not but God's Perfection is essential to him and so is his Purity his Purity and Perfection is himself and so is not the Saint's Perfection or Purity therefore there is an infinite Distance betwixt God's Perfection and all Creatures Perfection whatsoever Again G. M. p. 197. His Opponent having said He sums up all in this Be ye therefore perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect that is in Quality not in Quantity G. F. answers He that is perfect is perfect as his Heavenly Father is perfect is perfect as he is perfect If thou or any have an Ear to hear let him hear and lay away thy Qualities and Quantities and take the Words as they are and all that are come into Christ are come into Life from the Dust and Ashes and are spiritual Men. Note This he spoke in Opposition to his Opponent his calling Man poor Dust and Ashes here he magnifies himself above Abraham who called himself Dust and Ashes and yet was come into Christ and into his Life The like arrogant Expression he hath in G. M. p. 299. Such as be Saints through the immortal Seed are not Dust and Ashes for the immortal Seed lives and abides and endures for ever A Tittle of the Law is seen not to be broken G. M. p. 310. and this saith he is known in vs. VVho comes to the Kingdom of Heaven in them G. M. p. 281 318. 〈◊〉 to be perfect yea to a perfect Man and that is above any Degree Again Are you not worse than Lawyers and Physicians taking the Peoples Money and yet cannot make them perfect Men G. M. p. 268. Note By this reckoning all the deceased Quakers were perfect with a sinless Perfection before their Decease yea and all they not deceased by G. F's Doctrine above-quoted for in all these Plates G. F. means a sinless Perfection He blames his Opponent for saying One that is in the Kingdom of Grace groaning for Adoption ◠And p. 218. G. M. He will not allow any that 's translated into the Kingdom to have any Members to be mortified He judges his Opponents for saying That Pollution was in the Church and saith That the Church is without Spot or VVrinkle or Blemish on any such thing meaning surely the Quakers Church But that the Quakers Church or Ministry are not all such who are without Spot or Wrinkle or Blemish or any such thing G. VV 's General Epistle which he calls A Christian Epistle to Friends c. sufficiently sheweth in p. 4. He chargeth it upon too many Professors of Truth viz. among the Quakers their Negligence and Vnfaithfulness to Truth in themselves which hath caused a Decay of Love and want of Charity towards others and then instead of humbly waiting and depending upon the Lord some have exaled themselves in a self-will self-conceit and affection to Preheminence in Judgment over others until thereby Divisions and false Separations have been caused and stirred up by them to the great Grief of the Spirits of the upright Such were never throughly subjected into true Humility Mortification true Self-denyal or dying with Christ c. In that called G. Fox's Canons or Orders so did all that Party of the Quakers call them that joined with John Story and John Wilkinson two eminent Preachers of the Quakers in opposing them published by G. F. about the Year 1669 and signed or subscribed only by G. F. Pope-like indeed having this Title Friend's Fellowship must be in the Spirit and all Friends must know one another in the Spirit and Power of God At the Number 9 we have the following Words And also all Men that hunt after Women from Woman to Woman and also VVomen whose Affections run sometimes after one Man and soon after another and so hold one another in Affection and so draw out the Affection of one another and after a while leave one another and go one from another do the same thing these doings make more like Sodom than Saints and is not of God's moving or joining And in Number 10. And Notice be taken of all evil Speakers Backbiters and Slanderers and foolish Talkers and idle Jesters for all these corrupt good Manners And in Number 11. All such as are Tale-carriers and Railers whose VVork is to sow Dissention are to be reproved and admonished And in Number 12. And all such as go up and down to cheat by borrowing and getting of Money of Friends in By-places and have cheated several all such are to be stopped and judged as there is a VVoman tall in her Person freckled in her Face and also one John Harding who are for Judgment and to be condemned And in the Conclusion he sharply reproves them of the Quaker's Society who sit nodding in a Meeting for their Sleeping and Sottishness and Dullness and he saith Therefore be careful and watchful and let it be amended And last of all he adds Let this be read in all your Meetings On this I noted that these and other Faults he chargeth upon many of his Brethren owned to be Quakers evidently prove their visible Church and Society are not such a Church of Christ which he saith is without Spot or VVrinkle as above-quoted and that as a People they are far from that sinless Perfection they commonly boast of on which account they are not known as a People to pray in their publick Meetings for Pardon of Sin and yet where such Faults are were they sincere they would both confess and ask Pardon of God for their Sins I noted also that according to this Injunction these Orders on Canons of G. F. are duly read in their quarterly Meetings both here in Europe and also in America whereof I have been an Eye and Ear Witness But as he hath not in all his Canons enjoined the reading the holy Scriptures nor any Part of them in their Meetings so I said I never heard any Part of Scripture read in any of their publick Meetings either for Worship or Discipline and they cast great Blame on me for my reading some Texts of Scripture in our Meetings at Turners-Hall But let it be further noted that seeing G. F. and G. VV. have so strongly affirmed That the Quakers can give an infallible Character of Men to know who are Saints or Devils without ever speaking a Word what need had G. F. in his Canons to give such a Description of some by Name and Face whereby to know them to be Cheats Surely if they had such an infallible discerning as they pretend they need not to have such outward Characters of Deceivers Note Were not some of these above-mentioned Members of the Quaker's Church and are not such Evils as he has mentioned that were among them Spots and Blemishes and Sins Yea G. VV. doth own in his Voice of VVisdom p. 17. before that State of Freedom from Sin be witnessed There is a Time of Pain in Travel and of suffering in Temptations and Tryals Note do none of these belong to the
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
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
again and is at the Right Hand of God in our Nature as the great Object of their Faith But this the Inspirations of the chief Teachers of the Quakers have led them not to regard In the whole System of his Orthodox Principles the Substance whereof he tells us he has given there is not one intire Article of the Creed commonly called the Apostles Creed mentioned nay nor so much as implyed And indeed he cannot nor any of his Brethren by any real Evidence convince any Man that their Inspirations have taught them so much as one intire Article of that Creed in the true Sense generally received by true Christians and according to their Principles they must not say that the Spirit has given or wrought the Faith of the Articles of the Creed in them by the medium or means of the outward Word for that is contrary to G. Fox's Doctrine above delivered and as expresly contrary to the Doctrine of G. Whitehead in his Brief Discovery of the dangerous Principles of John Horne G. W's brief Discovery p. 18. pag. 18. who blames J. Horne and T. Moor for having affirmed that the Scriptures are the medium of Faith i. e. the means by which Faith is wrought in Believers There is no such Scripture saith G.W. as saith the Scriptures are the Medium of Faith Note seeing the Quakers have not the Faith of Christ as he was outwardly crucified and died for our Sins and rose again neither by the Light within them nor by the medium of the Scriptures as the Instrument of the holy Spirit as other true Christians have it it is a plain case they have no Faith of it at all other than a meer historical Faith as they have of any common History and indeed many of them have not that G. Whitehead in his Quakers Plainness p. 70. brings a quibbling Distinction betwixt a means and the means he grants The Bible may be a means instrumentally as God bestows a Blessing upon or accompanies the serious reading thereof as it directs to Christ Jesus or to his Light and Spirit which openeth the Vnderstanding in the holy Scriptures And a little before he saith Mark the Difference betwixt a means and the means as between the Bible and Christ that may be a means which is not the means Christ being the absolute way and means by way of Eminency for Man to come to know God But to shew the Fallacy of this Quibble By the means are generally understood the instrumental and subordinate Causes to the principal Agent and Efficient which ought not to be confounded Christ is the Author and principal Efficient of our Knowledge of God and the Bible i.e. the divine Oracles and Testimonies contained therein are the means and to say the means or a means is equivalent among all that know true English as when we say Food and Raiment are the means to preserve our natural Life or a means the Sense is the same But it is proved already out of G. F's Gr. Myst p. 243. that G. F. denyed that the things of the Gospel and of the Spirit are attained by an external means will G. W's Distinction here serve him Will he again distinguish betwixt a means and an external means But let us apply this subtile Distinction of G.W. to the Words of G. F. in Saul's Errand p. 6. who being charged that he said He was the eternal Judge of the World he confesseth it and brings several Proofs as he thinks to prove it as that the spiritual Man judgeth all things and the Saints shall judge the World Now seeing G. W. will needs have a Distinction betwixt a means and the means why not also betwixt a Judge of the World and the Judge yea the eternal Judge of the World as he professeth himself to be It was not enough that G. F. should be a Judge of the World but the Judge yea the eternal Judge of the World and by G. W's Logick G. F. was not a Judge but the Judge by way of Eminency yea the eternal Judge of the World But G. F. after his manner of frequently corrupting the Words of Scripture as well as his Opponents Words doth corruptly and falsly argue from that Scripture 1 Cor. 6. 