give the Fact, and it speaks so much Idolatry, that nothing rank∣er can be produced of the most Extravigant Votaries of Rome.

God, if it pleaseth him of his great Mercy give this poor Man Repentance, before that Hour overtake him in which it will be hid from his Eyes, which ends my Return to these hard and evil Speeches.

I shall as my Manner hath been produce the Testi∣monies of certain considerable Men in defence of what we believe, concerning the Light within; and others relating to the Soul of Man, for their Sakes, whom Tra∣dition hath abused, & the frequent Clamours and Inve∣ctives of many against us blinded, so as to think we are the Sink of Error and off-scouring of all Heresy; to the End that they may see our so much decryed Doctrine, clearly and abundantly approved by such as are of ge∣neral Reputation among them.

Of the Light shining in Man.

Vatablus and Drusius upon Job 24. 13. They are of those that rebelled against the Light, say, that it is the Light, of God and that it is God himself. I suppose, none will doubt that this Light shined in the Conscien∣ces of those that rebelled against it, consequently, the light that shines in the Conscience is the Light of God, as he is the great Sun of Light.

Munsterius and Clarius upon Job, Ch. 25. 3. Upon whom doth not his Light arise? ask, Who is there

in whom the Light of the Divine Wisdom doth not shine?

Codurcus is of the same Mind saying, he enlight∣neth all Men, referring us to John's Testimony.

Drusius upon the same Place queries; Who receiveth not his Light, and is not illuminated by his Light?

Erasmus and Vatablus on Joh. 1. 9. calls it the Foun∣tain of Light, whence the Light also flowed to John himself. Now if this Light be in Men, and of the Fountain of Light, which say they is God, I hope none will deny the•••• the Light that shines in Men, is divine Light, and consequently God, 1 Joh. 1. 5.

Zegerus on Joh. 1. ver 4, 5. In him was Life, and the Life was the Light of Men, &c, expresseth himself thus; That Life by which all things were made, that which is the Word, yea, which is God the Fountain of all Life, that alwayes was and is the Light of all Men—and it shineth in the Darkness of our Souls, which the Prince of Darkness had darkened.

Cameron on the place saith, It is to be understood e∣specially of that Light which is unto Salvation, and where∣by it comes to pass that we are freed from the Darkness of Sin and Death.

All which is to say, that the Light which shineth in Man's Heart is Divine and Saving, therefore God ma∣nifesting himself in Man.

Dr. H. Moor in his Philosophick Cabbal, pag. 27.

sayes; The Light pursued Adam, and upbraided unto him his Case after his Transgression, and that it was the DIVINE Light; wherefore he was ashamed and hid himself at the Approach of the DIVINE Light, manifesting himself to him to the Reprehension and Re∣buke of him—And the DIVINE Light charged all this Misery and Confusion upon the Eating of the for∣bidden Fruit, and Luscious Dictates of his own Will—And the DIVINE Light spoak IN Adam, concerning the Woman: What work hath she made here?

Thus doth he make the Light that reproves in the Conscience to be the Divine Light, and consequently of the Nature of God, who is the great Fountain of Di∣vine Light; Nay, to put it out of doubt, he reads those words, which in Genesis say, It was God himself that reproved Adam, after the manner before expres∣sed, to wit, the Divine Light in Adam reproved him; thereby making the DIVINE LIGHT in Adam and GOD to be ONE and the same Being.

Of the Soul.

Justin Martyr brings Tryphon questioning thus con∣cerning the Soul, and himself allowing it.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. That is, Is the Soul Divine and Immortal? Is it a Particle of that Commander Himself, and as it seeth God, so is it also permitted to contain Divini∣ty in our Mind, and thereby even now to be happy? Yea, altogether, said I.

Tertullian. de Anima, p. 297. asserts the Immorta∣lity and Divinity of the Soul.

P. Fagius in Gen. 2. 7. Rabbi Nehamanides hath observed, That he that breatheth on any contributes some∣thing of his own to it; whence Christ our Saviour, when he would communicate the Holy Spirit to his Disciples, he did it by breathing upon them, signifying that he con∣tributed to them something of his own that was Divine. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth something DIVINE and HEAVENLY; some think 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because the Immor∣tal Soul of Man is a certain DIVINE THING come from Heaven. And the Poets call the Soul of Man a PARTICLE OF DIVINE BREATH 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a breath or spiritus, DIVINE, HEAVENLY, Vital, Immortal, and Enduring forever. The Soul of Man DIVINE and HEAVENLY, consists in a DIVINE and HEAVENLY Spirit. The Author Hiskuni un∣derstands it to be an Inspiration from the Holy Spirit of God.

Peter Martyr speaks of the Soul thus in Psalm. 94. We are taught not to with-draw from the Divine Nature those things that are perfect and absolute in us, pag. 12. and in pag. 122. They say (says he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth chief∣ly signifie that which is DIVINE and Reasonable that God doth give unto us.

H. Bullenger saith, The Soul is a Spiritual Substance poured of God into Man's Body; in his 4 Decad. 10 Serm.

Augustine saith, It is felt in the Life—it is unutte∣rable, breathed into Man's Body by God of his own Essence and Nature—from the secret Power of God.

In short, Very various have been the Opinions of the Ancients concerning the Soul: Plato divided it into Two parts; Zeno into Three; Panaetius into Five or Six; Soranus into Seven; Chrysippus into Eight; Apollopha∣nes into Nine; by some of the Stoicks into Ten; by Possidonius into Twelve, as Tertullian reports in his Book de Anima, p. 273. and H. Bullenger tells us, That hardly two say one and the same thing concerning it.

Seeing then that Men of such excellent Abilities, and nicest Disquisitions both in Nature and Theology, rather prove their own Contradiction and Confusion, then give us any certain Account of the Soul, what she is; and that the Scripture mentions it so rarely and obscurely, and that J. Faldo denies all immediate Inspi∣ration (as he calls it) which is the only Way left us to understand it, he hath not shown himself a Charitable Divine, but an Impious Wrangler in falling so heavily upon us with the opprobious Name of Idolaters for as∣signing something more of Divinity unto the Soul in its primitive Perfection, then his Opinion will allow us.

CHAP. XII.

Of the Resurrection of Dead Bodies, and Eternal Re∣compence. Our Doctrine maintained by Scripture, Reason and Authorities.

IN his former Book he charged us with the De∣nyal of the Resurrection of the Dead, and Eternal Recompence. The Testimonies he brought for Proof were such as rendred him very weak, or something worse, I hope they were sufficiently dis-engaged from his Service, unto which, according to his old Custom, he hath not thought fit to reply: He only takes notice of two or three short Passages out of six or seven pa∣ges of Answer, on which he bestows a few Squibs, and concludes with that Contempt and Rudeness no Man pretending to Religion or Humanity would have vented, especially against a Man that he provok't to answer him, by beginning to abuse his Friends in ge∣neral, and him in particular; considering withal, that his Profession is to suffer, not to insult. Strange! that my Religion and Conscience should subject me to so much Contempt, with a Man that pretends to both. But W. P. I dare say, had not been thus treated by J. F. could he threaten the Law, and Flant and Swag∣ger at the rate J. F. doth. But it is like such Folk, to insult where he may do it safely.

One of his Testimonies was this, Christ is the Resurrection, to raise up that which Adam lost, and to

destroy him who deceived him; So Christ is the Resur∣rection unto Life of Body, Soul and Spirit, and sore∣news Man, Princ. pap. call. Quak. p. 34. I will not trouble my self, nor spend my Reader's time in trans∣scribing what I said in Defence of this Passage, as to the End he designed it; Nothing can be clearer, then that this concerns Regeneration, so sayes J. F. him∣self, pag. 132. consequently the Resurrection of Dead Bodies is not concerned in it.

His second Testimony fell from G. Whitehead in these words, if we may believe him; I do not believe this Body shall rise again after it is Dead. I told him of his Disingenuous Catching, and put him in mind of the Apostles own Expression that justifies the Say∣ing, if it was ever said—Thou Fool—Thou SOW∣EST NOT that Body that shall be. But unto whatever I urged for the clearing of our Friends Words and Writings from his ill Constructions, like an unfair, if not a fearful Adversary, he makes no Return.

I will now set down what he thought fit to give us.

Reply, p. 88.

Take W. P's own words (acknowledging the Truth of my Charge) Either the Resurrection of the Body must be without the Matter, or it must not; If it must, then it is not the same numerical Body, and so their proper and strict Resurrection they must let go; although this allows my Charge true, and so enough to its Vindication; yet I shall Answer P's Arguments against the Resurrection, wherein be opposes Philosophical Con∣clusions to the express Doctrine of the Scriptures.

Rejoynder.

If I have herein vindicated his Charge, it must fol∣low that he charged us with Denying the Resurrecti∣on of the Body without any Allowance of Change as to that Matter and Corruptibility it was buried with; consequently, That J. Faldo believes a Resurrection of the same Carnal Bodies that are interred without any Alteration whatever; for that allowed, they cannot rise properly and strictly the same Bodies. If our rejecting this Carnal Dream of his, is that horrid Principle he charged us with Denying, we have no Reason to be much concerned about the Success. But he proceeds.

Reply, pag. 88, 89.

The latter part of W. P's Dilemma is the Horn with which he pushes at the Resurrection (viz.) If it must not be without that same gross matter it dyed with, then I affirm it cannot be incorruptible, because it will carry with it that which will render it corruptible ad in∣finitum.

The Body must necessarily be the same Matter is al∣lowed, but W. P. calls it in his assumption of the 2d part of his Dilemma, the same gross Matter, which makes his Argument Falacious in the Form of it. But to let that pass, it shall be the same Matter and nu∣merical, though not of the same Grosness; and shall have the same Substance and Essential Form, though not the same Accidents.

Rejoynder.

Is this the Scripture-Doctrine, he says I oppose with Philosophical Conclusions? Would he would give us but one Scripture that looks but favourably towards this Reply; I never read one yet of a Body's having the same Matter, and not the same Grosness, the same sub∣stance and Essence, and not the same Accidents. For shame; must our Denyal of Physical Nicities, or ra∣ther J. Faldo's Absurdities be branded for horrid Do∣ctrine. 'Tis true in Philosophy, that a Substance may loose its Accidents, and yet remain the same Substance. Things may be discolour'd, yet the same Beings they were before: But that Matter should be such, and not gross, is incongruous with Scripture and Philosophy. Matter and Grosness or Corruption are Synonimous in Philosophy and common Speech: But that Grosness, or the Substantial Part of any Man's Body should be but an Accident, that the Accidence teaches all Boyes in a Noun-Substantive, deserves a Lash at least. Are Flesh, Blood and Bones Accidents, or that of them which is gross and corruptible an Accident? I wonder what a fearful sort of a Noun-Substantive J. F. would be in case he were condens'd and rarefied of such gross and cor∣ruptible Accidents, Indeed one would think his Head, if not all the rest, had been near akin to them, when he writ this piece of new Philosophy. But this abun∣dantly proveth upon what Foot his Resurrection standeth, if it may be said to have any, or to stand at all.

Faellacious is but one of his hard words; for if the Body rifeth with the same Matter it carried to the Grave, it riseth with gross Matter, unless it carried no

gross Matter thither. Let him chuse of the two which to deny. But is this to answer my Argument, to tell us with so much unwarranted Confidence, that the Bo∣dy shall be the same Matter, Substance and Essence, &c. the very Question? What is this but to say, It shall be so, because it shall be so? If he would have done any thing, he should have demonstrated how Matter can be without Grosness, and the most gross and Material part of the Body to be but the Accidents. But he thinks he hath said something to the Point.

Reply, pag. 89.

To talk that it (the Body) cannot be incorruptible because beyond the Nature of Matter it self, is to talk like an Atheist, making Nature to be God, and not ac∣knowledging the God of Nature.

Rejoynder.

Did I dare sport in Religion, scarce ever Man gave a fairer Occasion in his Compass; But he practises it, and I abhor it. This is such a riddle me, riddle me, as I never heard of before.

W. P. sayes, The Nature of Matter admits not of Incorruptibility, ergo, W. P. is an Atheist, ergo, he makes Nature to be God, and ergo, he acknowledges not the God of Nature.

This is the very Man, that not a page off reflects Ignorance upon my Philosophy: Doubtless a Peerless Disputant, one way or other. May he evermore thus confute me? which is all I will say to such subtil Rea∣soning and losty Argumentation in this place. Yet he has not done.

Reply p. 89.

If God be omnipotent (which he is, or he is not God) he is able (as the Apostle speaks) to subdue all things to himself, with which words he answers all Cavils from Im∣possibility in Nature.

Rejoynder.

The Question was not about God's Power; nor was it so much as any Part of the Question; But whether Matter is not by Nature corruptible, and how that which is corruptible by Nature, may be by Nature incorruptible. This Scripture he urges to prove his carnal Resurrecti∣on, will as well prove the Popish Transubstantiation, or any the most unreasonable Conceit in the World; for it is but saying, All things are possible with God, and God is able to subdue all things unto himself; and the Busi∣ness is done at J. Faldo's rate of arguing. But the Question is not about what God can do, but what he hath done and has declared he will do.

I know there are Impossibilities in Nature, which God's Omnipotency makes possible; but if J. Faldo doth not know that there is a Difference between Im∣possibility in Nature, and Contrariety to Nature, I now tell him there is one, and that so wide, as though Al∣mighty God frequently supplies Nature's Want of Power, yet he rarely, if ever, acts contrary to and inconsistent with the Nature of his own Creatures; What is spiritual remains spiritual, what is material material, and what is corruptible corruptible. But let us see how much better he acquits himself of another Passage, which he ventures to cite, and in my Opinion doth no more.

