George Keith's FOURTH NARRATIVE OF HIS PROCEEDINGS AT TURNERS-HALL 1699. WE whose Names are under written having at Mr. Keith's Request and by the Allowance of the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London carefully examin'd the Quotations of this Narrative do testifie the Faithfulness of them and that they exactly agree with the Books out of which they are taken And as we commend his Integrity in retracting publickly his Errors and his Christian Zeal for the reducing of his Brethren who are yet entangled with them so we hope they will follow his Example and discern the Perniciousness of their Ways and be led by the Grace of God to the Acknowledgment of the Truth and to the Communion of the Church Z. Isham D. D. Rector of St. Botolph Bishops-gate W. Bedford D. D. Rector of St. George Botolph-Lane R. Altham B. D. Rector of St. Andrew Vndershaft Will. Whitfield Rector of St. Martins at Ludgate J. Adams Rector of St. Alban Woodstreet George Keith's FOURTH NARRATIVE OF HIS PROCEEDINGS AT TURNERS-HALL Divided into Three Parts Detecting the Quakers Gross Errors Vile Heresies and Antichristian Principles oppugning the Fundamentals of Christianity by clear and evident Proofs in above Two Hundred and Fifty Quotations faithfully taken out of their Books and read at three several Meetings the 11th the 18th and 23d of Jan. 1699. before a great Auditory of Judicious Persons Ministers and others More particularly discovering the Fallacious and Sophistical Defences of George Whitehead Joseph Wyeth and seven Quakers of Colchester in their late Books on all the several Heads contained in the printed Advertisement To which is prefix'd The Attestation of five Ministers of the Church of England to the Truth of the said Quotations And a POSTCRIPT By GEORGE KEITH LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill 1700. Advertisement THIS is to signifie that it is my purpose God-willing and by his Assistance to be present at Turners-Hall in Philpot-Lane by Fanchurch-Street in London being our ordinary Meeting-place Licensed by Authority on the Eleventh Day of the Eleventh Month called January in the Forenoon there to detect and discover Gross Errors and Anti-christian Principles plainly repugnant to the Fundamentals of Christianity in the Books of the approved Authors and Writers of the People called Quakers by ocular Inspection presenting them in fair and full Quotations to as many as are willing to be present and make Inspection into them And also to lay open the great Fallacy and Sophistry of George Whitehead and Joseph Wyeth and some of their Brethren at Colchester which they have used in their late printed Defences of their Own and their Brethrens most Erronious Passages contained in their Books in order to Cloak and Hide their Antichristian Principles and vile Errors not only to the great Scandal of all true Protestants in this Nation of whom they pretend to be the more refined Part but of all true Christians any where And I do hereby desire George Whitehead and Joseph Wyeth and their Brethren of the Second Days Meeting at London who have approved their late Books to be present at the said Meeting for which I have Permission by Civil Authority or any others who think themselves concerned at the Time and Place above-mentioned to hear and see out of their own Books their Errors and Fallacies detected who if they have any thing to offer in their own or Brethrens Defence shall be fairly heard The particular Errors that I intend God-willing to discover them guilty of out of their Books and Authors are Concerning their Pretences to Infallibility and sinless Perfection Concerning the Scriptures Concerning the Holy Trinity Concerning Christ his Incarnation his Soul and Body and Blood his coming to Judgment at the Last Day Concerning Justification Concerning the Soul Concerning the Light within Concerning the Resurrection Concerning the outward Baptism and the Supper Concerning doing servile Work on the First Day George Keith London 18th 10th Month 1699-1700 A few Words of PREFACE TO THE IMPARTIAL READERS IMpartial Readers I have these few things to acquaint you with and recommend to your Consideration First that I found just and necessary Cause to recite diverse former Quotations given in my former Narratives and in other Books formerly publish'd against the Quakers Errors to detect the fallacious and sophistical Defences that they have made in their late Books in Vindication of those Quotations to cover their vile Errors Secondly Beside the former Quotations above mentioned I have brought many new Quotations which are neither in my former Narratives nor in any other Books that hitherto have been published against them which obviates the cavelling of the Quakers who would be ready to say There is nothing to be expected of new Matter but what is contained in other Books and which hath been already answered by them The contrary whereof will sufficiently appear to any that shall compare this fourth Narrative with any other Books before this published against them Thirdly Whereas the common Objection of the Quakers is That their Books are neither fully nor fairly quoted To remove the Ground of any such Objection I have got the Attestation of Persons of known Integrity and Judgment to the Truth of them as I got the like Attestation from some the former Year to attest to my third Narrative I have given the Quotations as fully and fairly as is requisite to satisfie any reasonable Persons But the Men I have to deal with for all this will I expect renew their unjust Complaint and will tell their Readers This and the other Passage going before or following should have been inserted in the Quotations whereas the not inserting of them makes not their Cause one whit the worse nor the inserting them makes their Cause one whit the better as could be shewed in many Instances and is shewed in their late Books for when so much is quoted out of any Book that gives the full Sense of the Writer whatever is more is superfluous Note for a Proof on the last Head That the Quakers deny the Moral Law or Ten Commandments to be a Rule to the Christian's Life and thereupon do not blame but justifie doing servile Work on the first Day yea and in the Face of a Congregation while the Minister was preaching See p. 28. of this Narrative G. K. George Keith's Fourth Narrative OF HIS Proceedings at Turners-Hall 1699. For the Detecting the QUAKERS ERRORS The first Part giving an Account of his Proofs on the first four Heads contained in his printed Advertisement viz. Concerning I. Their Infallibility II. Their sinless Perfection III. The Scriptures IV. The Holy Trinity Proofs out of the Quakers Books on the first Head concerning their Infallibility 1. GEORGE Fox Great Mystery pag. 105. For who witness these Conditions that they were in that gave forth the Scriptures They witness Infallibility an infallible Spirit which is now possessed and witnessed among those called Quakers Glory to the Highest for
us and by the Power of thy divine Life and Spirit raise us up over all Tentations and indue us with a Measure of the same Patience and Resignation that dwelt so fully in thee and which thou didst so abundantly manifest in all thy Sufferings in the Days of thy Flesh Thou art the same that thou wert thy Heart is the same towards thy Servants as when thou wert outwardly present with them in the Flesh Thou art our Advocate and Mediator in Heaven with the Father Our merciful High Priest who is not untouched with the feeling of our Infirmities Thou even thou blessed Jesus thou knowest our most secret Desires and Breathings which we offer up unto thee in the Enablings of the blessed Life and Spirit that thou mayest present them unto thy Father and our Father that in thee we may be accepted and our Services also and for thy sake our Defects and short Comings our Sins and Transgressions that we have committed may be forgiven us The Prayer being read divers Ministers and others said it was a good Prayer but they never heard that any such Prayer was used in any of the Quakers Meetings A Quaker called Daniel Philips standing by near where I stood said that Book was approved by the second Days Meeting at London which was a great Untruth I told how I wrote that Book in Scotland and from Scotland sent it to a Correspondent in Holland who printed it there and when it came over to London in the Year 1678. it met with great Opposition from divers of the Preachers of the Quakers at London as Stephen Crisp William Shewen William Mede and Samuel Newton and one of the chief things they blamed in my Book was this very Prayer and especially that Part of it Jesus Son of David have mercy on us Some of them said it was half Popery for though G. K. would not pray to Mary the Mother of Jesus as the Papists do yet he was for praying to the Son of Mary Others said it was Common Prayer A larger Account of things relating to the Opposition I met with from the Quakers for that Prayer and some other things in that Book ye will find in the late Book called A Defence of the Snake in that called A Collection from p. 16. to 38. I further shewed that what I had delivered in that Book and others of my Books in former times when I was reckoned in Unity with the Quakers did plainly evidence that I held the Faith of the Fundamentals of Christianity with all true Christians though in some lesser Matters I was biassed and misled by them into divers Errors particularly in rejecting the Sacraments of Baptism and the Supper which I have since retracted and for my holding the fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith as appears by that Book and other Books of mine All the Time of my Quakerism a Quaker in Ponsylvania who was a Justice of Peace his Name was Arthur Cook said unto me George thou never was a right Quaker all thy Days but an old rotten Presbyterian The reading of that Passage in my Book containing the Prayer aforesaid which the Quaker brought to make against me had a far contrary Effect to what he intended for many some Ministers and others present said This makes for G. K. not against him let the Quakers bring any such Passage out of their Books to prove they were of that Faith with him Some of the Quakers that objected against that Prayer in my Book asked me in one of the Meetings that were appointed to hear the Objections against my Book and my Answers Where did I ever hear any English Friend of the Ministry pray after that manner Possibly said they some Scots Friends who were thy Proselytes thou hast heard to pray so I confess they guessed right they were some Scots Friends whom I had heard to pray so and so I had prayed and being at a stand to instance any English Friend that I had heard so pray W. Penn told them he had so prayed and that not long ago but he said It was in private G. W. said Let the Scripture decide it whereupon he calls for the Bible and reads in 1 Cor. 1. 2. What say ye to this Friends said G. W Ye see that Paul did approve the Corinthians that called upon the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ Their Answer was Paul was dark and ignorant in that thing as G. K. is for our Parts we know better Here note the Fallacy both of G. W. and W. P. who for all this seemingly owning Faith in the Man Christ Jesus by confessing they were to pray to him yet in their printed Books have opposed that Faith without any Retractation Proofs on the third Head First That the Scriptures according to the Dictates of their greatest Teachers are not the Word of God THat the Scripture is not the written Word see G. Myst p. 68 75. The Word not contained in Scripture p. 232. The Scriptures not the Word of Reconciliation but Christ p. 186. The Scriptures not infallible nor divine but humane p. 302. He chargeth C. Wade with Blasphemy for affirming the Scriptures are the Word of God G. M. p. 246 247. Thus the Church of England and all Protestants are guilty of Blasphemy by his Assertion Note This Controversie betwixt all true Protestants and the Quakers whether the Scriptures are the Word of God which the Quakers have formerly most earnestly denyed and fiercely disputed against though some now begin to acknowledge it and yet they are still the same infallible Men is not a meer Strife of Words but a most material and important Controversie for when many Places of Scripture are brought to prove that God's Spirit doth inwardly teach us by means of the Word and that Faith comes by the Word of God outwardly heard or read that we are born of the Word and sanctified by it and all spiritual Effects that are attributed in Scripture to God Christ and the Spirit as the principal Agent and to the Word as instrumental they will not allow of any instrumental external Word but makes the Word to be the Spirit to be Christ and God which is in effect to render them of no use to us at all seeing by denying them to be the Word they deny them also to be the external Means or Medium whereby the Spirit teaceth us by his inward Operation in our Hearts and works any saving Knowledge and Faith in us and this also they have denyed viz. that the Scriptures are the Means or Medium But that the Scriptures are the Word of God and the Word most frequently so called in Scripture is clear from abundant Places to wit the external Doctrine contained in the Scriptures Our Gospel came unto you said Paul to the Thessalonians 1 Thess 1. 5. not in Word only by Word here is meant Doctrine Isaiah 28. 13. The Word of the Lord was unto them Precept upon Precept Line upon Line Here the Precepts and