2. Do ye not know that the Saints shall judge the World Note the Words shall judge in the future which G. F. corruptly applyeth to himself in the present or preterit Tense that he was or is the Judge yea the eternal Judge of the World Lastly To come yet more closely to G. W. himself I will shew you how he denyeth the Scriptures to be a means for the Conversion of Jews and Heathens to the true Faith in Truth defending the Quakers by G. W. qu. 35. pag. 51. And what is that the Gospel must be preached to in the Heathens that will receive it And whether they that preach to Turks and Heathens ought to preach out of a Text and prove their Doctrine by Scripture to them as the Priests do in England yea or nay Note By this Query he not only excludes the Scripture from being the means but a means for converting Turks and Heathens nor will his common Excuse of saying it was but a Query help him This sort of querying being the strongest way of denying or affirming both in Scripture and all other Writings Next let us hear W. Penn 's Confession concerning means in his Key printed 1699. p. 12. pervers 8. The Quakers assert the Spirit of God to be the immediate Teacher and that there is no other means now to be used as Ministry Ordinances c. He answereth They never spake such Language ... for they never denied the use of means but to this Day from the Beginning they have been in the use of them but then they are such means as are used in the Life and Power of God Note with what presumptuous Confidence W. P. dareth to say they never spake such Language when G. F. their great Apostle had plainly said as above-quoted that the things of the Gospel are not attained by AN external means That they have been all along in the use of some means as preaching writing and reading is but to say their Practice contradicts their Principles which is very common to them But to cover their Error their way is to mistate the Question as W. P. doth here which is not whether outward means can truly profit without the inward Aid and Assistance of the Spirit for this is generally granted that they cannot which is equivalent to his Phrase that the means then only profit when used in the Life and Power of God And in very deed their holding the Light within every Man sufficient to Salvation without any thing else as they do commonly teach destroyeth all necessary use of outward means as who should say a Man has that within him that is sufficient to carry him to America without any thing else as Boat or Ship should be understood to say he can walk
on the Sea or flie in the Air to that remote Place The next thing in reference to their Infallibility is their Pretence to the infallible discerning of Mens Hearts without respect to their Works good or bad This is differently stated by them and wherein we shall find a real Contradiction among them G. F. in his Gr. Myst pag. 89. had said Here thou hast shewed that the Quakers have a Spirit given to them beyond all the Forefathers which we do witness since the Days of the Apostles in the Apostacy and they can discern who are Saints who are Devils and who are Apostates without speaking ever a VVord they that be in the Power and the Life of Truth This discerning of Mens Hearts G. VVhitehead had formerly placed upon outward Signs in the Countenances of wicked Men or Women which he still justifieth in his Antitode pag. 69. Proud and haughty Looks wanton and scornful Eyes envious and fallen Countenances are rendred in Scripture as outward Signs or Marks of such wicked Hearts which also the Gift of discerning perceiveth and gives to see many times through such outward mediums Note G. VV. here layeth a great Stress upon outward Signs in the Countenance which he owneth to be outward mediums through which the Spirit of discerning perceiveth and giveth to see Mens Hearts but yet he will not allow the Scriptures to be the medium of Faith so preferreth outward Signs in the Countenance to the Scriptures but then he much throweth down this sort of discerning by Mens Countenances by saying many times for this leaveth their discerning to be many times fallible and though the Scripture and common Experience proveth that the Countenances of some openly vicious and extreamly wicked are Signs of their wicked Hearts yet the Scripture giveth no universal Rule in the Case but giveth us the Command of Christ Isaiah 11. 3. John 7. 24. Judge not according to Appearance but judge righteous Judgment and it was said of Christ He shall not judge after the Sight of his Eyes nor reprove after the hearing of his Ears But G. VV. will not take Christ in the case for his Example but he pleads further That the Gift of discerning of Spirits is given to some Members especially and still is continued in the true Church and from which discerning Satan cannot be hid however he transforms himself Here is another minching of their Infallibility of discerning that it 's given to some Members especially but he doth not allow it to all Members however he seems to plead for all the Ministers having it Truth and Inn. p. 12. for he makes it an Evidence of great Darkness in his Opponents to hold that a Minister that is fallible is in the Spirit a Minister of Christ and yet cannot discern another Man's State or Condition so as to give an infallible Character of him And he contends so earnestly for this infallible discerning in the Church that he saith If there must be no discerning of Spirits no infallible or certain Character to be given of other Men's States or Conditions by an inward Sense or discerning of Spirits then Christ's Sheep may follow Strangers VVolves Dogs c. and so be devoured contrary to his own Doctrine and below the Sense and Instinct of the very Sheep which leads them to shun Dogs and VVolves when they make at them whether they bark or howl or be mute Note By this manner of G. VV's arguing not only the Teachers but all and every one of the People if they be Sheep must have this infallible discerning whereas he pleads for the Ministers having it or some Members so it seems the People must rely on the Ministers discerning by an implicit Faith or if not be in danger of perishing But in plain Contradiction to this Doctrine of G.VV. who pleads for the infallible discerning of Men's Hearts to every Minister let us hear Jos VVyeth who saith Switch p. 95. But though this holy Spirit can discover unto one the Heart and Thoughts of another as of Ananias to Peter Acts 5. yet as that is not usual so neither is it necessary nor is it that which we pretend to nor hath G.F. in the fore-quoted Places pretended to it referring to the above-quoted Passage where he makes this Observation Switch p. 90. VVhich does very plainly shew that G. F. did not attribute this Knowledge or Discerning to the Quakers or any Man but to the Power and Life of Truth where it is manifested This Gloss as it is directly contradictory to G. Fox's Words which say They i.e. the Quakers that be in the Power and Life of Truth can discern so to the Words of G. W. who doth affirm That some of the Members especially have it But both G. F. and G. VV. hath carried this discerning farther than by the outward medium of Men's Looks and Glances so that they can know the inward States of their Hearers without looking to their Faces yea though their Backs be toward them and not only what they are at present but what they have been and shall be from Eternity to Eternity For Proof of this G. F. Gr. M. quotes his Opponents G. M. p. 229. saying VVill a discerning of the Gospel Mysteries prove a Power to discern the State and Condition of Souls what it shall be to all Eternity And after some Words he answers And so who are come into the Bishop Christ they are one Soul they know the Hand of God which the Soul lives in which is the Power and so knows it from Eternity to Eternity And so ye Priests which do not discern the Soul and its State to Eternity and from Eternity ye are not in the Mystery of the Gospel which gives Liberty to it neither have ye it And you five Priests have shamed your selves that do not know the Soul from Eternity to Eternity and on this horrid Presumption that they knew the State of Men's Souls from Eternity to Eternity Rich. Hubberth passes this severe Sentence on his Opponent Truth 's def pag. 92. Thou art ordained of old for Condemnation and for Perdition among the ungodly ones and art a Reprobate And p. 93. So here thou art cursed and cast out eternally Note this was only for his asking What is original Sin And here he speaks of the several States of the Soul as when the Soul is in Death and when it liveth and God hath Pleasure in it By which Soul he must needs understand the Soul of Man for of the Souls of Men his Opponents did speak Next G. VV. in his Truth defending the Quakers hath gone as far as G. F. with respect to his Infallibility in knowing Men's Hearts The Question being put to him in Truth def p. 24. qu. 54. Do not you G. W. blasphemously take to your self an Attribute of God while you pretend ordinarily to know the Hearts of Men. And tell Mr. Townsend of Norwich in the second Page of your Ishmael That the Light of God is
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.