Reply, p. 89.

W. P. proceeds farther in this vain Reasoning and wicked too, p. 202. I say, we cannot see how that which is of the Dust should be eternal, whilst that from whence it came, is by Nature but temporal; and that which is yet most of all irreconcileable with Scripture and right Reason is, that the Loss and Change of Nature from corruptible to incorruptible, natural to spiritual should not make it another Body. That it is according to Scripture I have given large Proof in my Book, to no one of which he replyeth, as also how unreasonable it is to call that a Resurrection, which is not of the same numeri∣cal Body.

Rejoynder.

We may guess how well he proved it in his first Book by the Strength he hath employed to maintain it in his second. But let all sober Men judge if this Reply be pertinent to this Part of my Answer; yet he promised he would answer my Arguments. For the Scripture, it is clear, That Corruption shall not inherit Incorruption; neither can Flesh and Blood inherit the Kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 15. 50. Thus Anota. cert. Divin. anno 1645. upon the Place; and if he will know the true Resurecti∣on, set him learn to understand this weighty Passage: For we know, that if our Earthly House of this Taber∣nacle were dissolved, we have a Building of God, an House not made with Hands, Eternal in the Heavens, 2 Cor. 5. 1. And I cannot but wonder, my Adversaries Understand∣ing should be so benighted, as that contrary to express Scripture he should assert a Resurrection of the same Body that is buried, properly and strictly so; the Apo∣stle

teaches us to believe that it is not that same Body that is sown that shall be; for though we shall be changed from Mortality to Immortality, Corruption to Incor∣ruption; 2 Cor. 5. 1. and 1 Cor. 15. 37, 50. yet (mens Bodies of) Flesh and Blood shall not inherit the King∣dom of God: For the Word Resurrection, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth hot strictly imply a taking up of the same Numerical Body, as he would have us believe from his new found Relative IT (first Book, 2. Part, p. 138.) for which Beza shall give him a Release both from the Latin and original (Greek) there being no Word in either for (his Relative) IT on which he and his factious Brother Hicks have so relatively insisted; Indeed as their last and best Refuge. The Text lyeth thus:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Seritur corpus animale, resuscitatur corpus spirituale. i. e. Anatural Body is sown, a spiritual Body is raised; that is, They lay down a natural, and take up a spiritual Bo∣dy, or in lieuof a Natural receive a spiritual Body; not that the Natural Body shall be transubstantiated into a Spiritual Body, or that admitting of such an Exchange, that the Spiritual is the same Numerical Body, that was the Natural; for so the Natural and Spiritual Bo∣dy would be one and the same; but suppose J. Faldo's Relative IT to hold, I do utterly deny that this Text is concerned in the Resurrection of Man's Carnal Body at all. I will recite it with the five following Verses as they ly in our English Translation.

It is sown a Natural Body, it is raised a spiritual Bo∣dy; There is a Natural Body, and there is a Spiritual Body; and so its written, The first Man Adam was made a Living Soul, the last Adam was made a Quick∣ning Spirit; howbeit that was not first which is spiritual,

but that which is Natural, and afterward, that which is Spiritual; The first Man is of the Earth Earthy, the second Adam is the Lord from Heaven; As is the Earthy, so are they that are Earthy; and as is the Heavenly, so are they also which are Heavenly; and as we have born the Image of the Earthy, we shall also bear the I∣mage of the Heavenly, v. 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49. I say this doth not concern the Resurrection of carnal Bo∣dies, but the two States of Men under the first and se∣cond Adam, Men are sown into the World natural, and so they are the Sons of the first Adam; but they are raised spiritually, through him who is the Resurrection and the Life, & so they are the Sons of the second Adam, the Lord from Heaven, the quickning Spirit. The very Words of the Apostle undeniably prove this to be the Scope; how else could the first Adam's being made a living Soul, and the second Adam a Quickning Spirit, be a pertinent Instance to prove Natural and spiritual Bodies; upon which follows, that the Natural was first, that is, the first Adam, and then that which is spi∣ritual, which is the second Adam, the quickning Spirit, the Lord from Heaven, who came to raise up the Sons of the first Adam, from their Dead to his Living, their Natural to his Spiritual Estate.

But perhaps it will be objected that the 47th Verse, The first Man is of the Earth Earthy, and part, of the 9th. Verse, We shall also bear the Image of the Heaven∣ly, seem to imply a bodily Resurrection; But let the whole. Verses be considered, and we shall find no such thing. The first Man is of the Earth, Earthy, The se∣cond Man is the Lord from Heaven; who sees not that this is rather spoken of the Earthy-Mindedness, then the Earthy Body of Adam? It was mentioned to show

the great Disparity, that is between the Nature and Qualification of the first and second Adam; the fol∣lowing Verse puts this Interpretaion out of Doubt, as is the Earthy, such are they that are Earthy; and as is the Heavenly, such are they also that are Heavenly.

For those Words, We shall also bear the Image of the Heavenly. I cannot see how they should relate to the Resurrection of the Carnal Bodies of Men; for the Image of the Heavenly, is a renewed State to God, through the Operation of the Spirit and Power of Christ, the first Part of the Verse clears it; and as we have born the Image of the Earthy, we shall (or ra∣ther, let us bear) the Image of the Heavenly) as Am∣brose and Theophilact read it, and six or seven Copies besides have it) which is as much as to say, That as we having born the Image of the God of this World, by be∣coming his Children; so may we bear the Image of the True and Living God, by being redeemed from a vain Conversation, having our Consciences sprinkled from dead Works, and being born again of the incorruptible Seed by the Word of God which lives and abides forever. Had this concerned the Resur∣rection in our Adversary's Sense,* 1.29 the Image would be changed wholy (Accidents would not serve his Turn) therefore not the same Image, unless the Earthy could be the Heavenly Image, which were Impossible; for we should loose our Earthly Bodies, at what time we be∣come the Image of the Heavenly, in this World, if this conceit had

any Truth in it, and if of the o∣ther, they to be sure must never enter; for another takes Place: But as it was never understood so by any that I know of, but e∣vermore of that Earthly Image which came by transgression, and the Heavenly Image that comes in obeying the Truth by the Spirit, according to what the Apostle saith, Col. 3. 8 9, 10. But now you also put off all these, Anger, Wrath, Blasphemy, filthy Fornication out of your mouths, lye not one to another; seeing that you have put off the old Man with his Deeds, and have put on the new Man, which is renewed in Knowledge after the Image of him that created him: So till the natural Man that is sown, comes to dye to his own Image, Will and Affections, he can never be quickned into this Glorious Image of the second Adam, the quick∣ning Spirit, who is the Lord from Heaven.

But suppose, it were to be understood rather of Bo∣dies then Souls,* 1.30 the Text may be as well translated a Living as a Natural Body is sown; yea rather so, for the Word is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Animale, that imports as much as a Soul••-Body, and such an one, I dare say, J. Faldo would not be willing to sow, except he had a Mind to be buried alive: So Clarius both translates it, and interprets it, Corpus animale accipiendum est, cui anima vitam prestat ne intereat. i. e. A Souly or Living

Body is that, to whom the Soul gives Life that it doth not dye.

But to go farther; suppose the Apostle treated of a natural Change, and not only of the spiritual State of the Soul in this Life, yet can it be extended no farther then this; when good Men lay down this Earthly House or Tabernacle of Clay, the Image that came to us from Adam's Loyns, we shall be cloathed upon of Immor∣tality, received into the Building that is Eternal in the Heavens, and be made like unto his glorious Body, 2 Cor. 5. 1. Philip. 3. 21. We sow a natural, we reap a spiritual, and we sow not that Body which shall be; but God giveth a Body as pleaseth him, 1 Cor. 15. 37, 38.

I also parralelled my Adversary's Change yet Same∣ness of Bodies with the Popish Transubstantiation, showing, that the Absurdity Protestants Charge upon this, is equally chargeable upon that; only with this Distinction, that the Papists deny it to continue a Wafer after Consecration; but J. Faldo asserts, the spiritual Body to be the same carnal Body after Mutation, which is a Kind of Consubstantiation, and far more ridiculous: But of this he took no notice, and his Silence is pru∣dent: Things unanswerable are better unmedled with, then cited and not confuted; He knows who pas•• for wise Men by holding their Tongues; I wish that were his greatest Fault.

I will conclude this Head with a few Testimonies in Defence of what we have said against J. Faldo's Carnal Resurrection, referring my Reader to my Chapters of the Resurrection both against him in my Answer, and my Book against T. Hicks, entituled, Reason against Railing; and particularly the second Part of a Dis∣course

(that we hope will suddenly be publisht) call'd, The Christian-Quaker, for his fuller Satisfaction of our Scriptural Judgment, and our Adversary's fleshly Ap∣prehension concerning the Resurrection.

H. More, Myst. God. p. 221, 224, 225.

Dr. H. More, the Cantabridgian Philosopher, be∣gins his Discourse of the Resurrection with this Cen∣sure of J. Faldo's.

We come now to the second par∣ticular propounded, the Resurrection of the Dead, which I dare say the Atheist will listen to, with more then ordinary Attention, and greedily suck in the Do∣ctrine, provided it be stated with the most curious Cir∣cumstances that the RIDGIDEST OF THEOLO∣GERS will describe it by, that we shall have the same NUMERICAL Bodies, in which we lived here on Earth, and that those very Bodies (the Molds being turned aside) shall start out of the Grave. This Do∣ctrine 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 up∣shot of Christianity to be so groundless and incredi∣ble, 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. Se∣condly, 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 Plea∣sures and undergoes Pain, and that the Body is not sen∣sible 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 excel∣lent Philosopher Des-Cartes hath determined, and is abundantly demonstrated in my Treatise of the Im∣mortallity 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 Psichopan∣nachites, see Book 1. c. 6. §. 3. This Succour, saith he, we have against the Atheists out of Philo∣sophy; but I answer further as concerning the Scrip∣ture 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 Re∣cessitation (or raising up) of the same Numerical Body; The most Preg∣nant of all is,* 1.31 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 Obje∣ction against me, Rep. p. 89.) But sayes D. More▪

The Answer will be easie, the Objection being groun∣ded meerly upon a Mistake of the sense of the word, which is to be interpreted out of those higher Origi∣ginals, the Greek and Hebrew, and not out of the La∣tine, though the word in Latine doth not alwayes im∣ply an Individual Restitution of what is gone or faln; as in that Verse in Ovid,Victa tamen vinces subversa{que} Troja resurges

But this, faith he, is not so near to our Purpose (yet it excludes the same numerical Troja) Let us ra∣ther consider the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which resur∣rectio supplies in Latine, and therefore must be made to be of as large a sense as it. Now 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is so

far from signifying (in some places) the Reproduction, or Recovery of the same thing that was before, that it ••ears no sense at all of Reiteration in it, as Mat. 22. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and shall raise up Seed unto his Brother. Also Gen. 7. 4. there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies meerly a living Sub∣stance, and therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in an active significa∣tion, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Translators translate a living Substance; whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to this Analogy may ve∣ry well bear the same latitude of sense that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they being both words that are rendred Resurrectio, but simply of themselves only Vevification, or Ere∣ction unto Life.

Thus far D. H. More against John Faldo's Carnal Resurrection, of whose Philosophy, Scripture-Chal∣lenge 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 con∣sider 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 some∣what direct us to the Form in which they shall be rai∣sed, which is the second Particular, that is, in a spi∣ritual 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 Re∣surrection 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 o∣ther 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 Dissen∣ter; 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, and one to whom that eminent Reformer writ many Loving and Respectful Epistles, usually beginning with Claris∣sime, Charissime, and such like, did both deny the Re∣surrection

of the same numerical Body, but defended his Opinion and disputed strenuously against the vul∣gar Notion, which plainly opposeth John Faldo's, But more especially* 1.32 The Vincent's gross Notion of The Resurrection, who hath taken upon him in a large Discourse, called, Christ's Certain and Sudden Appear∣ance to Judgment, p. 48. 49. to write the History of it, wherein he is so punctual, that he doth not only tell. them what Bodies they shall have, but what En∣counters and Dialogues are like to pass, even to Scold∣ing, Railing, Scratching, and I know not what besides; so vain and ridiculous is that Author.

I will wrap up these Testimonies with two Passages out of Origen in Jerome, Non easdom Carnes nee in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 formis restinent quae fuerunt Sermina: i. e. The Seed shall not restore the same Flesh, nor in the same Form—Again, Non oculis videbimus, &c. We shall not see with Eyes, hear with Ears, act with Hands, walk with Feet in that Spiritual and Ethereal Body that is promised, that is not subject to be toucht or seen with Eyes, nor to be weyl'd, &c. This and much more is urged by Je∣rome against John of Jerusalem, Epist, cap. 8.

These Testimonies I have produced, to shew the Arrogancy and Uncharitableness of J. F. in counting it an horrid Thing to reject his Carnal Notion of the Resur∣rection of the Dead, and that to such a Degree destroyes

(if you will believe him) all Hope of Immortallity; most absurdly placing Eternal Felicity therein.

The Resurrection we own, and for the Manner of it, we are not inquisitive; and as I told him before, so again,

because these things run men into unprofitable Questions, and a Philosophical Way of Discoursing, no wayes tending to God's Honour nor the Soul's Profit and Comfort, I shall decline any further or ni∣cer Disquisition, and content our selves with this, that if we live holily, we shall dye happily; and if we walk in his Fear, we shall depart in his Favour; and at being unclothed of Mortallity, we shall be clothed on with Immortallity and Eternal Life:

For God will raise all such into Immortal Life and Glory, who truly dye in the Lord; But we cannot but take notice of the Subtilty of God's Enemy, who by casting curious in∣trical and unprofitable Questions, about what Bodies the Dead shall rise with, and bringing us under vulgar Reflections by not consenting thereto, endeavours to divert the Minds of People from our most frequent and fervent pressing a part in the first Resurrection, that on∣ly saves from the Power of the second Eternal Death; of which let my Reader receive this friendly Warning; for besides that it is a Satanical Decoy, Thou Fool be∣longs to none more, then him, who acquiesses not with all humble and contented Submission in the Good Will of God, whose Will be done in Earth as it is in Heaven.

