last Authority I shall Produce is of the Great Fox Himself in his Book call'd Several Papers given forth for the Spreading of Truth c. Printed 1671. There p. 54. is a Chapter which bears this Title Concerning Christ's Flesh which was Offered c. And this Flesh he makes not to be That which He took of the B. Virgin but That which he had from the Beginning and which he supposes was Crucify'd when Adam Fell And in That Crucifixion to Consist the Atonement and Satisfaction made for Sin And he takes that Text The Lamb slain from the Foundation of the world not as then Decreed and Purposed by God but Literally as then Actually Fulfill'd Thus he Begins that Chapter Christ the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the world when it began its Foundation then the Lamb was slain And Christ according to the Flesh Crucified the Lamb slain that Flesh of His which is a Mysterie when the first Adam's and Eve's Flesh was Defiled This he calls a Mystery And it is the true Mystery of Quakerism It is upon this account That the Quakers think all the Christian world to Lie in Darkness but Themselves That other Christians know of no other Flesh and Blood of Christ but that outward Flesh which He took in Time of the B. Virgin Hence it is common in their Discourse and in their Books to tell others That the Flesh of Christ is a Mysterie That they understand nothing of it As Solomon Eccles wrote That the Pope Sn. Sect. x. p. 138. the Episcopal the Presbyterian Independants and Baptists understand the Blood of Jesus Christ no more than a Brute Beast Therefore the Quaker's Confessing to the Blood of Christ in General Terms can be no Justification of them while they mean another Manhood Flesh Blood and Bones of Christ than any Christian ever Dreamt of But it Argues their Deep Deceit and Hypocricy to seem to Justifie themselves to the world by their General Confessions But Conceal their secret Meaning whereby they know that they Differ most Widely from those with whom they make this False Appearance of Agreeing Exactly Therefore their Answer to the Queres is no Answer while they Refuse to Renounce this Distinction that they have of Different Manhoods in Christ or otherwise to Explain themselves and tell us which of the Manhoods they mean The words of their Answer to the Queres upon this Head are these We sincerely believe in Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of the Living God both as he is true God and Perfect Man But what they mean by Man here they do not Declare Whether that Eternal or Heavenly Manhood before spoke of or the Outward and Terrestrial Manhood which he took of our Earth But Tho. Ellwood we thank him has told us and Discover'd the secret in his Answer to G. Keiths first Narrative p. 205. where he Recites a Quotation G. K. had brought out of G. Whiteheads Book The Malice of the Independent Agent p. 17. That Christ's Body now in Heaven is the same in substance He had on Earth which wou'd seem a Fair Confession to the Humanity of Christ But hold a little crys T. E. Did G. Whitehead ever call or own Christ's Body now in Heaven or while it was on Earth to be Terrestrial or of the Earth Here we see how to Understand their words and how to Interpret this their Answer to the Quaeres not of the outward or Terrestrial Manhood which Christ took of our Nature but of their Secret and Heavenly Manhood which they Madly Fancie He had from Eternity And thus G. Whitehead Explains himself in his Part of The Christian Quaker Printed An. 1674. p. 140. where he says That he was not at all against Jesus Christ being God and Man take Man says he as Christ is the Heavenly Spiritual and Glorify'd Man But he Confesses that he was against this viz. That Jesus Christ consisteth of Human Flesh and Bone Here he Distinguishes betwixt the Heavenly and the Human Manhood The first he Ascribes to Christ but Denies the Latter that Christ has any Human Manhood And the Reason he gives for it is Seeing Christ says he was from Everlasting which is the same we have heard before from Thom. Ellwood where he takes upon him to Explain Will. Penn's sense in this Matter viz. That Christ as Christ always had a Manhood And seeing He had it from Everlasting therefore it cou'd not be the Human but the Heavenly Manhood Flesh Blood and Bone What then was that Flesh and Blood which he took of the B. Virgin wherein He suffer'd and Rose again And of which he said Behold my Hands and my Feet Luk. xxiv 39. Handle me and see for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as ye see Me have To this says G. W. ibid. p. 139. 140. yes Christ Had such Flesh and Bones but he did not Consist of them I distinguish between Consisting and Having Says he i. e. A man Hath anything that he Possesses or wears I Have a Cloak but I do not Consist of that Cloak that is It is no Part of my Nature and I may Put it on or Throw it off without any Change of my Nature And no otherwise do the Quakers reckon of the Body and Blood which Jesus our B. Lord took in Time in the Womb of the Virgin Not that He took it into His Person so as to Consist of it as a Man do's Consist of Both Natures of his Body and Soul But only that He Had it that is Made Vse of it and wore it for a Time as a Vail or Garment which He has now laid aside and subsists in Heaven only in that Heavenly and Eternal Manhood Flesh Blood and Bones which He had as Christ from Eternity And they make it a Contradiction to say That Christ do's Consist of any other Flesh and Bone that is of Human Flesh and Bone they think this to be a Contradiction to Christ's being the Eternal Word because they hold that He cou'd not be the Word or Christ without Consisting of Flesh Blood and Bone And therefore That if He had None but the Flesh c. of the Human Nature which was Created in Time it must follow That He was not the Word or Christ from Everlasting Thus says G. W. ibid. p. 139. Is there not a Plain Contradiction between Jesus Christ Consisting of Flesh and Bone Human Nature And that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Eternal word from Everlasting c. Therefore you see it is Necessary for us in order to Oblige these Quakers to Discover their Meaning that we Insist upon the word Human And that they will Answer whether they Allow Christ to have Now in Heaven any Human Body Or whether He do's Consist Now of that Body or did Consist of it while He was upon Earth But will the Word Human hold them Have they no Dodge nor Shift whereby to use even that word Plainly in a sense in which they know that