for would not the Quakers account it a great Sin and Trespass if any of the Church of England or Dissenter should sit in one of their Galleries where they stand to preach and kneel at Prayer and mend an old Doublet while they are preaching in their Meeting Places Surely they would greatly aggravate it and call it rude and unmannerly and profane Again whereas they query Where dost thou read in the Scripture that Men must do no Work on the first Day of the Week And this Query is made to justifie the Quaker's sitting on the Communion Table to mend an old Doublet on the first Day in time of Divine Service Is not this a great Shame to print and reprint such avowed Profanation of the Lord's Day and Worship also in the Face of a Protestant Nation that zealously profess to be against the Profanation of it and where are standing Laws against the Profanation of it Note here that whereas the Quakers affirm that what they speak and write is immediately and infallibly from God their professed Principle obligeth them to hold that what they speak and write is of greater Certainty and consequently of greater Authority than the Scriptures because they are certain of what they speak and write from the Spirit in themselves but they are not certain of the Writings of the Scriptures as W. P. argues in his Discourse concerning the General Rule They have not the Autographa the Copies differ and so do the Translations but they have their own Autographa and their Books and Writings are from the Original immediately Thus when G. W. sent me his Curse Thus saith the Lord c. and signed G. W. This had more Authority with him than the Scripture by his own Doctrine and if he please let him add simply considered as without the Spirit Proofs on the fourth Head Concerning the Holy Trinity GEorge Whitehead G. W's Truth and Inn. p. 50. in his Truth and Inn. and Jos Wyeth in his Switch pretends That it is not the Doctrine or thing intended that they deny i. e. the Father the Word and Holy Spirit which three are one And saith Jos Switch p. 184. Wyeth We own their Distinction in all the Instances of it recorded in Holy Writ The only thing they pretend to scruple at or deny is the calling them three Persons which they say are not Scripture Terms and they are wholly for keeping to Scripture Terms in Matters of Doctrine But to this I say ' first How many unscripture Terms do they freequently use Where do they find in Scripture the Term immediate Revelation immediate teaching of the Spirit immediate Word which they so commonly use Again where do they find in Scripture That see G. M. p. 324. the Seed to which the Promise of Salvation is is Christ within Several Papers c. p. 47. And that Expression where do they find it in Scripture That the same Spirit takes upon it the same Seed which is Christ now as ever c. That God the Father took upon him Humane Nature That the Spirit is the Rule and many more not only unscripture Terms but contrary to Scripture But why do they call them Three Witnesses as G. W. hath so expresly called them Where do they find them in Scripture so called That Place in John's first Epistle doth not call them Three Witnesses but Three bearing Record or witnessing But it is not only the Words Three Persons wherewith they are offended thâ— unjustly for personal Acts and Properties are given to them and therefore according to plain Consequence from Scripture they may be called Persons but the Doctrine or thing intended they deny for they allow not that they are distinct otherwise than in Manifestation see G. W's Divinity of Christ p. 94. he saith The Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit or the Father Son and Holy Ghost are one and inseparable no where in Scripture called three separate Persons nor finite in Personalities though Three in Manifestation and so testified of as Three Witnesses for the Confirmation of the Gospel Note Seeing G. W. doth not own them to be Three otherwise but in Manifestation this is not only to deny the Names or Words Three Persons but to deny that they were Three from all Eternity or before all Ages for there was no Manifestation either of One or Two or Three from Eternity His calling them Three in Manifestation is to call them three Manifestations and seeing all Manifestation has a Beginning with Time by his Doctrine there were not Father Son and Holy Ghost three any wise distinct from Eternity There was no God the Father from Eternity that did beger nor no Son from Eternity that was begotten nor Holy Ghost that from Eternity did proceed from the Father and the Son by G. VVhitehead's Doctrine And F. Hougil in his Collection p. 308. delivers the same erronious Doctrine He saith That the Holy Ghost is called another than Christ Another is not understood of another Life of another Substance but is understood of another Manifestation or Operation of the same God who subsists in the same Power in which the Father the Son and the Spirit subsist as I said unto thee before Another as to distinguish of the Operation and VVork of the Spirit and of the Son we do not refuse By this Doctrine of F. Hougil they are but distinct Manifestations Operations and Works Now if G. VV. or the Author of the Switch will say that there were three Manifestations Operations or Works in the Godhead from all Eternity It is absurd to suppose such Manifestations beside that they are unscripture Terms the same Arguments that they use against three Persons will as much and indeed much more be of Force against three Manifestations for if the Father be a Manifestation from Eternity of what is he a Manifestation Can he be a Manifestation of himself Or is he a Manifestation of the Son who as they say is a Manifestation Thus one Manifestation would be the Manifestation of another Manifestation but then what would the Holy Spirit be a Manifestation of And seeing in God there are no Accidents these three Manifestations are not three Accidents nor three Subsistences nor three Substances nor three Persons and consequently according to these Men they are nothing at all but their own Inventions But VV. Penn in his Sandy Foundation has not only argued against three Persons but against the Holy Three for he bringeth five Arguments against their being a Holy Three Page 12 13 14. one of which is this in express Words 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 let his Argument be applied to the unscripture Terms three Manifestations and it will have the same Force or rather
are sprung forth of the corrupt Tree which now is to be burned and its Fruit rejected Now these are all the Books and Catechisms published by any others but themselves Again in p. 23. they say And though some have known him viz. Christ after the Flesh yet henceforth know they him so no more as say the Scriptures of Truth Note Here they pervert the true Sence of Paul's Words as they commonly do in their Books and Preachings giving Paul's Words for a Reason why they do not preach Faith in Christ as he came in the Flesh died and rose again c as necessary to Salvation because say they VVe are no more to know Christ after the Flesh whereas it was the great Subject both of Paul's Preaching and of all the Apostles to wit Jesus Christ as he came in the Flesh died for our Sins and rose again and ascended c. insomuch that they did with one Accord declare That the Gift of the Holy Ghost with all the saving and sanctifying Graces of the Spirit do come to Men by Christ through Faith in him as he came in the Flesh died rose and ascended and that this Faith was wrought in Men by hearing the VVord outwardly preached Again in p. 23. they say Now Children the Scriptures of Truth do declare of God and Christ and the Spirit of Truth which are one but the Scriptures cannot bring you to know God and Christ and the Spirit of Truth And yet they say concerning this Primmer and the Contents of it p. 2. That they are very useful for Children and others to Learn that they may be turned unto the Light which is the Gift of God Here they seem to prefer their Primmer to the Scriptures for they say of the Contents of their Primmer That they are very useful for Children and others to Learn To learn what Surely some Knowledge of God and Christ they will say and yet they will not allow so much to the Scripture and on a diligent Search I find not in all this Primmer one simple Direction to Children and others to read the Scriptures and what they have quoted of Scripture in it is but little and much even of that grosly perverted and misapplied as in p. 44 45. they say They that hear the Light that is in all Men and common to all Men they hear God for God is Light and they that hear God they hear Christ also for God and Christ are one as saith the Scripture and they that hear Christ hear the Author of the true Faith and so hear the Saviour of their Souls and the Light is that Prophet which all that hear not him are to be cut off Here we see how grosly they pervert that Place of Scripture Deut. 18. 15. Acts 3. 22. 7. 37. which is not to be understood of the common Illumination given to all Mankind but of the Man Christ as he outwardly came in the Flesh and did execute his prophetical Office on Earth by preaching and teaching and as he doth now still execute his prophetical Office in his Church by his Word outwardly preached and his Spirit inwardly accompanying it to make it effectual Again p. 82. they run into the same wild Notion that others Familists and mad Enthusiasts run into of the Blood of Christ within them For say they and all wait together in the Light viz. as it is common to all Mankind Infidels Jews Mahumetans Heathens for so they understand it and believe in it that ye may be the Children of the Light and therein watch unto Prayer and one over another and this will beget ye into unfeigned Love and walk in the Light ye will have true Vnity and Fellowship one with another and the Blood which is the Life of Jesus Christ ye will feel cleansing you from all Sin and so ye will come into Vnity with God Note By this it is evident as will more fully appear on a particular Head following that by the Blood which they call the Life of Jesus Christ they meant not his Blood outwardly shed or his Life that he outwardly laid down viz. the Life of his Manhood without us for the Remission of our Sins and cleansing therefrom But according to their usual Cant and Phrase The Blood that is the Life and the Life is the Light within So that they make the Blood the Life and the Light within them to be one and the same thing but neither in this Primmer nor in any other of their Books do I find the least Direction to Faith in the Blood of Christ as it was outwardly shed on the Cross therefore in this Primmer and in their other Books they give Poison to poor Children to suck or receive instead of wholesome Food George Keith's Fourth Narrative OF HIS Proceedings at Turners-Hall 1699. For the Detecting the QUAKERS ERRORS PART II. Containing the Proofs out of the Quakers Books on the fifth Head concerning Christ his Incarnation his Soul Body and Blood And on the sixth Head concerning the Souls of Men. Read at the second Meeting at Turners-Hall January 19. 