To the Second Part of his Chapter, which concer∣neth our Denyal of Eternal Rewards; although it de∣serves not our notice, for the Folly and Falshood it con∣tains; yet that he may not make my Silence to yield his Charge, and to show that in every Point he

behaves himself dishonestly towards us, I shall consi∣der that little he sayes.

Reply, p. 89.

Concerning a Reward in the World to come, which I af∣firm they did not profess, W. P. opposes rather because he would not be thought to subscribe to me, then that he believes not what I say to be true.

Rejoynder.

This Man pretends to judge Hearts not only with∣out Words, but also contrary to Words. I did most expresly tell him, that though we own the Beginning of Heaven and Hell to be in this World (who charged us with the Denyal of them any where else) yet that they were but Earnests of that Compleat Joy or Torment that Men should receive as their Eternal Reward or Recom∣pence hereafter; But this passes for Hypocrisie with John Faldo's present sort of Conscience. And He proceeds.

Reply, p. 89.

W. P. tells me, p. 203. None ever read so; J. F. quotes no such thing; nay, he sayes he hath searcht, but to no purpose, My Charge was, not that they de∣ny a Reward in another World, but that they profess no such thing; yet being silent to it, hath a full Consequence that it is none of their Belief.

Rejoynder.

How could his Charge imply no such thing, who makes our Silence (upon which he grounded it) to have this full Consequence, that a future Heaven and Hell

are none of their Belief, and if not believed, denyed However, it makes not a little for us, that he not on∣ly never read so, quotes no such thing, and says, he hat•• searcht to no purpose, but that he hath made no Reply to these words, he recites out of my Answer, which hath this full Consequence, that for J. Faldo to charge what he has never read, what he hath searcht for and could not find(p. 141, 142.) and therefore could not quote upon us to our Scandal) is unworthy of any Man pre∣tending to Common Honesty.

But what doth he mean by our not professing Eternal Rewards? Our not daring to enter into the secret of the Almighty? What, how and by whom they are to be di∣stributed? What other End have our Meetings, Wri∣tings and Sufferings? Must I alwayes deny Eternal Recompence, where I do not expresly declare I own it? How many Times in Religious Discourses will J. Faldo come under the like Imputation? he cannot show me one Book that was ever wrought by any of us, in which it is not abundantly implied, if not most plainly expressed: Were there no such thing, it would belong to us, above all other People, to use the Apostles Words, We are of all Men most miserable; but God hath fixed that Hope of Immortality and Eternal Life in our Souls, which all J. Faldo's Clamours will be too weak to shake. But were we darker in this Point (then whom none are clearer) we and our Books have Moses, the Prophets and their Writings to keep us company, who mention it but obscurely, and not so frequently and unquestiona∣bly as we do. J. Faldo loves to hear talk of Heaven, but despises and shuns the Way which leads to it; and because our greatest Pains are imployed in bringing People into that streight and narrow Way that leads thi∣ther,

rather then by delicious Fables to preach them in∣to an Hope of Heaven, whilst in a State of Disobedi∣ence to God's Holy Spirit, therefore is it that he con∣cludes us not to believe Eternal Rewards, that is, to deny them. Never did Man catch at such broken Reeds to save himself from the just Abhorrence of all sober People. We deny his Carnal Refurrection, therefore we must needs deny Eternal Rewards. Again, We do not believe Eternal Rewards (if he may be credited) yet he never read so, much less found it so by his own Con∣fession; and therefore could never quote it so. If we speak of Salvation, unless we put future or eternal to it, he confines it to this World; he deals so with Heaven and Hell; boldly concluding, from what we say, Men feel and know of those things here, our Dis-Belief of any such thing hereafter. I told him of B. Hall and T. Brooks, their Books entituled, Heaven upon Earth, but he sayes nothing to that. In short, he seems to have made it his Business to render us but as odious, as his Wits and worse would let him, but let him go with this Character, no Man having charged so home, proved so weakly, and abused so grosly, as this Adversary hath done.

Because I concluded my Answer to the two first Parts of his former Book, though contrarily to what he did, yet in the same Method, he is pleased thus to treat me.

Reply, p. 90, 91.

Set how good W. P. is at APING MY Logick If Quakerism (so called) sayes he, be not another Dis∣pensation then that of Christ preached and setled by the

Apostles; If it deny not the Scriptures; if it deny not all nor any of the Ordinances of the Gospel, &c. And so he goes on with his Negatives; by the same good Logick. I will prove Geometry, Logick or Philosophy to be Christianity. If Geometry, &c. deny none of these Things, Geometry is Christianity; but it doth not, therefore Christianity; yea, if we will pass to the Concrete, you may prove a HORSE or a GOOSE a Christian by the same Argument; for they deny none of these things.

Rejoynder.

Take away his idle Carps and Cavils and he would have nothing to say, and he rarely sayes any Thing, but something is against himself. Who any whit intel∣ligent or candid, considering that I refumed the Argu∣ment in opposite Terms, could think I intended it not to opposite Ends? That is, when J. Faldo tells us, that we deny the Scriptures and all the Ordinances of the Gos∣pel, and we answer, that we do not deny the Scriptures or any Ordinance of the Gospel, that we thereby do not mean; or these Words do not imply an Acknowledging of the Scriptures and every Ordinance of the Gospel; for In∣stance: Suppose any Man charges J. Faldo with a De∣nyal of the Scriptures to be the Word of God, and Baptism and the Supper to be Ordinances of the Gospel, and he shall answer, I do not deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God, nor Baptism nor the Supper to be Ordinan∣ces of the Gospel: Are we to conclude, that J. Faldo acknowledged the Scriptures to be the Word of God, and those Ordinances to be Gospel, no more then an Horse or Goose? I will form it into an Argument for his Sake.

He that denyes the Scriptures and Ordinances of the

Gospel, is no true Christian; But W. P. (sayes J. Faldo) denyes the Scriptures and Gospel Ordinances; Therefore W. P. is no true Christian.

I deny the Minor, or second Proposition; I query then, if I ought not to be understood, to own the Scrip∣tures and Gospel Ordinances? If not, there is no Disputa∣tion: If I ought to be so understood, was it ingenuous or just in him so to cavil? But that his Honesty and Lo∣gick may yet more clearly appear, I will give his Re∣ply in this plain Argument, wherein I wrong him not one Tittle. Whosoever denyes not the Scriptures and Gospel Ordinances is a true Christian: But an Horse or a Goose doth not deny the Scriptures and Gospel-Ordi∣nances; Therefore a Horse or a Goose, according to J. Faldo, is a true Christian. I know he would fling this Absurdity upon me; but he right well deserves it him∣self, who would extend the Major Proposition beyond its Bounds; for it was not Who or Whatsoever did not deny Christianity, thereby including all Sorts of Beings and Things (which made a Gap for his Horse and his Goose) but if Quakers or Quakerism so called (of whom was the Controversie, and must either deny or own) do not deny the Scriptures, &c. it follows, they own the Scriptures, &c. for by the same Rule that his owning the Scriptures includes no Denyal of the Scriptures, it holds e contra that our not denying of the Scriptures, includes an ••owning of the Scriptures, or else his Argu∣ment proves nothing; for if it stands not upon the Rule of Contraries, it will follow, that we may deny them, and yet own them, for not denying them (though there be no Medium) is with him no owning them. But what Part is not that Man fitted to act, who can argue against his Adversary at such a Rate as this.

W. P. denyes not the Scriptures, yet for all that, he owns them no more then an Horse or a Goose, and why? because they do not deny them.

Next to this Injustice, his Logick in these Attempts excells. But above all the rest, that the first, Piece of my Argument, as formal as any thing can be, should not e••cape this Man's Abuse, viz. If Quakerism (so called) be not another Dispensation then that of Christ preached and settled by the Apostles, then the same, said I, though not another, yet not the same, sayes he; Let the Rea∣der judge in this Case: My Adversary in his first Book, 2d Part, p. 144. begins thus, If Quakerism be an other Dispensation then that of Christ settled and preached by the Apostles: Now what is plainer, then that this is a Negative, as well as mine; for another Dispensation is not the same. Next, doth it not imply, that Qua∣kerism (so called) is not Christianity, if another Dispen∣sation? And why may it not follow, if it be not another Dispensation, that it is the same with that of Christiani∣ty? Is not this implyed as strongly and clearly as his Consequence in the contrary Proposition? Why should his Negative pass, and mine be stopt; or his Conse∣quence hold, and not mine? He will have, That if Quakerism be another Dispensation, then not the same; but I must not be allowed to infer, If Quakerism (so called) be not another Dispensation, it is the same; as if it were not alike to say, If Quakerism (so called) be not another Dispensation then the same: Or thus; If Quakerism (so called) be the same Dispensation, then not another. Our Controversie lay upon absolute Con∣traries, not upon things only indifferent, as Geometry, &c. for they are neither for, nor against Christianity, nei∣ther do they own or deny them. But if J. Faldo will

be understood of his Saying; The Quakers deny the Scriptures, that the Quakers do not own the Scriptures; Why should not we be understoo•• when we say, we do not deny the Scriptures, to mean that we do own the Scriptures. His Objection is, we run upon Negatives, whose first Proposition of nine Parts hath eight Nega∣tives in it; unless, If the Quakers deny Scriptures, Or∣dinances, Christ, &c and affect not a future Blessed∣ness, &c. are no Negatives; or that we must not there∣by understand, They do not own them; for if he sets it not in Contradiction, but at the Distance of Geometry on∣ly, how can he conclude, The Quakers deny the Scrip∣tures; yet so he concludes per fas per nefas: What can be said to a Man of this hardy Stamp? whom neither Logick, Reason nor Modesty can bound, yet a preten∣ded Master of them all. Had I used him at this toyish, gibing and illogical Rate, I had been an airy Sophister, of no more serious Conscience or Religion then Punche∣nello; but being his Adversary I must be a Dunce, an Ignoramus, and something else (he was so wise as to hide from us) which are the Epithetes he is pleased out of his great Store-House of Ill Language to bestow upon me at parting. But which is stranger, if any thing be strange that he doth; after all the Perversion, Addi∣tion, Diminution, Wresting, Misquotation, Evasion, and School-Boy Puns and Gibes, he hath the Confidence thus to end this Chapter, and his Defence of the first and second Part of his first Book:

Thus I have honestly & clearly vindicated every Charge in that Part of my Book which intends the Proof of Qua∣kerism to be no Christianity.

How honestly and how clearly he hath vindicated his Charges belongs not to either of us to judge, whatever we think; but is le•••• with every impartial Reader to determine; though, if it be as he saith, I am yet to learn what an Honest and Clear Vindication meaneth; for according to that Sense, I have had of him through this whole Controversie, and the most upright Ob∣servation I could make of his Management, it seems to me a moral Impossibility that he should not be conscious to himself, of exhibiting. Charges he hath not proved; of abusing our Writings to endeavour it; of declining the Strength of our Answers, and Vilifying of our Persons for writing them. To the Righteous God I recommend the whole, and accor∣ding to our Truth and Honesty in this Matter, may we receive the Sentence of Well or Ill done, &c. I hope my Conscience will abide the Search; for God that knoweth all Hearts, is Witness, I have not the least Guilt upon me for my Concern & Carriage in this Affair, having done to him, as I would all Men should do unto me, and therein fulfilled the Royal Law.

CHAP. XIII.

My Adversary declines meddling with my Appendix. His Dising enuity great. His Perversions and Wre∣stings about his Key, pretending to open our Words, Detected.

VVE are now come to his Two and Twentieth and last Chapter, which for his Truth, Rea∣son, Language and Carriage towards me, is an exact Representation of his intire Reply, which will not be hard for any serious Reader to observe, and make that use of it which may forever discard J. Faldo in his Opinion from any future Pretence to honesty in Wri∣ting, till he hath publickly recanted this; but because I always desire he should speak for himself, be pleased to hear him this.

Reply, p. 91.

In W P's Answer to the third Part of my Book, he sayes nothing to the Chapter of the Characters of A∣postolical Persons and Inspirations, wherein (it consisting of Twenty four Pages) I agitated at large these Points, to the Overthrow of their pretended Apostolical Ministry, and Inspirations of the same kind with theirs, common to all Believers, on which Quakerism is founded.

Rejoynder.

This Complaint might have been very allowable in

case I had not already sufficiently considered and an∣swered whatsoever was of moment in those Twenty Four Pages under the Head of Inspiration; and that him∣self had not been so shamefully injust, as after having attackt the first Part of my Book, intituled, The Spi∣rit of Truth Vindicated, with Thirty Four Pages, and I replied in an intire Appendix of Thirty Pages, he had not wilfully neglected to give ••s one word of Re∣joynder: I beseech my Reader to take notice of this one great Piece of Disingenuity; for if I must be chid, because I did not unnecessarily repeat Controversie, having already defended our Doctrine in this Point, under the Head of Inspiration and Gospel-Mini∣stry, What shall be said to him, that unprovokedly fell foul of my fore named Book, and after I had re∣plied in its Defence takes no more notice, then if he were wholly unconcerned in any such Attempts? He must either think what he writ irrefutable or inde∣fensible; If the first, then he need not have replyed at all, since I am perswaded he believes one part of what he writ to be as irrefutable as the other: If because indefensible, he is to be excused, yet deservedly to be blamed for finding that Fault: with others which he is much more guilty of himself. To say nothing of his Pretence of Answering Two Hundred Fifty Four Pa∣ges within the Compass of Ninety Six, and that Skip he makes over my whole Key, consisting of about half a score Pages, added for the Opening our true Mean∣ing from that perverted sense, ignorant and malicious Persons have put upon our Principles: And lastly, his Vindication of his Key in not a page and an half a∣gainst Six or Seven Pages of my Answer, wherein, I hope,

it was proved abundantly defective. But let us hear what he sayes to remedy those defects I therein charged upon it.