Christ and the Garment which He wore between Him that Came and the Body in which He came between the Substance which was Vailed and the Vaile which Vailed it Lo I come a Body hast thou Prepared Me. There is Plainly He and the Body in which He came Ther was the outward Vessel and the Inward Life This we certainly know and can never call the Bodily Garment Christ but that which Appeared and Dwelt in the Body So that by this Jesus was not the Christ only the Prepared Body Garment or Vaile in which Christ Dwelt The same Argument is Prosecuted by Will. Penn in his Part of the Serious Apology p. 146. and in the like words with Is Penington to shew the Unanimous Consent of the Quakers in this the Heart of their Christianity These are his words He that laid down his Life and suffer'd his Body to be Crucify'd by the Jews without the Gates of Jerusalem is Christ the only Son of the most High God But that the outward Person which suffer'd was Properly the Son of God we utterly Deny A Body hast thou Prepared me said the Son then the Son was not the Body tho' the Body was the Son's i. e. The Body was the Son's as a man's Garment or Vaile is his who owns and wears it as the Body of Will. Penn is the Son's who he supposes Dwells in it But the Son was not the Body that is Jesus in whose Body Christ Dwelt was not the Son not Properly the Son of God but in a Large sense as other men are call'd the Sons of God And Christ Suffer'd His Garment or Vaile the Body of Jesus to be Crucifi'd But that the outward Person which suffer'd was Properly the Son of God the Quakers do Vtterly Deny And as that Person which Suffer'd was not Properly the Son of God it follows as certainly that the Son of God was not Properly that Person or was not Properly a Man This was the Meaning of Will. Penn in his Sandy Foundation p. 20. calling Christ a Finit Impotent Creature He did not mean the Eternal word Or that this Word was Properly a Man in our Nature for then tho' the Manhood was a Creature and Finit yet the Man or Person was not so As a Man's Body is Corruptible yet the Person Consisting of Body and Soul is not so Tho' the Properties of Each Nature whereof a Person do's Consist may be Attributed to the Person as a Man is said to Dye to Eat Drink Sleep c. tho' these are Proper only to the Body And likewise he is said to Think to Reason to be Immortal tho' these are Proper only to his Soul Thus God is said to Dye to shed His Blood c. tho' this be Proper only to the Manhood which the Word assum'd into His own Person And Man is said to be God Infinit Almighty c. tho' this be Proper only to the Divine Nature of Christ who is likewise Truly and Properly a Man And none who had a True Notion of this cou'd ever have brought himself to call Christ a Finit Impotent Creature Such a Blasphemous Contempt of our B. Lord and God cou'd never have Dropt from the Pen of a Christian But upon Will Penn's Scheme that the Word was not Properly a Man it must follow that the Person who Suffer'd was not Properly the Son of God And Consequently that the Person who Suffer'd which is the Christians Christ was but a Finit Impotent Creature and not Truly and Properly the Christ J. Pennington asserts that the Name of Christ did not belong to the Person of Jesus which he calls only the Vessel or Vaile as in his Quest to Professors p. 25. but only to the Light or Christ which Dwelt in Jesus as in the Quakers So that the Name Christ says he is not given to the Vessel but to the Nature to the Heavenly Treasure to that which is of him In the Vessel And he Contends That it was not the Flesh and Blood of the Vaile which was the Sacrifice that Cleanses i. e. not the Flesh and Blood of Jesus but The Flesh and Blood within the Vaile i. e. the Spiritual Flesh and Blood of their Light within Not the Flesh and Blood says he of the outward Earthly Nature but the Flesh and Blood of the Inward Spiritual Nature Not the Flesh and Blood which Christ took of the first Adam's Nature but the Flesh and Blood of the Second Adam's Nature And What is the Laver of Regeneration says he p. 24. wherewith the Soul is washed Is it the water which ran out of the side of the Natural Body when it was Pierced with a Spear or the Water which floweth from the Spirit And Can outward Blood Cleanse the Conscience c. Now G. W. is not against telling the History of the Life and Death of Jesus that is as he puts the Caveat Truly Consider'd i. e. so as not to lay the stress of our Salvation upon Faith in those outward Sufferings or to make that Necessary to us That Prerogative they Reserve only for the Sufferings Blood-shedding c. of Their Christ the Light within That only is sufficient without any thing else And when you come to this say they in a Book Intituled The Doctrin of Perfection vindicated Printed 1663. p. 19. you will cease Remembring His Death at Jerusalem and will come to see how He hath been Crucify'd In you c. His outward Death is to be Forgotten for the stress do's not Ly upon that And as Mr. Penn says in his Quakerism a new nick-name c. p. 12. Since they believe that appearance of Christ in the Flesh at Jerusalem they need not Preach what is not to be again See Satan Dis-Rob'd p. 11. Ther is an End of any more Preaching or Faith in that Nay it do's Hurt as taking men off from Trusting wholey and soley in the Light within as sufficient without it Which is the very Heart and Soul of the Quaker-Faith And therefore they think the Heathen in a Better Condition than those Christians who lay so much stress upon the outward Christ His Death and Sufferings for that the Heathen have not that Encombrance to Divert them from Trusting wholly to their Light within and to nothing else And they think the Faith in the outward Christ so very Destructive that G. Fox Denounces them to be Reprobates and Possest with the Devil who Expect to be sav'd by Faith in the outward Jesus and as wholly Ignorant of the Inward Presence of Christ in the Heart For thus he Replies upon Christopher Wade who had in a Book he wrote call'd Quakery Slain asserted the Necessity of Faith in the outward Christ but withall he is Full and Large upon as Great Necessity of the Inward Presence and Operation of the Spirit of Christ in our Hearts In his Inspections Influences and Operations and by His Spirit Dwelling even in the Hearts and Societies of His People as he words it
