by this Mr. Keith and thou must understand and mean Either That these Three are Three Christs in Three distinct Persons Or that these Three are but One Christ in One distinct Person Or that these Three are indeed No Christ at all in No distinct Person And when thou hast plainly and honestly declared this then we shall easily discern your Quibbling or understand your Meaning better in the mean time for your condemning using Distinctions in others and yet using them your selves you fall under the Apostles Sentence and Condemnation Rom. 2.1 Therefore thou art inexcusable Oh Man whosoever thou art that judgest for wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thy self for thou that judgest dost the same things In the beginning of this Epistle Intimated to thee the Gifts and the Power of the Spirit indeed that the Christians the members of the true Church in the Apostles days were Gifted with viz. Such as were visible and demonstrable to others and for the proof quoted several Scriptures which I thought fit to alledg That thou might seriously Consider and I leave it to the Consideration of all sober and truely understanding men When thou comest to Condemn or Correct the Baptist Church or and Church with design to set up thy own as the true Church Whether thou oughtst not to prove and Demonstrate thy Church to be truer then their Church which thou Condemnest as false or Vnchristian or Antichristian and that thou oughtest to pretend to and bring something for Proof thereof which they nor no false Church can pretend to and produce as thou doest Is not this equitable just and rational agreeing to common Justice and Equity and according to the sound understanding of all men Nay and is it not what the true Christian Church had and could and did on all necessary occasions Demonstrate Otherwise suppose it be granted theirs to be false that will not prove thine to be true Thine may be false also But if proving theirs alone to be mistaken or False would prove another Church to be true the Romanists and all the Churches in the World might then as well by this prove theirs respectively to be true as you yours To make this yet more plain it being worthy thine and every mans serious thoughts I will give thee an Instance or two As for Example Here are great Contests and Disputes betwixt the Baptists and your Church the Baptists say we are true Christians and you Quakers are not The Quakers say we are the true Christians and our way is the true way and you Baptists are not Now I and thousands of poor Souls besides would willingly know which of you two are undoubtedly in the Right and which of you indeed are false and pretenders only If any of thy Friends shall tell me We are in the Truth and therefore we are the true Church Thou knowest in thy Conscience that is so far from an Answer that it is only a shameful begging of the Question For the Baptists they pretend as much that they are in the Truth as thou dost and it is yet to be decided betwixt you so that that is still the Question If thou sayest the Light within me will testifie to thy Way I profess really I have minded and inquired of the Light within me what it says in that Particular and it testifies no such thing If thou sayest it is Demonstrable by the Effects and Fruits very well I have inquired into that also and I find none among You but what may be found amongst the Baptists also Except it be keeping on the Hat and saying Thou and Thee c. which also the Baptists or any others may and can do if they please as well as you Or if thy Friends should tell me That ye have the Spirit and are in the Power of God so say the Baptists that they have And wherein does the Power of God or the Spirit shew it self more in you than in them If thou shouldst say it is Within but does not Demonstrate it self Outwardly Why then do you trouble the Minds of People Can you not let it keep in its place in every one where you say it is and then thereby thou wouldst acknowledg the Baptists to be Externally as good Christians as your selves and so may be Internally for ought thou canst see if it cannot demonstrate it self outwardly So that here I profess in the fear of God I see no real discriminating Character that Demonstrates you to be either truer or better than they if thou canst shew any I shall be glad to see it Another Instance is this in a higher nature at your own doors also viz. In Mr. Maggleton and his Disciples Why shouldst thou or thy Friends be believed more than Muggleton or an Impostor THE QUAKERS AND THE Muggletonians Compared 1. MVggleton says He hath received a Commission from Heaven and so do the Quakers that they have and both much about the same time but of the two I think Muggleton's pretence was the first and ancienter 2. Muggleton saith he had it by Divine Revelation and so do the Quakers that they had it 3. Muggleton saith He hath or is inspired by the Spirit of God and so do the Quakers that they are 4. Muggleton pretends to Infallibility and so do the Quakers 5. Muggleton says He is one of the two Witnesses spoken of in the 11 th Chapter of the Revelations that God hath given Power to Prophesie and the Quaker they say They are the true Witnesses to the Light and have received Power to Preach the Everlasting Gâ—spel to Prophesie c. or to the same effect 6. Muggleton denies that the Father and Son are two distinct Persons and so do the Quakers 7. Muggleton pretends to and produces Scripture and yet doth not really own it for the Rule of Faith and Practice and so do the Quakers 8. And all this Muggleton assertâ— with the highest Confidence imaginable as great as it is possible for the Quakers to assert theirs 9. Muggleton hath several Disciples and Followers that Believe him and are Convinced of the Truth of whaâ— he asserts as a Seal of his Ministry and so have the Quakers several Followers that are Convinced and believe them which they say are a Seal oâ— their Ministry 10. And yet for all this Muggleton Curses and Damns the Quakers and that by the Heavenly Power and Commision he pretends to have received And the Quakers Judg and Damn Muggleton and that by the Light thâ— Heavenly Power and Commission they preâ—end is Revealed to them See the Book Intituled the Quakerâ— Neck broken writ by Muggleton and answered by G.F. Now then Consider Is it not highly necessary one should know which of these two be the Impostors or whether since they both pretend with such Confidence and yet both Damn one another and all others that Contradict them both of them may not be Impostors for it is possible What canst or dost thou produce or pretend to more than Muggleton
obscure something without them is A RVLE of the Quakers Faith and that 's not all neither But if what Sam. Fisher said be true then VV.P. hath a NOSE OF VVAX for a Rule of his Faith and Practice or one of the Quakers Rules for their Faith and Practice is no better than a Nose of VVax Nay if you will believe Sam. Fisher himself is not CAPABLE of being ANY OTHER to them that have the Scriptures which the Quakers have and as to them that have them not they can be surely nothing at all not so much as a Nose of VVax And is not this an Excellent Rule according to the Quakers own Confession that they now say they have for a Rule of their Faith and Practice Sect. 7. I am sorry that before I conclude I should have Occasion given me to Tax Mr. Pen of INSINCERITY and deceitful dealing about this matter of the Quakers Doctrine touching the Holy Scriptures by Reading the late little Book he set out Entituled A just Rebuke but more properly a huffing Rebuke p. 10. Those very words he tells his Opponents reflect most justly as a just Rebuke on himself I must tell him he hath Acted with them herein far from a Man of Common Ingenuity For whereas W.P. asserts The Quakers deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God in that sence wherein they deny them viz. The Word that was God the Essential Word Does not W.P. in his Conscience know that none of these Presbyterians Independents nor any others ever asserted against the Quakers that the Scriptures were in that sence the Word of God and consequently is no part of the matter in Dispute And not onely so but doth not W. P's Conscience witness that the Quakers have and do deny the Scriptures to be the written Word of God In which sence those men do not deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God and the Quakers do and therefore W.P. must Act against his Conscience in taxing them of being herein far from Men of Common Ingenuity when it is onely his own dis-ingenuity thus to Quibble and deceive People And Secondly The like Fallacy double dealing and Insincerity W.P. manifests in his words about the Scripture being a Rule as if the Quakers owned the Scripture to be a Rule in some things or some parts of the Scripture to be a Rule to them whereas it is manifest that the Quakers have over and over again denyed the Scriptures in general and not some part of it onely to be their Rule yea in these express words The Books of the Old and New Testament called the BIBLE See the beginning of this Section Oh Quakers REPENT REPENT of such wickedness and for shame leave off such double hearted dealing and most unparallel'd Confidence Do not think all your Countrey-men Fools besides your selves as if they could not discern such petty slights and Quibbles and take Notice of them and you also as not single-hearted in them Sect. 8. For my Part I never thought any man blame-worthy nor would be he that should blame any man for changing his Opinion or Judgment if so be he did it upon better ground and did not pretend to INFALLIBILITY nor scorn nor blame others for Confessing their Fallibility but did Honestly and Ingenuously acknowledge that he was before mistaken and in an Error But for Men to change their Opinions either really and yet endeavour confidently to vindicate and justifie their former Absurdities and Errors or pretendedly onely to fawn and flatter or curry favour with their Adversaries or any others of the World and yet still to pretend to Infallibility is so low abominably base and Hypocritical or so Impudent that it is not to be admitted by or among any Sober and Honest Men. Now whether this change alteration and difference in the Quakers words and Writings Epithets and Phrases about the Holy Scriptures be real or onely Hypocritical and Temporizing out of design to blind others and to ingratiate themselves a little more into Peoples Affections and good-will of the World God and their own Consciences best know yet the last is much to be feared for this Reason