Reply, p. 92.

In my Key of Two Hundred and Fifty Particulars, he excepts against Ten; Five of which he further explains, the other Five he opposes.

Rejoynder.

This looks unfair on my part, till my Reader be in∣formed, that not one of these Two Hundred and Fifty Particulars had so much as the Name of Man or Book, consequently no Page, how to find and read any of those things he affirms to be our Sense or Meaning, which is enough to discredit an Honester Writer then J. Faldo; so that what I did, was more then could be justly expected, much less challenged from me: how∣ever, I took Ten of the most suspicious. If he be dis∣proved in those, there is great Reason to suspect him about the Rest, till he hath produced more unquestion∣able Evidence. Of these he tells us, I explain one Five and oppose the other, Let us hear how he gives my Opposition, and what is his Replication.

Reply.

The first of these is in pag. 247. THE WILL OF THE FLESH. i. e. All that is chosen by Man, though he be thereto disposed by the Will of God revealed in the Scriptures. This W. P. calls False, and an Abominable and Notorious Untruth. I have proved at large their calling all things of a Religious Na∣ture

by that Name which are not by Immediate Inspirati∣on: although the Scriptures have Precepts! and Exam∣ples, commanding and prescribing them.

Rejoynder.

If this be not to beg the Question, no Man ever did since the World was. He sayes, he hath proved it at large: and I say, I have refuted it at large; and what sayes he to that? no more then this, I have proved it at large, &c. Doth this Man look like an able Dispu∣tant? That he is not an honest one, take my An∣swer, by him omitted, with his own words faithfully cited.

J. F. pag. 69. THE WILL OF THE FLESH, i. e. All that is 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 Un∣truth, 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 W••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 pro∣ceed.

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 him∣self 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 concer∣ned 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 A∣buse 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 sil∣ly to put such Bonds on the Truth.

Rejoynder.

Indeed I never took him to be so Silly as Mis∣chievous 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 tru∣ly ours, if it be putting Bonds on the Truth to render ours truly? But the Man's present Hardiness is be∣yond wondring at. To the next.

Reply, p. 92.

TRADITIONS OF MEN, i. e. The Scrip∣ture 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 for∣bid: 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 up∣on him; in the mean time, I have disproved his pre∣tended 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 Re∣joynder; 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 conside∣red, 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 Dark∣ness 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 irreve∣rently 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 Ig∣norance 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 Re∣presentation 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 Vin∣dication, &c. No Man I ever read of hath exceeded the Bounds of Truth by obtruding Falshoods, and wan∣dred from the D••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 Substance, or Inventions for Texts, or Wrestings for Meanings, or Gibes and Taunts for pertinent Replies. I have hitherto abundantly satisfied my self concerning him, and I hope all that read me, both of him and his Essayes against the People called Quakers; If not, it ought not to be charged upon me as wanting good Will to do it: I was never more sedulous, and I think never more faithful in any such Affair. And to the End my frequent Complaint of his unfair Dealing may be further justified and confir∣med, and his Deportment in the whole of this Contro∣versie more exactly related, I intreat my Reader to con∣sider what I have now to tell him.

CHAP. XIV.

Of Reflections on Persons and Things.

IF we will believe John Faldo in his own behalf, he abhors that sordid Way of Writing, which some Practise, of Reflecting, Nick-Naming, giving Ill-Language, &c. either to his Adversary or his Do∣ctrine. But as it fares with most Men, they condemn in others what they indulge in themselves; so truly, No Adversary in the midst of all his severe Censures of that unchristian Way of procede, hath made more bold with his Reader, nor fallen more fouly upon his Adversary, yea, Persons unconcerned, then J. Fal∣do hath done.

We were as quiet, as Men that had scarcely known

there was such a Person in the World, when our Peace was disturbed by a great Book intituled with no more Modesty nor Mercy, then in plain Terms, QVA∣KERISM NO CHRISTIANITY. In this he chargeth us at once with whatever all our Ad∣versaries put together had from time to time insist∣ed upon to render us Odious; almost every Charge as scandalous and impious as rankest Blasphemy; and both rendred and called so (for ought I know) more then Twenty Times in that Discourse. This Book I thought I answered with more Moderation then ei∣ther it deserved, or the Law of Retaliation would have granted: At the latter-end of it, I ran up a few of his many unworthy Reflections, Jeers and Scoffs to∣gether, that I might the better help my Reader to a true Relish of our Adversary's Spirit. He sayes no∣thing to them, which makes me conclude, I have not injured him, nor in one word done him wrong; for had I, without doubt he had not past over my Colle∣ction with so deep Silence. I think it fit to transcribe them, that my Reader may see what Provocations I met with to draw Rebukes from me.

Horrid Imposture; Ditch of Grossest Delusion; Subverting Christianity; Their Feigned Christ; Fol∣ly, Madness; It began in Blasphemies against Christ; Gratifying Pride, Idleness, Giddiness; In Professors Prophane; Vanity; Folly; Non-sense; Error: Whether it smell more of the Fox or the Goose; Imposture; Babble; Blockish Person; QUAKE∣RISM ENTERED THE WORLD AS IF SATAN BROKE LOOSE, and POS∣SESSIONS BY SATAN WERE TO MAKE WAY AND FIT SOULS FOR

THE QVAKERS SPIRITS; O the Hell Dark Expressions of the Quakers Teachers! What bitter Curses and Execrations! Dismal Howling; Horrible Roaring; Blasphemy; Wretch; Vain Fi∣ctions; Quakers Glow-Worm; Deck their Idol; Real Non-sense; But 'tis Pitty not to lash a little; I∣diots; Stark Blind; Steel Hard; Your Crooked, Unholy Principles; Their Light grows Wiser and Wiser; Opium of Quakerism; The Quakers Di∣vine Spirit Dumb; Refreshments at Quakers Mee∣tings, so there is at Puppet-Playes; Impudent Fore-Heads; Non-such Ignorance; Proud, Dreaming, Intollerable Notions; Ignorance and Delusion; Out∣strip all in the Crooked Way; Blasphemers of the Lord of Life and Glory; Surely God has given them up for their Pride, Giddiness, or Idle Ignorance, and that in Justice; And the Devil hath blinded their Minds with a Witness; Horrible Abomination; Gross and Dark Conceits; The Rankness of Qua∣kerism.

And though I have carefully avoided his ill Exam∣ple, yet such is my Unhappiness, that my Reproofs are stiled Railing; and Religious Censures, given forth from a grieved Spirit, counted Ill-Language. But what seems yet most insufferable, this very Man, that calls every sober Reprehension by an Hard Name, is most profuse in his black Epithetes upon us; as if not∣withstanding the Circumstances he mostly confesseth he is under in the World, as his complaints tell us (which is no Fault lay'd to his Charge) he thinks it more in∣tollerable that we should censure his Domineering, Scoffing Strain against an intire People, be they what they will in Reputation, Merit, Honesty or Acceptance

among Men, then that he should use it. What Blind∣ness hath seized him, that he should not see this a Fault in himself? Is he fit to reprove, who out-does the Reproved in that for which the Reproof is given?

But before I reflect his Miscarriages of this Nature upon him, he hath something to say to me. It seems I have not behav'd my self towards him with that Sub∣jection to his unprovok'd Abuses, which he thought became me to a Man of his Quality. Let us hear what hath stumbled him, and how patiently this pre∣tended Enemy to Personal Reflections takes it. The first is this.

I happened to let fall in my Answer, not material to the Point, this, but as a passant Expression, and so in∣tended: I find him more in Words then Matter, and I suppose more are of that Mind; or else what means his Pains to be made Waste Paper of already; QUA∣KERISM NO CHRISTIANITY hath ex∣changed the Book-sellers Stall for the Tobacco-Shops.

This so harmeless and true Saying hath given him great Offence, at least he hath taken it; what had be∣come of me, had I bin either as petulant or vain-glorious? I will give his words, that my Reader may judge if the Man have any Vanity. After his Debate of se∣rious Matter; Now, Reader (sayes he) I am come to a Passage which makes me conclude its Author de∣sperate.

As if all the Error and Blasphemy he laid at my Door in his fore going five Chapters had been Toyes and Trifles, but dark Conjectures and meer Guesses to this great Discrimen of my desperate Condition. Oh monstrous Vanity of Vanities! But he goes on.

A Passage (sayes he) that renders W. P. careless,

how justly odious he becomes with Thousands, so he may but lessen the Reputation of my Book.

Better and better, or worse and worse, which my Reader will. Doth my Reputation depend upon the Good-liking of J. Faldo's Ungodly Charges, propt with fal••e Citations, Perversions, &c? I am miserable then. No Head, not empty, would make so great a Sound. It seems his Books have Thousands of Vota∣ries: Hundreds are a Number too diminutive to vow Maintenance to his Labours. These words show the great Vanity of the Author, or the Debility of the Cause that must have whole Regiments of Auxiliaries to his Protection, chuse him whether. But that he may leave no part of his Picture undrawn by his own hand; for who can (or will) do it so well? hear him yet further.

The Acceptation my Book hath had in the World be∣comes not me to express.

A cleaver Way to tell us both his Book's Accep∣tance, and his own Modesty: Yet he so loves the Theam he can't give over.

The second Impression of above 1250. may be abroad ere this come to thy hand.

And how should they chuse, since the New Cabal, contriv'd to over-throw the Quakers, have taken a way of packing such Books into the Country as a new sort of Manufacture, where long before the second Im∣pression came out, in several parts of England, they lay so heavy upon hand by the peaceable Disposition of both Preachers and Hearers, that (as I have been credibly informed) some better affected to such Work then ordinary, have gone from House to House, offe∣ring, yea, pressing them upon the People, as if it had been an Alms to buy them. Yet he goes on still.

I cannot yet find by enquiring that any of W. P's Answers to my Book have come to the Preferment to adventure that Passage.

It seems he hath enquired; Strange Vanity! But what then? Therefore unworthy? So was W. Tindal's then in Henry the Eight's dayes; H. Barrow in Q. Elizabeth's; from whom descended those that are un∣deservedly called his Followers; I mean, such Inde∣pendents as J. Faldo is become. Had it been a good Argument against Luther's Books, that they were not sold at Rome? Or what Preferment had it been to de∣spised Truth to lye upon the same Stall by Error and Imposture? It's well our Books escape Burning amidst such Ill-Neighbours as J. F. and our selves too. Con∣veniency to dispose of our Defences we like, and some∣times want. His Attempt is a License to lye upon any Stall without fearing a Search: But he should not in∣sult over that low Condition God is pleased to exercise us in: Though we think it no Preferment to our Books to keep Company with J. Faldo's at any time; nor should we desire it, but to disprove their black Charges.

But as if I had committed the most enormious of all Crimes, in saying, That his Book had exchanged the Book Seller's Stall for the Tobacco-Shops, he cautions me, not to pass yet a while by the Book-Sellers Shops, for fear they should point at me, and do something else for a Non-such

I know not what, unlefs he had some private Intelli∣gence, that they intended to break my Head with some of his Books, to prove to me by the Experience of Battery▪ that they had not left the Books Seller's Stall.

But this is not all, he tells me on this only Occasion, I have not the Fear of God before mine Eyes; The Words

of my Mouth are Iniquity and Deceit; That I left off to be wise and to do good; that I set my self in a Way that is not good, and abhor not Evil, Psal. 36. 2, 3, 4.

Upon this Text he preaches my Infamy and Disgrace, but with an Abuse to the Text as well as to me, and all for that only Passage. Nay, the Book-Sellers, J. Ro∣binson at the Sign of the Golden Lyon in Pauls-Yard, & R. Boul••er at the Sign of the Turk's-Head in Cornhill, are brought forth with a Fearful WHEREAS against W. P. upon no other score then to buoy up the Book's Sale and the Author's Credit; And by this pair of Book-Sellers, whom I know not (and I scarcely think ever heard of, especially the latter) much less had I ever harmed them, am I call'd all to nought, unless Notorious, False, Dishonest, Impudent, Brazen-faced Detractor are no such thing; and this in one page, and that in a Cer∣tificate too, as if they had not been giving meer Testi∣mony but Sentence, and that after a municipal Proceed of a Billingsgate Judicature. But I forgive them; be∣sides, the Words call neither of them Author.

Two things I shall observe: First, That his Book has had general Acceptance by Learned Divines, both of Conformists and Non-Conformists. Secondly, That we have endeavoured to prevent the Sale of J. F.'s Book.

To the first I answer, their Learned Divines I know not; and how should I, their Names are concealed? But granting what these Men say, it proves nothing: I could produce the Letters of Men, of known Ho∣nour, Learning and Quality, not only in England, but abroad in the World, to ballance the Scale, who condemned his Enterprise of Weakness, Vncharitable∣ness and Wickedness heartily embracing the Answer as a Check but due to his Exorbitances. But let it be as

it will in the Esteem of Men; we the poor traduced Quakers have a further Appeal and expect an higher Judgment: In the mean time, we rest in God's Provi∣dences, and desire to pursue our Christian Duty.