written Lines of the Prophets are called the Word of the Lord and Joh. 15. 25. there we find the Word written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the written Word which was a short Sentence written in one of the Psalms but G. F. denyeth them to be the written Word G. M. p. 68 319. When Paul bid Timothy preach the Word it cannot be justly thought that he would have him only preach the inward Word or the essential Word or Light within but by the Word he meant the whole Doctrine of the Gospel The Quakers but trifle when they argue the Scriptures are Words and it is a Lye to call Words the Word which is not a Lye but a common Speech used by themselves who call an Epistle a Letter that yet contains many Letters And they do no less trifle when they argue to say the Scripture is the Word is to say the Scripture is Christ as if the Name Word did only belong to Christ whereas the Name Word as well as the Name Light is given both to Christ and other things Christ said to the Disciples Ye are the Light of the World and so said Christ of himself doth it therefore follow that they were Christ They say they call the Scriptures what they call themselves A Treatise but not the Word quoting Acts 1. the former Treatise but in the Greek it is Word the same in Joh. 1. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the former Word where it is plain he calls all the Words written in the Gospel according to St. Luke the Word as each Oration in Isocrates or Demosthenes is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Word Proofs that the Scriptures are not the Rule but the Spirit or Light within as is common to all Mankind G. F. G. M. p. 39 120. and in his G. M. p. 302. he saith The Spirit is the Rule that leads into all Truth so saith Christ Note Here he belyes and wrongs Christ's Words Christ did not say the Spirit is the Rule the Spirit is the Leader who leads us into all Truth by the Line or Rule of the holy Scriptures we not having those extraordinary Leading that the Apostles had Nor is this a meer Strife of Words but a most necessary Controversie which is the Foundation of their Deism and their overthrowing Christiany and yet this very Year they have reprinted W. P's Discourse concerning the general Rule of Faith and Practice who brings fourteen Arguments to prove that the Scriptures are not the general Rule of Faith and Practice to which I have answered in my late Book in Print called The Deism of W. P. c. Three of which Arguments of his are 1. From their Imperfection Switch pag. 46. 2. Their Uncertainty 3. Their Obscurity Yea Jos Wyeth in his Switch chargeth the Scriptures with Vncertainty This is a most dangerous Heresie for by this Principle they are not obliged to believe one intire Doctrine in the Apostles Creed as indeed I could easily prove by their Principles they do not believe one intire Article in that called The Apostles Creed G. F. G. M. saith The Apostle doth not tell us of a Creed but the Pope's Canon Book p. 355. yet the Quakers now say they believe that called The Apostles Creed For seeing by denying the Scriptures to be either the Medium or Rule of their Faith what account can they give for their Faith to believe one peculiar Article of Christianity If they say they have a peculiar Inspiration from the Light within to believe these peculiar Doctrines this in the first place throws down the common Illumination from being the universal Rule for common and peculiar are differing things But next It is a meer Fiction if they should say they have such a peculiar Inspiration without Scripture viz. to believe that Christ was born of a Virgin died for our Sins rose again the third Day W. P. grants the Light within doth not reveal these things to them nor is it needful and he grants the Scriptures are an historical Rule but he will not allow that the Belief of the History of Christ's Birth Death c. is necessary to our Salvation It is none of the absolute Necessaries he saith But they have not only denied the Scriptures to be the Word the Rule the external Medium of Faith but have given them Names of Contempt particularly G. F. who has called them earthly and carnal Death Ink and Paper Dust and Serpents Meat G. F's Truth 's Defence p. 14 102. See several Papers given forth c. p. 45 46. So Dust is the Serpents Meat their Original is but Dust which is but the Letter which is Death so these Serpents feed upon Dust which feed upon all these carnal things and their Gospel is Dust Matthew Mark Luke and John which is the Letter The cursed Serpent is in the Letter R. Hub's Words Truth 's Def. p. 102. Is not this to fright People from reading the Letter to tell them the cursed Serpent i. e. the Devil is in it Their common Defence is that G. F. meant all this of the Ink and Paper but none of all whom he calls Serpents that is the Protestant Churches did ever say that the Ink and Paper was the Gospel they meant the Doctrines and Truths declared by what is writ or printed with Ink on Paper As for the Switch Quotations out of G. M. to prove that some of his Opponents had said The Scripture is God yea the Letter of the Scripture is God Switch p. 15. and for Proof of this he quotes G. Fox G. M. p. 261. who affirmed that one Roger Atkinson affirmed That the Scripture is God but had this been so will that justifie G. F. â—his giving them such opprobrious Names if one or two Particulars did run into one Extream Will this justifie G. F. his running into the other Extream The bending a crooked Plant the contrary way will not serve his turn in this case But that G. Fox his Evidence is not to be trusted in his quoting his Opponents I shall clearly prove G. F. in his Great Mystery p. 247. quotes C. Wade for the same Trespass that he quotes Roger Atkinson for namely that Christopher Wade should affirm That the Scripture Letter was God and Christ for this he quotes his Book called Quakery Slain but no such Passage is to be found in all that Book and C. Wade in another Book of his entituled To all those called Quakers he charges G. F. with a Hellish Lye and Slander for affirming that he called the Letter God and Christ see this last Book of C. Wade p. 7. and compare it with his Quakery slain p. 16. and his Words in that p. 16. being That the Letter of the New Testament or Gospel containeth in it the mediate inspired teaching written VVord of Christ the VVord that was and is God which saith C. VVade is flat contrary to thy Lye And in his last cited Book the said C.
acknowledged his Error than to lay the Fault upon as wrong writ or wrong printed And if he corrected them long since how comes it that he never published his Correction in any of the Books he has published since betwixt the Year 1655. and 1690. containing the space of 36. Years But for evidence against him that he hath not sincerely said That he writ not that Part of the Book it is enough that he owned it and this I can prove that without Exception he owned it to be his jointly with these others who signed it with him as appears from his Truth defending the Quakers p. 1. printed four Years after the Ishmael And he belches out the like antichristian and profane Expressions against the three Persons in the Godhead in Terms equivalent to those in the Ishmael He saith in his first Page in Answer to the first Question Do not you repent for your endeavouring vainly to defend August 29. 1659. in so great a Congregation these Positions printed in a Book writ by George Whitehead He answers for himself and his Brethren thus The Positions we defended are according to the Scriptures of Truth and them we need not repent of These were they contained in that very Book called Ishmael as doth appear out of the Book Ishmael it self here the Book was produced one of which Positions were in asserting the Scriptures or Writing not to be the Word Another was That there is no such Word in the Scriptures as Three Persons in the Trinity but it is a Popish Doctrine as the Mass or Common-Prayer-Book mentions it Fourthly And thou that affirms three distinct Persons in the Godhead art a Dreamer and he that dreams and tells Lies contrary to the Scriptures of Truth which we own he with his Imaginations and Dreams is for the Lake Here it is plain that by his Imaginations and Dreams G.W. meant the Ministers Doctrines of calling the Scriptures the Word and affirming that there are three Persons in the Godhead so whereas he said in his Ishmael Townsend and the three Persons are shut up in perpetual Doctrines Here in Truth defending c. he saith He with his Imaginations and Dreams that is the three Persons is for the Lake Now this is not one whit more sober than his Words in the Ishmael how then is it that G. Whitehead has not found some shift to put this part of his Truth defending upon another Again in his Truth defending c. p. 25. he plainly owns that Book called Ishmael to be his four Years after it was printed and now though in his Truth defending c. he saith That he and his Brethren need not repent of the Positions laid down in that called Ishmael yet now in the Year 1690. in his Christianity he saith He was sorry his Name was to that Paper and yet as before is mentioned in Truth defending p. 1. he saith They need not repent of it Is not this a plain Change in G. W. He need not repent of what was writ and yet was sorry that it was writ Formerly he owned that Book in the Year 1659 and in the Year 1690 He writ not that Part and was sorry it was writ and all this without any Change in his Mind But when People are sorry for what they do we commonly reckon they repent of it This offensive Passage objected against G. Whitehead out of his Ishmael was objected against him by Christopher Wade in his Quakery slain p. 9. printed in 1657. And though G. W. printed against C. Wade in his Truth defending 1659. yet he then took no notice of that Passage to disown it to be his But how is it that G. W. disowns what was written in the Book called Ishmael against the three Persons Doth he now own the three Persons not to be Popish as he formerly charged them Truth def p. 2 Though he has not in the least retracted his abusive and reviling Speeches against this glorious Truth both in the Ishmael and in his Truth defending c. for that would reflect upon his Infallibility yet he would seem now to own the Doctrine of the three Persons since the Act for Toleration came forth for that Act of Toleration does except those who deny in their preaching or writing the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity as it is declared in the Articles of Religion viz. the 39 Articles But that G. W. may have the Benefit of the Act which at present he has not by Law whatever he has by Indulgence he ought also to disown some other abusive Expressions of his and sophistical Arguings he has used in his other Books as particularly not only in his Truth defending c. above mentioned but in his Divinity of Christ signed by the two Letters G. W. see p. 18. he hath these Words As to T. D ' s telling of the Son of God's Incarnation the Creation of his Body and Soul the Parts of that Nature be subsisted in c. To this I say saith G. W. if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both created doth not this render him a fourth Person And as nonsensical and abusive is the reasoning of G. Fox their great Apostle in the Epistle prefixed to the Divinity signed by him and John Stubbs where in the 9th Page of that Epistle they thus argue And he speaks again in his 14th Page of three distinct Persons are one with the Godhead Now Reader is not here four to wit three Persons and the Godhead And thus G. F. and G. W. make no less by their wild and nonsensical Reasonings than five Persons in the Godhead an Absurdity they would fix on the Doctrine of three Persons for by their Arguments the Godhead is the fourth Person and Christ's created Soul and Body is the fifth Do not these Passages require a Retractation and will they say they are Protestants and one with the Church of England in Matter of Doctrine and in the common Principles of Christianity and yet boldly stand in the Defence of those abusive Passages But whereas they argue ad hominem that there must be five Persons if Father Son and Holy Ghost be said to be three Persons seeing G. W. calls them three Witnesses by their nonsensical Argument there must be five Witnesses that bear Record in Heaven viz. the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost and the Godhead these are four and the created Soul and Body of Christ that is the fifth But G.W. has a way to evade this last by denying that Christ has any created Soul or Body as in the Words in p. 18. above mentioned doth appear for which I shall have some use hereafter Jos Wyeth in his Switch p. 184. would make his Readers believe It 's only the Word Person they object against as too gross We cannot saith he but think the VVord Person too gross to express them But to detect this Fallacy pray let us take notice that G. F. whom he calls an Apostle has expresly