A DEFENCE OF A BOOK INTITULED The Snake in the Grass IN REPLY To Several ANSWERS put out to it by George Whithead Ioseph Wyeth c. London Printed by M. Bonnet for C. Brome at the Gun W. Keblewhite at the Swan in St. Paul's Church-Yard And Geo. Strahan at the Golden-Ball over against the Royal-Exchange in Cornhil 1700. CONTENTS OF THE First Part. The Preface Vindicated in an Advertisement SECT I. GEorge Whitehead's Pleasantry upon the Author of The Snake Page 1. II. His Meek and Lamb-like Treatment of him Page 2. III. His Cry of Persecution against him Page 3. IV. His Address to his Work Page 8. V. His Shuffle about their Answer to the Seven Quaeres given to their Yearly-Meeting An. 1695. Wherein a short Scheme of the QVAKERS Principles and the MONSTROVS Foundation of their Faith Page 9. VI. His Sober Caution consider'd as to those Quakers who were Possest with the Devil Wherein the Wonderful Story of John Gilpin Page 25. The Excuses which G. W. makes for this 1. That this ought not to Reflect upon the Generality of the Quakers or their Principles ibid. 2. That Satan in a Mad or Possest-Man is not Transform'd into an Angel of Light ibid. 3. That such Persons are fitter Objects of Pity than Raillery Wherein of the Quaker-Euthusiasm Page 26. 4. That not more Quakers than others have run Mad. Wherein their Excuse for Gilpin c. is Considered Page 30. Proofs of the Quakers being Mad. 1. In those who went Naked Page 42. 2. In their strange Singularities Page 48. 3. In thinking Themselves to be Free from Sin and Equal to God Page 50. 4. In Assuming to be Prophets ibid. 5. In their Prater-Natural Quaking c. Page 54. 6. In their Silent-Meetings Page 68. 7. In the New-Quakers of America Page 69. 8. In their Vindicating of Mad-Men Page 70. The Abuses and Mistakes which G. W. Alleges in The Snake As to I. The Necessity of Preaching Page 72. II. The Comparison of Fox and Muggleton With G. W's Malicious Innuendo as to the Act of Toleration Page 73. III. Their Order against Carrying Guns in their Ships Page 74. IV. Their Principles Dangerous to Government Page 75. V. Their Opposition of Tythes Page 77. VI. Their Treasons and Rebellion in Abetting Oliver and the Rump Page 83. VII George Fox his Assuming to be Equal with God Page 87. VIII Their Asserting the Sufficiency of their Light within to Salvation without Christ And Assuming the Name of Christ to Themselves Page 90. IX Their turning the Death and Sufferings of Christ into an Allegorie and a Type Page 105. X. 1. Their Spiritual Body of Christ which they suppose He had from Eternity And their Denial of His Now Human Body in Heaven Page 116. 2. Their Denyal that Christ had any Human or Created either Soul or Body while He was upon Earth Page 120. 3. Their BLASPHEMOVS Contempt of Christ Page 131. XI Their Contempt of the H. Scriptures Page 144. XII Their Conforming and Transforming to every Turn Page 146. XIII Their making no Confession of Sin or Praying for Pardon Page 149. XIV Three Matters of Fact relating to the QVAKERS Contempt of the H. Scriptures Which G. W. Denies after his Fashion Page 160. XV. G. W's Defence of Ed. Burrough for his Contempt of H. Scripture Page 166. XVI G. W's Defence of himself for the same Wherein is shewn That the Quakers are Direct Deists and the Worst sort of them Page 169. XVII G. W's Sincerity and Ingenuity in some Objections with which he Concludes the First Part of his Book Wherein the Summ of the Quaker-Doctrine is laid open viz. That they Deny the Humanity of Christ and the Divinity of Jesus Page 179. CONTENTS OF THE Second Part. SECT I. COncerning the Author Page 1. II. The QVAKERS Method in Answering of Books 1. Railing Personal Reflections and Nastiness Page 4. 2. Insolence and Threatnings against any who Oppose them Page 32. 3. Bringing of Contrary-Testimonies Page 51. 4. Double Meanings and Cross Purposes Page 78. 5. Not to take an Answer Page 82. 6. Pretending that the Quotations brought out of their Books are not True because more than is Pertinent is not Quoted Page 85. 7. Appealing from their own Printed Books to the Original Copies Page 94. 8. Falsifying the Meaning of Others For which by Will. Penn 's Rule they are Excluded from being Christians Page 100. III. The Quakers Clear'd from Contradiction in those Seeming Contrary Testimonies which are Produc'd in this Appendix to Defend them from the Heresies Charg'd upon them 1. As to Christ come in the Flesh Page 112. 2. As to the Reality of His Death and Sufferings Page 123. 3. As to the Resurrection and Future Judgment Page 124. 4. Their Testimonies Allow'd to be Contrary upon the Point of Government and Fighting And why Wherein a Deep Secret of their Government is laid open Page 127. IV. Their Wity Answer and Repartees upon the Point of their Denying Marriage and Preaching up of Fornication Page 134. V. Their Re-Asserting of their own Infallibility and Sinless Perfection Wherein of their Idolatry Page 148. VI. Their Defence of not taking off their Hats or giving Civil Titles consider'd Page 162. And of the Pure Language as they call it of Thee and Thou Page 185. Both of which are shewn not to be mere Clownishness or want of Manners But that it Proceeds from a Design they have Form'd to Subvert all Government that is not in their Own Hands For that they think none but Themselves have any Right to Govern VII The Absurdity and Blasphemy of the Quaker Notion of The Light within shewn from Will. Penn 's Defence of it and others viz. 1. That ther is no Natural Light or Reason in Man But that all in him is Divine Page 194. 