In the second Passage I do aver, they have wronged us; for we never endeavoured any such thing as to pre∣vent the Sale of our Adversaries Book, therefore in so ma∣ny Words they have certified an absolute Vntruth; which ill becomes Men pretending to Conscience, as the lat∣ter of them doth, going under the Name (as I take it) of an Anabaptist, but I suppose some what BECALMED.

This I thought to have prefixt in Form of a Certifi∣cate under several Hands, after their Example; but I had more Regard to the Weight and Gravity of my Discourse, then to seem so concerned for my Reputation about a very Trifle, wherein, had they what they desire, J. F's Book would appear never the less impious, nor my Answer one Jot less formidable; and so I end with him upon this Score.

His next Disturbance at me, is in p. 43, 44, 45. of his Reply; on this Occasion: He would needs turn Hangman to us in his former Book, saying, That now he was come to the highest Round of the Ladder, I pre∣sume, in order to execute us: But I was so Modest, as to use no Word so gross to him, only inverted the Allusion, and turned his Simile back upon him, thus: I will not say for what an Army Chaplain might deserve to be so highly exalted; but since his eager Pursuit after an inno∣cent People, hath brought him actually thither, and it fals to my Share to be his Executioner, I shall take all the Care I can, to acquit my self well of my Employment. At this he rages beyond-measure, though he be only entangled

in a Rope of his own providing. He must needs be medling with Laddes, and trussing up the poor Quakers and their Principles, without all Civility, Mercy or Justice; and because I improved his own Similitude to the Dispatch of his Cause, that he had designed to il∣lustrate the Execution of us and ours by; He, as one be∣side himself, calls me Hangman, Bungler, infallible Sta∣ger, and in plain Terms Fool. But this is little to what is behind; for it seems, I am not enough for him to wreak his Displeasure upon, and therefore of all others my deceased Father, whose Grave with Heathens had been a Guard from all Reflections (especially, when as unconcerned as what was never born, in the Contro∣sie) must be fetcht up to answer for his Sons Micarriage (if such it had been) his Words are these.

But why an Army-Chaplain deserves that Preferment more then a military Sea-Captain, his Father's Character.

Insolence and Pride! for Shame, John Faldo, shall the most Barbarous Nations make it a standing Axiom, De Mortuis nil nisi bonum; And doth J. Faldo, a Non-conforming Minister, that should be more humble from his Profession and Meaness, break that laudable Saying by De mortuis nil nisi malum. Strange! But why my Father of all others? Did he ever wrong him? But had he; where is J. Faldo's Christianity in the Point? Is this the Way to prove Quakerism, none? One would have thought I had been enough to satiate the revenge∣••ul Stomach of this Canabal, without haling him out ••f his Grave, whom Death hath freed from the Con∣••rns of the Living, and the Earth intombed out of ••heir Sight.

What kind of Sea-Captain he was becomes not me 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tell, nor need I; the World knows it: Neither

shall I stomach his Comparison or diminutive Epithetes. His Question I therefore refuse to answer, because eve∣ry observing Person may easily satisfie himself, as to the vast Disparity that is between the Station and Service of every such one and an Army-Chaplain; for it is but to distinguish between the Preservation of a Man's Coun∣try from the Rapes and Spoils of Forreigners, and the ruining it by turning Incendiary, kindling Animosities and blowing them into Domestick Wars, and the Question is fully answered. However, I would have J. F. be more careful how he medles with the Men of that Element; for if they should know of his base Reflections and Com∣parisons, they would, I assure him, do more then point at him, as he said of his Book-Sellers to me.

The next Passages in my Answer which trouble him not a little, are these two, that I should say to these Words, poor Non-Conformists;

but why poor Non-conformists after all their preacht up Battels, Spoils, Plunders, Sacriledges, Decimations, &c. as Rich and Covetous as ever. Again, upon the Description of the True Ministry, I said, No, they are true Gospel-Mi∣nisters, and their Feet truly beautiful, whose Gospel is Peace on Earth, and Good-Will towards Men; and not Garments roled in the Blood of Kings and Princes Rulers and People. No Worldly Armies, Battels, Spoils, Sequestrations, Decimations, &c. in which J. Faldo and his poor Non-conforming Ministers have had their Hands, &c. p. 52, 53, 62.

This may perhaps sound harsh; but I shall easily take that off by declaring the Occasion. My Adversary mus•• needs reflect upon me, and some other of my Friend•• for our Estates, Houses and plentiful Subsistances; and

having first abused us by making it necessary to a True Minister after our Principle, to have no House, jeers at our Poverty and envies our Prosperity; bidding such as had no dwelling Places, to repair to William Penn and such other Quakers for an Answer, who have large Possessions and brave Habitations, such as few Ministers, especially the poor Non-Conformists enjoy. Upon this I depainted what some of their Ministry had been, and what it is; not varying one Tittle from the true Cha∣racter of them, so far as I know it. What had he to do with our Livings? What with our Ministry? Shall he rant uncontroleably? Has he a Priviledge to make us Fools and Knaves at Pleasure without Contradiction? Is there no Supersedeas to such Unchristian Proceed? We must be abused if Poor, and jeered or envied if Rich; and that by a Man, who is one of that Tribe which hath given the signallest Proof of a false Ministry, by the great Degeneracy of the late Times, whereinto they were not only fallen; but have been the Ring-Leaders unto o∣thers corrupted by it. But I beseech my Reader to consi∣der his Reply to what he thus drew upon his own Head.

1. That my Accusations are false, which is sooner said then proved; twenty Years have made them good.

2. That I have like an accursed Ham, discovered my Father's Nakedness. No such Matter J Faldo, That Fig-Leaf will not cover thine. My Father was no do∣mestick Incendiary, much less an Army Chaplain or Parson; of such I spoak. He complotted none of those Tragedies, nor was his Estate advanced by any of the consequential Gains: His Family never saw two Pence of any Sequestration or Decimation Money, nor possest one Foot of King's, Queens or Church Lands, though

perhaps some honest Men did. Accuse that can, pro∣vided he will prove, or else he had better hold his Tongue. I can say, and that with Sincerity to God and Man, that after twenty five Years of publick and ve∣ry eminent Sea & Land Employs (requiring much Time, Prudence, Care, Faithfulness, Government) and the ma∣ny great Opportunities he had to swell his Estate to a very considerable Bulk, and that as laudably as any publick Of∣ficers raise themselves, he departed this World with a most clear Conscience in all those Respects, leaving not half that which many London Shopkeepers arrive at by their private Acquisitions. Base then and unworthy with a Witness, to bring him or me into your Society; We are unconcern'd in those Enormities, for which I justly made the Reflection.

3. But he sayes, that I spit Defiance against the Kings Gracious Laws, and Act of Oblivion; that if I be dis∣pleased, I will call for Fire from Heaven to devour the whole Stock and Kindred of one that offends me.

God forbid, and forgive him. I would rather dye my self then bring any such Dammage upon any of you: But you are to be put in Mind of old Times, to humble you; Some of you perk up so high, as if none were fit Guides for Heaven but your selves, & would sit Inqui∣sitors upon other Mens Religion without Contradiction, and yet have given such eminent Proofs of your Degene∣racy, fresh in our Memory. I have not said half so much as JOHN CANN, the old Independent Pastor, left be∣hind him in his little Treatise, called, The Time of find∣ing, which is an Entire Testimony aginst your Aposta∣cy, for so the old Man calls it, and the second since his day, preferring the worst of the former Bishops before

you. See his Epist. Dedicat. Most sharp are his Re∣prehensions of you in the Discourse it self.

To talk of the Act of Oblivion, is not so pertinent, as to live that humble Life your former Miscarriages should in very Prudence engage you to. This were a better Use of the King's Clemency, then to trouble the World with such unnecessary Contests, especially when they expose other more harmless Dissenters to the Severity of the misinformed Magistrate, and rude Vul∣gar, and prejudice the Minds of sober Inquirers against them: This is to be as bad out of Power; as you were in it.

Neither would I be understood to have spoken of all Sorts of Non-conformists (having alwayes been one my self, and a true Lover of the Honest of them) which J. Faldo takes great Pains to insinuate; No: Nor of all called Ministers, neither. I aim'd at such only who remain in their Partial, Narrow, Bitter, Spirit, unfit for God and Men. 'Tis notorious to all inquisitive Minds, what Misery these Nations have been reduc't to, through the pernicious Councils, horrid Flatteries and most partial and ambitious Practices of many of the Non-conforming Clergy when time was; They alwayes stood in the Way of whatever tended to the true Free∣dom of this Mighty Nation from greatest Thraldom. I could particularize in twenty great Instances, and bring the Complaint of many considerable Persons a∣gainst them, Many Pamphlets are extant that loudly speak the same, especially two, call'd The first and se∣cond Narrative of the late Parliament's Proceedings, &c. printed Anno 1658. and 1659. as I take it, in which the greatest Hypocrisie, the most detestable Falseness to God and Men, and a Sort of Flattery to their new

Monarchy, exceding all modern Idolatry, yea, Blas∣phemy it self, are brought to Light, and laid at the Doors chiefly of the Priesthood among all Perswasions in any Power at that time; Out of which and several others I have extracted about one Sheet, which I intended for the Press, but pure Tenderness to those that acted with Integrity and Conscience, stopt its Publication: I was careful not to give any Occasion for them to be born hard upon by such as knew not well how to distinguish between Persons and Things that differ; though such as I meant, well deserve it from us, that when in Pow∣er persecuted us, contrary to their own Engagements, and now out of Power malign and abuse us by slande∣rous Reports and invective Libels: Nor is it wholly laid aside, though pro tempore suspended: New Provo∣cations may give Occasion for their History to come abroad to the Nation more compendiously then ever. A Work I take no Pleasure in, but am heartily sorry, that such as have given that just Occasion for Rebuke, should (as not having their Fill of us before) fall so se∣verely on us now about Religion, who have so eminent∣ly prov'd themselves false to God, Religion and the Kingdom; and thereby necessitated us to rip them up and show how nauseous this Officiousness of theirs is; as if they thought to expiate old Crimes and prove themselves Zealous for Religion, by perverting, abu∣sing and gainsaying ours. This is the present Plague that infects the Families of but too many, through the secret Instigations of their Ministers, yet too inward with them: And I know, that the most honourable left among Dissenters, lament at this Day the Stingeness of their Clergy, whose Fierceness is rather encreased (then lessen'd) with their Loss of Power. But such generous

Persons, as have acted truly upon Conscience, accor∣ding to the best of their Understandings, and have ever continued immoveable for General and National Good, no Man holds them in greater Value then my self; I wish for every such one the King and Kingdom had a Thousand. It is an Abuse therefore in my Adversary to extend my Words to all Non-conformists, which only relate to the Narrow-Spirited, Angry and Imperious a∣among their Teachers. And if it be for my Plain Deal∣ing with them, he (like himself and his Cause) threat∣ens me with the Punishment of the Judge, Law, and I know not what beside, unless I repent me of my Say∣ing (at what time he pleads the King's Oblivion (show∣ing himself more below him in Mercy, then he is in Dignity) Let him begin when he will, it will never lessen my Credit, nor greaten his, But that he should, after so much Provocation, such scurrilous Replies, Hard Names and black Characters, given by him, say, I am turned CAVALIER and PRELATE too, to satis∣fie my Lust of Anger; adding, We see what a Change the Quakers Light can make when it acts the Part of Fire, are Words very Indiscreet and Ungrateful, as well as Scoffing and Prophane; for they fling such scurvy Reflections upon Cavaliers and Prelates, as become not one who got his Oblivion by the former, and his pre∣sent Liberty of Preaching and License for Printing by the latter: For it is as much as to say, that both Cavaliers and Prelates are a Sort of Revengeful, Angry and Fiery Persons (to be sure bad enough, or he would not have rendred me either, when he went about to character me to Disgrace) So unthankful is he for his Oblivion and all other Benefits that he now enjoyes at the Hands,

and by the Moderation of either Cavaliers, that is, Royalists; or Prelates, that is, Episcopal Protestants; whom notwithstanding, he pretended to be no further concern'd in his Essayes against us, then vindicated, as I have frequently observed.

But lastly he accepts against my mention of one of his new Benefactors.

There is a Gentleman, Mr. T. F. against whom Mr. Penn hath such a Slpeen, that to my great Wonder I find him in all his Writings (I have read) attempting his Dis∣grace, who never wrote against him; and if my Infor∣mation fail me not, P. hath been engaged by him to ano∣ther kind of Deportment.