because they are so far from dis-owning their former mistakes and mis-expressing themselves that they stand to vindicate and justifie it But be it either way they thereby shew their uncertainty inconstancy and self-contradictions Confusions and the effects of their Fallibility Sect. 9. And therefore I would onely desire G.W. to tell me honestly if there be any such thing left in him or that he may return to without Quibbling or Equivocation or if not me that he would acquaint his Countrey-men 1. Whether he doth NOW Believe That the Holy Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament commonly called the Bible be the Letter which is Death and Killeth or whether they be the Letter mentioned or meant by the Apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 3.6 And 2. If he doâ—h NOW believe That were the Scriptures never so certain and entire yet that they are not capable to be to all men any other than a Nose of Wax 3. And whether he or W. Pen and the Quakers do NOW Witness and Believe that the Letter of the Scripture is CARNAL A proper direct Answer is desired and required to this without any Quibbling or mental Reservations if the Quakers are indeed what they now would pretend to the World they are and will manifest themselves to be no Dissemblers The Conclusion To Sum up all in short and to Conclude this Mess and Medly of their most irreconcileable Contradictions and irrecoverable Gulph of Confusions in which they have plunged themselves o're Head and Ears take it thus Sometimes they can call yea and positively assert the Letter of the Scripture is CARNAL and the Letter is DEATH and KILLETH But their own pityful Scriblings or Books they can call The LIGHT and LIFE of Christ within and yet to go round again at other times they tell us that they prefer the Bible BEFORE all other Books extant in the World but then to go round again they tell us without excepting one that THEIR WRITINGS and BOOKS are given forth from the immediate ETERNAL SPIRIT of God Yet to face about again That their Intention and Principle NEVER WAS to bring their Books in COMPARISON with the Scriptures but yet to go round again though to their own Confusion the same man hath given us to understand that what the Quakers speak from the Spirit of Truth is not onely of AS GREAT Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are but GREATER And the Quakers can sometimes tell us that one might AS WELL condemn the SCRIPTURES to be BURNED as Their WRITINGS But come once more to turn about Robin Hood W. Pen now hath the Scripture positively says Mr. Keith as a Secondary Rule of Faith and Practice and yet to step half-way back again and Janus-like look two ways at once it is but much like the SHADOW of the true Rule and in that Respect
there such an expression in the Scripture as Proper least Proper c. are not these Philosophical Terms SECT III. In Reply to his third Section shewing G. W's and the Quakers Ignorance of the true Spirits Evidence who deny the Gift of Tongues Prophecy Signs c. to be such 1. IN my Epistle to W.P. p. 8. I minded him of the Apostle Paul's words 2 Cor. 12.12 13. Truly the SIGNS of an Apostle were wrought AMONG YOU in all Patience in SIGNS and WONDERS and MIGHTY DEEDS For what is it wherein ye were INFERIOR to other Churches Here was a Church indeed that had the Spirits evidenee and here was an Apostle indeed that had Divine Revelation the Gift of Prophecying Tongues and Interpretation of Scripture such an Apostle was one who indeed was not of Men neither by Man but sent by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead Gal. 1.1 But no such Apostles nor Friends of the Ministry can I find amongst the Quakers who yet pretend to be Apostles not of Men nor by Man but immediately sent by God and pretend to have the same Spirit Calling and Power that the Apostle Paul had And yet alas do not EVIDENCE it any MORE than OTHERS do who pretend to it with as much Confidence as themselves Nay and so far are they from that that I do not see they are able to produce any MORE or give any better Demonstration of it than those who do not pretend at all immediately to it and therefore I told W.P. if he had had the GIFT OF TONGUES given him by the SPIRIT IMMEDIATELY upon his turning QUAKER Or if he could shew but ONE in all his Church that had such a spiritual Gift or Gifts upon his Conversion to their way it would put a clear difference betwixt them and the Baptists Churches and herein would the Quakers plainly then exceed and excel them and that one such Testimony if true in the Quakers Church would more confute the Anabaptists and Convince their Auditors than a hundred such days brawling disputes where the Quakers shew'd no more POWER OF THE SPIRIT than their Adversaries only fenced with words as well as they could as their wits would serve them best to Distinguish Evade or Answer And therefore I told W.P. I found his Church as Poor and Low as the Baptists whom yet they condemned I finding he had the words of Man's Wisdom in making plausible Orations but askt him Where was the Demonstration of the Spirit in Power and Sign 1 Cor. 2.4 5. 2. Now at this I find George is put to a great loss saying p. 14. What if God will not bestow such Gifts and Signs now Being afraid to say God will and yet not daring to say God will not what George art thou in a Maze Is not this Scripture-Phrase Is not this according to Scripture-Language 1 Cor. 4.19 20. I will know not the Speech of them that are puffed up but the Power For the Kingdom of God is not in Word but in Power see also Revel 2.2 And is not this according to your own Language G. Foxes Epistle before thy Book Divin of Christ have you the same Power and Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures And such miraculous Gifts are no more than what we find testifyed to have been and remained in the Christian-Church about two hundred or three hundred years after Christ Irenaeus who lived one hundred and eighty years after Christ affirmeth that in his time the working of Miracles the Raising of the Dead the casting out of Devils healing of the sick by laying on of hands and Prophesying were in being and that some that were so raised from the dead remained among them alive long after Niceph. Eccles. Hist Tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 13. Tertullian and Cyprian which last lived till above 250 years after Christ do both make mention of the ordinary casting out of Devils and challenged the Heathen to come and see it 3. But says he p. 31. this is very strange But what then George It is not more strange than true And I say Is it not very strange that you will pretend to the Power and the Spirit and talk of being sent immediately by God as Paul was and have a Dâ—vine Commission to Prophesie and yet cannot bring any Evidence to prove it more than Others And instead of Producing one such Apostle Prophet or Minister in thy Church the best thing which yet alas is bad enough thou canst say for thy self Oh! our opposers do argue as just like the Papists and Jesuites as if they had served seven years at Rome Reply Ah Quibbler this will not serve thy turn above all Persons for who Argues more like a Papist or Jesuite than your selves about proving the Scriptures not to be the Rule of your Faith Who uses the Jesuites Arguments to prove good works the meritorious cause of our Justification more than you Was it not one of the most eminent and learnedst Men that ever you had amongst you that positively asserts THE SCRIPTURE TO BE A NOSE OF WAX yea and says it is CAPABLE of being NO OTHER Sam. Fisher Additional Appendix p. 21. And is not this the Jesuites Phrase in terminis And none but Papists except your selves use it Andrad Orth. Explic. lib. 2. p. 104. What had S. Fisher served seven years at Rome Nay I can shew you and others may see if they mind it that almost all the Arguments that Mr. Fisher uses to prove the Scripture is not the Rule of Faith are the very same that the Papists and Jesuites have used these hundred years and so G.F. in the Epistle before thy said Book says where doth the Scripture say that it self is the Word of God Just so do the Papists Argue What now George Is the Argument the better or the worse because the Jesuites have used it Dost thou think in thy Conscience this is a good Answer You can sometimes tell us that the Papists may use good Arguments and so the Jesuites make use of the Scriptures yet never the worse for that nay do but see how thou hast Answered this matter thy self in thy own Book Divin of Christ p. 38. It is but a mean way of Arguing to accuse or miscal any for owning any Truth that any sort if they do err in some things do hold for by that way I may as well be reckoned a Papist a Jew or a Turk c. How now George and yet dost thou use this mean way of Arguing against me For shame do not forget thy self and shuffle backwards and forwards thus but use some Consciencâ— in thy Scribling if thou hast any tenderness and plainness in thee lay thy hand upon thy Mouth 4. But further I 'le tell thee that I have oft used this Argument against the Papists and to chuse would use it before any other and the first and best thing as I verily think that I could use if I was to Dispute with a Iesuite