2. That by this they are not only Equal to God in some sense but that they are very God Himself And that every Creature is God Even the Devil Page 206. 3. Some Texts of H. Scripture Rescu'd from the False Glosses which the Quakers put upon them to favour the Universality of what they call The Light within Page 224. THE COLLECTION Numb I. THE Quaeres given to the Yearly-Meetings of the Quakers at London the 17th of May. 1695. With an Answer given to the same Quaeres by the General Meeting of the Reformed Quakers at Philadelphia in Pensilvania the 18th of Sept. 1695. Page 1. II. George Keith 's Relation of Two Remarkable Meetings of the Quaker Preachers at London An. 1678. Concerning Three Great Fundamental Doctrins of the Christian Faith Page 16. III. Some Passages taken out of a Ms of Humphry Norton 's which is Mention'd in The Second Part. p. 99. 100. Page 39. IV. Some of the Omissions and Alterations that the Quakers have made in the Re-Printing of the Works of their Deceased Prophets Page 52. V. A Letter of John Feild and Will Bingley to Sir Thom. Lane Lord Mayor of London An. 1695. Page 78. VI. A
no body Understands it in this Case What if we spell it Humane for Human and take Humanity in the Moral and not Natural sense of the word as when we say that such an One is a Man of Great Humanity i. e. of Good Nature Gentleness Goodness c. And Christ or The Word having Great Goodness in His Nature consequently we will allow Him a Humane tho not a Human Nature I am Confident the Reader do's now think that I am Fooling with these Quakers and Mean this only as a Banter For that he must Conclude it Impossible for any Men to shew themselves such Knaves as well as Fools to Dodge at such a silly and Impudent rate with Mankind while they Pretend to the Greatest Plainess and Sincerity of any Men upon the Earth Therefore let him Read a Quaker Book Intitul'd A Testimony for the true Christ and His Light in the Conscience in Confutation of Robert Cobbit 's Testimony against the Truth c. Printed An. 1668. And said on the Title Page to be From some of them called Quakers But suppos'd to be Penn'd by G. Whitehead There p. 4. and 5. they say As he Rob. Cobbit speaks of Humane with Relation to Nature or Body it hath Relation to the Earth or Humus the Ground of which Man was made which the First Man is of not the second though He was Really Man too but Humane or Humanity in the other sence with Relation to Gentleness Mercifulness and the like this we know was and is in the Image of God in which Man was Made and His Gentleness Kindness Mercifulness c. is Manifested in Christ And the true and Real Humanity as Oppos'd to that Cruelty Envy and In-Humanity which is got up in Man since the Fall so that Humanity und the Unreasonableness of Beasts are two things Thus the Quakers Here they Deny Christ the Second Man to have been Made of Humus the Earth as the First Man was And yet say they He the second Man was Really Man too How was this It cou'd not be in the same sense as the First Man who was Made of Humus the Earth if Christ did not take our Nature or Humus upon Him No The Quakers do not mean it in that sense as if Christ had ever taken our Human Nature so as to Consist of it or let it be any Part of His Person And yet they say That He is Really Man too By which they Mean only That Eternal and Heavenly Manhood before Mentioned And so Banter the World with their Plain Confessions in Double Meanings Yet have they the Confidence to Cry Whore first And Boldly Challenge others with what Themselves are the most Notoriously Guilty of any that Live upon the face of the Earth Sam. Fisher one of the Chief Rabbies of the Quakers Sam. Fishers Works p. 177. Charges the Priests against whom he Disputes with Shameful shiftings from sense to sense miserable marchings from Meaning to Meaning so that we can hardly know where or How to find them nor what they mean But we says he mostly or ever keep to the True Honest Ordinary and Plain purport of the words as they lie open and Clear to every Ordinary and Common Capacity And G. Whitehead Intitul's one of his Books The Quaker's Plainess detecting Fallacie Whereas their Books are such Un-intelligible Jargon that one must serve a Prentiship before he can understand one word almost of what they wou'd be at Nay they Glory and often Boast that their Words as well as Names are Hidden from the World And this not only in their Books but I Appeal to all that Converse with them whether the same Mysteriousness be not in all their Conversation concerning Religion When you ask them the meaning of their Light within their Christ within their Life Read c. They Answer Commonly with a Grunt of Disdain or Pity as they wou'd have you take it And when they Vouchsafe to Speak it is to this Purpose These things are Hid from thee and from the World Read within there thou wilt find them But we know them and have Sweetness and Life in them c. Their Language is as much a Cant as the Gipsies And this has Preserv'd them so long Vn-discover'd in the World Yet they make up a Mouth and Pretend to Plainess beyond all others But you shall never get them to Answer Directly or to the Purpose To give a Plain Yea or Nay to any Question concerning their Heresies If they say I wrong them let this be the Test That they will either Own or Disown this their Notion of an Heavenly and Eternal Manhood of Christ And tell us in Plain Terms which of the Manhoods that which is Created or that which they say is Vn-created they mean when they Confess to the Manhood of Christ now in Heaven And till they do this which I Guess will not be in Hast let my Charge stand good against them Which I may Reasonably presume from all Judicious Readers But ther is no stop in the