How black am I with J. Faldo's Dirt? but none of it will stick. Spleen I never had to the Man; but once a Friendship, that had never been broken by me; but as it came, it went. At the time of our Disputation with T. D. T. V. T. D. and W. M. at the Spitle, being engaged in the Negative concerning the com∣mon Doctrine of distinct and separate Personallity, he and some others fell into great Intimacy with us; Who but we in his and their Thoughts? at what time they were not quite discovered by us: But pulling off their Masks, at last we found them to have been the Followers of J. Biddle, in that which is commonly cal∣led the Socinian-Way; and that their peculiar Regard to us came from an implicite Vindication of one of their Principles, for which we came under the Scandal and Odium of Socinians: Pulpits rang how the Qua∣kers had unmaskt themselves on that Occasion; and their warm Disputes in our Defence did not a little

strengthen the common Reports that went of us, and me in particular. When my Book intituled, The San∣dy Foundation Shaken, came out, it being a further De∣tection of what we call Errors, and it happening that Socinians did the same, as I was a rank Socinian (who had never read any one Socinian Book in all my Life, if lookt into one at that time) so these Men, at least T. F. was ready to believe me nearer a kin to them, then, God he knows, I was; that is to say, in Denying the Divinity of Christ. At this time, what would he not have done for me, if I might have believed him, and in Reallity the Man was wonderfully taken; but which was grievous, he was shamefully mistaken; and when he came to read my Confession to Christ's Eternal God∣head in my little Book, intituled, Innocency with her Open Face (though he had another, called, The Guide Mistaken, that p. 28. abundantly doth the same, which was writ and read by him before the Sandy Foundation was thought of) he deserted me, broak all Bonds of Friendship and Rules of Civility, and his extream shews of Kindness turned to continual excessive Reflections; He would have it a Retraction, rather then be thought to have been mistaken; He had built his Hopes too high for the Foundation, and then became wrathful that they fell. And though I sought his friendly Behaviour, having no Thought in my Heart but Love and Friend∣ship to him; yet so invincible was his Displeasure, that there was no holding for me of his Good-will, and believing Christ to be God; They were with him as in∣consistent, as Light and Darkness; I know no other Reason (if this be any) for his Sharpness to me; And God knows, this is the very Truth. I leave it with my

Reader to satisfie his own Conscience concerning this Matter.

But he never wrote against me; Truly he needed not, who hath another Instrument so nimble, and so able a Scribe as J. F. for the Purpose. But if calling me the basest Names, undervaluing, detracting and traducing me in almost all Companies behind my back; and in a Garden at Hogfdon, where I went to accompany some of my Relations, to affront me with opprobrious Names, as many can witness, who demean'd my self with all Gentleness towards him; and to act in the Quallity of an incessant Agent against us by Informations, Reports, Books, &c. (WHO ONCE DID ALL THESE THINGS FOR US (and we are no worse Men then we were) If these things be no just Provocations to mention two Letters, I am to blame: Yet that I name him in almost all my Writings, or all that he hath read, is false; for in the Spirit of Alexander the Copper-Smith, &c. which J. F. quotes, he is not named, and of a∣bove Twelve Books he was mention'd but in Three, and that obscurely; this makes the Fourth against my Will. The Occasion, besides what hath been already toucht upon, was this; H. H. one of his Friends, writes a Book against us, or rather to us against G. F. J. Fal∣do's Mr. T. F. was the Promoter and Scatterer of these Pamphlets, especially upon the Exchange, where (& not in private Converse, as J. F. sayes, and makes to be the only Reason of my taking notice of him, that he may render me base to his Readers) before several, and those of divers Perswasions, called G. Fox Knave, Pup∣py, Logerhead, with such like unhandsome Terms, un∣worthy of a Man of T. F's Consideration in the World.

This I would never have repeated, had not J. Faldo drawn, yea, compelled it from me, by suggesting an Untruth, and substituting it in the room of the True Reason.

Well, But if his Information fail him not, I have been engaged by T. F. to another kind of Deportment. And suppose all this, hath he not dis-engaged me sufficient∣ly? I owe no Man any thing beyond Truth, nor will be fettered from my Testimony by any Obligations. But I never was engaged to him beyond what I have faith∣fully related, except it was his lending me (as he thought) by one that was my Servant at that time of my Tower-Imprisonment, about Forty Pounds (he co∣ming in my Name, counterfitting both Messages and Letters, as I made appear to him afterwards) which, though mine Eyes never saw one Penny of it, nor was there a Penny employed in my Service, or to my use, I did, when God enabled me, having then no Estate in my Hands, faithfully repay, as if I had really had, every Penny; believing then, and still, that it was Kindness in him to me that was abused by a Knavish Servant; and I would never let him suffer for it: If herein I have wronged him, he may forgive me.

But because in my Answer to J. Faldo, and what he said in his behalf against us, I told him, that some thought it a Shame, that so ill a Tongue should go unre∣buked of those whose Principles and Interest give them the Liberty of doing it in a way that might be more ef∣fectual then all the Moderation and Reason that can easily be shown to him; J. Faldo, exactly like himself, strains these words, all the Moderation and Reason, which I intended, of our bearing his Abuses, only showing their Vnreasonableness by writing, to nothing below some

Vnjust and Violent Course to rid him out of the way; which are but softer words for down-right Murder, and to Countenance this Comment of his. I was told, I think, by one that had it at T. F's Mouth, that he was advised to take the Law of me for his Security.

But to put all this out of doubt, those that thought it a Shame, he should so frequently, violently and pub∣lickly revile honest Men, bringing their Common Cre∣dit into Question by scurvy Names, meant by the way that might be taken, only the Law, which was what some counselled him to use to secure himself against me. These Men had need have good Consciences, that are thus affraid before they are hurt.

Thus have I vindicated those Reflections J. Faldo lay'd such Foundation for; and if T. F. be troubled at this, I must tell him, so am I, but I cannot help it; Let him better advise his Scribe next time; for I have nothing but hearty Love and good Wishes for him; nor have I said any thing harsh or disgraceful in this De∣fence of my self, imputing much of what hath hap∣pened more to his Natural Haste, and sometimes un∣go••••rn'd Speech, then a Premeditated Injustice: He knows how often I have caution'd him in those re∣spects, while we conversed together; Nor hath it been my only Observation and Admonition by a great many others▪ and some of his own Friends too. Thus I leave T. F. ••n perfect Good-will, to see what Leave it is that J. Faldo is taking of us.

His Epilogue degenerates not one jot from the Book it self; And as if he would do me a great Deal of Mis∣chief in a little Compass, and say whatever is rude and unjust, once for all, he tells his Reader, That I have e∣gregiously played the Forger; that I am a Cheat; that all

Men understanding Controversie will judge me worthy to be made a Proverb of, and when they would express an impudent Forger, to say no more then W. PENN, Rep. pag. 95.

And that he may add Prophaneness to his Railing, he proceeds: A Great Poet of their own hath these words, worthy to begin all Mr. Penn's Books on that Subject as it ends this of mine.

If a meer Scoff in Scripture-Phrase be prophanening Scripture, then I have not over-charged him in calling this Phrase, wherein he useth Paul's words to the A∣thenians (but with Scorn and Levity) against us, Pro∣phaneness. But let us hear these so much Derided Words.

And they that would be satisfied concerning us any way, they must find us and know us in the Principle of Life, where we are, and not in their own Reason, where we are not; and so let none REASON about us, for there they can never know us, nor come unto us, W. Smith's Cat. p. 94.

But why so much Contempt upon this Passage, unless it be to show us, that he can still Scoff at that Principle of Life, which is the Strength and Habitation of God's Children, as he hath done already throughout both his Books. Did the Disciples or the Pharisees find out Christ's Meaning by their Reasoning about it, John 6. or would not either have relisht the true Meaning of his Words, had they dwelt in the Divine Principle of Life? Why did Christ say; I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, that thou hast hid these things from the Wise and Prudent, and revealed them unto Babes, if they are discoverable by humane Reasoning? for Babes are ignorant of that Art; yet out of the Mouth of Babes

and Sucklings, &c. The Apostle's Question 1 Cor. 1. 20. was very impertinent, if J. Faldo may be of Au∣thority, who said, Where is the Wise? Where is the Scribe? Where is the Disputer? &c. for this implies an Exclusion of all those Arts, Sciences and Natural Gifts from any Capacity to reveal the deep Things of God, shut up in the Divine Principle of Life. Besides W. S's Words imply a Clouded Understanding and degenerated, and therefore Uncapable. J. F. must either intend by his Derision that he thinks W. S. deserves to be hiss'd for denying the Knowledge of Divine Things to be at∣tainable, by the Degenerated Understanding of Man, or sanctified: If the first, All may have Cause to abhor his False Doctrine: If the latter, I would know which way that can be, without the Divine Principle of Life? This abundantly mani∣fests J. Faldo's unsavory Spirit,* 1.33 and proves him to be ignorant of the Way, Method & Work of God in his Children. When the Natural Man by his Reason can know Christ, he may know his Sheep, the Scriptures, and the Power of God, and not before; but because it is impossible in Reasoning or Arguing pro and con, by the utmost Strength and Search of Natural Abilities, to know Christ, but by the Revelation of the Spirit of God alone, as hath been abundantly proved; there∣fore William Smith's words are sound and weighty, and J. Faldo's carnal and prophane; showing him∣self to be a Mocker of the Priviledges and Mysteries

of the Gospel; but what else may we expect from one that walks after the Lusts of his own vain Mind, ha∣ving not the Spirit, Jude 18, 19. Yet that we may manifest how inconsistent he is with himself, as that he can't write against us, but he must write for us, take this Passage out of Quakerism No Christianity (which ought alwayes to begin his Books against us upon this subject, as it ends this Chapter of mine.)

Those Gospel-Illuminations are beyond the utmost reach of our Natural Faculties of the Mind (though sanctified) and therefore it is said to be 2 Tim. 3. 16.* 1.34 Divinely inspired; It is not produced in the Exercise of the Rational Faculties; the Soul is purely passive or receptive there∣in; and is to those Illuminations as the Wax is to the Seal.

CHAP. XV.

His several gross Miscarriages summ'd and further ob∣served.

I. Of his Over-looking my Answer and Arguments.

OF Twenty Two Chapters in his Reply, there is not one of them, in which he hath not wilfully declined inserting my Answer and Arguments, and on∣ly flutters about, pecks and scratches at some part that is of least moment to the Reason of the Point; perhaps some Rebuke or Reflection upon the ill use he makes of

our Friends Writings; particularly pag. 9, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 35, 53, 56, 57, 71, 73, 82, 83, 85, 86, 90, 92, 93. How is it possible my Arguments should be conquered, when they were never encounter'd? I was never yet so unjustly dealt withal in this Particular by any Adversa∣ry of his Pretences.

II. Of his drawing False Inferences.

Where he ventures at any time to insert any conside∣rable part of my Answer, he is sure to draw some In∣ference that may bring an Odium my words never de∣served. I could particularize at large pag. 6, 13, 17, 18, 31, 35, 41, 42, 47, 49, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91. but take these following for the rest.

1. From Edw. Burroughs Reflecting upon Peoples imagining God to be confined to some place beyond the Stars, he implies, they deny Christ's Manhood, Vindic. pag. 6.

2. From our not styling the Scriptures the Word (but Words) of God, he infers, that we deny the Scriptures, First Book, p. 18, 19.

3. From our Asserting the Doctrine of Inspiration, and Certainty of what we are inspired either to write or speak, he infers, not only our Equalling with, but prefer∣ring what we speak and write before the Scriptures, First Book, pag. 40. Vind. p. 17.

4. From our Condemning the Imitation of any of the Holy Men of God of former Ages in particular Cases, without they are thereunto required by the Spi∣rit of the Lord, he infers, that Commands of God in Scriptures are no Commands unless we think so; and that it is no Sin to break all Commands in the Bible, if our

Consciences can but be so blinded as to tell us it is no Sin, Vind. p. 34, 35.

5. From our Asserting that there is no knowing of God but by the Spirit; and that Mens Apprehensions of God, and his Work in the Souls of his People, are but the Endeavours and Effects of the Wisdom of the Flesh, he infers, that we oppose the Spirit and the Scrip∣tures; nay, that we reject and scorn them, Vind. pag. 41, 42, 47.

6. From our denying a Carnal, Worldly, Mercena∣ry Ministry, Lifeless Prayers, a meer formal Church, Preaching and not by the Spirit; and W. Smith's say∣ing, that the present Use of Bread and Wine, and Wa∣ter, called Baptism and the Supper (as they are used at this Day) are no other then Popish and Humane; he infers, that the Quakers, deny the Gospel-Mini∣stry, Gospel-Prayer, Gospel-Church, Gospel-Preaching; and that we CALL Baptism and the Lord's Supper, as PRACTISED IN THE FIRST AGE AFTER CHRIST, the Popes Inventions, &c. Vind. from p. 49. to p. 71. Oh Injurious!

7. From our reproving People for feeding in an Un∣converted State upon the meer Report of what Christ hath done without them and depending thereon; & from our asserting that Justification (taken for Remission) goes not before Repentance, which is an inward Work, much less, that Men can be compleatly justifi'd, or made inwardly just, but by the washing of the Word of Regenera∣tion & Sanctification of the Eternal Spirit, this Man dares to infer Our Denyal, yea our Vndervalue, and that to the Degree of Blasphemous Contempt of the Transactions of Christ at Jerusalem, Vind. p. 71, 72, 73, 74.

8. From J. Penning. asking, If outward Blood would

cleanse the Conscience from indwelling Sin, he infers, that we deny all Benefit by the Blood of Christ shed upon the Cross, for the declaring of Remission of Sins, Rom. 3. 25. First Book, 2. Part▪ p. 46, 47. Vind. 77.

9. From our chusing to call that Body God prepa∣red in which to do his Will, the Body of Christ, rather then the Christ of God; And from our asserting, God to be that Light which enlightens every Man; and that the Soul of Man had something of the Life of God in its primitive Perfection, he makes no more ado, but concludes, First, That we deny the Christ of God; 2dly, That we make the Measure of Light in every Man the Eternal God, thereby confining him to Man's Soul: And lastly, That the Soul of Man is God himself, and so God saves God, and God worships God. This my Reader may find in his Vind. from p. 75. to 87. particularly this following of E. B. about the Soul.

10. From E. Burroughs affirming the Light of Christ in every Man to be one with the Spirit, & as good as the Spirit of Christ (in order to prove it the same) J. Faldo infers, he made the Soul of Man God; because that which is as good as the Spirit of God is God, Book 1. Part 2. p. 122. Vind. p. 85, 86. As if E. B. had spoken it of the Soul of Man, and not the Light of Christ shining in the Soul of Man, as his Words express it.