ridiculous words as these I could tell the Quakers that some of them have a Record somewhere else be-besides the Court of Heaven viz. in the Court of Chancery for Swearing or Oaths I told W.P. That if his Church be the True and the Baptists Church false rightly to convince others thereof upon good and infallible grounds he must pretend to and produce some such discriminating Evidence or Sign for Proof thereof which the Baptists nor no false Church could in like manner produce as he doth I pray'd W.P. to shew wherein the POWER of GOD or the SPIRIT DEMONSTRATED it self MORE in the Quakers than the Baptists or a false Church And that he must do say something for his Church if he would say any thing to purpose which they could not do and say for theirs as an Evidence or Demonstration thereof and that this was NO MORE than what the true Primitive Church had and could and did on all necessary occasions visibly produce and Demonstrate Now what does the Quibbler Answer to all this he says nothing but what the Baptists can or do say that they have a Record in Heaven and in many Consciences also and that they doubt not but where the Spirit of God Lives and Rules it will manifest it self for it is self-Evidencing Then by that Rule the Quakers should not have the Spirit of God at best no more than others have because it does not manifest it self in them more than in others 11. P. 33. says G.W. This seems to be a hard task and I believe so indeed and too hard for all the Quakers though I was so reasonable as to demand but one such Testimony or Gift in all their Churches and they never read of any Christian-Church in Holy Scripture that had not some and many such Gifts Yet G. undertakes to say that it is no difficult matter for W.P. and many more to produce or demonstrate some such effects of that living Testimony presence and power of God among us as no false Church CAN PRODUCE although herein neither W.P. nor any of us will ADMIT OF PREJUDICED and ENVIOUS SPIRITS to be our JUDGES or WITNESSES in thâ—se matters Reply Bravely said George if it were as well done but for all thy boasting that not only W.P. but many more among you could yet the poor Man does not dare produce or so much as name one of them is not this excellent What must all Men believe it because thou saiest it Is IPSE DIXIT come to Town and the Quakers bare word all the Evidence they have or can produce Now it would have been a great piece of this Quakers-plainness if he had produced one or two of those effects only which he boasts he 〈◊〉 and no Church which he Condemns for false can produce I charge him to do it if he will not prove himself a MEER PRETENDER and VAIN-BOASTER speaking high swelling words like them in Jude But this Man is very timerous I I perceive he would do it with Caution enough though so silly that he makes himself Ridiculous by it 1. Where did the Apostles or the Churches ever make such a Proviso in their producing the Testimony and Power of God Did they not do it before all and in the presence of Envious and malicious Spirits as well as others and left them to judg as it had operation upon them And 2. May not the Baptists say so and make this Proviso as well as you that they will not admit of prejudiced and envious Spirits to be their Judges or Witnesses in these matters and then no doubt they will be able to produce as many such effects as the Quakers Oh silly and absurd But 3. well G. produce those effects and that Power thou talkest of in W.P. however and I am contented with thee for this time that you shall not admit of Envious or Prejudiced Spirits to Judg of it but produce it that others may behold it though not Judg of it or wilt thou say that there 's not one person in all England except Quakers but what are Envious and Prejudiced Spirits Poor Evasion 12. As for them which thou sayst in whose Consciences there is a Record many of which were gathered out from Baptists and other Churches They say such are but Apostates from their Church and some such you have had in your Church which you call Apostates when they leave you and go to other Churches so that all this is nothing for proof of the thing nay several of your grand Prophets so once esteemed among some of you for true Prophets of the Lord did and have left you Witness CHARLES BAYLY JOHN PARROT c. and the Baptists have gathered amongst them several out of other Churches as well as you and what then The Baptists may tell you that if the Quakers see no such thing amongst them as the Blessed Operation and effect of the Power and Ministry of Christ Jesus That is because the Quakers have not honestly made Tryal bâ—t stood in Prejudice and gainsaying as many did against Christ the Apostles and Primitive Church of old and what can the Quakers say to it ONLY DENY IT and so may the Baptists Besides the Baptist Churches have this to say for themselves which you have not being you have denied and disowned it viz. They own the Holy Scriptures for the Rule of their Faith and Practice and pretend to no such extraordinary immediate Inspirations and Revelations as you do 13. But above all you ought not you cannot in good Conscience complain against others for Questioning whether you are Christians you having first not only Questioned others but pronounced them all both Ministers and People and Professors also unchristian See G.F. Professors Catechism his very first words are come you UNCHRISTIANS let us talk with you c. Therefore look at home and rebuke your selves first for this 14. And whereas G.W. p. 34. says That a foolish and Adulterous Generation seek a Sign 'T is true our Saviour did so upbraid the Jews and might very well they having had Sign upon Sign Miracle upon Miracle wrought by our SAVIOUR amongst them and such mighty Deeds almost innumerable wrought before them and yet to cry out for more when they saw so many from him was foolish but what is this to the Quakers who have not wrought one true Miracle nor produced so much as ONE such Sign notwithstanding all their Pretences among us that ever I heard of must we therefore be a foolish Generation that ask a Sign of them to prove such their pretences No surely it follows not I am certain from that Text and yet notwithstanding that the Jews were such an Adulterous Generation and had had so many Miracles wrought among them yet Jesus Christ said they should have one Sign more and that was doubtless the greatest Miracle and Sign of all By this Text then if the Quakers will stick close to it they may lawfully give this Adulterous Generation one Sign
pa. 27 and 28. He is up with it again as if the man was so taken with talking about Lying Forgery c. as that then only he was in his natural Element and rather than he would not make me to contradict my self because in the Margent I quoted the Apostles words Titus 3.2 3. Speak evil of no Man be no Brawlers he will adventure to make the Apostle contradict or be inconsistext with himself on that ground for in the very same Epistle Cap. 1.12 the Apostle says of the Cretians That a Prophet of their own said the Cretians are always Lyars Evil Beasts Slow Bellies This wâ—tness is true And yet to go round again p. 29. in vindication of W.P. he can tell you the Scripture proves such Language and cites Psal 52.3 c. Reply what does the Scripture prove such Language for W.P. and not for others Or wilt thou blame others for what thou sayest the Scripture proves But where does the Scripture commend the so frequent use of it as you make of it And where does the Scripture prove the use of it at all on such Occasions as many times you use it on The Scripture commends Wine and Timothy is commanded to use a little with his Water but yet using too much of it may be vitious and that was it I condemned in W.P. viz. using such language so frequently and instead of Arguments or a better Answer to his Adversaries But that G.W. may take a liberty to say any thing though never so palpably false appears in p. 29. where he says That it seems it is the Language Lyer and Forger c. that I find faults with and not the Application thereof Reply That 's a mistake also for that was the very thing I found fault with viz. the so very frequent using or applying it to your Adversaries for thus are my words p. 25. I will crave leave to mention one thing more of my observing and that is thy so oft using the gross word of Lying and Forgery and Lyar and Forger especially in thy Books against T.H. that it will hardly stand with good manners such Language to be SO COMMON and FREQUENT methinks sutes not well c. Which words I should think still were civil and moderate enough if they were not prejudiced against all that is against them Wherefore this I note for G. W's third Quibble besides a double falshood first in leaving out part of my words and secondly saying I did not find fault with the Application of it which I did 4. In the last place he would make this a self-contradiction viz. my saying PERHAPS W.P. iâ— of a different mind from some of his friends as it iâ— reported c. And my speaking of W. P's being engaged with such a People and having received their Principles Reply Is it possible that ever any man that 's sober and in his Wits could have the Confidence to publish his own ignorance so as to call that a self-Contradiction when he himself acknowledges I say but PERHAPS and neither affirm nor deny any thing positively and how then can this be a contradiction and yet my words run more full if it can be p. 20. Or IF PERHAPS thou art of a different mind from some of thy friends in THIS PARTICULAR why would'st thou not honestly tell us so And besides if I had laid it down positively whereas you see I did it otherwise yet would it not have proved a Contradiction For W.P. might have received the Quakers Principles at one time and yet afterwards come to vary in some one particular though not in all and I believe I can prove if there be occasion that most of the Quakers themselves have changed or varyed in some of their Principles or Practices from what they at first Practised and gave forth Now I do admire with what face G.W. can Print such stuff as this and I do speak seriously I cannot imagine how he can satisfy his Conscience in dealing so deceitfully as he must needs know he does here with me if he knows any thing Is it possible that these words IF PERHAPS should be one Member of a Contradiction as I writ it How can I possibly think he can be a Man truly fearing God that makes no Conscience of dealing thus unfairly and representing things so falsly to his Reader by perverting the sence of my words which I leave every Reader to Judg of whether this be the Quakers-plainness detecting Fallacy and not rather The Quakers Fallacy perverting plainness and this therefore I note as his fourth Quibble And now I hope G.W. will not say it is Forgery or Slander if they are charged as he relates p. 77. That the Quakers endeavour to Render their Adversaries as Ridiculous as they can and to make their Friends believe they do nothing but contradict themselves But I have this further to say for my self That if I had indeed committed a mistake or contradicted my self I had that to plead for my excuse which G.W. commends me for p. 44. that my opinion is Hâ—manum est errare and that would have born me out I honestly and ingeniously telling him and the World That I pretended to no such infallibillity as the Quakers do And now having thus fully cleared my self I shall try G.W. if he be not more guilty of what he accuses me viz. self-contradictions or at least Inconsistences with himself and whether this man that pretends to Infallibility be any more infallible than others viz. 1. What G.W. says p. 19. That they cannot deviate from Scripture-Language in their Creed and they must tell us that until we bring them plain Scripture that saith the Human Nature is the Christ they must rather patiently bear our censure c. Now this I humbly conceive to be inconsistent with what G.W. says but one page before viz. p. 18. Have we not plainly and often confest also That the Divine Nature or Word cloathed with the most Holy manhood was and is the Christ For I do not find these words cloathed with the most Holy Manhood to be Scripture-Language and yet G.W. p. 18. admits them in his Creed neither do they bring any plain Scripture that saith so and yet they believe it or confess it if G.W. says true 2. Where G.W. says p. 20. Whether Christs Humane Nature be a part of Christ as it was not a Question in Scripture-Phrase or Language so it was as abruptly and sillily obtruded And yet p. 22 23 and 25. he proposes several Questions which are not in Scripture-Phrase or Language viz. I ask you if ANY MORE of Christ PROPERLY dyed than the Body Do you hold that his Soul Spirit or Divinity dyed and p. 44. And if he was the Son of God and so Christ before his Incarnation or assuming Flesh And many more too long to transcribe 3. His blaming me p. 10. for comparing W.P. to a Jesuite and yet p. 31. He does the same by me in these words Our present