1699. W. P. in Serious Apology p. 146. saith That the outward Person which suffered was properly the Son of God we utterly deny This is expresly contrary to many Texts of Scripture and to a great Fundamental Article of our Christian Creed yea in a manner it overthrows the whole Christian Creed See the following Scriptures Mat. 16. 13 16. Luke 1. 32. Mat. 14. 33. Mark 1. 1. John 1. 14 34. John 9. 35. 10. 36. Acts 8. 37. Rom. 1. 4. Mat. 27. 54. G.W. in his Truth and Inn. p. 52. excuseth W. P ' s Words thus Here I take him to mean the Son of God in respect to his Divine Being as he is of one Substance with the Father which his Body that suffered Death was not though he was truly the Son of God as he took upon him that Body and as made of a Woman Gal. 4. 4. Being conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary The Fallacy of this is easily detected the Question in Debate betwixt W. P. and his Opponents who were Presbyterian Ministers in Ireland was not whether the Body was the Son of God abstractly considered from the Soul of Christ and his Godhead for no Presbyterian ever held that neither will any Socinian that denyeth the Godhead of Christ say that that meer Body without his created Soul was the Christ or Son of God But the true State of the Question was and is whether he that outwardly suffered Death without the Gates of Jerusalem whom W. P. calls that outward Person in Distinction from the Light within which the Quakers will have to be the whole Christ according to G. Fox's Doctrine was and is not properly the Son of God which all sound Christians say according to Scripture he was and is being both God and Man and yet one Person one Christ one Son of God having his Godhead-Nature and his Manhood-Nature so united as
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
convince him that the reasonable Soul in Men did not sin What is that Soul that the wicked cannot kill Surely by this Query George Fox meant the Soul that the wicked cannot kill was not the Soul that could sin wherein he sheweth his great Ignorance for though the wicked cannot kill the sinful Souls of Men yet as Christ said in the following Words He is to be feared to wit God that can cast both Soul and Body into Hell Fire Now what Soul can be cast into Hell Fire but the Soul that sinneth But lastly By George Fox's Argument That if the sinful Soul be reasonable and the unsinful Soul be reasonable also then they are one in Unity which he would have to be a great Absurdity thus he hath plainly disclosed the Mistery of his profound Doctrine that is a Branch of Ranterism viz. that there are but two Principles one good in Man that never sinneth or doth evil the other bad that sinneth and never doeth good the one is God or a Part of God the other the Devil or a Part of the Devil And his denying that one and the same Soul doth sin at one Time and doth well at another Time clearly proveth that according to him there is not any Soul of Man but what is either a Part of God or of the Devil And he discovereth his great Ignorance in denying that the reasonable Soul is sinful the contrary whereof is true that no Soul but a reasonable Soul is or can be sinful for what is it that makes the Beasts uncapable of sinning but that they are not reasonable And whereas his Opponent had very well argued that the evil Spirits are both sinful and reasonable George Fox answereth This is a Lie for reasonable is not sinful unreasonable is sinful quoting 2 Thess 3. 2. And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked Men for all Men have not Faith But this doth nothing favour his Manichean Notion he was so ignorant as not to distinguish betwixt the Faculty of Reason and the Act of Reason when Men that are reasonable and have reasonable Souls act contrary to Reason they are said to be unreasonable to wit in Act but still the Soul that sinneth is reasonable with respect to the rational Faculty nor could evil Spirits sin if they were not reasonable i. e. indued with rational Faculties Besides the Greek Word in 2 Thess 3. 2. is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is not so properly translated Unreasonable but as it is on the Margin Absurd i. e. such who though they have Reason yet will not give place to Reason but act contrary to it and George Fox had he had the right Use of his Reason might have seen that it is no more an Argument against the Soul of Man being reasonable that it acts unreasonably than it is an Argument that the Soul is not enlightened by the Light within because it often acts contrary to the Dictates of it Again for a further Confirmation of George Fox's Doctrine That the Soul that sinneth is not the Soul that is to be saved and that therefore the Soul that is saved or is to be saved is only Christ the Seed within Men Hear what George Fox saith Great Mistery page 324. he quotes his Opponent saying That the Seed to whom the Promise of Salvation is made is or hath been Sinners This he opposeth saying 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 So this Promise is not to Seeds as many but to one the Seed which is Christ Note In the same Paragraph he saith So here is the Creature come to know its Liberty amongst the Sons of God and the Seed Christ never sinned in the Male nor in the Female Note what he means by the Creature that comes to know its Liberty which hath not sinned and hath the Promise of Salvation seems not intelligible for he denieth that the Seed is a Creature and yet it is that to which the Promise of Salvation is to wit the Seed Christ in the Male and in the Female that never sinned but he grosly perverts that Place in Gal. 3. 16. for by the Seed Christ is there meant Christ as he came outwardly according to the Flesh out of Abraham's Loins to whom the Promise was that in him all Nations of the Earth should be blessed but this was not to a Seed within that needed Salvation Like to this is what he saith in Great Mistery p. 15. having quoted his Opponent saying There is nothing in Man to be spoken to but Man To this he thus opposeth How then Ministred the Apostle to the Spirit and Christ spake to the Spirits in Prison and Timothy was to stir up the Gift that was in him and the Spirit of the Father speaks within them and the Light it shines in the Heart Here the Scriptures are for Correction of thee and Reproof of thee who said there is nothing to speak to in Man but Man Again In Great Mystery p. 187 he quotes his Opponent saying It would be good News if the Quakers should go and preach to the Spirits in Hell To this he answers The Quakers have been among the Prisoners that be in Hell and ministred to that and the CORRUPTIONS shall go into the Fire that hath no End and they that do wickedly and forget God shall go into Hell and Death and Hell shall go into the Lake of Fire and there is more in these Words yet than thou canst receive for God is the Salvation of all Men but specially them that believe Note thus we see he is very charitable and the Quakers Ministers are very charitable that they have been among the Prisoners in Hell and preached to that But how is this great Charity consistent with his saying That that which sinneth is not saved unless he mean that Sin is not saved though the Creature is The very same Doctrine concerning the Soul I find asserted by Edward Burrough in his Works Coll. page 27. Thou sayest one of us told thee That that which sinned could not be saved I answer saith Edward Burrough It is out of the Reach of the Wisdom and thy vulturous Eye shall never see it I say as the Scripture saith The Soul that sinneth must die and every Man must die for his own Iniquity If thou hast an Ear thou mayst hear Thus we see the Agreement of these two great Teachers of the Quakers about the Souls that sin that they shall not be saved nor can be saved But how grosly doth Edward Burrough pervert those Scriptures to prove his most corrupt Doctrine that is plain Ranterism Because the Scripture saith The Soul that sinneth must die doth it therefore follow That it cannot afterwards be saved both from Death and Sin that is the Cause of it Indeed Sin hath brought a Spiritual Death
is much more than that of Degrees G. F. tells of them that were come to that which is above Degrees Gr. Myst pag. 281. And the Blood of the Seed it cleanseth from Sin the Power and Stain of it and then the Guilt is gone of it and where this is known the Seed that destroys Death and him that hath the Power of it which is the Devil the Fullness is known which is above Degrees that which Degrees ends in Again G. Myst pag. 318. For who comes to the Spirit and to Christ comes to that which is perfect who comes to the Kingdom of Heaven in them comes to be perfect yea to a perfect Man and that is above any Degree Note by this it appears G. F. thought himself and some others of the Quakers come above any Degree and that is beyond and above the Apostles themselves who were but in the Degrees but they were come to the Fulness it self that is to be equal with Christ himself But let us next hear G. Whitehead 's Excuse of G F's Saying None can understand Scripture but by the same Degree of the Spirit the Prophets and Apostles had In his late Book called Truth and Innocency pag. 19. But if any true Knowledge of the Scripture be received that must be by a Degree of the same Spirit as I suppose the Words before-cited should be so transposed and so intended Note If this Liberty be allowed to transpose Words in a Sentence the falsest Assertions may be made true and the truest made false as Acts 12. It 's said Herod killed James by transposing James killed Herod Is not this a rare Evidence of G. W's Truth and Innocency or rather of his shameful Sophistry But whereas he saith the Words were so intended the above Quotations prove that G. F's Intention was that some of the Quakers and to be sure HE for one were come to the same Degree yea which is more to the Fullness and that is above any Degree But it 's no wonder G. F. thought he was come to such Height of Perfection when he said in his Battle-door All Languages are to me no more than Dust who was before Languages were This Passage Jos Wyeth quotes lamely Switch pag. 149. leaving out the Words which were chiefly offensive who was before Languages were What saith Jos Wyeth to this Snake pag. 85. And why did he not fully quote it as it was objected in the Snake It seems he found Difficulty to give a plain Answer to it therefore made a lame Quotation The like or rather more blasphemous Assertion is in a Book of J. Parnel called The Watcher p. 37. But to the end of all Disputes and Arguments I am come for before