owned the Person of the Father G. M. p. 247. But thou saith Christ doth not dwell in them personally doth not Christ dwell in his Saints as he is in the Person of the Father the Substance And are not they of his Flesh and of his Bone Again G. Fox G.M. p. 248. owns expresly Christ's Person for first having cited his Opponent's Words It is a false thing to say Christ's Person is in Man in his Answer without finding the least fault with the Term Person he makes Opposition thus VVhich is as much as to say none are of his Flesh or of his Bone nor eat it nor had not his Substance By this it appears that G. F. did not find fault either with the Word Person as belonging to the Father or with Christ's Person but he will not allow them to be two Persons but one Person But if any will say he allowed them to be two Persons then by the Arguments both of G. F. and G. VV. they must be two Gods for if three Persons infer by Argument three Gods by the same Argument two Persons will infer two Gods The above mentioned Words of G. F. in G. M. Doth not Christ dwell in his Saints as he is in the Person of the Father the Substance Jos VVyeth in his Switch recites as quoted out of the Snakâ— Here the Switch finds no fault with G. Fox's owning the Person of the Father which were G. F's own Words but labors to prove that by that spiritual Oneness betwixt Christ and his Followers G.F. did not mean to make the Soul of the same Person and Substance with God which how ineffectual his Labor is in that may be shewn afterwards Note that the Switch doth justifie G. F. his Saying That God the Father did take upon him Humane Nature p. 190. and in Truth 's defence by G. F. p. 85. The Son's Body is called the Father's they are one not two viz. the Son and the Father But here once more on this Head let us take notice of G. VV 's Fallibility and self Contradiction in most evident manner In his Light and Life p. 47. he blames his Opponent VV. B. for these Words following concerning Christ Now as he was God he was Co-creator with the Father and so was before Abraham and had Glory with God before the VVorld was and in this Sense came down from Heaven To this G.VV. replies VVhat Nonsence and unscripture Language is this to tell of God being Co-creator with the Father or that God had Glory with God Doth not this imply two Gods and that God had a Father let the Reader judge Note how he calleth it Nonsence and unscripture Language to say That Christ as God had Glory with God and that he had a Father which is a plain Evidence that G. VV. denied the eternal divine Generation of the Son contrary both to the Nicene and Athanasian Creed and Scripture also But let us see how he excuses himself in his Antidote p. 188. But the Phrase God Co-creator with God I think still implies two Creators and consequently two Gods 'T is not the Particle Co with in this case will excuse the matter for Co or Con is simul together as Co-workers Co-partners which are more distinct Agents than one but the Creator is but one God one VVord one Spirit and so one Creator Note Here we see the Force of G. VV's Argument against Christ the Word being God Co-creator with the Father is that it would infer the Father and the Son to be Co-workers and consequently two Gods This Antidote he writ in the Year 1697. but in the Year 1674. wherein he published his Quakers Plainness in p. 24. he allows the Father and the Son to be Co-workers in the following Words That the Distinction of the Father and the Son is not only nominal as this Opposer implies against us but real in the divine Relation of Father and Son the Son as being the only begotten of the Father and also known as Co-workers in the Order and Degrees of Manifestation and Discovery where it is plain by his late manner of arguing in his Antidote against the Father and the Son being Co-workers that it doth infer two Gods that in his Saying in his Quakers Plainness as above quoted That the Father and the Son are known as Co-workers he has rendred himself guilty by his own Argument of holding the Father and the Son to be two Gods This is not only a Contradiction to himself but a severe Censure on himself that in the Year 1674. he was guilty of Idolatry in holding That the Father and the Son are two Gods Note Reader that the Quakers use to object two things against my charging Contradictions upon G. W. and other their principal Authors First That I have contradicted my self in my former and later Writings To this I have answered What in my later Writings I have retracted of my former Errors is no Contradiction for that 's a Contradiction when a Man holds contradictory Propositions to be both true simul semel without retracting his Errors But what a Man retracts he is no more chargeable with let G. W. and his Brethren retract their Errors and I shall cease to charge them with them or with Contradictions Secondly they object That I may find as many Contradictions in the Scriptures as in their Books Thus we see how they undervalue the Scriptures to be as contradictory as their Authors but I deny there are any real Contradictions in the Scriptures but there are many in the Quakers Authors Again further hear a Quotation out of the Primmer of G. F. junior and S. Crisp p. 24. And they that come to see and know the Son they come to see and know the Father also for the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father as saith the Scriptures and they are called by one Name which is The Word or The Light For the Word is God and Christ is the Word and God is Light and Christ is the Light of the World and the Spirit of Life proceeds from God and Christ who are Light Note Seeing they hold that the Father and the Son are called by one Name which is The Word and that the Father is the Word and the Son is the Word it is evident they make no Distinction betwixt the Father and Son and therefore according to their false Doctrine seeing the Word was made Flesh and the Father is the Word the Father was made Flesh the Father was born of a Virgin the Father suffered Death on the Cross yea the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father which is a plain overturning the great Fundamentals of Christianity yet this Primmer is so highly magnified among the Quakers that almost every Family of them have it to teach it their Children and they call it in the Preface A Fruit of the Plant of Righteousness given forth for the removing the Vse of such Books and Catechisins as
more which might be quoted out of them and others it evidently appears that the greatest things that are written of Christ either by Prophecy in the Old Testament or fulfilled in the New Testament his outward Birth his Incarnation his taking hold not of Angels but the Seed of Abraham his Sacrifice and Offering his Blood Death Burial Resurrection Ascension yea his being tempted by Satan in the World is all applied to the Seed Christ within as the great Mistery of Godliness yea as greater than God manifest in Flesh without as is quoted out of W. Penn and as concerning Christ's Flesh without that 's a Figure but Christ within is the Substance Now to apply all this in way of Allegory to Christ incarnate within the Seed that the Spirit takes hold of to use G. F's Words that looks like an Incarnation of the Holy Ghost in G. F. and his Brethren is too rash and goeth beyond the Bounds of Sobriety But to turn it all to the greatest Reallity and all that 's said of Christ without to be the Allegory and Figure of the Substance within as is effectually proved is a plain overthrowing the Christian Faith But it 's very hard to conceive how this Seed Christ within as G. F. holds it forth was or could be tempted of the Devil to lust after the Creature seeing as he will have it it is no Creature it self can it be supposed that the Devil would or could tempt the Godhead to lust after the Creature and what this Seed can be which G. F. calls Christ that 's buried in the wicked and elsewhere the Spirit and Spirits in Prison yea the Prisoners in Hell that the Quakers have preached to that 's no Creature nor God nor any Part of the divine Essence for that cannot be divided into Parts is unaccountable There yet remains three or four Passages which were objected in a printed Sheet called An Account from Colchester against G. W. and E. B. to which these seven Quakers in Colchester have given their Reply by way of Vindication but all grosly fallacious in that they call Some Account from Calchester as we shall see in what follows It was objected against G. W. out of his Truth defending the Quakers page 65. Christopher Wade affirmeth That our blessed Saviour doth instruct Men to lay fast hold of and to abide in such a Faith which confideth in himself being without Men. To this G. W. answereth That 's contrary to the Apostles Doctrine who preached the Word of Faith that was in their Hearts and the Saints Faith stood in the Power of God which was in them Their Defence is That George White head 's Intent in this Answer was not against C. Wade's excluding Christ's spiritual Appearance and Work of Righteousness out of his Saints by affirming That our blessed Saviour doth totally condomn all such Faith which doth trust that Men are righteous in their own Bodies by what Spirit soever either from Heaven or elsewhere that Righteousness is wrought in Mens Bodies p. ibid. Whereby â—e opposed Christ's Work of Regeneration in true Believers as also his affirming that the true Christ doth prove himself not to be a Spirit To this I say suppose C. Wade had erred on the one hand this doth not justifie this most scandalous Assertion of George Whitehead That it is contrary to Rom. 10. to confide in Christ without Men whereas Rom. 10. 8 9 10. teacheth us That to to believe in Christ without us and so to confess him is necessary to our Salvation It 's observable how both they and G. W. himself waves giving a plain and positive Answer to this great Objection They say indeed in page 21. As there is one Lord Jesus Christ and one true Faith in him this Faith respects Christ both as without us in the Heavens and as he is in the Hearts of his Saints But they do not tell what they mean by Christ as without us in the Heavens not one Word of their Faith in Christ as he is both God and Man and who as Man consisting of a created Soul and Body the same in Nature with the Nature of other Men but without Sin is in the Heavens in our glorified Nature This being the thing that is mainly objected on this Head and which they will not nor dare not give a plain Answer unto nor G. W. either for it will detect his and their gross Error or if they or he give a sound Answer it will prove they are changed and that will reflect on G. W's Infallibility But they grosly abuse C. Wade for his sound Doctrine which G. W. has not fairly nor duely represented for C. Wade in that very Page doth clear himself both against a lying Charge first in G. F. who charged him That he did totally exclude Works without any Distinction G. M. p. 298. And the like false Charge doth G. W. load him with That he opposed Christ's Work of Regeneration in true Believers which is an extremely false Charge against him as he sheweth at length but he did only exclude them from being the meritorious Cause of our Justification and the Foundation of our Faith so that though Sanctification and good Works are necessary and none can be either justified or saved without them yet we must not trust in them nor make a Saviour of them But it 's no Wonder that G. W. blames this Doctrine who in his Voice of Wisdom pleads for the Meritoriousness of good Works in Men as grosly as the grossest Papists yea and much more grosly as we may see in its proper Place But this is G. W. and his Brethrens common Work to misrepresent their Opponents to hide their own vile Heresies And as for C. Wade's saying Christ proved himself not to be a Spirit to wit a meer Spirit as he explains himself he quoted for it Christ's own Words Handle me and feel me for a Spirit has not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have and was not that a sufficient Proof that the Man Christ was not a meer Spirit Proofs on the sixth Head Concerning the Soul Whether the Soul of Man is a Part of God G. VVhitehead is at great Pains in his Truth and Innocency page 7. and 9. to prove that when George Fox said The Soul was a Part of God and of God's Being he did not mean the rational Soul of Man and which he calls the reasonable Soul or Spirit formed in Man but that divine Inspiration or Breath of Life whereby Man became a living Soul as the great and universal Soul of Mankind even the Soul or Life of the Soul as some phrase it And Joseph VVyeth in his Switch page 53. pleads That he meant not That the created Soul was a Part of God and will have it that George Fox held That the Soul of Man was created But none of them give the least effectual Proof out of his Books where George Fox mentions any created Soul to be in Man that is not a