Art of Heresie This their Mad Notion of an Heavenly Body in God or Christ has brought them to Fancy that they themselves have the same Heavenly Body And thus they Understand our being Members of Christ not as being Members of His Church of which He is the Mystical Head But as Members of this His Heavenly Flesh Blood and Bones And therefore say that Their own Bodies shall never Dye G. Fox when one minded him that he wou'd Dye Will. Rogers his Christian Quaker IV. Part. p. 49. and turn to Dust and therefore that he ought to be Humble Answers in his Letter which is Printed Thou sayest when I am turned to Dust and Dead Is this thy Doctrin Are the Members of the Heavenly Body turned to Dust and Dead This Doctrin proceeds from Darkness and not from the Light of Christ. This is very Intelligible And Easie to the Meanest Capacity This is the Quakers Plainess It was not said that his Soul shou'd turn to Dust this was spoke of his Body And here he denies it of the Body Why Because it was a Member of the Heavenly Body of God And yet they do not doubt but their Bodies must Dye in the True Honest Ordinary and Plain purport of the Words to which they Mostly or Ever keep But this Mystery is Vn-Riddl'd in the Second Part. Sect. vii n. 2. where it is shewn That they hold their Bodies as well as Souls to be God It is told in the Preface how the Quaker Heresies were Borrow'd from the Ancienter Sectaries amongst us And this their Answer to the Seven Queres shews that they have Inherited their Plainess and Sincerity in Representing their own Principles to the World The Family of Love who Prevaricated in every Article of the Creed Printed a Confession of their Faith in the very words of the Creed An. 1656. But how they meant it Mr. Knewstub has shewn us which is Inserted in Heresiography p. 97.
Jesus which was not a Fantastical but a Real Body Here is putting in things they are not Accused of that they may seem to vindicate themselves in something They are not Accused for saying that the Body of Jesus was a Fantastical or not a Real Body but that it was not Truly that is Hypostatically the Body of Christ only a Vail or Garment wherein He Dwelt And in that sense it was His Body as a Man's Cloak or Garment is his Garment and so it was that as G. W. says which Christ owned as his own Body being also adds he called the Body of Jesus i. e. in some other sense than it was the Body of Christ That is It was the True Proper and Natural Body of the Man Jesus But it was the Body of Christ only as He Dwelt in it in the Body of that man Jesus as G. W. thinks He do's in the Body of George Whitehead Otherwise it cou'd not be call'd the Body of Christ and also as G. W. here the Body of Jesus This must make Jesus and Christ to be Two Persons For Example if I shou'd say the Body of George which is also the Body of Whitehead this wou'd either be Non-sense or else it must Divide George from Whitehead and make the Body to belong to George in one sense and to Whitehead in another It is told before p. 17 18. How nicely G. W. do's Distinguish between Consisting and Having and tho' he Allow'd that Christ once Had a Body that is in His Possession as a man Hath an House or a Cloak yet G. W. positively Denies That Christ did Consist of Human Flesh and Blood And if so Then He was never Truly and Really a Man only such in Appearance and False-shew Which overthrows the whole Foundation of the Christian Faith And is an Abominable Heresie long since Condemn'd by the Catholick Church as I have elsewhere shewn And that the Quakers have Lick'd it up as they wou'd Pretend by Inspiration which if so was most Certainly from the Devil the Father of Lies But let us see more of them Richard Hubberthorn in his works Printed 1663. among several Queres which he puts against Christ's being a Creature or having any Created Nature in Him do's Demand p. 49. and 50. When was that Christ Created which you say must as a Creature Judge the World And if in Mary 's time who was Judge of the World till then Was not the Person of Christ Jesus before the World was And when had the Man Christ Jesus his Beginning if you can Declare it How is Christ the only begotten Son of God if He be a Creature or how can God beget a Creature And if the whole Person of Christ was not before the Earthly Adam how was the Creation made by Him Or how can He be of the Nature of fallen Adam and not Earthly and Defiled And is the Flesh of Christ Heavenly or Earthly Or is He Christ without His Flesh i. e. He had always an Heavenly Flesh and that He has still But never took Flesh of Adam's Nature for then they think He must have been Defil'd As if He cou'd not take the Nature without the Defilement which was but Accidental to it George Fox in his Great Mystery p. 99. sets down this Principle of the Professors as he calls them That Christ hath a Humane Reasonable Soul And he Disputes against it and Battels it as a Gross Error For says he Is not a Human Soul Earthly for you say that Christ had a Human Soul and is not Human Earthly And hath a Human Body and is not a Human Body an Earthly Body was not the first man of the Earth Earthly and had an Human Body the Second man the Lord from Heaven This is the Heavenly Body and Flesh which they suppose Christ had from Eternity But here and in many other Places they Deny Christ to have either Human Body or Soul or to be a Man otherwise than as they say He was Man before the Creation This being Urg'd against them by John Bunyan Minister of Bedford who in his Gospel-Truths Opened Sect. 18. takes pains to prove that the Christ who was Born of the Virgin was the true Saviour and then Infers p. 652 of his works in these words How are they then Deceived who own Christ no otherwise than as He was before the world began For in their owning of Him thus and no otherwise they do directly Deny Him to be come in the Flesh and are of that Anti-Christian Party which John Speaks of 1. Joh. iv 3. Edw. Burrough Answers this Book of Bunyan's and coming to this Passage p. 142. of his works he Repeats Bunyan's