him as that he would be ashamed of it when I consider his Learning but that his undertaking to vindicate G.F. for notorious falshoods and nonsence evident to mens Eyes and Senses and against his own senses and ocular demonstration makes me much to doubt it see Contr. ended p. 39. being sorry to see that so ingenuous a Man as W.P. once was should Sacrifice his own Senses Reason Honour and Reputation to keep up the Credit of such a Man as G. F. who hath written in many things so ridiculously that it's impossible for any Man to vindicate him without making himself more ridiculous and by his Tautologies and incoherency a sober Man would take him to be Craz'd witness his Professors Catechism Testimony of the True Light and his Primmer for the Scholars and Doctors of Europe And which is yet more G. I have this to add That I do not think Thoâ— nor all the Quakers in England can bring Express Scripture for that which is your First and Grand Principle of all whâ—ch you talk of so much above all viz. The Light of Christ within every Man or Christ the Light within every Man Now to speak in G.F. and J. Stubb's words I charge you Quâ—kers Let us see where the Scripture speaks thus in these â—xpress words Let us see where it is written come do not Shuffle for we are resolved that the Scriptures shall buffet you Quakers about and that you shall be whipped about with the Rule Give us plain Scripture for it without shuffling adding or diminishing I charge you QUAKERS to give us Printed Scriptures for all these foregoing words and let us see in what Chapter and Verse they are Printed and if they do that I think I may promise them to turn Quaker presently But besides this their Hypocrisie herein is more gross For to what end except to deceive should they pretend that they cannot own this or that in theâ— Creed if it be not expressed in plain Scripture wheâ— they have so often and so plainly avowed That thâ— Scripture is not their Rule either for Faith or Prâ—ctice But now for the Protestants to call for plaiâ—-Scripture is but according to their Principle becausâ— they own it for their Rule 7. So again p. 19. G.W. confesses that JESUS CHRIST is MAN one at first view might think hâ— spoke well so he does if he did but mean truly whâ—â— he speaks But that you may plainly see he doth not and may see what kind of Man he means in the samâ— Page he gives you to understand that it is such â— Man as hath not HUMANE NATURE and p. 24 such a Man as is not a Person without us and whâ—â— kind of Man think you must or can this be Is noâ— this a fine Quibble Judg you That this their Equivocation may appear more plain even to the Capacitâ— of the Vulgar consider That when the Quakerâ— say that Jesus Christ is Man They must meaâ— either That he is truly and substantially a Man a created Body and Soul or that he is an Imaginary and Fictitious one only If the first then they must own he is a distinct Person haâ—h as essential to him Humane Nature For to be a Man is to have the Nature of Man and every substantial Man is a distinct Person But this they deny of Christ therefore they do not mean he is such a Man If the other viz. an Imaginary or Fictitious Man let them say so if they dare and consider how Blasphemous it would be and what horrible Consequences would follow thereon And therefore to go round again let the Quakers equivocate as much as they will they must hold that indeed Christ is not Man or else fall into the BLASPHEMY or Absurdity abovementioned In plainness G. is Jesus Christ a Man and not a Person Seeing thou dost define a Person to be a MAN c. In the Introduction of thy Book intituled the Divinity of Christ What meanest thou by the word MAN A Created Body and Soul or some uncreated thing Now G. use plainness and honesty in this particular if there be any in thee or whoever he be that undertakes to Answer for thee Generally all Men in the World that use the Term Man as properly an English word understand by it a PERSON or a RATIONAL CREATURE distinct from all other Men one that is in some certain Place and cannot be in distinct Places at the same time that hath in respect of his Body Dimensions of Length Breadth and Depth that is visible one that began to exist at a certain time one that hath a head and a body so closely united that when-ever they two are severed the Man ceases to be But the Quakers they seem to mean quite another thing by the term MAN sometimes one thing and sometimes another I believe themselves know not well what By the term MAN Do you not mean one that is not a Person or Rational Creature but Flesh Blood and Bones of an eternal Nature J. P's Qu. p. 20. an infinite Soul One whose Flesh is and he is in a multitude of Men and Women in distant Countreys at the same instant of time Myst p. 68. Christ ascend p. 18. One that is not in Heaven as a place to live in remote from Men that live on Earth Spir. of Truth p. 12. Christ ascen p. 21. one that is not VISIBLE Christ ascend p. 37. one that begâ—n not to be for he was eternal one that is as far remote from his Body as Heaven is from Earth and yet lives See Quak. Plainness p. 23. In fine it seems Jesus Christ is a Man whose Glorious Body in Heaven is not a Humane or Man 's Body see the same p. 23. and doth not the Quaker use now admirable Plainness in his Confession of Faith in Scripture-Language Doth Europe or America afford such Equivocation 8. G.W. p. 19. says further That Christ's Body of Flesh and Blood that was born of the VIRGIN-MARY and that suffered was Crucifyed Dye++d and Rose again the third day is called the Body of Jesus But yet G. thou wilt not say nor own That that Living Body is Jesus or that BODY is so much as a part of Jesus Consider this serious Reader here 's still the Quakers Quibble and a clear proof of the Quakers Mystery whereby their poor unwary Hearers are deluded and deceived So they will say the seventh day of the week called Saturday and the eleventh Month called January and the Scripture called the word of God and the Writing or Declaration of Matthew called the Gospel of St. Matthew and abundance the like Which yet they do not one whit the more Believe it for Truth for saying it is called so But Believe quite the Contrary as they believe the Scripture is not the Word of God though it may be called so so they can say by their Equivocation The Body that was born of the Virgin Mary is called in Scripture the Body of Jesus and
no good Answer from thee because thou thy self dost and hast asked many Questions which are not in Scripture-Phrase and besides that can be but a silly pretence no better than a Shuffle from thee because thou dost not own the Scripture or Scripture-Phrase to be the Rule of thy Faith Therefore Quibble no more about it but Answer it 11. Then p. 21 22 23. G.W. instead of Answering my Epistle as he pretends in his Title putâ— many new Questions to the Baptists and prays them to agree upon a consistent Creed amongst themselves and so slily gives me the go-by to which I need only say this That I am of the Opinion it may be â—â— easy for the Baptists to form a Creed wherein they are all agreed as it is for the Quakers to Form a Creed wherein they their writings do all agree Let the Quakers do this themselves which they require of others Further I dare adventure to say that let a Baptist or some other Person give but three Texts of Scripture to be interpreted or put but three Questions to six Quakers all apart and let them answer apart and that there shall not three of the six Quakers alike give the same Answer or Interpretation thereto either in form or substance notwithstanding their pretended inspiration and unity 12. Pag. 23. G.W. says That though the meer Body of Jesus was not the ENTIRE Christ yet the Name Christ is sometimes given to the Body though not so properly as to the whole Man Christ Reply But thou-wilt not own that the meer Body was part of Christ so far art thou from owning it to be the entire Christ and though they acknowledg the Scripture calls the Body Christ yet they are so obstinate in their own conceits that they will not believe it is what the Scripture calls it but thus will be wise above what 's written Oh deceit you think the Body so far from being the entire Christ that you will not allow it to be any part of him but such as a Garment is that is none at all 13. Pag. 23 24. G.W. says That the Distinction of Father and Son is not only Nominal but Real c. How then doth G.F. say Myst p. 142. Christ is not distinct from the Father and that they are all one p. 99 will G.W. and the Quakers Condemn those sayings and disclaim them till then they are Quibblers and Equivocators G.W. p. 24. and also known as Co-workers in the order and degrees of Manifestation and discovery And yet G.W. himself when he writ against a Baptist for saying now as he was God he was Co-Creator with the Father Then he condemned it as nonsence saying What nonsence and UNSCRIPTURAL LANGUAGE is this to tell of God being Co-CREATOR with the Father or that God had Glory with God DOES NOT THIS IMPLY TWO GODS AND THAT GOD HAD A FATHER says G.W. The Light and Life c. p. 47. Oh excellent George what difference between Co-Workers and Co-Creators Do ye not most frequently and importunely charge your Socinians with the horrible Crime of denying that Jesus Christ made or created the World And yet is there any Socinian nay Jew or Turk that will deny that one God whom we call the Father of Jesus Christ made the World And thou sayest it's nonsence to tell of God or Christ as God being Co-Creator with