Part of God Their Inferences are weak as That Christ is the Bishop of the Soul The Soul is in Transgression in Death The Soul redeemed rejoyceth in God All this doth not prove that George Fox did hold that the Soul of Man in all these Considerations was not a Part of God For according to him the Soul being a Part of God this part rejoyceth in God the Fulness and God or Christ considered as the Fulness is the Bishop of the Soul that is a Part of him the Soul being like a Drop of Water returning into the Ocean so taught the Ranters and that all Creatures were Parts of God who was the Substance of all things and so saith George Fox expresly Great Mistery page 99. and Edward Burrough see the Collection of his Works pag. 827 828. And George Fox denieth That either Christ or Men have a Humane Soul or that Christ hath either a Humane Soul or Body Great Mistery pag. 99 100. His Objection is idle against Humane as signifying Earthly from Humus the Ground which is but a Cloak to cover his gross Eerror None of his Opponents said the Soul was from the Earth He might as much object against the Language of Scripture that calleth Christ the second Adam the Word Adam signifying Red Earth That the Soul is in Transgression in Death proves not that George Fox did not hold it to be a Part of God for he and other Teachers among the Quakers teach That what they call the Seed Christ is crucified in the wicked and is held in Satans Chains and what are these Chains but Sins as is above proved out of Truth 's Def. p. 49. But for a full and clear Evidence that George Fox did hold the Soul of Man to be a Part of God in answer to Magnus Byne his Book called The scornful Quakers answered Great Mistery p. 90. Is not the Soul without Beginning coming from God returning into God again who hath it in his Hand And in Answer to Jonathan Clapham his Book called A Discovery of the Quakers Doctrine Great Mistery page 100. Is not this that cometh out from God which is in God's Hand part of God of God and from God and to God again which Soul Christ is the Bishop of It is to be noted and well observed that this Opposition that George Fox made to those Men and his other Opponents as Richard Baxter and the five Ministers of New Castle about the Soul which they denied to be a Part of God or without Beginning and he affirmed it was By Opposition to them was not about any divine Soul in the Soul that was the Life or Soul of it as George VVhitehead would have it by which he means God or the Holy Ghost for in all Disputes the Subject of the Dispute is one betwixt the Opponent and the Respondent and though sometimes where the Matter is intricate and nice the Subject is hard to find out and the Opponent may mean one thing and the Respondent another yet in a Case that is clear and easie to be understood as this Case is there can be no Difficulty about the Subject of the Dispute as indeed here there is none which Subject of Dispute betwixt George Fox and his Opponents above mentioned was purely and simply the Soul of Man and not any divine Principle in the Soul As to instance from Magnus Byne the Beginning of this Controversie betwixt Magnus Byne and George Fox about the Soul was by a Question that Magnus Byne put to Thomas Lawson a Quaker which was this see in Magnus Byne The scornful Quaker answered page 103. VVhat is the Soul of Man and the Preciousness of it seeing Christ says It is more worth than all the VVorld To this Thomas Lawson the Quaker answers The Ministers of Jesus who come by the Will of God such know the Soul and watch for the Soul Heb. 13. 17. But thy watching is for the Fliece and art querying what the Soul is which lies in Death and State and Condemnation so long as it lives and the false Accuser lives and it the First-born knows not nor the Preciousness of it who prefers the World and obeys it before the Light of Christ and so sells the Soul for the World as thou dost who professest him in thy Lip-talk but denies him in Practice Ways and Conversation though Christ saith The Soul is more worth than all the World To which Magnus Byne his Opponent thus replieth In all this Answer there is not a Tittle unto-the Question here it appears thy perfect knowledge fails thee Here thou guessest that the Soul is Christ for he is the First-born the Scripture mentions and so according to thy Blasphemy Christ it seems may be damned and cast into Hell for so it is said of the Soul Fear him who is able to cast Body and Soul into Hell See how dark thou art in making no Difference between the Soul and Christ the Soul is indeed a precious thing there is a kind of Infiniteness in it which all the World cannot satisfie and therefore the Man was a Fool that said Soul take thine Ease because thy Barns are full and yet notwithstanding this kind of Infiniteness in the Soul as being restless till it return to God yet it cannot be Infiniteness it self it cannot be the First-born for of whole Man it is said whereof the Soul is the more noble Part VVhat is Man that thou art mindful of him Heb. 2. 6 7. Man you see is inferior unto the Angels much more inferior to the Son of God And farther saith he though the Soul be the Seat of Christ and Christ be hid there as a Treasure in a Field even in the innermost Room of the Soul yet the Soul cannot comprehend the infinite Majesty so Christ in his diviner Essence or Being much less can it be Christ who is God over all blessed for evermore And though there be indeed a blessed Union and Fellowship between Christ and an holy Soul yet still there is a vast Difference between the Essence or being of the Soul and Christ the one being still a Creature and the other the Creator of it Next he comes to give his own Definition of it The Soul saith Magnus Byne is a most noble Power a living Being an Essence that quickens the Body and yet dies not sleeps not when the Body dies and sleeps but returns unto God who gave it This Soul is a little Map of the great World and makes Man a little World for in his Soul is comprehended the Life of Plants the Sense of Beasts the Reason of Men and Angels This Soul quickens and makes Man a living Creature a sensitive Creature a rational Creature After he has described the Soul of Man which he expresly calls a Creature as above quoted in its several Powers and Faculties of the Mind Reason Judgment Will Memory Fancy Appetite and Affections to wit the created Soul of Man He saith God is the Life of
our Life and Soul of our Soul he proceeds very regularly to tell That in this Soul of Man or in the Spirit or Mind of it as the highest Power when it is regenerated and resigned lives the great King manifested here he dwells as in Mount Sion here he delights to be as in his Temple And in this Soul of Man unenlightened and unrenewed Christ lies hid and is as one dead note he doth not say dead as the Quakers say but is as one dead and unsavory unto the Soul and so the Soul is in Darkness Weakness Sinfulness Sorrow Fear Bondage Thus we see Magnus Byne doth so clearly state the Subject of the Controversie betwixt him and the Quakers his Opponents which was the Soul of Man the created reasonable Soul that is neither God nor Christ though he owneth that God and Christ are in the Souls of Men both regenerate and unregenerate but after different Manners that he leaves no room for any of the least Capacity of Understanding to mistake the true Subject of the Controversie and therefore George Fox whom Joseph Wyeth magnifieth as the APOSTLE in this Age could not be such a Sot as not to understand the true Subject of the Dispute which was the Soul of Man the reasonable Soul that which thinks wills loves which dieth not when the Body dieth and which again and again he calleth a Creature and the created Soul distinguisheth it from Christ in the Soul which he saith is the Life of our Life and Soul of our Soul The same Expression used by George VVhitehead in his Truth and Innocency Yet notwithstanding all this clear stating the Subject of the Dispute which was the Soul of Man and not that divine Principle in the Soul George Fox doth make a great Difference with him and sets himself in great Opposition to him and will needs have it That the Soul to wit the Soul of Man which was the only Subject of the Dispute is without Beginning coming from God returning to God again Also he opposeth Magnus Byne's Saying There is a kind of Infiniteness in the Soul viz. with Respect to the Largeness of its Desires which the whole World cannot satisfie as he explained himself but it is not Infiniteness it self which George Fox wrongly quotes by adding the Word IN making him say It is not Infiniteness IN it self which mars the Sense But George Fox in Opposition to M. B. will have the Soul of Man which was the Subject of the Dispute to be Infiniteness it self without Beginning Note Here a Quaker Daniel Philips objected That Disputants might differ about the Subject of the Dispute so as the Opponent might mean one thing and the Respondent another But I answered They might so when the Matter is intricate and obscure by Ambiguities of Words but it could not be so here the Subject of the Dispute being so clearly proposed that none but a Sot or Cheat could or would mistake the Subject which the Quakers will not allow G. F. to be having so great an Esteem of his Wisdom as the Apostle in this Age. And the like is to be said of all the Disputes betwixt George Fox and his other Opponents about the Soul which were only about the Soul of Man and not at all about God or Christ in the Soul for they all did contend there was a real Distinction betwixt the Soul and God or Christ who was in it But George Fox would allow none but still contended That the Soul concerning which they and he disputed was a Part of God without Beginning c. And in his Great Mistery page 91. he blames Magnus Byne for calling the Soul a Creature and saith he is in Babylon and Confusion And in his Dispute with the five Ministers of New Castle Great Mistery pag. 227 228. he saith The Soul whereof Christ is the Bishop is divine and immortal also he most grosly wrongs the five Ministers of New Castle and charges them with holding it to be their own Principle Great Mistery page 227. That the Soul is a Part of the divine Essence And in his Great Mistery page 29. he saith to them And so you five have judged your selves to be Blasphemers who said The Soul was Part of the divine Essence and yet it is Blasphemy to say so This he most unjustly chargeth in them quoting their Book called A Discovery of that Generation of Men called Quakers but in that very Book which was produced and the Words quoted as they are in that Book page 5. the five Ministers deliver it not as any Position of theirs but as one of the Quakers Positions having this Title on the Top Quakers Positions being the third in Number and in all being seventeen That the Soul is a Part of the divine Essence What Excuse can George VVhitehead or any of his Brethren find for this palpable Injustice in George Fox Could he be so sottish as not to distinguish betwixt the five Ministers Positions and what they call the Quakers Positions and which they expresly blame and disown and give their Arguments against And if he was not so ignoratly sottish in the Case what can it be construed but a wilful Lie thus for him to charge them And for a further Confirmation that George Fox did hold That that very Soul of Man which George VVhitehead calls the reasonable and rational Soul Truth and Innocency pag. 7 8 9. and which George VVhitehead confesseth hath sinned doth not sin and is not at any time a sinful Soul consequently is according to him a Part of God I bring a Quotation out of his Great Mistery page 337. George Fox quotes his Opponent saying The Soul of Man is a reasonable sinful Substance To this George Fox answers How can that which is sinful be reasonable And if that which is unsinful be reasonable and sinful be reasonable both then they are one in Vnity The Lord will take the Soul for an Offering for Sin Isa 5. 3. See how thou and the Prophet agrees here But what is that Soul that the wicked is not able to kill Is it not that which God hath in his Hand And this is a Lye to say That which is reasonable is sinful Note how grosly he perverts that Place in Isa 53. 10. When thou shall make his Soul an Offering for Sin This is understood of the Soul of the Man Christ who suffered without us and not of any Soul within us which yet is George Fox's Notion and this very Soul in Men this reasonable Soul George Fox will have it to be the Odering for Sin And because it is so therefore he concludes it is not sinful not capable of sinning yet George Whitehead saith The reasonable Soul is capable of sinning and hath sinned in Men though it never sinned in Christ See how these two Apostles do now contradict one anoother and yet none of them fallible Note again how George Fox thought he put a very puzzling Query to his Opponent to
same in Substance for which I quoted G. W.'s Light and Life p. 69. Who calls him a very blind and ignorant Man that will affirm That Bodies Celestial and Terrestrial differ not in Substance whereby he has proved himself to be both blind and ignorant by his ignorant Assertion And I told the Auditory how the Quakers ignorance and false Notions of Philosophy destroy'd their Faith and hindred them to believe that necessary and fundamental Article of the Christian Faith That Christ's Body that he had on Earth is the same in Substance it was in Heaven and tho' when on Earth it was earthly and is heavenly now yet the change was not in Substance but in Accidents for if it be not the same in Substance it is in no respect the same for take away the Substance and no Accidents can remain of any thing And by the like false Philosophy both G. W. and W. P. have argued against the Resurrection-Bodies of the Saints that they shall not be the same in Substance with the Natural Bodies they had on Earth And I further shewed that Muggleton said Christ's Body was like ours and yet would not own it was the same Substance with ours for he held that Christ's Body that hung on the Cross and was laid in the Sepulcher was the Godhead yea was God the Father Son and Holy Ghost Nor is G. W. and his seven Colchester Brethren less fallacious in his and their Defence of Solomon Eccles's Blasphemous saying That the Blood of Christ that was forced out of him by the Soldier after he was dead was no more than the Blood of another Saint In their Some Account they quote G. W.'s Antidote for his defence p. 223 224 225. 