words thus How are they Deceived who own Christ no otherwise than as He was before the world began c. And instead of Clearing the Quakers from this Objection or Disowning it to be a Principle of the Quakers he stands by it and pretends to give Reasons for it as Christ the same Yesterday to Day and for Ever And that Christ was before Abraham c. And falls upon Bunyan for his Grievous Ignorance in not Apprehending this Quaker-Mystery as he words it thus To own Him Christ as He was before the world was for Salvation But that was not the Question Bunyan's words even as Repeated by Burrough are not against owning Christ as He was before the World was for that Bunyan and all Christians own but against owning Him so And No otherwise i. e. Not as having taken Flesh in time of the B. Virgin having Suffer'd and Dy'd for us for in that Respect and not only as He was before the World was Bunyan Contends that He was our Saviour And Burrough opposing him in this shews plainly what they mean viz. That Christ has now no other Flesh or Manhood than what He had before the World was and that He is not our Saviour upon account of that Flesh of Jesus which He Borrow'd as a Vail to shrowd Himself in for a time or for what that Body suffer'd but that He is our Saviour only as He was before the World was and as they say that He is Inwardly now in their Hearts in His Heavenly Flesh and Blood which he had from Eternity And the whole Merit and Atonement for Sin they place in the Inward Shedding of this Spiritual Blood in their Hearts which they call the Sufferings of Christ yes and of His Manhood too of His Body and His Flesh thus Bantering Mankind while they Mean nothing of this of that Visible Body in which He Appear'd in the Days of Pontius Pilat and which was Nail'd to the Cross but of the Invisible Body Flesh Blood and Bones of the Godhead The Arch-Enemy having Taught them this Damnable Heresie and thereby put the Grossest of Darkness for Light and Defrauded them of whole Christianity the Faith in the outward Jesus and what He did and suffer'd outwardly for Us tho' it be Inwardly Apprehended and Apply'd by Faith which is
Receives his Bread as they Belch out again p. 11. of this Appendix These Adversaries are George Keith Francis Bugg and others once of their Communion who now Detect their vile Errors and Whitehead in his Antidote had Charg'd this upon the Author of the Sn. That he took his Authorities from Bugg which is fully Answer'd and Confuted in the Supplement to the Second Edition of the Sn. N. 2. Yet now as if no such Answer had been made it is Repeated over and over again But the Reader will find the Charges in the Sn. taken out of the most Approved Authors of the Quakers and not from the Credit of any of their Adversaries as they call them And as for the Author of the Sn. Receiving his Bread from them that has been spoke to already But it is Cautiously added here In Part that he Receives his Bread in Part from them so that if he ever Eat or Drunk with any of them this is Receiving his Bread in Part from them But he has Eat and Drunk and been kindly Entertain'd by as many of Grace-Church-street Quakers as of Turners-Hall and therefore he is Brib'd by them too to write against themselves But Eating and Drinking are small things In this Appendix p. 48. the Quakers give the Author of the Sn. a Gentle Touch for his Taking of Snuff they leave no stone Un-turn'd these are Industrious men And if they can find out that any one has Given him a Box of Snuff that will be told in the next Book they Publish Indeed if it were such a Snuff-Box as George Fox us'd to carry like a Canister which he kept perpetually at his nose it might be of value and must Pass for a Bribe to Persecute the Quakers Whose Spite is so Implacable against the Author of the Sn. that they wou'd wound him tho' thro' the sides of their Great Fox or Greater Penn. See how they Exert their Christian Meekness p. 4. of this Appendix where they call The Snake in the Grass That Venemous Piece of Villany And because the word Villain fitted their Good Breeding and lest it shou'd slip the Reader 's Attention two lines before they have it again and say that they are Villanously charged by him whom p. 30. they call This Snake of Envy And p. 34. they bestow upon him the mild Epithets of Malice Impertinancy and Baseness And p. 47. of Forgery and Villany again p. 49. they call him a Foul Vessel p. 51. Violently Base With abundance of such Complements with which I will not offend the Readers Ears only thus much to shew that Incorigable Spirit of Pride and Malice which Possesses the Souls of these Quakers Impatient of Contradiction under the Guise of Humility and Meekness That after being so often Expos'd for their Billings-Gate and want of Christian Temper that one wou'd think their Whole Cause and Credit with the World did Depend upon their being Able but once to Counterfit a Moderation and Decency in their Language yet we find they are not Able their Furie Boyls over the Thin Scum of their Simpering Sanctity It has been observ'd of a Frenchman that if you Ty'd his Hands he cou'd not speak a word being Depriv'd of that Action which always accompany'd it so if you wou'd Restrain a Quaker from Rayling and Reviling you quite stop his Mouth at least from ever Answering any Adversary For this is a Topick never Forgot among them which they use instead of Argument If any can shew any Quaker Answer to any of their opponents without this Ribaldry in it they will Oblige the World with a Rarity which I believe never yet was seen I am sure it never came in my way and I have been prety Conversant among them If they Pretend that they are Provok'd to this Manner of Repartying upon their Adversaries by their ill usage of them particularly the Author of the Sn. in Reviling and Abusing of them First If this were true it ought not to Provoke them who set up for Degrees of Holiness Self-Denyal and Mortification beyond All other sort of men upon the face of the Earth to be Meeker than Moses Wiser than Solomon more