they was I am and in the Light do them comprehend and judge to be out of the Light in Babylon c. But here again let us note that the Author of the Switch acts the dull Sophister very manifestly Switch p. 453 465. when on the one hand he seems to be highly pleased with the Doctrine of the Church of England in the Point of Inspiration and saith He is glad that so essential a Truth as is the Inspiration of the holy Spirit is owned by her And on the other hand for blaming the Author of the Snake for his contradicting himself by his approving the Inspirations owned by the Church of England and yet faulting the Quakers Pretences to Inspirations The Author of the Snake had sufficiently cleared this in his Book called the Snake c. pag. 322. what sort of Inspiration the Church of England owned which is that of sanctifying and saving Graces but for the extraordinary and miraculous Inspirations of Prophecy and Tongues she doth not pretend to nor teach that they are commonly given or that they are to be sought there being no need of them The manner of prophetical Inspirations which the Prophets and Apostles had was such as they had given them by the Spirit without all outward teaching of Men or Books and beside this they had the ordinary Inspirations of the Spirit given in the use of the external means in God's ordinary way to wit the sanctifying and saving Graces of the Spirit inspired into them Here is a plain Difference betwixt the Inspirations which the Quakers pretend to given them without the external means of hearing reading c. and the Inspirations given in the use of the ordinary means of the written Word both preached and read that the Church of England lays claim unto which makes the Sophistry of the Author of the Switch very manifest and also his great Injustice to the Author of the Snake so to charge him without ground But let us hear what great matters the Author of the Switch pretends that the Inspirations of the Light within Switch pag. 38. will teach them who attend upon it It will saith he fully teach them their Duty to God and enable them to perform it It will discover to them a System of Principles truly Orthodox with more Certainty than Counsel or Synod can not taught by it for be is indeed a wonderful Counseller It will first fully and truly beyond any Casuist shew unto Man what is his Sin and if Man despile not this Discovery but close with it it will beget in him a Loathing of his Sin and then proceed to work in him a Repentance from dead Works which if unfeigned you see he is very cautious but why If unfeigned Can the Light within work any other Repentance but that which is unfeigned It will go on to sanctifie him and when Man by this Light Spirit or Grace is sanctified it will then witness to his Spirit that he is justified so will Man come truly to be redeemed This he saith in short is the Substance of what hath been by us declared concerning this Divine Light Christ in Man and which is not more than is witnessed of it in the Holy Scriptures Note By this plain Confession we see what sort of System of Divinity the Inspiration the Quakers plead for doth or will give them who attend upon it to wit a-Scheme of Deism or refined Paganism In all this Substance of his whole System not one word of Faith in Christ as he outwardly dyed for our Sins his being the great Sacrifice for the Remission of our Sins by Faith in his Blood outwardly shed But the Inspirations of the holy Prophets and Apostles taught them this Faith and the necessity of it as well as of Repentance for the Remission of Sins And seeing the Quakers Inspiration teacheth them nothing of such a Faith and the necessity of it it is a plain case tho the Quakers pretend to the same Inspirations that the Prophets and Apostles had yet they have them not nay nor the ordinary Inspirations that common true Believers have in and by the means of the external Doctrine contained in the holy Scriptures that lead them to regard Christ outwardly as he was crucified and raised
VVade mentions no less than twelve particular Lyes wherewith G. F. had belyed him in matter of fact as to his Quotations all which I have considered and so may others if they have the Books and will find them indeed to be abusive Perversions and Lies of G. F. upon this C. VVade but I shall give only two Instances more that out of the Mouth of two or three Witnesses that is plain matter of fact G. F. is guilty of false Quotations and belying the Innocent and yet these impudent Men will defend his Infallibility one of them is that G. F. in his G. M. p. 246. chargeth C. VVade to say O Luciferian Pride to save Souls to this C. VVade fully and effectually answereth and plainly detects the Lie and Perversion in his second Book where he shews out of the seventh and eighth Page of his Quakery slain that his Words were His crying out against James Milner ' s Luciferian Pride to save Souls as Christ did C. Wade's second Book p. 4. because he pretended himself to be Christ and audaciously took upon him to save Souls as Christ did by his suffering Death and hereupon James Milner did in a juggling manner die and in a juggling inchanting manner with a Knife and a Bason he pretended his Blood was shed to save the Souls of two VVomen this manner of saving Souls only C. Wade blames which G. F. either justifies or renders himself a Lyer by blaming C. Wade See the Places themselves The other Lye and Slander which G. F. is guilty of against C. Wade is that in his G. M. p. 247. he makes C. Wade to say God limits the Supreme Holy One by the inspired Writings of the Apostles but C. Wade's Words were That the Devil limits the Supreme Holy One see C. Wade's second Book p. 5. compared with p. 13. of Quakery slain Note If either the Switch or G. Whitehead could prove the like Perversions and Lies against the Author of the Snake as C. Wade hath here proved against G. F. how would they have sentenced him as indeed they have for things of small moment in comparison of what is here justly proved against their infallible Apostle as they pretend he was G. F But I do not know one Quotation of the Author of the Snake out of their Books wherein he hath in a substantial matter wronged him as G. F. here hath wronged C. Wade not only in these three but many more There yet remains two Quotations out of G. W's own Book called Truth defending the Quakers which he most fallaciously and sophistically endeavours to justifie The Question being put Whether the Quakers did esteem their Speakings to be of as great Authority as any Chapter in the Bible Truth and Inn. p. 16. 'T is answered That which is spoken from the Spirit of Truth in any is of as great Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are and greater This same Quotation is objected in a late printed Sheet called An Account from Colchester where the following Words are set down that G. W. blames the Norfolk Priests for leaving out which he calls the annexed explanatory Words and they are these As Christ's VVords were of greater Authority when he spoke than the Pharises reading the Letter and they in whom that Spirit speaks not are out of the Authority of the Scriptures and their speaking we deny But first These Words are not explanatory but a sophistical Argument to prove the former Assertion for G. VV. argues That because Christ's preaching was of greater Authority than the Pharisees reading the Scriptures that therefore what the Spirit speaks in the Quakers and by them is of greater Authority than the Scriptures which is both a false and foolish Consequence for it supposes that the Spirit of God speaks in the Quakers when they preach or speak in Meetings as it did in Christ and in the Apostles viz. by the same divine Inspiration in kind and manner immediately and infallibly which cannot be granted and the Falsehood of it appears by the many false things that they speak and write contrary to the Scriptures And though he mentions not Quakers yet that he does understand them and none else is clear from his own Words He saith They in whom that Spirit speaks not their speaking we deny This supposeth he grants that the Spirit spoke in some which they did not deny and who were these but the Ministers among the Quakers seeing they deny the Ministry of all others in our Days Next he has an impertinent Question as to the Division of Chapters and Verses Can these Men say that was done by Divine Authority But this is wholly from the purpose Another Evasion is That the Spirit of Truth immediately ministring in Man or by any spiritual Minister is of greater Authority Power or Efficacy than the Chapters are simply considered as without the Spirit But simply considered as without the Spirit is wholly remote from the Question and is no ways to be allowed for any true Vindication because the Spirit doth as truly and frequently accompany the Scriptures when read as when preached or whatever is preached by the Spirit 's Assistance if the Hearers in reading be as sincere as the Hearers in preaching But if the Hearers be careless suppose Men preach by the Spirit it doth not follow that carnal and careless Hearers hear by the Spirit more than that they read or hear what is read by the Spirit But if he will needs have the Words simply and abstractly considered without the Spirit be added to reading let them by the like reason be added to preaching what he adds of Christ and the Apostles living and powerful preaching being of greater Efficacy Power and Authority than the outward Writing or Scripture it self simply or abstractly considered as distinct from the Spirit As it was no Part of the Question nor Answer given by him in Truth 's Defence so it is altogether impertinent But he equivocates upon the Word Authority taking it for the effect it hath on the Hearers but that was not the Sense of the Word Authority in the Question asked but its Sense as it 's generally among all that treat of Scripture Authority above other Writings so taken the Obligation or Right that doth oblige or induce us to believe the Truth of them and that they are of divine Inspiration This is quite another thing than the Effect or Impression that Men feel in reading or hearing them read as well as when preached upon by way of expounding for whether the Effect or Influence and Impression be great or little as it is sometimes great and sometimes little and sometimes perhaps none upon hardned Hearts yet their Authority is still the same neither greater nor less at one time than another The other Quotation is taken out of his Truth defending and is objected against in that called An Account from Colchester to which a pretended Answer is given in that called Some Account from Colchester signed