the Father oh disingenuous Man that endeavours to get repute to your selves by Reviling others with that very thing whereof your selves are guilty And the ground of your Reproach is that you can equivocate and they cannot 14. G.W. p. 24. says That the Distinction of Father and Son is not only nominal but real Now then let him if he can answer and confute his sincere-hearted and Zealous Brother W.P. in his Sandy-Foundation p. 13. Mr. Pen's Argument is this Since the Father is God the Son is God and the Spirit is God which their Opinion necessitates them to confess THEN UNLESS the Father Son and Spirit ARE THREE DISTINCT NOTHINGS they must be THREE DISTINCT SUBSTANCES and Consequently THREE DISTINCT GODS Now G. if this Distinction of thine does not make them DISTINCT SUBSTANCES thy Brother Penn tells thee they are DISTINCT NOTHINGS Reconcile this if thou canst and agree amongst your selves upon a Creed before you go about to Correct others 15. G.W. p. 24. further says We own that the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father as also that the SON IS THE MIGHTY GOD THE EVERLASTING FATHER the Prince of Peace But they do not own any such separation between God and Christ as these words the Christ of himself and the God of himself do imply Socinian-like For this let his Brother W.P. Socinian-like Answer him and see what he makes of such Doctrine as G.W. here teaches and let G. W. refute his Brother Penn's Argument Sandy Foundation p. 14. he proves the Ridiculousness and irrationality of such an Opinion by this Argument viz. If that the ONLY God is the FATHER and CHRIST be that ONLY God then is CHRIST the FATHER So if that ONE GOD be the SON and the Spirit that one God then is the Spirit the SON and so round nor is it possible to stop says he And this he brings many Arguments to prove to be both an irrational and a Ridiculous Opinion and yet now is this the very Opinion of G.W. and other Quakers viz. That Christ or the Son is the Father as you see G. W's words above do confess Now let us know which of these two Brethren the Quakers will own to be wrong For according to these words it is impossible they can be both right and let us know in Plainness if there be any such thing now left among the Quakers whether W.P. will own his own Argument or whether thou G.W. wilt disclaim him or it or thy own wordâ— For they are as contrary as Yea and Nay 16. G.W. p. 24. Confesses that the Title of Person without us is un-scriptural and too low to give to the CHRIST or the Son and yet his Brother W.P. in his Sandy Foundation p. 15. could give the Title of Person to Christ or the Son these are his words Who speaking of the SON so many hundred years since in PERSON testified the Vertue of it Now then G. thou must say Christ is a Person within us or else disclaim and disown W.P. for giving such an unscriptual and too low a Title to Christ the Son if not dost thou not dissemble and did not W.P. speak of a Person without us as his words who so many hundred years since testified do evince plainly enough 17. The Quakers being charged that according to their Principle They cannot and do not Believe that CHRIST INDEED DYED G. W. does not deny it but asks the Baptists If any more of Christ properly dyed than the Body Do you hold that his Soul Spirit or Divinity dyed If not the Charge is foolish and silly Reply No
G. the Charge is not foolish nor silly for as I understand the Baptists hold that the living Body that was born of the Virgin Mary is Christ and that that dyed and so believe that Christ indeed dyed But you Quakers not Believing so if you Believe that indeed the Christ dyed you must Believe his Spirit or his Divinity Dyed for that only you hold is THE CHRIST and then are you like Reeve and Muggleton who have Blasphemously said that the Godhead dâ—â—d and thus is thy Charge turn'd upon thy own head and thy Quest proves foolish and silly For how canst thou ask if any more of Christ than the Body dyed when thou dost not Believe the Body to be Christ or any real or essential PART OF CHRIST Thus whilst you own the Body not to be the Christ nor a real part of the Christ you must own that not the Christ nor any real part of Christ dyed since you agree only the Body dyed and the Body of Jesus was not the Christ say you nor any essential real part of Christ that you will own 18. As to Jer. Ives Answer to their Distinction it seemed to me pertinent enough to manifest their fallacy and folly and so it doth still for ought G.W. hath told me as yet to the contrary and I cannot without offering violence to my understanding be so much taken with G's Reply which is on this wise p. 26. It 's not improbable that if we had made such a comparison you Baptists would have cryed out oh Blasphemy This is an improbable or an improper Reply indeed It 's more probable W.P. could have told G.W. if he did not know it that he had learnt in the Schools that may-bee's can be answered with may not bee's and so this might be sufficient for that But 1. What if the Baptists would not in such a case have Cryed out Oh Blasphemy where 's thy Answer then George 2. Or what if the Baptists should and the Quakers should not in such a Case Cry out oh Blasphemy as thou dost not affirm it is Blasphemy where 's thy Answer then George 3. Or what if there be no such comparison made as thou pretendest is implyed as sure I am there is not viz the name of Christ to be no more excellent than the name of George or William Where 's then thy Answer George And where 's now thy oh Ignorance in the Abstract one may well enough see it in the Concrete viz. in G.W. when thou settest down thy Reply thou immediately says oh Ignorance in the Abstract now if thou meanest as it may be so taken that the words of thy Reply is such I shall not trouble my self to say much against it But if thou speakest it of me or the Baptists by thy using that word Abstract thou shewest thy own Ignorance and want of Learning not well understanding the word Abstract which against the next time thou writest for W. P he may inform thee and teach thee so much Logick Ignorance in the Abstract Qualitatem notat nulli subjecto inhaerentem and so not in me Ask thy Brother P. else Besides how thou wilt Answer for this word Abstract before your Prophet G.F. I know not for in the Epistle before one of thy own Books Divin of Christ he condemns that word as well as others as coming from our old Logical and Philosophical Books and yet behold here a Quaker uses it oh what self-contradicting and dissembling Men are they And as for the excellency thou now pretendest to own in the name of Christ one may see it to be but Hypocrisy used for evasion-sake only by what your friend John Crook says of the name Christ and Jesus Principles of Truth p. 12. Without this Vertue viz. The Arm of God CHRIST and JESUS are but empty names We believe and know by his Grace in our hearts that as his name JESUS without Vertue and Power is but an empty word c p. 11. But the name which saves is the power and arm of God that brings Salvation from Sin c. Pray how much more excellent does the Quaker here make the name JESVS than the name GEORGE or WILLIAM Are they Can they be less excellent than empty words Oh the Hypocrisy of these Men to say no worse 19. I said the Quakers Quibbled as much about the word Body as the word Christ and G.W. instead of denying it hath confirmed it p. 29. For though it be Scripture Language That the Body is one and hath many Members and in another place That the Church of Christ is his Body yet it will not therefore follow nor is it according to Scripture Language That Christ had NO OTHER Body than his Church for had he not a Body that was born of the Virgin MARY or was the Church viz. all the Saints in the World born of the Virgin Mâ—ry Or had the Body of Christ that was born of the Virgin Mary the espoused Wife of Joseph no other members as Arms Hands Legs c. but only the Saints would not this be rare Divinity When Thomas put his finger into the Print of the nails in the hands of Jesus and put his hand into his side was that then the Church that Thomas put his hand and finger into Oh excellent Quakerism Pag. 30. G.W. would slily give the go-by to my discourse about Mr. Keith's distinction of making three Christs by taking no notice upon what I grounded the Objection viz. Now after this rate or by the same manner of Reasoning and Quibbling may not one say that G.K. makes three Christs in Scripture and that with as much Truth as for any of them to affirm Christ would be a Monster by saying he hath two Bodies But this he slides by not Answering a word to it Is this the Quâ—kers plainness Is it not indeed a Plain shuffle But come George come back again take notice what it is thou hast to Answer and then Answer it Shufflle me no Shufflles nor Quibble me no more such Quibbles neither doth G. tell me which I also prayed W.P. honestly and plainly to do whether G.K. meant That these three were three Christs in three distinct Persons Or that these three and not any thing less than these three were one Christ in one distinct Person Or whether these three are no Christ at all in no distinct Person Let G.W. Remember his own words in his Introduction to his Divinity of Christ We judg that such expressions and words as the Holy Ghost taught the true Apostles and holy men mentioned in Scripture are most meet to speak of God and Christ and not the words of man's wisdom or humane Inventions and devised Distinctions since the Apostles days nor in Philosophical terms and nice School Distinctions derived from heathenish Metaphisicks and now tell me G. whether this of thy Brother Keiths is not a devised Distinction since the Apostles And whether G. thou hast not condemned thy Brother K's Distinction Where is