1. He saith he shewed a dislike of S. E.'s Expressions before-cited but how in that he did not allow them as an Article of their Faith But nor did he censure them as contrary to their Faith which he ought to have done and would have done had he been in the true Faith And that his dislike did not proceed from any detestation of the Error is very apparent that he said in his defence of S. E. That S. E. did highly speak in esteem of the Blood of Christ and New Covenant as more excellent and living and holy and precious than is able to be utter'd c. which G. W. faith might have satisfied any spiritual or unbyass'd Mind therefore it seems it satisfy'd G. W. But the deceit of G. W. lyeth in this That the Blood which S. E. did so highly esteem was not that Blood that was let out of his Side after Christ was dead as S. E. plainly confessed in his Letter to R. Porter but another kind of Blood that is the Blood not of the Humanity but of the Godhead the Blood of the New Covenant which is Inward and Spiritual saith G. W. 2. He saith he shewed in part his estimation of the Blood and whole Sacrifice or Offering of Christ both in respect to the blessed Testimony Value and Efficacy thereof more than that of any other Saint or Saints But I find no such Testimony in all that Book to any Value or Efficacy of it by way of Merit as it was shed for the remission of Sins For it is a great part of his work throughout his whole Book Light and Life to contend against the Merit and Value or Efficacy of it for Men's Justification and Salvation as is largely above-proved out of many Quotations in that very Book and can be further proved Yea he would not so much as allow it to be concerned in any part or respect as the meritorious Cause of Men's Justification Light and Life p. 56. For We are not saith he to suppose two kinds of Saviours and Sanctifiers that is both a Natural which is not in being as is said of the Blood that was shed and the Spirit which still liveth Thus he wholly excludes the outward Blood which he calls Natural and placeth all upon the Spirit arguing most weakly and impertinently That to say we are saved by the Blood of Christ that was outwardly shed as the meritorious Cause of our Justification and Sanctification and Salvation and by the Spirit of Christ as the internal Agent and Efficient that applyeth to us the Merit and Efficacy of that Blood that was outwardly shed is to inser two kinds of Saviours and Sanctifiers he might by as good an Argument infer That a Medicine and he that applyeth the Medicine to the Patient are two Doctors of Physick as to argue that Justification or Sanctification by the Blood of Christ and by the Spirit of Christ is to suppose two Saviours But how will G. W. answer his own Argument who of late but without any Retractation of his former Error doth own Redemption both by the natural Blood outwardly and by the Spirit inwardly Antidote p. 232 233 234. And it still remains as a vile Error justly charged on G. W. which he hath never to this day fairly answer'd nor any for him that in Light and Life p. 59. he blames W. B. for saying That Blood that Christ shed in order to the effecting the Salvation of Man must needs he visible and material Blood in opposition to which he plainly denies That the material Blood of the Sacrifices was a Type of the material Blood of Christ for that were to say saith he that material Blood was a Type of that which was material this to give the Substance no Pre-eminence above the Type which clearly proveth that G. W. held that the material Blood of Christ was not the Substance signified by the Blood of the Sacrifices that were offer'd under the Law but a Type or Figure of some inward thing to wit their spiritual Blood within which they call the Life and the Light 3. But after all tho' G. W. would seem at last to be full and plain in his passing censure on S. E.'s words he remains still Fallacious and Sophistical as much as formerly I disown saith he his said Comparison of the Blood of Christ with that of another Saint and believe he was not in the Counsel or Wisdom of God therein Here he nothing blames the matter of his Words but saith he was not in the Counsel or Wisdom of God therein that is to say He was not wise nor well advised to disclose that great Secret or Mystery among the Quakers so as to let the World know it that the Quakers held as a Principle among them That that Blood was no more by way of Merit than that of an ordinary Saint for in effect G. W. himself as to all the real worth of it above that of other Saints by way of real Merit for Men's Justification or real necessity to Salvation hath plainly excluded it not only by his many impertinent and nonsensical Arguings and Quibblings against it as above-quoted but by his plainly asserting in his Antidote p. 28. That the Quakers are offended with G. K. for saying
Baptized and here at London divers of both Sexes who were educated under the profession of Quakers have been lately Baptized and go to Church one of whom is my Youngest Daughter my Elder Daughter having been Baptized above a Year ago so that to my certain knowledge above forty Persons within a few Months past are come off from Quakerism and brought to the Church which gives a good ground of hope that many others will follow which God in his great Mercy grant and prosper my sincere tho' mean Endeavours and Labours and other his Servants whom he has made instrumental in this Work and for the success he has been pleased to give us therein all Glory and Honour and Praise be given to his most worthy Name through Jesus Christ Amen And whereas my adversaries G. W. and other of the Preachers of the Second Days meeting at London had given it as a reason why they would not meet me at Turners-Hall to dispute with me at the former Meetings for the Years 1696 97 98 according to my published Advertisements that they knew none who had been in Unity with them since I came into England who did own me or were in danger by me to be brought off from them that Objection to their Knowledge and full Conviction is now quite removed for both R. Bridgeman and M. Everard besides divers others that might be mentioned were not only in Unity with them since my arrival into England but in great repute among them R. Bridgeman having been but lately a Member of their Men's Meetings at London and one of the Twelve who were entrusted with the receiving and distributing the Money collected for their poor in the City of London and Margaret Everard having for many Years till of very late been received and well owned as a Speaker among them both in City and Country And it is most certain that the Quakers refusing to meet with me at Turners-Hall to answer to the Quotations I produced out of their Books has been a great means to let many of those formerly in Unity with them see their sandy Foundation and the badness of their Cause and will yet be a further means to give many others the like discovery who are dissatisfied with their not appearing either to vindicate their Books and Authors or to acknowledge the great Errors contained in them and publickly to retract them They are indeed brought to a very pinching dilemma if they will not appear in publick view to answer to the charges of the vile Errors and Heresies yea and Blasphemes brought against them by plain Quotations out of their Books presented to the People present by ocular inspection they now see by experience of what is past what the consequence will be even that many of themselves will see they have a bad Cause which because they are not able to defend they find out and devise frivolous excuses why they will not appear And if they will appear there is the like and equal danger that their Errors Heresies and Blasphemies will be detected to their own People as indeed the last Meetings where some of them though none principally concerned did appear have had a good service in some owned by them to give them a discovery of them There remains but two shadows of Reason why they will not appear one is that it is offensive to civil Authority but this is a meer pretence for whatever offence it may be to some particular Persons that may too much favour their errors yet it can be no just offence to Civil Authority there being no Law against it and where no Law is there is no transgression nor can it be supposed that it can offend the civil Authority that such an innocent and probable way to reduce the Quakers from their vile Heresie which God has in measure manifestly blessed with some Success and to bring them to the Church is used to that effect For must not some means be used to reclaim them and what means so probable as this The Act of Tolleration to be sure doth not forbid any by fair Reason and Argument to deal with them for their Convincement and for an Instance that this manner of proceeding is not offensive to Authority I had the leave of the Lord Mayor of London for each of the Meetings I have yet had Their other shadow of Reason is That they think it better to Answer in Print to what is objected against them out of their Books than by Word of Mouth I confess indeed it is the most ready and expedient way for them to hide and cloak their vile Errors and boldly to deny them whenever so justly charg'd with them by their Sophistical Quibling and Evasions and particularly by their boldly asserting the Quotations to be falsely or lamely given when they are ever so truly and fully given which not one of many thousands simply by Reading their pretended Answers and Defences in Print can be able to judge whether the Quotations be true or false perfect or lame because they have not nor can they easily find out the Books out of which the Quotations are taken whereby to compare them and suppose the Books could be found yet few will bestow so much either time or labour to compare them whereas the presenting the Books and the Quotations contain'd in them by Ocular inspection to Persons present saves all that labour and is the surest and readiest way to find out the truth of Matters in point of Truth or Error and whether or not the Quakers are justly charged with those Errors Beside if they think their Answering to the Charges against them by Print be profitable to them had they Truth on their side they would be ready to defend their Principles and Profession both ways that is both by Word of Mouth and also by their Pens for still two ways are better than one if both be proper to the same true end which is the Discovery of Truth and Error But notwithstanding of their brags and telling that they have Answered me from time to time in Print yet this is but an empty flourish divers of my chiefest Books against them for the detection of their Errors they have not given the least Reply unto as my Second and Third Narratives my Book call'd The Quakers Arguments against Baptism and the Supper c. Examin'd and Refuted my Larger and Shorter Catechisms my Book call'd The Deism of W. Penn and that call'd The Fallacies of W. P. and his Brethren c. And tho' T. Elwood Printed a pretended Reply to my First Narrative yet the Answer given to it call'd Satan Disrob'd which hath effectually discover'd the falseness and folly of it hath not received an Answer from them to this Day And their usual way of answering Books writ against them is to Quible and Evade in some few particulars and wholly to pass by the most material things urged against them And yet to boast and brag that they have given a sufficient
ever Again a little after So Isay the Devil false Prophets Antichrists Deceivers Beast Mother of Harlots none of these can witness an infallible Spirit But being out of the Spirit that Christ the Prophets and Apostles was in that gave forth Scriptures they are not infallible as they were but with that they are all judged out II. Great Mystery pag. 98. And thou and you all that speak and write and not from God immediately and infallibly as the Apostles did and Prophets and Christ but only have gotten the Words you are all under the Curse in another Spirit ravenned from the Spirit that was in the Apostles Saul 's Errand to Damascus pag. 7. They are Conjurers and Diviners and their Teaching is from Conjuration which is not spoken from the Mouth of the Lord and the Lord is against all such and who are of God are against all such Truth defended by G. F. and Rich. Hubb p. 104. Our giving forth Papers or printed Books it is from the immediate eternal Spirit of God to the shewing forth the filthy Practices of the World's Teachers c. George Whitehead Voice of Wisdom pag 33. his Opponent Th. Danson having said As for our Want of Infallibility 't is no valid Plea against our Ministry G.W. answers His Falshood here appears plainly for they that want Infallibility and have not the Spirit of Christ they are out of the Truth and are fallible and their ministry is not of the Spirit seeing they speak not from the Spirit but from their own Hearts which are deceitful where they want Infallibility so out of the Abundance of the Heart the Mouth speaketh Note Jos Wyeth in his Switch for the Snake p. 87. states the Question concerning their Infallibility fallaciously in three several Particulars 1. That the holy Spirit of God is infallible c. This is no Part of the Controversie 2. That the holy Spirit leads all such who obey him infallibly into all Truth necessary to Salvation This is wrongly stated the true State of the Question being Whether the Holy Spirit leads us into all Truth necessary to Salvation without the external Doctrine externally delivered in the holy Scriptures by preaching and reading and without all external means This they affirm as shall hereafter be proved but this all sound Christians deny who yet grant that all the Faithful are infallibly led into all Truth necessary to Salvation by the infallible Spirit in the Use of the holy Scriptures which contain the infallible Truths of the Gospel 3. That the Ministers who are sent forth in the Work of the Ministry have or may have if they diligently attend to the Voice of the infallible Spirit speaking in them a certain infallible Knowledge and Assurance of the Truth of what they so deliver This also is wrongly stated the true State is not what they have or may have but what they really have in all they preach and write as is clear from the above given Quotations of G. F. and G. W. their great Leaders To say they may have implies that they may not have and in that case they are fallible and so by their own Verdict are under the Curse Conjurers Deceivers Note that their great Teachers and Leaders G. F. and G. W. have taught that the infallible teaching of the Spirit is not by the medium or external Means of the Scriptures and that Faith is not given by the external Word doth appear from their Books 1. G.F. Gr. Myst pag. 350. Ye tell People of an outward ordinary means by which Christ communicates the Benefit of Redemption The means of Salvation is not ordinary nor outward but Christ is the Salvation who is eternal 2. Gr. M. p. 133. His Opponent T. Moor having said The Scripture is the absolute Rule and Medium of our Faith In pag. 134. he answereth The Scriptures is not the Author nor the Means of it nor the Rule but Christ who gives it and he encreaseth it 3. Gr. Myst pag. 243. And the things