by seven Quakers the Passage is this Is the Moral Law or ten Commandments a Rule to the Christian's Life Some Account from Colchester p. 9. to the End or is it not Ans Thou might as well ask if the moral Law as thou callest it be a Rule to Christ For the Christian's Life and Rule is Christ who is the End of the Law for Righteousness who came not to destroy but to fulfil it Note In their Answer they groslly equivocate in taking the Word Christian's Life in another Sense than was meant in the Query and is meant in common Speech By a Christian's Life is meant in the Query and common Speech a Christian's Practice and manner of Life with respect to his Thoughts Words and Actions Now though Christ is called in Scripture the Christian's Life by the Figure of a Metonimy being the Author of their Life yet he is not their Practice or Manner of Life their thinking speaking and acting and whereas they make it absurd to suppose that the moral Law was a Rule to Christ Here they shew their Ignorance and Error for the Man Christ had the moral Law for his Law and Rule and it did oblige him to Obedience and he fulfilled it in his own Person for he was made under the Law and though the Law is not a Rule to the Spirit of Christ in Believers yet it is a Rule of the Spirit whereby he rules them Next they say The said Answer appears not to be intended to make void the moral Law or ten Commandments but the contrary in asserting Christ to be the End of the Law for Righteousness and that he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it therefore the Righteousness thereof remains and is binding by the holy Spirit in every true Believer though not under the Law but under Grace which effectually teaches both to deny Vngodliness and worldly Lusts and to live righteously soberly and godly in this present VVorld Tit. 2. 11 12. which answers the Substance and End of the Law Note whereas they say The Righteousness of it remains and is binding by the holy Spirit in every true Believer how is it binding by the Spirit if it be not a Rule to every true Believer Doth the Spirit bind Believers to that which is no Rule or Law Again By their Limitation and Restriction of binding by the Spirit they make the moral Law as it is outwardly delivered in the holy Scriptures to have no Obligation upon Believers at all but only as it is inwardly revealed and given by the Spirit and thus Christ's Prophetical and Kingly Office as he outwardly delivered that Law to us is of no Force by their Answer whereas that Law and all the other Laws of Christ have their binding Authority over Believers from Christ the great Prophet and King and Head of his Church as without them delivered by him to them and sealed by his Spirit in their Hearts and though the Spirit of Christ in Christ himself and in the Prophets and Apostles was a Lawgiver to Men yet the Spirit is not a Lawgiver as in us because his Law is sufficiently given already by Christ and by his Spirit in Christ and in his Prophets and Apostles But the Work and Office of the Spirit in us and all Believers is to perswade us of the Truth and Authority of the Laws of Christ already given to enlighten our Minds to understand them and inwardly to strengthen us by his Grace and gracious Influences and Operations to obey them But to hold that the holy Spirit is any Lawgiver to Believers since the Days of Christ and the Apostles is of no less dangerous Consequence than to overthrow Christianity and introduce Deism and Mahumetism For indeed upon that Pretence the Laws of the Turks Alcoran are set up and by the same Pretence G. F. did throw down Christ's Institutions of Baptism and the Supper and Church-Government by Pastors and Elders and set up Laws and Rules that he pretended to have given him by the Spirit and this was the Pretence of the ancient Montanists Yea W. Penn on this very Pretence rejects Baptism and the Supper affirming That the same Spirit that led the Apostles to reject Circumcision hath led the Quakers to reject the outward Baptism and Supper Lastly whereas they say A Believer is not under the Law but under Grace this doth not justifie their vile Heresie That the moral Law is not a Rule of Life to Christians for though they are not under the Curse and Condemnation of it nor as it is a Law of Works so as thereby to be justified yet they are under it even as outwardly given by Christ and his Prophets and Apostles as a Rule of Life And thus as they disannul and make void the moral Law of the Ten Commandments so all the other positive Laws and Commands of the Gospel making the Gospel nothing but the Light within all Mankind and Gospel Commands nothing but what that dictates though they are not agreed about the Commands of the Light within either their Number or Duration or whether there are any new Commands given in this Age as G. F. pretends was given to him and by him to the Quakers But again How doth it appear that their Answer doth not make void the moral Law or Ten Commandments when they reject the Morality of the fourth Commandment and do not allow that one Day of seven is to be observed and to be sanctified by abstaining from servile Labour and giving that Day to religious Exercise as appears from another Quotation in that called An Account from Colchester taken out of G. W's Truth defending To which they pretend to give answer in that called Some Account from Colchester p. 11. Did that Quaker sin therein or not who brought lately on the Lord's Day an old Doublet into Dr. Gell ' s Church in London and sate upon the Communion Table mending it while the Dr. was preaching the Parishoners forbidding him In their Answer they expostulate with him as if it were Popery 〈◊〉 it a Crime Sin to work upon the Communion Table as if it were a more holy Place than another But though it have no inherent Holiness yet it being dedicated to that Use every sober Christian will say it was a great Sin by diverse aggravating Circumstances as done in Contempt of the Institution of our Lord himself who appointed the Practice of breaking of Bread and that there should be a Table is evident from Scripture that mentions the Table of the Lord. Secondly The doing of it while the Dr. was preaching Thirdly The wilful Offence designedly given to the People present upon Pretence of bearing witness against their Idolatry and idolatrous Practice as the Quakers were wont to censure it Fourthly The doing of it on the first Day of the Week set apart from servile Labour to the Worship of God Fifthly The Breach of that golden Law of Equity Not doing as they would be done by
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
The Son is an Example of Imitation or Caution for the Father to follow it had been more agreeable to have said The Father is an Example of the Son for the Son to follow than to say The Son is an Example for the Father to follow seeing Christ said I can do nothing of my self for what I see the Father do that do I. But to give an Instance what an Ambidexter G.W. is in twisting and twining and bending the Scripture In his Antidote p. 191. he saith That He spoke for Christ's Divinity as he was the Brightness of the Father's Glory and the express Image of his divine Substance in Answer to T. Danson Here he forsaketh his former Translation which was Figure and taketh the Translation in our English Bible which is Image But how will this prove the Divinity of Christ so as to be one Substance with the Father if the express Image signifie our Example of Imitation as G.W. doth argue in his Truth and Innocency His being an Example of our Imitation is no sufficient Argument to prove his being one Substance with the Father for the Socinians will grant him to be a very excellent Example of our Imitation yet this is no sufficient Argument to convince them That he is one Substance with the Father from his being an Example of Imitation Is it not plain from all this shuffling and shifting that G.W. rather than he will confess his former Errors will wrong his own Conscience and bring the most nonsensical Excuses that ever were heard of to defend his Infallibility than give Glory to God by a plain and free Confession of his Errors Next let us hear G. W's Defence of that Saying of W. P's One outward thing cannot be the proper Figure or Representation of another the outward Lamb shews forth the inward Lamb. He labours to vindicate W. P's Saying by thus arguing How will these Men saith he prove that the outward Paschal Lamb was the proper Figure or Representation of Christ's outward Person Pray what proper Resemblance had they Was not rather the Lamb in respect of its Innocency a proper Figure of Christ's Innocency as the Lamb of God once offered for Sin I answer And was not the Lamb's Innocency an outward thing i.e. without Men and also Christ's Innocency as he lived and walked among Men and was not his outward Person innocent But had not G.W. been extreamly blind and ignorant he had never argued nor asked so foolishly what proper Resemblance had they viz. the Paschal Lamb and Christ's outward Person for the Generality of Christians know that as by God's Appointment the Paschal Lamb and Sacrifices were proper Types and Figures of Christ's outward Person as he was to be slain for the Sins of the World so the Resemblance was not only in Innocency but in many other Respects the Lamb was to be killed so was Christ the Lamb was to be without Blemish so was Christ the Lamb was to be of the Flock so was Christ to be of his Brethren the Blood of the Lamb sprinkled on the Door-posts and Lintels of the Israelites saved them from the Wrath of the destroying Angel so the Blood of Christ that was outwardly shed applyed by Faith saveth true Believers from Wrath the Lamb was to be eaten wholly so we are to receive Christ wholly in all his Offices These and many other Resemblances there are betwixt the Paschal Lamb and Christ known in general to Christians yea to many Children which yet G.W. here declares himself to seem wholly ignorant of Godwin in his Book called Moses and Aaron numbers at least twelve Particulars of Resemblance betwixt the Paschal Lamb and Christ without us and yet this G.W. more like a Heathen than a Christian queries Pray what proper Resemblance had they But to return his Question Pray what proper Resemblance had the Paschal Lamb to the inward Blood Christ which G.W. saith is the Life and Light and Spirit of God within and the Holy Ghost Was ever the Holy Ghost or the Godhead slain in Men Or is there an inward spiritual Blood of Christ slain in Men that is not the Godhead But we shall come anon to treat more fully of this And how is that fulfilled in Christ within A Bone of him shall not be broken Whether Christ without us as he died and rose again is the Object of Faith c. G.VV. Truth and Inn. p. 54. defends a most Antichristian Saying of his in his Light and Life and to cloak it the more he gives the Quotation lame The Quakers at Colchester in their late printed Paper called Some Account gives it more fully But in the Book Light and Life p. 38. it is thus Bapt. Now the Quakers would be so far from directing Men to go to the material Temple that they make it but a vain thing to look to Jerusalem to the Antitype of that Temple viz. to Jesus as he was there crucified or to that Blood that was there shed for Justification His Answer is The Quakers see no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype viz. neither to the outward Temple nor yet to Jerusalem either to Jesus Christ or his Blood knowing that neither the Righteousness of Faith nor the Word of it does so direct Rom 10. And is it the Baptists Doctrine to direct Men to the material Temple and Jerusalem the Type for the Antitype What Nonsense and Darkness is this And where do the Scriptures say That the Blood was there shed for Justification and that Men must be directed to Jerusalem whereas that Blood shed is not in being p. 40. But the true Apostles directed them to the Light which was so much opposed by the Baptists to walk in the Light for the Blood of Christ to cleanse them from all Sin Now let us hear his Defence Truth and Inn. p. 54. I ask these Men saith he where the Scripture doth so direct Men to go to the outward Temple at Jerusalem for Jesus Christ Nay doth it not contrarywise direct them See plain Scripture Deut. 30. 