11. Lastly from our Denyal of his carnal Resurrecti∣on, as inconsistent with Scripture and Reason, he takes Heart to tell all People, that W. P. and all the through Quakers deny the Resurrection of the Dead; and are guil∣ty of not believing a future Reward in an other World, with a Train of Ill Language, too long to bring in, Vind. p. 88, 89, 91.

This, Friendly Reader, hath been the Entertainment we have received at J. Faldo's Hands; but all things shall work together for good.

III. of his evading my Answer and Arguments.

It is very frequent with him, next to leaving out what I say, or fastening false Consequences upon what he transcribes, to evade the Strength of mine Answer, either by pretending to have said enough in his first Book, (as if that had foreseen my Answer, and anticipated his Reply with a Refutation) or by some one Word which will serve him to play at; or by being in haste; or else my Answer deserves no Reply at all, &c. An Evidence of this Sort of Carriage my Reader may find in his Reply, p. 5, 17, 18, 38, 51, 57, 58, 59, 69, 71, 76, 91, 93 One at large for all.

To my several Arguments in defence of Immediate Revelation, Inspiration (as he terms it) he returns three or four Lines.

This W. P. is so far from denying, that he pleads for it, but after such a Rude, Impertinent manner, that I should but injure you, and shew my self idle to animadvert upon it, p. 17. The cheapest Way that ever Man took to confute his Adversary. Doth this become any Man of his Pretence to either Schollarship or Christianity?

IV. Of his Forgery or Perversion.

I am sorry I have such reiterated Occasion to charge him with Forging, that is, foisting in Words into our Writings and Sayings, that are wholly inconsistent with them, or perverting those he delivers, to the End he

may make them ponounce his Mind the more plainly. A few of many Places I have observed, as in page 22, 25, 41, 42, 50, 51, 92, 93. Of which I shall give four Instances more particularly.

1. ••. Pennington speaking of Knowledge according to the Flesh: By Flesh, sayes he, The Quakers under∣stand the Vse of our Vnderstandings (though) sanctifi∣ed, first Book, p. 41. Vind. p 24, 25.

2. His second is, making W. Smith to call the Scrip∣tures Traditions of Men, Earthly Root, Darkness, Con∣fusion, Corruption, Rotten, Deceitful, the Whore's Cup, the Mark of the Beast, all out of the Life and Power of God; and not that the meant them of those who had degenerated from the Power of Godliness, and had set up their own Imagination in the stead of God's Institutions, teaching for Doctrines the Traditions of Men, first Book, p. 117. 119. Vind. 41, 45.

3. The Third is, his making I. Pennington to call visible Worship the City of Abomination, Vind. p. 50.

4. Lastly, That he gives in our Name, this Interpre∣tation, of the Vail is over them; i. e. the Belief of the Man Christ Jesus, which was of our Nature to be the Christ, &c. Vind. p. 93.

V. Of his grand Improbabilities and downright Untruths.

This Charge, I know, must needs be very unpleasant to a Man as Vain Glorious as many Places of his Book declare him to be, but I cannot help it; 'Tis Truth, if there be an•• Truth in the World, that he hath writ a great many unlikely and absolute untrue Things. Let my Reader take the Pains to look over these following

Pages of his Reply, and I am well assured, if imparti∣al, he will not think that I have in a Tittle wrong'd him, p. 6, 7, 19, 21, 33, 35, 38, 39, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 55, 56, 65, 70, 72, 73, 89, 93. Of which I will only in∣stance four.

1. First he affirms, that he quoted forty Places out of our Friends Books, that would prove the Light within (as within us) to be the only Lord, and Saviour, and very God, p. 6. whereas he brought not any one that either pro∣ved the Terms or the Matter.

2. Secondly, He confidently accused us, of charging the Miscarriage of Mens Souls on the Knowledge the Letter of the Scriptures by God's Blessing doth con∣vey, p. 21.

3. Thirdly, Whereas I said that W. Smith's Words re∣flected not in the least upon the Scriptures, nor those Doctrines truly received thence; neither that any such VVords can be produced by our Adversaries, he boldly tells his Reader; I intended 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; as much as to say; We both knew it to be Blasphemy, but W. Smith did not call it so, p. 41. There is no ingenuous Man that will not abho•••• the False∣ness of this Passage.

4. Lastly, I opposing his Affirmation, that we did not profess or believe Eternal Rewards, thus pretends to confute me: W. P. opposes me rather because he would not be thought to subscribe to me, then that he be∣lieves not what I say to be true, p 69. But if this be true sure I am, there is no Truth in the World.

And indeed, there is no giving this Sort of Carriage

at large, but by transcribing far the greatest Part of his Book.

VI. Of his idle Jeers and frothy Expressions.

I have not met with any Man writing upon so seri∣ous a Subject as Religion is, that gives himself the Li∣berty of so many vain Expressions, as if he had intend∣ed his Discourse for vulgar Merriment, & not to Christi∣an Information. If my Reader please to trouble himself with the Perusal of these following pages, he shall find enough to nauseate, p. 6, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 37, 40, 47, 50, 51, 53, 58, 60, 69, 71, 72, 95. Take two Instances: He cackles like a Hen, when he had laid a WORSE THING then an Egg, p. 47.

Again, because we said, God spoak once by Bala∣am's Ass, thereby proving that he did not alwayes speak by the Scriptures, he thus reflects, I wonder not that they leave the Teach∣ings of God by the Scriptures,* 1.35 to attend on the Ministry of Asses, thereby cal∣ling us Asses, p. 27. Which, how Wit∣ty soever he thinks such sort of Sayings, to be sure, they are more Frothy and Irreligious, then becomes a Man professing Religion, much less writing of the Weightiest Points of it.

VII. Of his Vain Glory and Self-Praise.

At this he is excessive; So conceited is he of his own Abilities, and impatient after Praise (the greatest Disco∣very of Pride and Weakness that any Man can make)

which my Reader may find, p. 28, 32, 33, 34, 50, 52, 61, 63, 65, 84. I will give one Proof for all.

My Charge and Argument in this Chapter (sayes he) is such an Argument, and so proved by me, as a THOU∣SAND PENNS can never invalidate it, p. 34.

The truth of which, as also the Vanity of it, may be seen both in my Answer and Rejoynder; however he stops his Reader's Mouth, and counts him senseless and desperate that is not of the same Mind, p. 36.

VIII. Of Railing and Ill Names.

No Man pretends to dislike, yet no Man practises these ill-bred, as well as un-christian Courses more then J. Faldo, where he wants Reason he imposes an hard Name; and if he be rebukt, he calls it Railing, reflecting that upon us for reprehending it in him. If I call his Comparison base, that is so, and that he manages it ma∣litiously against us, he replies, that more gentile Rai∣ling may be learned under a Hedge, and that those Words are slovenly imposed UPON HIM; as if he were too great to be reproved, or licensed to rail without Con∣trole, at least against the Quakers; for if I tell him, he is unmannerly, he counts our own Practice a Dispen∣sation; inferring from our Dislike of vain and fruitless Complements, a Liberty to treat us with what unseemly Language pleased him best; This my Reader may see at large, if it please him to look into these Pages of our Adversary's Reply, p. 5, 8, 16, 20, 27, 29, 33, 35, 45, 49, 50, 52, 54, 58, 62, 63, 64, 69, 72, 73, 77, 82, 87, 91, 95.

But to omit whole Sentences, and yet to give some Instance more at large then by bare Figures, my Adver∣sary

hath liberally bestowed out of his great Store of ill Language these following Epithetes, as well upon our Religion and Friends, as my self for defending them.

That our Light is the second Anti∣christ,* 1.36 the Quakers Idol, Pernicious Guide and Saviour, Fancyful Teach∣er; in fine, a sordid, sinful, corrupt and ridiculous Thing; and our Religion and Practice Blasphemy and Idolatry, p. 47, 85, 87. Our Friends (Quakers, so called) benighted with palpable Knavery and Impudence;* 1.37 Absurd and Blasphemous Idiots; Out of the Knowledge and Wits also; Pro∣digiously wicked; Speak the amazing Delusions of Satan. And that I am a presumptuous and blind Accuser, a Sophi∣ster, an Hamam, an accursed Ham, a treacherous and wilful Deluder, a Mad-man, an Hangman, an infalli∣ble Stager, a Fool, an Ape, a Dunce, an impudent For∣ger, and what not, that his Rage and Folly can foam out, pag. 4, 53, 54, 59, 61, 63, 65, 90, 91, 95.

I desire my Reader would also take notice, that be∣sides his excessive ill-using of us, and ruputing our Re∣bukes for doing so, Railing (which shows the Beam to be in his own Eye, and that his Nature is as proud to re∣ject Reproof, as it is foul and rough to occasion it) he gave us the On-set; Had he not begun with us, we know not that ever we should have meddled with him; but having begun, and withal so miserably abused us by foul Charges, false Citations and vilifying Language, that it should be more unreasonable in us to censure him, then in him to deserve it, no impartial Man can ever think▪ What is John Faldo for a Man, of what Rank, what Quality, what eminent Office or Dignity in the World,

that we must be kickt by him up and down four or five Hundred Pages, for whatever he pleaseth to count us, & not be told, he wrongs us? Is the Quality of this diminu∣tive Priest so much, and the whole Body of the People, called Quakers, and that to stop him in his Career of Scoff, Jeer, Taunt, foul Names and Reflection is to deserve them? But over and above, that this shows his Disposition to be Imperious and Impatient, as well as Rude and Frothy, and therefore very inconsistent with his Pretences to Meekness and Good Manners, but most of all with his Reprehension of others in Cases less of∣fensive; it will neither confute my Arguments nor dam∣nifie my Person, which makes me the less solicitous of making any other Rejoynder. I should here bring in my Conclusion to this whole Discourse, but lest any may yet doubt of the Truth of these things, as belie∣ving me to have made an ill Use and partial Relation of them, I shall yet offer for further Confirmation of my Sense of the Man, and his Undertaking against us, this undeniable Evidence, to wit, that he hath dealt im∣perfectly and falsly with the World in his Account of our Writings, which he makes the Foundation on which every Charge is built, that he exhibits and ag∣gravates against us. I have here and there in my Book toucht already upon this great Failure; But I shall more particularly inform my Reader of it in this place.

Of Imperfect and False Citations.

Forasmuch as J. Faldo would have all People be∣lieve, that he hath charged the People, called Quakers, with nothing that their own Books do not clearly and

plentifully prove (insomuch, as he counts those that think not so, senseless and desperate) and that many who read him, may be ready to credit him, because they see Books, Names and Passages frequently cited, espe∣cially those who have not the Books by them, to exa∣mine how honestly he deals with us, I thought it re∣quisite to end this Book with this further Unanswerable Discovery of his Defective Foundation, that in many places we find Names without Book; Books without Parts, Chapters & Pages, yea, without Names; and Pag. without Number or Figure; many falsly cited; some added to, others diminished from in the beginning, middle or end of Sentences, thereby robbing them of their own Explanation, that he might the better fit them for his purpose. Take these few Instances.

I. Names without Books.

• G. Fox, Book 1. Part 1. pag. 47.
• G. Fox, 48.
• J. Nailor, 90.
• C. A. Part 2. pag. 7.
• W. Dewsbury, 11.
• C. A. 45.
• R. Farnsworth, 46.
• G. Fox jun. 83, 119.
• R. Farnsworth, 142.
• E. Burroughs, 143.

Thus far of Names without Book, which is not fair in any Adversary. Now of Books without Pages, and Pag. without number.

II. Books Without Parts, Chapters Pages.

• Morning Watch, Book 1. Part 1. pag. 37.
• Light out of Darkness, 37.
• ...

• ... Shield of Truth, Book 1. Part 1. pag. 45.
• Love to the Lost, 45.
• Life of E. B. 45.
• Epistle of W. Dewsbury, 47.
• Velata quaedam revelata, 53.
• Morning Watch, 92.
• Morning Watch, Part 2. pag. 19.
• W. P. Spir. of Truth, 32.
• Love to the Lost, 39.
• True Faith, 122.
• F. H. Testimony, 123.
• Great Myst. 124, 125.
• Velata quaedam revelata, 133.
• Great Myst. 142.
• Some Principles of the Elect People, 142.
• Great Myst. Vindic. pag. 86.

III. Books Falsly Cited.

• G. F's. Great Myst. Book 1. Part 1. pag. 41.
• W. S's Primmer, 44.
• Great Myst. 52.
• Great Myst. 57.
• Love to the Lost, 118.
• G. Fox Great Myst. Part 2. pag. 10.
• G. Fox Gr. Myst. 12
• J. Parnell Shield of Truth, 22, 23.
• W. Smith's Cat. 27.
• W. Smith's Prim. 37.
• Love to the Lost, 40.
• W. Smith's Prim. 42.
• W. Smith's Prim. Part 3. pag. 94.
• W. Smith's Prim. Vindic. pag. 6, 70.

Thus much at present of False Citation, which▪

to say no more, makes any Book uncapable of being answered.

IV. Several Passages Clipt and Maim'd.

• J. St. Short Discovery, Book 1. Part 1. pag. 42.
• Short Discovery, 80.
• W. Smith's Prim. 88.
• J. N. Love to the Lost, 89.
• E. B. Answ. to Choice Experience, 89.
• J. Story Short Discovery, 89.
• W. Smith's Prim. 114.
• J. N. Love to the Lost, 120.
• J. N. Love to the Lost, Part 2. pag. 6.
• I. Penington's Quest. 19, 23.
• W. Smith's Cat. 26.
• W. Smith's Prim. 37.
• G. Fox Gr. Myst. 40.
• J. N. Love to the Lost, 43.
• W. Smith's Cat. 69.
• Love to the Lost, 103.