of the Gospel and of the Spirit are not attained by an external means 4. Gr. Myst pag. 320. His Opponents having said God works Faith in us inwardly by his Spirit and outwardly by his Word He answers Here thou goest about to make the Spirit and the Word not one is not the Word Spiritual and Christ called the Word Gr. Myst p. 168. Them that never heard the Scripture outwardly the Light that every Man hath that cometh into the World being turned to it with that they will see Christ with that they will know Scripture with that they will be led out of all Delusion come into Covenant with God with which they will come to worship God in the Spirit and serve him Note the Quakers that say they are turned to the Light yet are not led out of all Delusion but many of them are under great Delusions and Error concerning the great Truths of the Gospel as doth evidently appear by these and the following Quotations A Quotation being brought out of Gr. Myst in the Snake of the Grass G. Myst p. 213. Switch pag. 79. Thou cast not know the Scriptures but by the same Degree of the Spirit that the Prophets and Apostles had Jos Wyeth saith in his Switch By the Error of the Press the Word ALL is left out For which he quotes Gr. Myst pag. 212. In answer to this hear what G. F. saith in Gr. M. pag. 120. And he that hath found the true Record the Spirit of God with that he shall know ALL the Scriptures and is come within the Book where all things are written and which writes all things forth the Spirit Note G. F. no doubt and G. W. did think they had found the true Record the Spirit c. and therefore they knew ALL Scripture and had the same Degree that the Prophets and Apostles had G. F. G. M. p. 222. The Light c. is the Substance of all Scriptures opens all Scriptures and that all Scriptures ends in Le ts see all Scripture But that the Quotation of the Switch G. M. p. 212. is lamely made the following Words prove that some of the Quakers at least did understand as they thought ALL Scripture The Passage is this But they cannot know all Scriptures but as they vttain to the full Measure of the Spirit of the Prophets and Apostles and to the Measure and Stature and Fullness of Christ And if they do not attain to all this they are not able to know all the Scriptures and the Work of the Ministers of God was to bring People to this to the Measure and Stature and Fullness of Christ. Note that they thought their Ministry had brought some of the Quakers to this we shall see hereafter and no doubt they judged they were come to it viz. G. F. and G. W Gr. M. p. 47. The Light which every one hath that cometh into the World is sufficient to Salvation without the Help of any other Means or Discovery But which
is no Sin and who is in him sins not who put an End to the many things that must end and change Thus we see his and his Brethrens Presumption who plainly declare they were got beyond James and all the Faithful to whom he wrote those Words and he chargeth both James and all the Faithful to whom he wrote all these Words with a horrid Falshood that they were not come to the one thing to wit to Jesus Christ And if none are come to Christ or in Christ but who are perfect with a sinless Perfection as G. W. doth here argue then young Believers and Converts who are travelling towards Perfection are not in Christ nor come to Christ because they have not that sinless Perfection which is both a most false and most comfortless Doctrine and injurious to all young Christian Converts at least and may be thought by young Quaker Converts injurious to them also Note while the Proofs were reading out of the Quakers Books for their sinless Perfection a Quaker supposed to be John Whiting said George if Men are not perfect before Death when are they made perfect It must be either before Death or after Death I answered In the instant of Death and that is neither before Death nor after Death as if one should ask when did Peter and other deceased Saints put off the earthly Tabernacle whether before Death or after Death The Answer is neither before nor after but at the Instant of Death But let us hear yet somewhat more of G. F's great Conceit of his and his Brethrens Perfection even in Equality with God himself Abrief Discovery of the Threefold State of Antichrist G. W's brief Discovery p. 15. printed 1653. he being charged with saying That he was as upright as Christ he answers these Words were not spoken by me but that as he is so are we in this World that the Saints are made the Righteousness of God that the Saints are one in the Father and the Son that we shall be like him and that all teaching which is given forth by Jesus Christ is to bring up the Hearers to Perfection even to the Measure Stature and Fullness of Christ this the Scripture witnesseth and I witness fulfilled in me Note this is more than what is in Saul's Errand above-quoted for there the Words of Scripture are kept to that mention the Measure of the Stature of the Fullness but here it 's far beyond what is written in Scripture that he was come not only to the Measure but to the Stature and Fullness of Christ and what is this but to be equal with Christ and God Saul's Errand p. 13. G. F. He that is perfectly holy is perfectly just where this is revealed there needs no Addition for the Man of God is perfect This will yet more fully appear by the following Quotations In Truth def by G. Fox and R. Hubb page 65. a Query being proposed by the Opponent Who is like to be the Man thou speakest of he that saith he is equal with God and Christ or he that preacheth Christ the Head The Answer is Here in this Question thou openly shewâ—d by self 〈…〉 the Mind the Apostles had for saith he I would the some Mind were in you that was also in Christ Jesus who thought it no Robbery to be equal with God and yet made himself of no Reputation Philip. 2. 5. And here thou hast shewed thy self that thou hast neither the Mind of Christ nor his Apostles but art an Antichrist and an Enemy against them that witness these things which the Apostle said I would that ye were of the same Mind And again the Apostle saith Our Fellowship is with the Father and the Son 1 Joh. 1. 3. Again in his G. Mystery p. 248. he quotes but very lamely and corruptly C. Wade in his Book Quakery Slain He denies the Son of God to be revealed in Man only by Adoption and cries against Equality with the Father Here before I give you G. F's Answer I shall give you C. Wade's Words as they stand in his Book to which he answers C. Wade's Words in his Quakery slain are these p. 23. G. Fox in the 8. pag. of Saul's Errand affirmeth That he that hath the same Spirit that raised up Jesus Christ is equal with God and the Saints have the same Spirit in Measure for God's Spirit is but one And G. Fox saith in pag. 11. That he is a Saint Thus he would again prove That he a poor wicked Creature is equal with God the Creator and if so then G. Fox is the Creator of G. Fox and the whole World and he intimately claimeth Christ's Equality with God by his perverted citing of Philip. 2. 6 7. Now in Opposition to G. F's affirming He was equal with God C. Wade in his pag 24. saith The Scripture saith that even the Saints themselves are not God's Sons otherwise but by Adoption only by Christ note that you Quakers not as being Christ as you foolishly fancy but by Christ for it 's written Having predestinated us unto the Adoption of Children by Jesus Christ Eph. 1. 5. See this confirmed Gal. 4. 5. Rom. 8. 23. and Creature adopted Sons cannot be equal with their Heavenly uncreated Father who vouchsafeth by free Grace by and in his Son Christ to adopt them to be his Sons in Acceptation only Neither can any Creature adopted Sons be equal with God's only begotten Son the Creator of all adopted Sons and all other things both in Heaven and in Earth also This is the true and full Quotation out of C. Wade his Quakery slain In Opposition to which sound Doctrine of C. Wade G. Fox thus answers G. M. p. 248. Ans And that is contrary to the Apostle who had the Son of God revealed in him and the Assembly of Divines gave forth a Catechism which Children old and young was to learn and said The Holy Ghost and Son was equal in Substance and Power and Glory with the Father What Then all that have the Son and the Holy Ghost hath that which is equal in Power and Glory with the Father In this thou hast not only judged thy self but all the Assembly of Divines at Westminster 1649. Note G. Fox here doth not quote the Page of C. Wade's Book as frequently he doth not throughout his G. Myst give his Opponents Pages of their Books which it seems was in Design that his unfair Quotations might not be so easily found out Now observe whereas G. F. brings C. Wade crying against Equality with the Father we see by the Quotation given what Equality with the Father C. VVade cries against to wit not the Equality of Christ the only begotten of God with the Father for that he expresly affirms by saying That Christ God's only begotten Son is the Creator of all things but the Equality that C. Wade cryed against was the Equality of G. Fox and Creature adopted Sons with the Father and for his so saying G.
greater but indeed it hath none at all against three distinct Persons for there is a plain Distinction of a Medium in created Beings betwixt Substance and Nothing the three Dimensions of a Body Length Breadth and Depth are neither three Nothings nor three Substances the Understanding Will and Locomotive Power of Man's Soul are neither three Nothings nor three Substances and yet they are but one Soul though all Creaturely Similitudes are improper to express this Mystery Beside how could a Manifestation become Flesh or take Man's Nature as the Son did And how could one Manifestation send another or beget another or a third Manifestation proceed from two other Manifestations But whereas Jos VVyeth saith in his Switch p. 184. VVe own their Distinction in all the Instances of it recorded in Holy VVrit In contradiction to this hear F. Hougil in his Collection p. 251. he calls it damnable Doctrine to say That Christ must be distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost Before in God and now from God their Quibble about separate doth not help them for some that have so called them have declared they meant nothing by separate but distinct and now if Jos VVyeth and G. VV. will have distinct to signifie separate seeing they pretend to own the Distinction of the Father and the Son they must own the Separation And whereas the Teachers among the Quakers profess they are not changed in any thing of Doctrine or Practice from what they were from the Beginning for Truth is one say they and changes not and as God is one and Truth is one and changeth not so his People are one Now let us compare the Doctrine of G. VVhitehead what it was in the Year 1659. when he writ his Truth defending the Quakers which he said was written from the Spirit of Truth concerning the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and what it was in the Year 1697 when he wrote his Antidote against the Venome of the Snake In his Truth defending c. printed 1659. in p. 2. he saith VVhat the Scripture saith of the Godhead the Father the VVord and the Spirit which are one 1 Joh. 5. 7. we own but deny the Popish Term of three distinct Persons which you call God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost which tends to the dividing God and to the making three Gods Note here he not only denies the three Persons but the Orthodox and Scriptural Explanation of them of God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost And thou who hast vindicated such a Dream could never prove it by the Scripture when thou wast put upon it And do not you Priests in your Divinity as you call it affirm that a Person is a single rational compleat Substance and differing from another by an incommunicable Property And art thou so blind as to think that there is such a Difference in the Godhead Seeing Christ is equal with his Father who is a Spirit then what incommunicable Property can he differ in from the Father that is not communicable to the one as well as the other Here we see he not only opposes the Terms Three Persons but the Distinction of the Three their incommunicable Properties which are these That the Father begot the Son from everlasting the Son was begot of the Father from everlasting and the Holy Ghost did proceed both from the Father and the Son from everlasting and surely the Father's Property is incommunicable to the Son and so is the Son 's to the Father and the Holy Ghost's Property to both for it cannot be said that the Son begot the Father or that the Son is the Father c. or that the Holy Ghost is either the Father or the Son But now let us hear his late Doctrine in his printed Antidote 1697. p. 139. Though 't is true saith he in one Sense the Father Son and Holy Ghost are not essentially distinct as to their divine Being which is but one they are but one God but in respect to their Properties of Relation as Father Son and Holy Ghost as such they are distinct but not divided nor separate either in themselves or VVork of the old or new Creation First G. VV. should tell us where doth he find in Scripture in express Terms that they are distinct in respect to their Properties of Relation Secondly Whether these Properties of Relation are communicable or incommunicable Properties Surely he must say incommunicable and that he did in his Book Truth defending expresly deny For if he should say these Properties are communicable such as God's absolute Properties are as holy wise good c. then the Son might beget and the Father might be begotten And lastly Seeing he now owns a Distinction of Properties of Relation though in unscripture Terms he must by good consequence own three Persons to be the Subjects of those Properties for no Properties or Predicates or Attributes can be without their proper Subjects for though it is the Father's Property to have begot the Son from everlasting yet the Father is not a Property but the Person or Subject that has that Property Thus we see how Proteus-like G. VV. has changed his Shapes in the Years 1659. and 1697. and yet there is no Shadow of Change in him for all this if we will believe him But further by some of his late Books we shall find him not only owning the Distinction of the three in respect to their Properties of Relation but advanced much nearer so far as to disown his former Opposition to the Terms Three Persons which in his Book called Ishmael that was his jointly with others he had charged his Opponent to have conjured out of one and told him that both they and he are shut up in perpetual Darkness for the Lake and this he doth in two several Books one printed in the Year 1690. called The Christianity of the People commonly called Quakers where he sets down the Words quoted out of his Ishmael more largely the other called Truth and Innocency printed this very Year 1699. where he leaves out the most offensive Words and puts an c. in their room as being I supose ashamed of them and well he might but he is not ashamed to affirm he is not changed in his Faith But let us hear how he excuseth what he writ in his Ishmael that was printed in the Year 1655. Truth and Inn. p. 51. Though his Name is at the Book yet he positively disowns the Words and affirms They are none of his and that he writ not that Part of the Answer to Townsend And in his Book called The Christianity c. above mentioned he saith He looks on the Words as wrong writ or wrong printed and that he raced them out or corrected them long since where he has met with that Answer But is not this a Piece of dull Sophistry to save the Credit of his Infallibility Had he not better more like a Man and a Christian