which neither they nor others can give before you can be tryed by that because that is the question whether you have the SPIRIT and the POWER OF GOD or no MORE than others 7. And then let me tell George That if he could Demonstrate it this way it would not be nay it could not be any Imposing upon me if G.W. did visibly Evidence and demonstrate to me by Power and mighty Deeds that he had indeed that Power and Spirit that he says he hath Therefore thou talkest deceitfully as if that would be an Imposing But now yours is imposing when you condemn Men for not-believing that you have immediate Revelations or in that you assert and would have us believe you are MORE inspired than other Men or other Societies and Bodies of Christians And you tell us you have the Spirit and are in the Truth MORE than others whom you Condemn as false and yet you produce NOTHING except YOUR BARE SAY-SO MORE than others who SAY SO of themselves as you do of your selves Now here 's the IMPOSING you pretend you are Infallible and yet produce no more or other effects of your Infallibility than other Men can or do Nay on the contrary the same effects of Fallibility are evident among you as among others and yet if any deny it in you you Censure and Curse them for not believing you and this is your way of Imposing And you Quakers say you are immediately sent of God and commissioned from God to deliver such or such a Message or Curse and that this and that is given forth by the Holy Ghost in you or from the Spirit and yet you shew no more certainty to prove to us and for us infallibly to build our Faith on that you are so sent and SO Commissioned from God than Muggleton does or other Churches which yet your selves say ARE NOT SENT OF GOD nor Commissioned by him Now here 's imposing upon Mens beliefs and this I say you are guilty of yea and most eminently guilty of next to Muggleton or the Pope of any Person or People I know and this is the thing George thou shouldst have Answered if thou hadst Answered me to the purpose and main bent of my Epistle to W.P. But this thou pittifully evadest and slâ—ly wouldst slide from But now since you pretend to such high things if you had the visible Spiritual Gifts that were amongst the true Primitive Churches and Apostles to evidence and demonstrate the Truth of what now you ONLY SAY and pretend I should never nor I suppose any Man in his wits call or esteem it any imposing on my Faith But the other is so indeed as I have shew'd you and therefore G. I would take thee by the hand and lead thee back again praying thee not to shuffâ—e and Cut also but Answer this and not that which I never desired of thee nor W.P. That 's the very thing I found fault with you before viz. That you would Answer to that which was not askt you instead of returning Answer to that which was and yet still thus thou servest me but it will not do For my design is that I may know you better what Real Power Evidence and Authority you have BEYOND others that so I may have a good Foundation for my Faith and give Credit to it and you Or that for want of it you may be brought to a better fight of your selves and see your nakedness and Poverty though you say as the Church of Laodicâ—a that you are rich and so may learn to be humble and not Censure others except you can better evidence your own 9. And yet why wilt thou say you have not imposed thus your Faith on others Was not and hath not your Language been such as this viz. It 's true that Timothy Titus and others WHO HAD GIFTS IN THEM for the Ministry were approved by Paul and others of the Primitive Elders for the work but this is no Proof that these opposers Ministers are either so gifted or approved G.W. Enthusiasm above Atheism p. 5. And so say I neither is it any Proof that the QUAKERS MINISTERS are SO GIFTED or APPROVED and the Words before-cited of G.F. before thy own Book Have you the SAME POWER and SPIRIT that gavâ— forth the Scriptures G.W. Wilt thou believe thy own words Then see thy Answer to Mr. Richard Baxters two sheets for the Ministry p. 16. We never understood that they that set up these Priestâ— were called as Peter or Paul or the Elders who had Power to lay on the hands that the HOLY GHOST FELL ON THE PARTY ON WHOM THEY LAID ON THEâ—R HANDS and shew me any ONE of thy MINISTERS CALLED SO George G. F. To all People in all Câ—ristendom says thus p. 2. All Sects have the words of the Apostles but out of the Power and Life A Paper sent forth into the World from the Quakers p. 5. We are against the Pastors that NOW STEAL the words of the Prophets of Christ and his Apostles W.P. Reason against Railing p. 115. Many may run into the Practice of several outward things mentioned in the Scriptures to have been the practice of Saints in former Ages and yet not be led into the Truth for all that is but will-worship Imitation and unwarrantable And all this I may say against you which you have said against others and if they were good then why not still For you have but the Names and Images of things you have got the words used in Scripture the Power and the Spirit the Gifts of the Spirit the Demonstration of the Spirit and Power But alas where is the thing it self viz. the visible Power and Gifts of the Spirit the Demonstration of the Spirit that the true Apostles had and the Scripture speaks of To this George can poorly say what if God will not bestow such Gifts now why then George I say thou hast them not only hast stolen the words out of the Scriptures thou hast got the Name the Image and words as thou sayest the Baptists and others have done but alas art as barren of the Gifts themselves as they are only art got into a Form but denyest the True power of God and Demonstration of the Spirit in Signs and mighty Deeds 10. Pa. 33. G.W. hath this further to say That he doubts not but where the Spirit of God lives and Rules it will manifest it self by its Fruits for it is self-evidencing and that they have a record in Heaven and also in many Consciences of the blessed Power of God with them and in them Reply And cannot the Baptists say all this nay and do not they many times They can say thâ—y have a Record in Heaven and in many Consciences also who believe them and pray tell me G. how thou wilt get up to Heaven to search the Record there and disprove them Did one ever hear such silly stuff as this man writes did he indeed think to shufflle it off with such
they come to you and desire it you would procure such of the Quakers Books as they shall make question of if you can find or have them and shew them at your shop for their better satisfaction that so they may believe their OWN EYES at least And that you send one of this second Part to Mr. Whitehead and another to Mr. Penn. So farewell Thy friend though unknown T.T. Jan. 1. 74 5. THE THIRD PART OF THE QUAKERS QUIBBLES BEING A Continuation of their Quibbles Equivocations Riddles Contradictions Rounds and Confusions set forth in ten several Particulars Whereunto is Added Remarks on G. W ' s. Slight Sheet given forth by him as a Reprehension for want of an Answer to the Second Part of the QVAKERS QVIBBLES With some further Account of their Grand Mystery of DIRECTING the INTENTION By the same Indifferent Pen. If ye Build again the things which ye Destroyed ye make your selves Transgressâ—rs Gal 2.18 Diruit Aedificat Mutat Quadrata Rotundis Erroris Mater fuit Aequivocatio semper LONDON Printed for F. Smith at the Elephant and Castle in Cornhil near the Royal Exchange 1675. TO THE Free Spirited Impartial READER AS it is left us upon Record in Holy Writ that GOD at sundry times and in divers manners hath spoken unto his Prophets and People for the Salvation of Men so we are thereby likewise assured that SATHAN at sundry times and in divers Forms hath spoken to and deceived many Souls by pretending great Light great Knowledge high things in words and semblance Imitating as near as might be the works and ways of GOD but still without that true Divine Power which enabled those immediate Men of God VISIBLY to out-do all the deceiving Pretences and Ape-like Imitations of the Devil's Instruments in the sight of all Men present as Moses's Serpent swallowed up all the Egyptian Sorcerers Serpents and Paul being filled with the Holy Ghost was able to over-come and strike Elymas the Sorcerer with outward Blindness Now this was IN DEED and not in TALK only to be in the Power and filled with the Holy Ghost and the Text says Then the Deputy when he saw what was done believed And no sooner had our Glorious Lord JESVS CHRIST Visibly Ascended to Heaven without us and fulfilled his great Promise of sending his Holy Spirit upon his Apostles and Disciples which was in a visible manner enduing them with Power not onely the Name but the Thing to speak with Tongues to Prophecy indeed and to work visible Miracles for the Confirmation of that Word and Doctrine they Preach'd to the World Heb. 2.4 and this is in Scripture-Language true Spirit Baptism or the Baptiâ—â— of the Spirit and this is it which was for Persons to be Baptized indeed with the Holy Spirit as it is expresly called Acts 1.5 and of Fire There appeared unto them Cloven Tongues like as of Fire and it sat upon each of them and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost But Sathan that Old Serpent not willing to be long idle did quickly raise up even in those true Apostles days many Pretenders false Prophets and false Apostles some of the first whereof Ancient Records tell us were called Nicolaitans and Gnosticks who pretended high and strange Light Knowledge and Illumination beyond others And it is Observable of all the Forms into which Sathan Transformed himself it seems none is nor was more taking than what he used in the true Apostles days viz. Transforming himself into an Angel of LIGHT and therefore no marvel if such as are false Apostles are found Transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ Nor is it any great thing as the true Apostle Intimates to us if such as are indeed Sathans Ministers also be Transformed as the Ministers of Righteousness If the wicked one could play such pranks and be so bold then how much more may we expect and suspect it now and it is no strange thing if some of his Ministers and Instruments now be Transformed into Angels or Messengers of Light Pretend the Light Talk of the Light Preach up the Light Own the Light Witness the Light and Cry out the Light the Light And whereas a certain sort of People lately sprung up among us did pretend to high Illuminations and talkt much of the Light they walkt in above others and of the Power immediate Calling and Gifts of the Spirit that they had as in the Apostles time And as they pretended to higher things than others so I did set my self more especially and seriously to hear consider weigh and try them their Doctrines and Principles for about these Twenty Years But alas in lieu of finding any such thing amongst them as the same Light Power and immediate Commission and Gifts of the Spirit that the Apostles and Apostolical Churches had and which they then did pretend to blame others for want of I could see nor hear nothing among them but the meer Words and bare Pretences and taking up some such things by Imitation as they fanâ—ied in themselves and as they found the Apostles wrote or the Scriptures spoke of as many others do whom yet they did once Condemn for that very thing yea and inâ—tead thereof I have Observed the