Reader, These are but a very few of what we could offer; for indeed there is scarcely one Passage that he hath not mangled on purpose to make it speak the bet∣ter on his behalf, which given at length would have cleared it self.

V. Certain Places more particularly Perver∣ted by Adding or Mis-applying.

• I. Penington's Question, Book 1. Part 1. pag. 41.
• E. B's Answ. to Choice Exper. 89.
• I. Peningt. Quest. 109.
• W. Smith's Morning Watch, 119
• W. Smith's Morning Watch, 126.
• ...

• Love to the Lost, Book 1. Part 2. pag. 25.
• J. N. Love to the Lost, 27.
• W. Smith's Prim. 42.
• I. Peningt. Quest. 46, 47.
• W. Smith's Morning Watch, 48, 49.
• I. Peningt. Quest. 70, 71.
• I. Peningt. Quest. 81.
• I. Peningt. Quest. 126.
• I. P. Quest. 129.

These, Reader, are but some Hints I was willing to give thee of our Adversary's Disingenuous Carriage towards us, either in letting drop that which may be most material, at least might be more explanatory of our Friends Intentions, foisting in words wholely incon∣sistent with the Scope of our Passages, or mis-apply∣ing them in favour of his black Charges, all which may clearly be seen by a Comparison of his Books with our Friends Writings, a great part of which, I must confess, it will be difficult to procure, since to prove his Mis∣carriage in Citations, I have not been able to compass above the one half of the Books he names; but that carries this Woful Reflection with it, if his use of 15. Books in Thirty affords us so many gross Instances of his Unfair Dealing with us, what might we have expe∣cted upon our Examination of the rest? In the mean time we shall without leave suspect him, having so much Reason for it.

To compleat what I have done in this Particular, let me tell thee, Reader, that in his Comparison of us with the Papists, he sets down Twenty several Passages as our Doctrines and Opinions, not producing so much as one Person,* 1.38 Book or Page to avouch them; a piece of Justice he de∣nies not to the Papists themselves at

what time he refuseth it to us, though not they, but we were the People against whom the Discourse was writ: which, though gross enough, yet nothing com∣pared with his Disingenuity at the end of his First Book,* 1.39 where under the Pretence of fur∣nishing his Reader with a Key to under∣stand the Quakers Meanings by, he sets down no less then about two Hundred and Fifty Particu∣lars in our Name, without so much as the bare mention of one Author, Book or Page, to countenance his Attempt. Yet after all this he cannot bear to be told of his unfair Carriage, and his Unjust Dealing towards us; His Quality, or his Pride, is so great, it will not bear a Re∣prehension; I never met with a Man of so much False∣ness and Stomach together. He thinks it so great a Pu∣nishment to be told of his Miscarriages, that if we will not let him pass for a Faithful, Sober, Meek and Chri∣stian Author, however he hath proved himself the Contrary, we must expect all that his Scorn and Anger can cast upon us: But such Vindications of his Essayes will be Hand-writing enough against themselves, and their Author, who ought not to flatter himself after these great Evils, with the Hopes of Impunity; for such as he hath sown against us, such shall he reap at the Hand of God, the Righteous Judge of all, who will reward eve∣ry Man according to his Works. But I desire with all my Soul that God may show him Mercy, that Repen∣tance may yet over-take him, and this Iniquity be blot∣ted out before he departs this World, and is no more seen I would beseech him in the Love of God to fight no longer against the Truth, and for a Cause, his Con∣science (might it speak) would tell him, is not the only true God's, but the Honour and Interest of the God of this World, whom the formal Christian is lead and or∣dered

by, that is so sharp against us. Let him not be a∣fraid to take Shame for that which is shameful, lest vain Credit here, brings Sorrow hereafter. I cannot be o∣therwise perswaded, but that Reputation prevailed more with him then Conscience in this Controversie; he tugs so hard to prop the one, and there is so little savour of the other: God could never be in that Design, nor a∣midst those Thoughts, that were laid with so great Mi∣stake, and which have been vented with so much Fury. I must needs say, There was neither Truth to inform us, nor Charity to gain us: It stumbled the Weak, grie∣ved the Tender & offended the Peaceable among those Professions he pretended to vindicate, gratifying only such as are of a Litigious and Contentious Nature, whose unreasonable Heat it had been his Duty rather to abate by Sweet Perswasion and a meek Example. I have this Comfort in my Conclusion of this Controversie, that I most heartily forgive him all the Injustice and Vnkindness he hath shown, at least so far as I am therein concerned, and that I think is more then any Man; And with the same Love that God hath loved me, I do with all my Soul fervently wish his Solid & Vnfeigned Repentance, that he may receive the Love and Mercies of God in the Remission of his Sins, and Reconciliation of him by the Power and Spirit of Jesus Christ our Lord, that he may kno•• the Excellency and Glory of the Truth in the inward p••••ts, and what are those good things, no Carnal Eye, Ear, or Heart hath ever seen, heard or understood, that God hath laid up for them that truly fear him, and which he daily reveals unto all such by his Eternal Spirit.

The Conclusion.

THus, Friendly Reader, are we come to the End of our Task, wherein, I hope, the Doctrines of that despised People, in Derision called Quakers, their Worship and Church-Practice, are evidently and firmly vindicated against vulgar Mistakes and Reports, and more especially those many black Charges, so confident∣ly exhibited by J. Faldo, in his first & second Books, both by a fair Rescue of our Words from his gross Perversi∣ons, and indirect and unnatural Meanings, and the Con∣firmation of our real Sense, with plenty of plain Scrip∣ture, many Reasons, and the unquestionable Testimo∣nies of several Ancient and Modern considerable Au∣thors. My Design hath not been Conquest, but In∣formation, that by these Religious Wars we may at last arrive at Peace; And these Weapons be all beaten into Plow-shares, so as to learn War no more: That to fear God and work Righteousness (the Life of Jesus Christ our Lord, who hath left us his most Holy Example, that we should follow his steps) may be the very bent of our Hearts, the Resolution of our Minds, and con∣stant Practice of our Lives, which bring the Soul to the Inheritance of Substance, & establish the Heart forever.

Oh, that all who read this Discourse, may with me wind up their Spirits, and lodge their Souls, not in the Love of Controversie, but of that Divine Life, which stills, resolves, and fixes all, and gives such Hea∣venly Waiters to feel and enjoy Immortallity! To see and possess something that is beyond time, & these pain∣ful Exercises that are within it. Oh, this makes Men

Weighty, Serious, Loving, Meek, Holy, Forbearing and Constant, the Image and Delight of God! Such be∣come Livers of Pure and Vndefiled Religion, who have been thitherto but so many vain and verbal Contenders for Religion; so shall this Scripture be fulfilled to our unutterable Rejoycing,* 1.40 Surely his Salvation is nigh them that fear him, that Glory may dwell in our Land; Mercy and Truth are met together; Righteousness and Peace have kissed each other.

The God of Everlasting Strength Bless and Prosper this Glorious Work in the Earth, to the Praise of hi•• Holy and Blessed Name, Amen.

W. P.

THE END▪

Notes

• * 1.1

  To call any Day of the Week a Christian-Sabbath, is not Christian but Iewish; give us one Scripture for it; I will give two against it. Gal. 4. 9, 10, 11, 12. where the Apostle makes their Observation, or Preference of Dayes to be no less then a Token of their Turning from the Gospel. Also Col. 2. 16. An outward Sabbath or keeping of a Day to be but a Shadow; and that Christians ought not to be judged for rejecting such Customs; for this very Rea∣son the Protestant-Churches beyond the Seas generally deny the Morality of the First Day, counting all Dayes alike in them∣selves, only they have Respect to the First Day, as an Apostolical Custom, and think it convenient to give one Day of Rest from Labour to Man and Beast each Week Of this Mind several Learn∣ed Protestants of our own Country have declared themselves to be; So that neither our English Episcopalians nor French Pres∣byterians can escape. Iohn Faldo's Conse∣quence any more then the Quakers; for if those that deny the Supper, Baptism, and the first day of the Week to be the Christi∣an-Sabbath, deny Gospel-Ordinances, then those who deny the First Day of the Week (J. F's Christian-Sabbath) to be the Christian-Sabbath, must needs deny a Gospel-Ordinances, but that doth many English Episcopalians, and most French Presbyteri∣ans, therefore both several English Episco∣palians, and the generallity of the French Presbyter and are Denyers of a Gospel-Or∣dinance. Consequently J. F. told an Un∣truth in his Preface, when he assured both Episcopalian and Presbyterian, that they were no further concerned in his Discourse then vindicated. In short, Though we assert but one Christian-Sabbath, and be∣lieve that to be the Everlasting Day of Rest from all our own Works, to Worship and Enjoy God in the Newness of the Spirit; yet 'tis well known, that we both meet upon the First Day in the Week, and be∣have our selves with as In-offensive a Con∣versation, as any of our Sabbatherian Ad∣versaries. The Honour is God's, by whom we are what we are; but this Testimony I record for God, His Gopel and Right-begotten Children, that the Meats, Drinks, Washings and Dayes, observing Christians are not come so far, as those foolish Galati∣ans, for ••hom the Apostle travelled again, until Christ were formed in them, Gal. 4. 19. being yet Stranger to the Life Power, Spirit and the Substance of the Gospel.
• * 1.2

  See Iudas and the Iews comb. a∣gain. Chri.
• * 1.3

  See Iudas and the Iews comb. against Christ, &c.
• * 1.4

  John 14. 10.
• * 1.5

  Mat. 10. 20.
• * 1.6

  See my Answ. pag. 133.
• * 1.7

  Rom. 8. 13. 14.
• * 1.8

  Math. 7. 27. 23.
• * 1.9

  Heb. 12. 14.
• * 1.10

  John 3. 3. 5.
• * 1.11

  Gal. 6, 7, 8, 9.
• * 1.12

  Dan. 9. 24.
• * 1.13

  A. Sadeel Oper. pag. 37.
• * 1.14

  Rom. 3. 25.
• * 1.15

  2 Cor. 5. 19, 20.
• * 1.16

  Psal. 16. 11.
• * 1.17

  What sayes J. F. to this? Is it not be∣yond what E. B. said of a Report of Christ?
• * 1.18

  H. Grot. in Epist. 1 Cor.
• * 1.19

  Phil. 2. 8.
• * 1.20

  Christ was the Eternal Light before Iohn testified of him. See Book called, Annotati∣ons of certain lear∣ned. Divines in the Year 1645 on Ioh. 1. verse 9.
• * 1.21

  Gen. 45. 8.
• * 1.22

  Plat. Pol. 1.
• * 1.23

  Isa. 2. 3.
• * 1.24

  Clem. Al. Admo. ad Gent. p. 2.
• * 1.25

  Strom. l. 2.
• * 1.26

  See Rom. 8. 9, 10, 11. where the Spirit of Christ and Christ are equiv••••ent∣ly taken.
• * 1.27

  E. B.'s Works, p. 144.
• * 1.28

  Homo rationabilis factus, irrationabi∣liter vivens, amisit rationem; tradidit se terra••o spiritui, Psalm. 48. 21. vide Irraeneus, P. 336. i. e. A Man who is made reasonable, living unreasonably, hath lost his Reason, ha∣ving given himself up to an Earthly Spi∣rit.
• * 1.29

  If it be objected, that Adam is not mentio∣ned as degenerated, but as created, and there∣fore this Interpretation will not do. I answer; 'tis true he is said to be made a living Soul; but first, this makes not for the Resurrection of dead Bodies, and so far our Ad∣versary gets no Strength. 2ly, Though the Apo∣stle beings with the first Adam's Creation, yet he orderly comes to the Earthly Image, that the living Soul put on by Disobedience, which in∣troduceth the Necessity of the coming of the se∣cond Adam, and his Quickning Spirit to cre∣ate a new, bring into the Image of God. So there is Adam as sown and his Posterity representa∣tively in him, and his and their Laps, and then the Restoration by him that is the Resurrection and the Life, the second A∣dam, the Lord from Hea∣ven however
• * 1.30

  Annot. cert. Divin. anno 1645.
• * 1.31

  Note, Reader, that our Translation is erroneous, Iob 19. 32. whom mine Eyes shall behold. In the Hebrew thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. mine Eyes have seen; the Sep∣tuagint 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vidit, doth see, as Drusius and Cadurcus observe.
• * 1.32

  Oh the Angry Counte∣nances the Wicked will have on that Day!—Oh the Angry Speeches!—It may be, from Words they fall to Blows, and tear one another Hair, and spurn at one anothers Bellies, bite one anothers Flesh, and even claw out one anothers Eyes.
• * 1.33

  Dr. Barnea, I. Brad. I. Calv. B. Iew. VV. Perk. VV. Green. I. Car D. Owen, with a Hundred more of this Mind, admir'd by such as I. F. yet that Doctrine derided by him in us; particularly I. de VVessalia, No Man can know the Mind of Christ, which he holds forth in his words, but he alone, Paradox in Fasc. Rer. p. 163.
• * 1.34

  Book 1. Part 3. pag. 50.
• * 1.35

  Balaam's Ass shall rise up in Judgment against J. F.
• * 1.36

  B. 1. P. 1. p. 107. p. 39, 80, 107. p. 109. P. 2. p. 20.
• * 1.37

  B. 1. P. 1. p. 8. P. 2. p. 21. p. 22. p. 126. P. 3. p. 37.
• * 1.38

  Book 1. Part 1. pag. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36.
• * 1.39

  Part 3. from p. 62. to 90.
• * 1.40

  Psalm. 85▪ 9, 10.