Could Christ have been said to have been transfigured if his coming in the Flesh had not been a Figure or Example till his Glory was revealed And hast thou not read That he was the express Figure of his Father's Substance instead of which it is translated he is the express Image c. Note This Quotation was objected in a late printed Sheer called An Account from Colchester And a pretended Answer was given to it in another printed Paper signed by seven Quakers of Colchester And the like Answer is given by G.VV. in his Truth and Innocency p. 53. They abuse me still in this saith he it was none of my Assertion That Christ's coming in the Flesh was but a Figure I positively disown these Words as a downright Forgery put upon me Ans How can he in Conscience disown these Words and charge them to be a downright Forgery put upon him when in his Answer to that Charge against R. Hubb he finds no Fault with the Phrase But a Figure but brings two Places of Scripture to justifie it which are most ignorantly and impertinently brought to prove it Why did he not then except against the Word But a Figure But instead of excepting against it he brings two Scriptures to prove the Assertion alledged against R. Hubb the one is That Christ was said to have been transfigured which because it sounded in English like his being made a Figure therefore in his great Ignorance of the Word Transfigured as well as of the Sense intended he thought it was a good Proof that Christ as he came in the Flesh was but a Figure but transfigured there signifies nothing other but transformed the Greek Word has no Relation either to Figure or Example for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Metamorphosed a Word some use in English and what that Transfiguration was Matthew tells us Mat. 17. 2. that His Face did shine as the Sun and his Raiment was white as the Light Now what Relation has this either to Figure or Example in that Sense for which G.W. brought it to prove R. Hubb's Saying Christ's coming in the Flesh was but a Figure Of what was Christ's Transfiguration a Figure Or how was it our Example to follow But that G.W. meant not an Example of Imitation but a Type or Figure that was to vanish or be laid aside is evident from his own Words Could Christ have been said to have been transfigured if his coming in the Flesh had not been a Figure or Example till his Glory was revealed Thus we see how long G.W. thought that Christ's coming in the Flesh was to continue a Figure viz. until his Glory should be revealed to wir by his inward coming into the Hearts of the Disciples which was the Substance of that Figure for thus G.W. and his Brethren argue for the Disuse of outward Baptism and the Supper they were but Figures of the inward Substance and were to continue but until that was revealed so here Christ's coming in the Flesh was but a Figure till his Glory was revealed So whether G.W. makes it Figure or Example he tells us how long it was to be our Figure or Example till his Glory was revealed But taking Example for an Example that we ought to follow in all holy living and walking we shall find the Scriptures set him forth for our Example after his Glory was revealed 1 Pet. 2. 21. Because Christ also suffered for us leaving us an Example that ye should follow his Steps this was after his Glory was revealed in and among the Believers And as the Quakers Reason why they cast off outward Baptism and the Supper is because the Substance is revealed in them whereof they were Figures so for the same reason they think Christ's Death at Jerusalem is not to be minded nor preached because it was a Figure Christ in his People is the Substance of all Figures And his Flesh is a Figure Here Figure in both Places hath the same Signification He doth not say Christ without his People but Christ in his People is the Substance of all Figures And as a Proof of this a Quotation was brought against the Quakers out of one of their ancient Books called The Doctrine of Perfection vindicated So when you come to know this to wit the Operation of Christ or the Light within you will cease remembring his Death at Jerusalem and will come to see how he hath been crucified in you and what it is that hath crucified him Thus we see how according to him Christ's Death at Jerusalem being but a Figure of Christ crucified within the Substance the Use and Remembrance of it ceaseth Is not this horrid Blasphemy Why have they not all this time retracted this To this G.W. answers Truth and Inn. p. 55. I do 〈◊〉 believe this to be justly or impartially quoted let them produce it at large and whose 〈◊〉 it is But the Book being produced it did appear to be justly and impartially â—â—ored and the Book to be a Quakers Book and printed for R. VVilson the Quakers Bookseller at that time the Author's Name is John VVhitehouse who shews how and by whom he was brought over to Quakerism But let us see how that other Place of Scripture brought by G.W. to prove R.H. his Assertion That Christs coming in the Flesh is but a Figure will clear him or rather indeed render him guilty of the same Error with R.H. the Place is most impertinently quoted by G.W. to prove That Christ's coming in the Flesh was either a Figure or Example for us to follow as he would have us to understand him That by Christ's coming in the Flesh his being a Figure that is an Example of our lmitation Truth and Inn. p. 24 25. Heb. 1. 3. Christ is there called The Brigthness of his viz. God ' s Glory and the Express Image of his Person and this G.W. brought to confirm R. H's Assertion telling us from his pretended great Learning that he is the express Figure instead of which he saith it is translated express Image And he is at great Pains to shew that Type or Figure sometimes points at a thing to come sometimes it denotes a present Example and that either of Imitation or of Warning and Caution But how can he make it appear That by the Description given of Christ Heb. 1. 3. his being the express Image of his viz. the Father's Person that Christ is there set forth to be our Example either for Imitation or Caution for he is not there said to be our Example or Image but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in the Greek of the Father's Person or Hypostasis But the Word Character can no wise justly here be understood to be an Example of our Imitation and C.VV. was but idle to render it Figure to quadrate with R. H's Assertion and to make the ignorant think he could mend the Translation but his now turning it to Example makes it Blasphemy as to say
Quaker Zealots to this flat Denial of his own and his Brethrens former Doctrine and yet this without any Change in him he is the same infallible G. W. still for he is that incorruptible Seed and Word of Life which begets Forms and brings forth the Soul of Man into his own Nature and Image and so he renews his own Image in Man that believes in his Power and so Christ may be said to be formed in us as in a misterious and elegant way of speaking the Property and Effect being put for the Cause for Christ in himself hath all Power in Heaven an Earth given to him and it hath pleased the Father that all Fullness should dwell in him Again in Judgment fixed p. 322. We deny the Doctrine that the Word GOD is in Bondage or Captivity in the Sons and Daughters of Men but only that there is a Seed of God and of Christ that is opressed and suffers in many by reason of Transgression A Seed of God is commonly our Phrase and Terms in this case And p. 124. These are certain Allusions and Elegancies Note this is expresly contradictory to what he hath frequently printed in his other Books particularly to what is at great length quoted above out of his He-goat◠Horn p. 8. and his Brief Discovery p. 21. where he calls the Seed that suffers within People and that desires to be freed from Sin Christ and the Lamb that was slain that is worthy to receive Power and Wisdom and Riches and Strength and Honour and Glory and Blessing Now if by Christ the Lamb that was slain within the Seed that suffers within and desires to be freed from Sin c. G. W. does not mean Christ really and strictly speaking but will have it to be a misterious and elegant way of speaking the Property and Effect being put for the Cause so that by the Seed Christ in Men according to his Explication in Judgment fixed just now given he meaneth only the created Souls of Men as begotten and born of the immortal Seed then how will this agree with his making the created Soul as begotten and born of the immortal Seed to be the Lamb that was slain who is worthy to receive Power and Riches and Wisdom and Strength and Honour and Glory and Blessing Rev. 5. 12. which is a Doxology of divine Praise and an Act of divine Worship given to that Lamb by Angels and Saints and seeing according to G. W's Explication here given in his Judgment fixed the Seed that is born in them suffers in them slain in them is neither God nor Christ and yet had divine Worship and Honour given thereto by Angels and Saints It follows that according to G. W. divine Adoration is due to regenerated Souls of Men or at least to something in the Souls of regenerated Men that is neither God nor Christ but a meer Creature which is abominable Idolatry and yet justified here by G. W. in his Judgment fixed compared with his He goats Horn. I cannot understand how G. W. can clear himself here unless he should tell us of another elegant way of speaking that is to give to this Allegorical Christ Jesus born within them the Lamb that was slain within them an allegorical divine Adoration and Worship and that it was only this allegorical divine Adoration that the Saints and Angels gave to this Lamb slain within Men Rev. 5. 12. But how nonsensical and idle any such Gloss would be I need not shew and yet I suppose it is the best he can find But again that not only a Seed of God suffers in Men by their Sins but that God and Christ as God suffers in Men by their Sins in plain Contradiction to what he has delivered in his Judgment fixed is evident from his Divinity of Christ p. 55. 5◠where he hath these following Words in Opposition to T. Vincent who had affirmed That Christ as God did not suffer but only as Man VVhereas saith he T. V. had affirmed That Christ as God could not suffer As to his saying That God cannot suffer is in one Sense not true though he intended as to Death yet the Spirit of God hath suffered and hath been grieved by Man's Transgressions And for this he cites Isa 63. 10. Amos 2. 13. Hos 11. 8 9. Psal 95. Gen. 6. 6. Psal 78. 40. Isa 1. 7 13. and Isa 43. 24 25. Note Here the State of the Controversie betwixt G. VV. and T. V. was not about a metaphorical suffering of God but a real which is here affirmed by G. VV. in Contradiction to what he has said in his Judgment fixed as above quoted And because G. VV. in his Judgment fixed p. 322. blames Jeffery Bullock for his dealing unfairly and fallaciously with charging it on the Quakers for preaching and printing That the Seed Spirit Word or God is both in Prison Bondage and Captivity and to be quickned raised c. withal adding That the said J. B. hath not produced any Book of ours or our Friends wherein this Doctrine is printed Surely G. VV. had a very treacherous Memory or writ this against his own Conscience seeing he had writ so expresly himself in his former Books as is above quoted out of his He-goats Horn his Brief Discovery and his Divinity of Christ all which were in print before J. B. gave this Charge against them And as to his Distinction betwixt God or Christ and a Seed of God or Christ that is oppressed and suffers in Men by their Sins as if it were not either God or Christ that thus suffers in Men by their Sins this is contradictory to G. W's own former Doctrine who brought Amos 2. 13. to prove that God suffers in Men by their Sins viz. not metaphorically by that Figure commonly called Anthropopathia but really which was the only State of the Controversie Behold I am pressed under you as a Cart that is full of Sheaves Now seeing this must be understood literally and strictly according to G. W. it must be a very great Suffering that he thinks God suffers in Men by their Sins that may be said to amount to an Oppression which yet he denies is applicable to God in his Judgment fixed And seeing the Seed within that is slain he would have it in his He-goats Horn to be the Lamb that was slain Rev. 5. 12. to whom the Angels gave divine Worship he must needs own that Seed to be Christ and that Christ to be God and consequently not only that God suffers in Men by their Sins but is slain in them or else confess Idolatry to be lawful But that the Seed that is within Men that W. Penn will have to be the promised Seed of the Woman that bruiseth the Head of the Serpent is Christ and God over all blessed for ev̄er more Take his express Words in his Christian Quaker p. 97 98. The Seed of the Promise is an holy and spiritual Principle of Light Life and Power that being