Patient than Job c. See Sat. Dis. Sect. iv N. v. p. 48. And if they shew not this more than other men how shall we know that they have it more than other men But Secondly at their first Appearing in the world before any Provocation was Given to them they fell upon All others with the same Violence and outrage that they have since continu'd They were the Aggressors and Gave the Provocation instead of Receiving any Thirdly as to their Complaint of Provocation in the Sn. ther is none given them but that of Detecting their Errors And that in so soft a manner to the Chief of them that as before Mention'd in this Appendix it is term'd Fawning It is hard to Please these men If you be Civil to them they construe it Fawning and if you be Plain with them they call it Vilifying and Reproaching of them Indeed in the Sn. their Errors are Laid open very Plainly and Hard-words are given to them But How When their Errors are such as have no Soft Names we must Give them the Names by which all the World know them How else shou'd we be Understood If I Accuse a man of Heresie or Idolatry must I not call it Heresie and Idolatry Or must I Invent New Names for Old Crimes Indeed if I Fail in my Proof I have done Injury to the Accused and ought to make Satisfaction when I am Fairly Convinc'd Yet if my Mistake was thro' Ignorance it do's not come within the Denomination of Rayling if the Dispute be Manag'd without Personal Reflections which do not concern the Debate A man may Reason with Great Sobriety and Good Manners against Heathen Turk Jew or Papist and tho' the Charges be High of Heresie or Idolatry yet this will not be Counted Rayling if it meet with men of Sobriety and Good Temper Nay ther is no other way of being Convinc'd on either side but by Fairly and Calmly yet Plainly and Thoroly Discussing of the Arguments on Both sides Now if the Quakers can find any other Ill-Names Given to them in the Sn. than what was Necessary to the Charges laid against them they have Read it more Carefully than I have done Are they there call'd Raging Doggs Green-Headed-Trumpeters Devils Incarnat Devil-Driven-Dungy-Gods Sodomits and such Vile Names as they have Invented and Bestow'd upon the Author of the Sn. and others who have Opposed Them And can they not now Forbear it at last after being so often told of it This gives men a strange Idea of the Fierceness of the Quaker-Spirit beyond what all their Adversaries cou'd say against them Therefore I hope they will in their After Answers Practise that Self-Denial if it be in their Power to Abridge themselves of this their so Beloved a Topick of Rayling at least in that Blunt Vnmannerly way which Renders
from the Drudgery my Self I. Therfore I will turn to shew that the worst Payers are the Hard est Cravers 2. The Quakers Insolence and Threatning to any who Oppose them That these Quakers who take so free Liberty with others are the most Impatient to have any thing said to Themselves They are Touchy upon the least Punctilio and Improve any Reflection upon them to the utmost Strech George Whitehead last year Printed a Book which he Intituls A sober Expostulation with some of the Clergy c. wherein he writes in a very Threatning stile to two of the Establish'd Clergy Mr. Smithies and Mr. Archer for the suspicion that lay upon them of shewing some Countenance to Francis Bugg in his writing against the Quakers If thou says he p. 11. doth not put a stop to his mischievous Attempts it will Affect thee and the Cry will ascend Higher than to thy self Here is an Innuendo against the whole Clergy And p. 20. says he Bugg's Abuses are in their own Nature Intolerable and we do not Intend to Lie under his Foul Calumnies Pag. 106. If you will be mute in this matter says he to these Clergy-men and suffer him to Persist without your Publick Dislike then may you be further Justly call'd in Question and Expos'd thereupon for your neglect of Justice This is Magisterial indeed Here Whitehead Acts the Metropolitan and corrects these Clergy-Men with a Super-Episcopal Authority What! must they be Accountable for Bugg's writing against the Quakers And if they do but stand Mute in the Case that is if they do not take Part with the Quakers against Bugg or any who shall hereafter come over as he has done from the Quakers to the Church of England and Endeavour to Detect the Errors of the Quakers What then Here Whitehead threatens that they shall be call'd in Question for it and Expos'd thereupon He says that Bugg's Abuses are in their own Nature Intolerable I am sure such Insolence as this is in its own Nature and according to the Nature of all Government or but the Shadow of a Church very Insufferable To see a Sniveling Quaker thus Brave it in the Face of the whole Church and in Print to Threaten Her Clergy for doing of their Duty It is not Toleration will serve these mens turns Ex Pede Herculem We may know by a Little what a Great Deal means Their Principles are Calculated for Empire Their Motto is Do no Right and take no Wrong John Gilpin in his Narrative call'd The Quakers Shaken before Mentioned happen'd to call them a Faction saying of a Pamphlet That it was set forth by some of that Faction in York To which they Answer in The Standard c. Quoted before p. 8. Thou full of Subtilty is this thy Revenge to Nick-Name the Truth calling the Children of the Lord by the Name of a Faction Which is Invented by the Devil whose servant thou art The Provocation was Greater to which Will. Penn Replys in his Scirmisher Defeated p. 10. In answer to this viz. That the womb of Iniquity was in the Quakers writings upon which W. P. Crys out He has Invaded my Body and Soul Religion and Life for Lam by my Doctrin if the Priest may be believ'd an Heretick a Blasphemer an Atheist c. And what remains but that the Dogs or Lyons devour me the Rabble or the Government sacrifice me c. And if Will. Pen may be Believ'd what are our Priests as he calls them That Cursed Bitter Stock of Hirelings who have made Drunk the Nations whilst they have Cut their Purses Serious Apology