greatest Inconstancy Vncertainty Turn and Change amongst them that I think ever was to be found among any People that pretended to so refined Sublime a Religion in the space of Twenty Years and yet all this while to talk of or pretend to INFALLIBILITY which hath Occasioned them to defend themselves from those who have taken more notice of their Inconstancy Vncertainty and Changes than they were willing should be to use the greatest Quibbling and grossest Equivocations that have been used in Religious matters ever since the Jesuites new modell'd the Art the better to hide it and themselves Some of their most Considerable Quibbles in their Doctrine touching that Grand Principle of our true Lord and Saviour JESVS CHRIST I had Occasion given me by them to set forth more particularly in my Second Treatise beginning at p. 29. But my intended Brevity not permitting and not knowing but that these Persons might learn to be somewhat more humble meek moderate and civil when they should rightly reflect on it and themselves then prevented me of proceeding any further therein Yet since I understand it is very much desired by others and the Quakers as much to want it they being as Confidently outragious as before for in the midst of all their Inconstancies in their Practice and Doctrines I find them chiefly constant in these two things in their Practice viz. their egregious Confidence and their Railing Reviling Language to others and in that it may be truly said of them Can the Ethiophian change his skin or the Leopard his spots wherefore here is set forth more of their Quibbles in several particulars and that in some most weighty and important Points as those of the Church the Annointing the Holy Spirit and the Holy Scriptures and
a Man of no Conscience nor Credit in what Relates to them i. e. the Quakers he did not dare say he was a man of no Conscience nor Credit in what Râ—â—â—ted to others because then he might have been disâ—â—â—ved but onely to the Quakers they themselves being Judges also when as you must note if a man does but oppose the Quakers that That is enough to make him a man of no Conscience or Credit with them Oh neat Quibble pray let the Quakers name you ONE man that does oppose and Contradict them that they will say is a Man of Good Conscience and Credit in what Relates to them Who is so silly that cannot see the baseness of such slie and Quibbling Suggestions Pray before I leave this Section hear another of them about the same Person p 39 Mr. Pen says he had as good as confest that he had been Hired by some Professors to disturb us who sees not the Quibble in the words as good as confest That is in plain English he did not tell him so neither is it at all likely but well on the contrary I have heard that some Years since a Quaker would have Hired him to have let them alone the Story runs thus He owed a Quaker a certain sum of money and the Quaker would have forgave it him and writ or would write him an Acquittance as Received so much money of him provided he would not disturb them any more Mr. Chadwel Answered him to this purpose that if he writ he had Received so much money when indeed he Received none that would be a Lye and he would not consent to it So here it seems Fran. Chadwel had more Conscience than the Quaker Sect. 8. And besides the Truth of their abusing punching haling thrusting and throwing the said F. Chadwel out of their meetings by main Force depends not upon his Testimony alone but there are some scores that have been Eye-witnesses of it that can testifie it And if the Quakers can Justifie doing thus to one whom themselves shall alone Judge to be a man of no Conscience nor Credit then they may do it to another and another and to Twenty on the same Ground and at last to whom they please as far as they dare And to be sure none shall want their Judgment and Censure of being Forgers Lyars or Tiplers Men of no Credit nor Conscience if they do but oppose them And so at present I 'le leave them with their Apostatized Persecuting Spirit as to this particular wishing they may for the Future learn more Honesty Humility and the Royal Law of Charity which never fails and that they may put on Bowels of Compassion and Lowlyness of mind to others for if they shew Love to their own Friends onely what are they better than the Publicans Don't they do so SECT IX The Quakers Quibbles and Hypocrisie in their former Practice of Disturbing of Ministers in Parish-Churches with reference to their Practice now Sect. 1. THat it was the Common Practice of the Quakers for many Years to pretend They were sent and moved by the Lord and by the Spirit to come into the Parish-Assemblies to oppose the Ministers and accordingly did commonly every Moneth and sometimes oftner come in and disturb the Ministers and Congregations with their Messages Visions and Revelations from the Lord as they said is so generally known that I need bring no Instances and I think they will not deny it Sect. 2. But now since His MAJESTIES Happy Restauration and Government I do not find but those ORACLES are generally ceased or at least for the most part and now their Common Practice therein is altered which shews either their great Hypocrisie now they think they cannot do it but with more danger or that these motions were only pretences and so very unreasonable as most likely they were or if true motions from the Lord then the Quakers have rarely if any of those true motions from the Lord now among them nor do grow in MORE Experience of such Revelations but are withered Where 's G. Foxe's Lambs of CHRIST which have been sent forth to reprove Sin in the Gates of Cities Markets High-ways and Countries What are they all asleep G. F's Professors Cat. p. 22. What is there no Sin to be Reproved within the Gates now as then What no such Messages from the Lord now Oh Hypocrisie Sect. 3. By this it would appear that Muggleton is the best Prophet of the two and that his Sentence and Curse hath taken hold of the Quakers viz. Because I saith Muggleton have passed Sentence upon the Quakers they shall never grow to have more Experience in Vision and Revelation but shall wither See G. Fox his Answer to Muggleton's Book The Quakers Neck broken p. 11. SECT X. The Quakers Quibbles about the Holy Scriptures Sect. 1. THis is a very weighty Point Dear Friends and Countrey-men consider it well you shall first hear what G.W. himself and three more Quakers say in Answer to one Sampson Townsend a Minister in Norwich in their Book Entituled ISHMAEL c. The Ministers Propositions which he and they opposed were these two 1. That the Scriptures contained in the OLD and NEW Testament Commonly called the BIBLE is the Revealed Will and Word of God 2. That the Scripture which is the Word of God is the onely Foundation of our Faith and onely Rule for our Obedience Now in their Answer to thiâ— I onely desire the Reader to Observe the several Epithetes G.W. gives to the SCRIPTVRE viz. that commonly called the Bible which ONELY the Minister affirmed to be the Foundation and Rule of our Faith and Obedience as above THIS G.W. calls NATVRAL and CARNAL p. 3. Obscure something without them p. 3. Bids him prove that ever it was called by the Saints a Written Word of God and that with these thy Lyes thou hast deceived the Blind p. 4. That which is Written is the Letter which is DEATH and KILLETH p. 10. Thou that sayest that the Scriptures Reveal God thou art a Lyar p. 10. Where did ever any of the Holy men of God say that the Scripture Converts the Soul or makes Laws for mens thoughts p. 11. He calls it a Lye to say the Scripture is the means by which Faith is wrought p. 11. Now that which Matthew Mark Luke and John wrote of Christ could not give Life for that is called a Declaration of those things which was freely delivered among them Luke 1.1 And that thou callest the Word which is DEATH and KILLETH as thou mayst Read 2 C. 3. p. 9. And that which the Minister then called the WORD as G.W. himself and the Quakers tell you just before in the same page was the sayings and doings of our SAVIOVR which are frequently Recorded in the NEW TESTAMENT and hence IT the New Testament is called the word of CHRIST says he and in the Quakers Answer to this G.W. and they tell the Minister and that thou callest the WORD
WHICH IS DEATH and KILLETH Oh horrid abominable and wicked besides the falshood of it how near to Blasphemy is it Not to say much to his words in p. 5. where he maketh himself a Judge for others to be Judged by viz. Let all that read these Scriptures Judge thee BY ME to be a Lyar. Nor to their words in the Title Page where they say these their Words or Writings were GIVEN FORTH from the SPIRIT of the Lord IN VS You may enough ghess at it and the Impudence of it your selves Will not the Impartial Reader now think this Book ISHMAEL a Rare Piece for the bigness of it for 't is but about three sheets I must needs think that many Sober Readers that shall see and duly Consider these Words will almost conclude it incredible it being so abominably gross but that they may see it with their own Eyes in the Quakers own Book if they dare give Credit to their Eye-sight more than to the Quakers false Tongues and therefore I refer all such to the Book it self for better Satisfaction Sect. 2. Sam. Fisher in his Addit Appendix p. 21. Speaking of the Holy Scriptures says Which Transcriptions and Translations were they never so certain and entire by Answering to the first Original Copies yet are NOT CAPABLE to be to all Men ANY OTHER than a Lesbian Rule or NOSE OF WAX Forasmuch as even where Men have them as half the World has not they are lyable to be wrested and Actually twisted Twenty ways by Interpreters whose Expositions Sences and meanings which are as many and various as the Thoughts Conceits and Inventions of men are who Comment upon them must be the Rule to such as can Read them neither in Hebrew and Greek nor in their own Mother-Tongues neither And further the said Sam. Fisher in the same page tells us that He and the Quakers have put it to the Question How it may be known assuredly uncontroulably infallibly that the Scripture is at ALL of God and not a cunningly DEVISED FABLE and INVENTION of Men Do ye not think now Impartial Readers that the Quakers are High Honourers of Holy Scripture to use such Terms and Language in Querying about it as a cunningly devised FABLE and INVENTION of Men And in his very next words he gives us and the World to understand that the Church and Clergy of England do but go-round or Dance in a Circle when they tell the Quakers and us That the Scripture may be