12 13 14. Rom. 10. 6 7 8. The same Answer in effect but in more Words quoting at full length Deut. 30. 12 13 14. and Rom. 10. 6 7 8. we find in that called Some Account from Colchester signed by seven Quakers there but likely enough to have been drawn up by G.W. himself though whether it was or not is not material to the case and on the Margin they say Must they then go on Pilgrimage Note This is a most shameful Evasion to cloak their vile Heresie of which yet to this very Day G. W. hath not plainly cleared himself nor ever can till he retract this and his many other Errors Can it be supposed that W. Burnet who was the Baptist that thus objected against the Quakers was for having the Quakers or any others go on Pilgrimage or on Feet to Jerusalem for Jesus Christ or his Blood G.W. knoweth in his Conscience the contrary yea in the
Now in Ver. 15. it 's said That we which are alive and remain unto the Coming of the Lord. Now I ask saith he if they did live and remain to a personal Coming of Christ in the Clouds yea or nay Or can it be reasonably thought to be a Coming that is not yet that they lived and remained unto Note How G. W. here most weakly but very plainly to discover his Infidelity argues against Christ's Coming at the latter end of the World and whereas in my First Narrative I did show That when Paul said We which are alive and remain to the Coming of the Lord he spoke by an Enallage Personae We for They we which remain i.e. such of our Brethren who shall be found alive at Christ's last Coming c. To this T. E. Answers in his pretended Answer to my First Narrative p. 162. Why might not the Apostle speak in the first Person We as supposing that great and extraordinary Appearance and Coming of Christ the certain time of which no Man knew Matth. 24. 36. was so near at hand that it might probably fall out in his Life-time and for this sense he quotes Heb. 1. 2 9 26. 1 Pet. 1. 20. 1 Joh. 2. 18. 1 Cor. 10. 11. 1 Pet. 4. 7. as because the times after Christ came in the Flesh are called the last times that therefore the Apostles thought the end of the World was not far off i. e. in his sense That Paul and the other Apostles thought that Christ would come to Judge the Quick and the Dead before they dyed This gross and absurd sense as it is contrary to G. W.'s words so it renders Paul to have spoke an untruth even by Divine Inspiration for said Paul This we say unto you by the word of the Lord. J. Wyeth in his Switch p. 297 298. and his Brethren their common excuse here and elsewhere that these were but Queries signifie nothing to defend them the very import of these Queries implying a positive denyal See this Fallacy of T. E. more fully detected in Satan Disrob'd being a Reply to his pretended Answer to my First Narrative Again G. W. in Light and Life p. 41. saith But Three Comings of Christ not only that in the Flesh at Jerusalem and that in the Spirit but also another Coming in the Flesh yet to be expected we do not read of but of a Second Coming without Sin unto Salvation which in the Apostles days was looked for And these words of Paul The dead in Christ shall rise first he expounds of an inward Death To this G. W. Answers very fallaciously in his Truth and Innoc. p. 61. But is this to deny or oppose Christ's coming to Judge the Quick and the Dead 'T was never so intended And questioning some Men's carnal Expectations of a fleshly coming of Christ to be seen with their carnal Eyes was this to deny his coming in the Glory of his Father with his Angels to reward every Man according to his works quoting Matth 16. 27. Luke 9. 6. no sure for that 's confessed and undeniable Note His and his Brethren's common evasion to hide their Infidelity is to quibble about the Word FLESH as if their meaning were only to deny That Christ is to Come in a fleshly Body subject to the like Passions it had in his state of Humiliation when upon Earth as Hunger Thirst Pain Death c. But this is no part of the Controversie betwixt the Quakers and their Opponents But why may not Glorified Flesh be taken to signifie Spiritual Flesh as distinct from Mortal Flesh as well as Glorified Body signifies Spiritual Body without any change of Substance But it is evident that G. W. not only denyed that Christ would Come to Judge the World in a Body of natural and passible Flesh but that he would not Come in the same Substance of that Body he had on Earth which was a mortal and passible Body of the same Nature with ours for he makes it most absurd That an earthly Body and an heavenly Body can be the same Substance as above-quoted Now That he denyeth that Christ was in Heaven in a bodily Existence or would come to Judgment as the Son of Mary in a bodily Existence to wit having any thing of that Body which he had on Earth is evident from his Nature of Christianity p. 29. Dâ—st thou look for Christ as the Son of Mary to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence to save thee according to thy words p. 30. If thou dost thou may'st look until thy Eyes drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him Note To excuse his great Infidelity he useth a gross Fallacy in his Truth and Innoc. p. 61. and giving a lame Quotation of his own words This is true in Fact saith he for those very Eyes decay and perish But this was no part of the Controversie betwixt G. W. and his Opponent who did not presume to say or think That Christ's coming to Judge the World in that bodily Existence would be before his Death but the thing earnestly asserted was That Christ as he was now really in Heaven in a bodily Existence at God's Right Hand so he would come in that very bodily Existence to Judge the World for which G. W. doth evidently oppose him as above-quoted The Phrase Thy Eyes will drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance is equivalent to this Thou wilt never see such an Appearance nor any other Man sor thee as that common Phrase at the Greek Calends And whereas he adds And Christ's last Coming in Power and great Glory in his Glorious Body accompanied with his mighty Angels at the Resurrection must be seen with stronger clearer and more celestial Eyes than perishing Eyes Here he still hides his vile Error What are these more celestial Eyes seeing he will not have Christ's Coming to be without Men in a bodily Existence For in his Light and Life he quotes Matth. 16. 27 28. and Luke 9. 26 27. in plain opposition to Christ's outward Coming saying When was that Coming to be Is it now to be looked for outwardly and seeing he is not to Come outwardly but inwardly these celestial Eyes in his sense must be inward Eyes But then how shall the Wicked see him for the Scripture saith Every Eye shall see him even they who have pierced him must they have celestial Eyes wherewith to see him And tho' the Wicked shall not see him in the same manner that the Godly shall see him yet certainly according to Scripture and the Faith of all true Christians all that ever lived as well as they that shall be found alive in the Body at his Coming both good and bad shall see him as an object without them yea Christ told the Chief Priest and the Jews Mat. 26. 64. Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven At which saying the High Priest rent
but they have turned altogether to his inward Coming which they say they witness already fulfilled in them and they look for no other Coming Ninthly Concerning the Resurrection of the Body that Dyeth G. W. instead of answering to the Quotations brought out of his and his Brethren's Books against the Resurrection of the Body that Dyeth has not so much as produced them or any part of them they are so broad-fac'd Proofs to evidence his and his Brethren's Infidelity in that great Article of Faith that he seems asham'd so much as to mention them And whereas he saith their Arguments not being answer'd by their Opposers he shall need say the less to them and concludes That he would have them so Charitable that they would not condemn them as Blasphemers for believing that their Resurection-Bodies shall be Spiritual and Glorious far excelling these natural carnal and earthly Bodies for else how should the Saints Bodies be like unto Christ's Glorious Body Note here again He seeks to cloak his and his Brethren's Infidelity by perverting the true state of the Question which is not That the Resurrection-Bodies of the Saints shall not be wonderfully changed and far excelling these natural carnal and earthly Bodies and made Spiritual and Glorious like to Christ's Glorious Body for that is acknowledged But the true Question is Whether the Saints Bodies at the Resurrection shall be so changed that they shall not be the same in Substance or Essence of Bodies and consequently in no respect the same for if the Substance be not the same to be sure the Accidents are not and consequently nothing of that Body that dyeth either in Matter or Manner in Substance or Modification riseth again for our Lord's Body tho' it was wonderfully changed in Manner and Qualities at his Glorification yet it remained the same in Substance or Essence of a Body And yet more fully to detect their Fallacy the following Quotations will prove That they look for no Resurrection of the Body out of the Grave at the end of the World but all the Resurrection they look for is The New Birth or what they expect as some of them say immediately after Death which to be sure is no part of the Body that is laid in the Grave But whereas he saith that W. P.'s and T. Elwood's Arguments about the Resurrection have not been answer'd by their Opposers is false they have been sufficiently Answer'd again and again as The Snake in the Grass Satan Disrob'd and in my First