as the following Words expresly declare But how could Christ in them be disobedient not only Spirits but disobedient Spirits This is that Apostle of the Quakers of whom VV. P. saith in his Preface to G. F's Journal He had an extraordinary Gift in opening the Scripture he would go to the Marrow of things saith VV. P. Is not this a rare Instance of it Upon the reading these Places Samuel Jobson one of the Quakers Elders said George doth not the Scriptures say that some crucifie Christ a-fresh I answered It is said in Scripture they crucifie him to themselves but it is not said they crucifie him to himself or in himself by crucifying him there is understood their rendring themselves guilty of his Death and depriving themselves by their unworthy Life and Practises of the Salvation purchased by him I asked him did he believe that wicked Men by their Sins do really wound Christ in them and kill him and let out his Blood in them and that that Blood is the Blood of Atonement He said The Scripture saith If we walk in the Light c. the Blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all Sin I asked him Whether that Blood was the Blood of Christ without us that was shed on the Cross He said The Blood was the Life But I asked again Was it the Blood without us or the Blood within us He said It was spiritual Blood But being much pressed not only by me but some Ministers present to answer whether it was Blood without him or Blood within him He waved any direct Answer and I shewing the Auditory that the Notion of G. F. and other Teachers of the Quakers who had learned it of him was That the Blood by which we are cleansed from Sin is the Blood within which he calls The Blood of the Seed as is more fully afterwards to be proved and this Seed is Christ and is not a Creature Another Quaker said Is not the Seed Christ and is not Christ within the Seed of the Woman that bruiseth the Head of the Serpent At this some of the Hearers said Here is Proof enough of their Error The Seed of the Woman it the Seed within them I answered Christ is called the Seed of the Woman and the Seed of Abraham as he came in the Flesh without us and was made of a Woman and was the Son of Abraham And though I own Christ within by his Godhead Presence and by his common Illumination in all Men and by his special Presence and special Illuminations in the faithful yet I deny that the Seed of God in Men is either Christ or God I own that there is a Seed of God in the faithful but I deny G. F. his Notion of it That it is not a Creature I asked Daniel Philips what he said to my former Question Did Men by their Sins really wound God in them as some of their Teachers have affirmed After some Demur he said he would not give a positive Answer but take it into further Consideration whereupon some of the Auditory did commend him I said it was better so to do than to assert such a vile Error however by this it appeared how uncertain they were and how little agreed about some of their chief Principles Having thus given an Account of G. W's wild Notions concerning Christ the Seed within that the Power takes hold of and raises up I will proceed to shew the like by some new Quotations out of G. F. referring to other Quotations given in my third Narrative especially on the same Subject See my third Narrative p. 25. G. F. in his G. M. p. 324. quotes his Opponent saying That the Seed to whom the Promise of Salvation is made is or hath been Sinners Ans The Promise of God is to the Seed which hath been laden as a Cart with Shaves by the Sinner which Seed is the Hope Christ that purifies even as God is pure and here is the Creature come to know its Liberty among the Sons of God and the Seed Christ never sinned in the Male nor in the Female in the Jew nor in the Gentiles And of this Mystery was the great High Professors ignorant of that stood at a Distance from the Gentiles that Christ had no room among them though they talked of him but in the Stable in the Manger and in their Mouths to talk of him with their Lips and such Christ calls Graves and Sepulchres and whited Walls and the Wall is not the Seed but the Seed is Christ and not the Sepulchre nor the Grave so this Promise is not unto Seeds as many but to one the Seed which is Christ. Note these gross Perversions of Scripture Again p. 171. G. M. Now they feel not the Comfort nor the Benefit but by the Faith of Christ Jesus the one Offering in which God is pleased with all which is acceptable which is Christ's Offering his Sacrifice his Flesh his Blood his Life his Word must be manifest and received within before they come to Justification Sanctification and Redemption P. 173. And where Jesus Christ is within the Word is there and God is there and this is the great Mistery of Godliness Again G. M. p. 158. Of this Body which is that by which Christ reconciles unto God are all the Professors Protestants and Papists ignorant of this Seed that breaks the Enmity P. 159. And by Faith is every one justified in the Blood of the Seed the Flesh of Christ the Lord from Heaven shed for the Sins of the whole World The Blood of the Seed which is the Life that cleanseth and this Blood is felt within for it purgeth the Conscience from dead VVorks to serve the living God and here is the great Mistery of God and the VVisdom of God Note This Flesh and Blood that he saith is the great Mistery which neither Papists nor Protestants know is that Flesh which was crucified in Adam when Adam sinned and the Blood that was then shed in which is the Belief that takes away the Sin as I have shewed in a large Quotation out of another Book of his in my third Narrative p. 25. For a Close upon this Head I shall quote a Passage of G. F. in that called Several Papers given forth c. by G. F. who is there called Minister of the eternal VVord of God p. 47. Now to all dear ones and dear Hearts I speak the same Seed which it Christ the same Spirit takes upon it now as ever yea the same Temptations the same Devil and the same VVorship of the VVorld is winding into another Form and Colour but Jesus Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life And the same Seed passing into the Wilderness and there is tempted to lust after the Creature you that are in the Wilderness witness this with me and the same Tentations even to Despair and make themselves away Note here all along from the Passages above quoted out of G. F. and G. W. and many
upon the Souls of Men But what then Must they therefore none of them that have sinned be saved Had not the Ephesians been great Sinners yea and they were dead in their Sins and Trespasses yet these very same Men having the same Souls were quickened and made alive by Christ Ephes 2. 3. And you hath he quickened who were dead in Trespasses and Sins And George Whitehead himself is guilty of the same absurd Doctrine with G. F. and Edward Burrough who in his He-goats Horn pag. 11 12. denieth that Christ hath our Nature in Heaven and that it is one and the same Nature in Men by which the Gentiles sinned aud by which they did the things contained in the Law And in his Voice of Wisdom page 20. he holdeth That Christ is both the Efficient and Subject of the good Works that are wrought in Men which is in effect to say it is not Men or the Souls of Men that repent believe obey God but Christ in them or else he must say The Soul that believes repents obeys is Christ and though in his later Books he seems to deny this yet will retract nothing for that would reflect on his Infallibility But his common Salve for this Sore is That he may see cause otherwise to word the Matter and yet mean the same thing as he has of late exprest in some of his Books Note Whereas in the Close of the third Meeting a Letter of John Audland a Preacher among the Quakers to George Fox was read wherein is contained gross Idolatry which confirms in matter of Fact what George Fox said of himself That he was equal to God and that he was Christ and upon this Notion John Audland addressed himself to George Fox as to God and Christ in his said Letter the which for its Affinity with the Doctrine of George Fox discovered in the first and second Part of this Narrative I think fit here to insert John Audland's Blasphemous Letter to George Fox Spelt and Pointed according to the Original DEare and presious one in whome my life is bound up and my strenth in thee stands by thy breathings I am nurished and refreshed and by thee my strenth is renewed blessed art thow for Ever more and blessed are all they that Enjoy thee life and strenth comes from thee holy one and thow art the blessed of the lord for Ever more dear dear reach unto mee that I may be strenthened to stand in the mighty power and dread of the lord for the sarvisse is very great my travell and burthen was never soe as now since I saw thee but dayly doe I find thy Presence with me which doth exceedingly Preserve mee for I cannot reane but in thy presence and power pray for me that I may stand in thy dread for Ever more deare my deare brother John Cam hath been Exceeding sicke and he is very weake I can say little of his Recovery as yet his wife is with him she is deare and preciously keept their deare love is to thee chreach through all in thy mighty power to him this bearer can declare to thee of the work this way Jo Willkinson and Jo Storey is heare their love is dearly to thee deare harte there is one thinge that lies upon mee I shall lay it before thee as tuching my coming into Wiltshire I was there at Justice Stoks house and his famaley is all prety loveing and convinced and he is a sober wise man and there is honesty in him which will stand and there is a pretey people that way it hath laid exceeddingly upon me these 3 days of thy beeing at that place I know not such another place in all the Counterey for thee dear I was much wounded to know that thow was in such a rude place and suffers soe amongst them and this was I moved to lay before thee and great is my disere that it may be soe the Place is about 20 miles from brestol in wiltshire one mile from chipenam a markete towne Justice stoks house Jo Cam tould me that the Justice he was with was a very Loving and prety man this bearer was there he can declare to thee more but oh that thou weare but at that place I mention it is free and suteable for frends coming to thee it lies much upon mee and if thow find movings strike over thither I shall say no more of it the worke is great heare away pray for us all that in thy Power we may abide for Evermore I am thyne begoten and nurished by thee and in thy Power am I preserved glory unto thee holy one for Ever John Audland The Letter being read the Auditory was struck with Admiration and generally signified their great Abhorrency of the Blasphemy and Idolatry contained in it to G. Fox I told them the Quakers had two Excuses as to this Letter one was that it was feigned because as it was once printed it had a wrong Date viz. 1665. which was some Years after John Audland was dead But that was the Fault or Mistake of the Publisher of that Letter that proves not the Letter to be feigned for the original Manuscript was read in the Meeting that had no date and was handed about to several Ministers and others together with another Letter of the same John Audland in Manuscript to another Person who did unanimously judge it was the same hand that writ both the Letters Their next Excuse is That these Words in John Audland's Letter were not intended to G. Fox but to Christ or the Life in G. Fox And the like Excuse G. F. made in a Letter writ with his own Hand which was produced and read in the Meeting and is ready to be produced before any that shall call for it for a Woman Quaker that in a Quakers Meeting said to George Fox Thou art the King of Israel That she spoke her Words to Christ viz. in G. Fox But I told This did not hinder it to be Idolatry nor was any just Excuse in the Case for it was the same Excuse that the Heathens gave for their worshiping Idols because it was not the Idol but the divine Power that was in it which they worshiped The like Excuse gave those Quakers that sung Hosanna to James Nailer at his Procession into Bristol and the same Excuse he made for them PART III. Containing the Proofs on the 7th Head concerning Justification and on the other following Heads contained in the Printed Advertisement Read at Turner's-Hall the 23d of January 1699. Concerning Justification by the Blood Merits and Righteousness of Christ. I Produced a Printed Paper in the Meeting call'd A few Positions of the sincere Belief and Christian Doctrine of the People call'd Quakers Sign'd by G. Whitehead to which is adjoined another printed Paper Sign'd by Thirty two Quakers which they say was given to the Members of Parliament in the Year 1693 In which Paper I noted divers gross Fallacies and gross Equivocations such as follow