known to be of God by the Testimony of the Spirit and that we may try and find assuredly that Spirit to be of God by the Scripture Sect. 3. Ed. Burroughâ— p. 834. The ONELY perfect Rule of â—onscience in the Exercise to God is the SPIRIT of Christ and not any other thing G.W. Again the Question being put Do you esteem of your speakings to be of as great Authority as any Chapter in the Bible makes this Answer in his Serious Apol. p. 49. viz. That which was spoken from the Spirit of Truth in ANY â—s of AS GREAT Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are and GREATER c. Sect. 4. W. Pen also that he for his Worthiness and sincerity may not Complain as left out shall give in his Verdict in his Spirit of Truth Vindicated p. 38. Thus the Scripture is much like the shadow of the True Rule c. Now all men know a shadow is an empty and vain thing and the most uncertain thing in the World sometimes shorter and sometimes much longer than the Substance it self Sect. 5. But now to wheel about and run round again though one would think no man possibly that pretends to Honesty or common Reputation could either have the Face or Confidence to do it having so rivetted and fixed the Contrary in Print as above nay some cannot believe that any Ordinary Romancer would Publish it in Print with such a Stupendious confidence as the Quakers have lately done viz. G.W. Quakers Plainness p. 70 71. Nor did we EVER prefer our Books before the Bible as unjustly we are charged but do prefer the Bible BEFORE ALL other Books extant in the World Our Intention and Principle NEVER was to bring our Books in Comparison to the Scriptures No G Is this True Does not thy own Conscience smite thee and fly in thy Face Nay is this possible to be true When G.W. himself calls the Scriâ—ture which the Minister asserted was the Foundation of Faith as I have already told you NATURAL and CARNAL the LETTER which is DEATH and KILLETH What can be worse than Natural Carnal that which is Death and Killeth Are your Writings worse than that Then further do but consider the Titles and Epithets this very G.VV. gives to some of his own Books viz. The Glory of Christs Light within Expelling Darkness Another The Light and LIFE of Christ within well go thy ways GEORGE not onely for a QUIBBLER but an AUDACIOUS CONFIDENT surely Geo. thou hadst not forgot that your Book ISHMAEL was given forth from the SPIRIT of the Lord in you Or did you deal therein falsely with the World And with God too Was any of the Holy Scriptures any more than given forth from the spirit of the Lord And if that you say be true I am sure your Books must be EQUAL at least with the Scriptures but what need I talk of that when Geo. himself assures me that some of their Writings or speeches were GREATER if ever the spirit of Truth spoke in any of them it is of AS GREAT Authority says he as the SCRIPTURES and CHAPTERS are and GREATER Sect. 6 And to face quite about again G. Keith told us positively That W.P. hath the Scripture as the Secondary Rule of his Faith and Practice Narrative of the Second Dispute published by the Quakers themselves p. 57. Who doth not see now that these men will say any thing Or care not what they say Mr. Pen himself at best does but say The Scripture is much like the SHADOW of the true Rule so far is it from being any either Primary or Secundary true and Substantial Rule to him but onely much like the shadow of it and a shadow is sometimes three or four times longer or shorter than the Truth and Substance and in that Respect says VV.P. it may be a KIND of a Secondary Rule Observe Reader how mincingly and Quibblingly VV.P. words it 1. In that Respect as it is much like the shadow 2. a kind of Secondary Rule a shadowy Kind but neither the true substantial or certain Rule and it all comes in with it may be suppositively now which of these two Quakers is the Quibbler Both May be one Must be But that is not all neither for worse absurdities will still follow for if that be true which G.VV. said then that which is DEATH and KILLETH is A RULE of VV. Pen's Faith and Practice and that which is Natural and carnal is A RULE of the Quakers Faith and Practice then an
as it is like a shadow it may be a kind of Secondary Rule Mr. Pen himself thinks but he seems not certain of that neither But to turn quite back again if Sam. Fisher may be believed the Scriptures we have Though they were never so certain and entire by answering to the first Original Copies yet are not CAPABLE to be to all Men ANY OTHER than a Lesbian Rule or Nose of wax so far are they from being either a Primary or Secondary Rule that he says they are not so much as CAPABLE of being ANY OTHER than a Lesbian Rule and if that be the Rule G. Keith meant his Brother Pen had for his Faith and Practice it may be true enough and so he may well agree with his late Brother Fisher But yet to give one turn more the quondam sincere-hearted and Zealous man W. Pen whose Writings many times like squint-eyes which as they say look nine ways at once would make us believe if we were no wiser that notwithstanding all this the Quakers abuse of Scripture that 't is the Quakers are abused and if he does not Quibble and deal disingenuously they do indeed own what-ever they say to the contrary the Scripture to be a Rule in some things or some parts of the Scripture to be a Rule to them But yet says Mr. Fisher to confound the Quakers and knock all ot'h ' Head at once They say truly which say that A RULE and Guide should be CERTAIN which will not deceive and that which is VARIABLE and ALTERABLE cannot be A Persons Rule For it is the property of A Rule to be INVARIABLE and the SAME at ALL times But that as to the Scriptures we and the Quakers now have he tells us This is one plain VNDENIABLE Truth viz. That there are VARIOVS Lections in the Copies of the very ORIGINAL Texts of the Scripture this he asserts point blank and not onely that they are alterable and variable but varying and altered in abundance of places and some parts portions and whole Books thereof LOST and so is not fit nor capable to be a Rule or Foundation as he gives us to understand to cut the Throat of all and to make short work Thus. Sometimes 't is Carnal without Breath Sometimes the Letter oh 't is Death Sometimes 't is a Rule of Faith That 's impossible Fisher saith Sometimes a Nose of VVax no Rule They know as much as th' Ass or Mule Sometimes one way then another Sometimes both ways this and t'other Sometimes one o' th two take either Sometimes 'twixt both Rules but neither Some say it 's this some that some O Riddle Nor this nor that but just a Quibble And so they run the Rounds trace to and fro and dance up and down in their dark minds about the Holy Scriptures and their Rule of Faith I cannot think of any thing that the Quakers Doctrine about this better resembles than what their own Fisher brings to my Hand the so called Devils Neck verse which may be read upwards or downwards backwards or forwards which way they please to the scanning whereof I at present leave them wishing they may in time become wiser and honester and not run the round so still to make their Brains Giddy S A T O R A R E P O T E N E T O P E R A R O T A S Sam. Fisher Transpos'd THus Quaker's work who talk for self Is tangling talk against it self ' Gainst Truth a prate a piteous Preachment That can't make good its own Impeachment As Doctor REYNARD'S Doctrine does Who heeds not well which way he goes Whitehead's Live'stone's Pen's prances round And round again in th' self-same Ground It staggers to and fro and reels Skips up and down and runs on wheels Starts aside like some broken Bow Câ—osses Christ like Cris X Cross i' th Row Who so can feel in it may feel As 't were a wheel within a wheel A Net Ginn Trap a Snare's in It A VVhirlpool Gulph Bottomless-Pit Wind Dust Husk Chaff no Stable Steeple A Tale that takes unstable People A Toy a Cloud Mist Smoak a Fogg Both Quak'rism and some Quav'ring Bogg A Quick sand a Quagmire that sucks Who 's in 't his Feet out hardly plucks Himself who 's in gets seldom Out It self 's more seldom in than Out It flutters like some blind Night Bat Now here now there this way now That Now it is one thing then another And now and then nor t' one nor to'ther Sometimes it 's This sometimes it 's That Sometimes it 's This and This and That Sometimes 't is either this or that Sometimes 't is neither this nor that Now this not th' other anon it 's Either Then by and by both Both and Neither One while it looks like So not No Another while like No not So One way it seems or So or No Another way nor No nor So Some ways it shews both So and No So it 's a meer endless No and So. Here Follows THE QUAKING QUIBBLING ANSWERER Turned to A SLIGHT TIMEROUS REVILER OR Remarks on G. W's Slight silly Sheet styl'd The Timerous Reviler Sleighted Given forth by the said G.W. as a Reprehension for want of an Answer to the Second Part of the Quakers Quibbles COVRTEOVS READER THE Man I have here to deal withal having neither Honesty or Knowledge enough to give a Right Answer nor Prudence enough to hold his Peace you may it is not unlikely admire why I should trouble my self to take any Notice of so slight and silly a sheet the greatest part whereof is stuff'd according to the Quakers old Custom with nothing but bitter Railings scornful Revilings and false Suggestions as if the Quakers were dreyn'd and this the very dregs of their filthy Bottle wherefore I shall here acquaint you with the Considerations that moved and constrained me thereto First That Justice which I found lay upon me to clear an Innocent Gentleman and so far vindicate his Innocency and Reputation of whom this Man hath Published in Print a most gross false Suggestion Secondly To undeceive the World that I might not be false to the Truth nor unjust to my self they having raised and published of me not onely many false surmises but palpable falsities They first take me for another Person with whom they have had formerly some Contests and then New Baptizing me and dressing me up as they please they throw all the dirt at Me that they in their wicked and Malicious minds wish to Him though he be a Person by the faithfullest account I could have concerning him I not being acquainted with him whose Candor Judgment Parts and Deserts are as far beyond G. W's in Reality as Geo. can Conceit himself beyond others and so not deserving any such ill usage at their unmannerly Pens or Tongues but this confirms me in my Opinion that it is much at one and you may as soon expect an Ingenious Sober Rational Answer from a Scold at Billings-gate as