Second and Third Narratives G. Whitehead in Christian Quaker p. 353. brings T. Danson saying The happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body its dear and beloved Companion the Soul having a strong desire and inclination to a re-union to the Body as the Schools not without ground determine c. To this G. W. Answers Both Calvin T. Danson the Schools and divers Anabaptists are mistaken in this very matter and see not with the Eye of true Faith either that the happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body or that the Soul hath a strong desire to a re-union to the Body while they intend the terrestrial elementary Bodies for this implies the Soul to be in a kind of Purgatory or disquietness till the supposed Resumption of the Body To the same effect doth W. P. argue against T. Hicks Reason against Railing p. 137. He quotes T. Hicks arguing for the Resurrection of the Body the Joy's of Heaven imperfect else To this W. Penn opposeth I Answer Is the Joy of the Ancients now in Glory imperfect Or are they in Heaven but by halves If it be so unequitable that the Body which hath suffer'd should not partake of the Joys Celestial is it not in measure unequal that the Soul should be rewarded so long before the Body This Principle brings to the Mortality of the Soul held by many Baptists or I am mistaken But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Widow and so in a state of Mourning and Disconsolateness which state is but a better sort of Purgatory Note We see from both their Reasonings they would infer divers absurdities that would follow upon that Doctrine that the Souls of the deceased Saints now in Glory do look for a re-union to their Bodies which they put off at the Bodily Death So that by their manner of Reasoning as well as their express Words they declare themselves in their own behalf and in the Name of the Quakers whose Faith they pretend to give an account of to be positive Unbelievers as concerning any Resurrection of the Body that Dyeth or any re-union of that Body to the Soul to which it was formerly united before the Bodily Death But still G. W. as his manner is perverts the true state of the question by his saying While they intend the terrestrial elementary Bodies For if he mean that the Bodies after they are raised shall have the same terrestrial elementary Qualities Passions and Accidents that they had before Death he wrongs his Opponents for none of them have so affirmed But if he mean the same Substance or Essence of Bodies under more excellent Qualities and Endowments as far excelling the former as Spiritual excells Natural or Animal and Carnal Immortal and Incorruptible excells Mortal and Corruptible and Heavenly excells Earthly they are the same For in all changes that Bodies are capable of as well as Souls or Spirits from worse to better the subject of these changes must remain the same and that is what is justly called the Substance as when the Soul or Mind of Man is converted and changed from Earthly affections to Heavenly the Subject or Substance which is the Soul or Mind is the same and by as good Reason when a Body is changed from Earthly qualities to Heavenly the Body is still the same Substance or Subject tho' changed in Qualities and Conditions For further proofs out of both G. W. and W. P. I refer to my Third Narrative p. 26 27 28. Again Rich. Hubbertborne a great Author among the Quakers in his Coll. p. 121. proceedeth at the same rate against the deceased Saints looking for the Resurrection of their Bodies And these are they saith he that plead for a Life in Sin while they are here and that say that the Saints glorified in Heaven do yet hope For the Resurrection of their Bodies and so not come to the end of their hope tho' in Heaven when as the Saints upon Earth witnessed the end of their hope the Salvation of their Souls Now these may well deny perfection on Earth who deny it in Heaven which the Saints we and the Scriptures do witness it in both and against all such who are not fit to speak of the things of God See further in my Third Narrative p. 29. Note Here again G. W.'s gross Fallacy and Sophistry Truth and Innoc. p. 59. as if Rich. Hubberthorne
Ministers have most justly charged them concerning God Christ and the holy Scriptures 11thly and 12thly Concerning Baptism and the Lord's-Supper IN a Book call'd Some Principles of the Elect People of God in Scorn call'd Quakers p. 75. The Baptism we own which is the Baptism of Christ with the Holy Ghost and with Fire but we deny all other for there is but one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all add they who would have one Baptism outward and another inward would have two Baptisms when the Scripture saith the Baptism is but one and whosoever hath the Baptism outward are the same they were before but the Baptism of Christ makes a new Creature And now I see the other to be formal Imitation and the invention of Man and so a meer Delusion and all are Heathens and no Christians who cannot witness this Baptism Matth 15. 4. who can witness this DENIES ALL OTHER for the Scripture saith the Baptism is but one And in p. 76. And are without feeding upon the Husk and Shadow which is carnal for the Bread which the World breaks is Carnal and Natural and only feeds the outward carnal Body and goeth into the Belly and so passeth out into the Dunghil and so likewise the Cup which they drink and so the Communion and Fellewship of the World passeth away but this is no nourishment to the Soul but still the Soul lies in Death and here is no Commnnion but natural outward and carnal of several Minds and Hearts full of Filthiness and Uncleanness which IS THE TABLE OF DEVILS Eating and Drinking their own Damnation not discerning the Lord's Body which is Spiritual which the natural Man discerns not W. P. in his Reason against Railing p. 108. I affirm by that one Scripture Heb. 9. 10. Circumcision is as much in force as Water-Baptism and the Paschal Lamb as Bread and Wine they were both Shadows and both elementary and perishable And we can testifie FROM THE SAME SPIRIT by which Paul renounced Circumcision that they are to be rejected as not now required neither have they since the false Church espoused and exalted them ever been taken up afresh by God's Command or in the leading of his Eternal Spirit and the Lord will appear to gather his People out of them but never to establish or keep People in them Note Notwithstanding the severe Censure that the Quakers have passed on the outward Administration of Baptism and the Lord's-Supper in the former Quotation and W. Penn in this latter Quotation in the one they say Baptism with Water and the Lord's-Supper with Bread and Wine are to BE DENYED WE DENY say they ALL OTHER and in the other W. P. saith they are to be REJECTED and this he saith they can testifie from the same Spirit by which Paul renounced Circumcision yet W. Penn in his Key Printed at London 1699. saith Hence it is that the People call'd Quakers cannot be said to deny them viz. the outward Administration of Baptism and the Supper that is saith he too hard a Word But they leave them off as fulfilled in Christ who is in them their hope of Glory Is there not here a palpable contradiction betwixt W. Penn and his Brethren He saith in his Key p. 28. The People call'd Quakers cannot be said to deny them that 's too hard and yet in the former Quotation they have used that very same Word WE DENY ALL OTHER say they and call it the Invention of Man and so a meer Delusion But it is fearful Delusion in them to call these so solemn Institutions of our Blessed Saviour expresly enjoyn'd to the end of the World and his coming to Judgment by such Names yea and the like contradiction is found betwixt W. P. in his Reason against Railing in the Year 1673. and the same W. P. in his Key Printed 1699. In the former he saith We can testifie from the same Spirit by which Paul rejected Circumcision that they are to be rejected In the latter he saith The People call'd Quakers cannot be said to deny them that 's too hard a Word yet we see they have denyed them both by Practise and verbal Confession yea and rejected them and with no less pretended Authority than the same Spirit by which Paul rejected Circumcision Where is now the Unity they boast of seeing in this as well as in divers other things of great weight they are so contradictory and unconstant to themselves and yet without all change if we will believe them And notwithstanding the severe Censure that the Quakers in general and G. W. in particular have passed on Baptism and the Lord's-Supper outwardly Administred calling them the Invention of Man a meer Delusion and Idolatry and the Lord's-Supper The Table of Devils and the Cup of Devils yet G. W. in his Antidote p. 114. Printed 1697 pretends a great deal of Moderation and Charity to some who practise them but without any change in him And tho' too many now are very Formal and Superstitious in those outward Observations and Shadows laying so much stress for Salvation upon them that they neglect the Substance yet others being more conscientiously tender in the observation thereof we are the more tender to these so as not to censure or condemn them meerly for practising that which they believe is their Duty either in breaking of Bread or Water Baptism yet desire they may see further Note What can this smooth Language of W. P. and G. W. concerning Baptism and the Supper now of late Years import or signifie to all impartial Persons but that thereby they seek to deceive the weak and simple seeing they will not acknowledge that they are changed in any respect from what they were in the beginning either in point of Perswasion or Charity They mean the same now as when they called them universally and without exception beggarly Elements worldly Rudiments Idolatry Invention of Man and meer Delusion But seeing they are not changed in their Faith and Perswasion concerning Water Baptism and the Supper they cannot with any good Conscience be changed in their being more charitable now then formerly so that G. W.'s saying they do not censure or condemn them who are more conscentiously tender in the observation thereof meerly for practising that which they believe is their duty is a meer fallacy Do they not condemn all visible Christian Societies but their own and call them Apostates the World Idolaters Worshippers of Baal and the Preachers belonging to those Societies Priests of Baal c. Do they not censure them who practise Idolatry and Man's Invention and meer Delusion as they have past Judgment on those outward practises to be such And if People's practising what they believe is their Duty being misled by an erring Conscience and Ignorance of Mind as the Quakers think all are so misled who practise the outward Baptism and Supper can excuse them from censure according to G. W.'s way of Argument they may extend