p. 156. and Pick'd their Pockets Tophet's Propared for them to Act their Eternal Tragedy upon whose Scenes will be Renewed Direful Anguishing woes of an Eternal Irreconcilable Justice The Idle Gormandizing Priests of England run away with above 150000 l. a year Guide mistaken p. 18. Printed 1668. under Protence of God's Ministers No sort of People have been so Vniversally thro' Ages the very Bane of Soul and Body of the Vniverse as That Abominable Tribe for whom the Theatre of God's most Dreadful Vengeance is Reserv'd to Act their Eternal Tragedy upon c. And for the Dissenters he calls them An ill-bred Pedantick Crew Quakerism a new nick-name c. p. 165. the Bane of Religion and Pest of the world the old Incendiaries to Mischief And the best to be spared of Mankind against whom the Boyling Vengeance of an Irritated God is ready to be Poured out And now has not he to use his own words Invaded their Body and Soul Religion and Life for besides Damnation which he never misses he makes them Cut-Purses and Pick-Pockets and The best to be spared of Mankind Do's not that look like throwing them to the Dogs or the Lions or setting on the Rabble or Government to Sacrifice them All this is made the Tragical Inference of Disputing against the Heresies and Blasphemies of the Quakers And yet the above Language and Furie of Hell which is Belch'd out with the Utmost Virulence against the Church of England and the Clergy of all sorts must be Ramm'd down their Throats while the Quakers will Fly in any mans Face and send him to the Devil who Dares call Them but a Faction And if any of our Clergy seem to Countenance the Conversion of any from Quakerism or but stand Neuter and not Hinder others from Writing against them he shall be Magisterially Threatn'd as here by Whitehead that is by the Body of the Quakers who own his and the other Books Licens'd by their Second-Day's-Meeting as has been told before And I think they have here Given a very Good Handle to Return their Complement upon Themselves That if they stand Mute and not Censure Will. Penn and the Rest of them who have spu'd their Venom in the like Furious and Standalous Manner against the Church of England And Disown their Books at least the Fore-Nam'd and other such like Passages that are in them then that the Cry shou'd Ascend Higher than to these Particular Authors even to the Second-Day's-Meeting that owns them if they will stand Mute and not shew their Publick Dislike as Whitehead here Requires from the Clergy-Men then That they may be further Justly call'd in Question and Expos'd thereupon for their Neglect of Justice Who will not do Justice let Justice be done to them Do's Bugg's Disputing against the Quakers and Giving them less than their Due seem Intolerable to Them And do they tell us plainly That they do not Intend to Ly under his Foul Calumnies And must the whole Church of England and the State too Ly under the Thousand times Greater and more outragious Calumnies that the Quakers have over and over again Loaded upon their Backs And they will not to this Day Retract one word or Letter on the Contrary they vouch it in several Places of this Appendix And have Printed it in the Post-man See Collection N. 6. That they are the
And to Him Only Yet but the very page before p. 148. they fiercely oppose Justification by the Rightcousness which Christ hath fulfilled in His own Person for Vs wholly without Vs Not that the Effect is wholly without us for it is rather wholly within us that is the Application of that Justification which Christ hath wrought for Us when it is brought home to our Consciences But the Price the Satisfaction for our Sins which is our Justification that is Wholly without Vs we are no Part of the Meritorious and Procuring Cause of our Justification that is only Christ His Blessed Death Sufferings and Perfect Rightcousness Perform'd in His own Person wholly without us But this is far from the Quaker meaning tho' it seems to be the Import of their Words And in the above Quotation where they ascribe their Sanctification Justification c. to our Lord Jesus Christ to Him Only and to His Blood they mean the Blood within and Christ within But as for Justification by the outward Christ as above they Return this Prodigious Answer which I have before Quoted And indeed this we Deny and Boldly Affirm it In the Name of the Lord To be the Doctrin of Devils and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption which do's now Deluge the whole World This is within less than the Compass of one Page to the above Quotation And but two pages before this they Deny that Person who Suffer'd that is our Lord Jesus Christ to be Properly the Son of God whom in this Quotation they Seem to call His only Son And this is not Contradicting themselves For the Mystery lies here they allow that Christ took Flesh but not into His own Person so that it was not His own Flesh only as He Borrow'd and wore it for a while And therefore that it was not His Person which Suffer'd only the Person of that Man Jesus in which He Dwelt The Person they Deny to be the Son of God but the Light within that Person they call the Christ the only Son c. And all this comes upon them because they do not truly believe the Incarnation of Christ or that He took our Nature into His own Person Which is the Charge against them and these are all the Testimonies which they have brought to Clear themselves And these do by no means Clear them But have Detected their Artifice much the more And Render'd them Doubly Guilty I have taken All the Quotations before-mention'd upon Trust except that out of the Serious Apology which I had by me for I wou'd not Causelesly suspect others of Deceit tho' themselves do it And because these Testimonies here brought by Appen are nothing to their Purpose as has been shewn Of the Reality of the Sufferings and Death of Christ II. The next Sect. 3. in Appen p. 19. c. contains Testimonies to the Truth and Reality of Christ 's Death and Sufferings But I may save the Reader and my self the Pains of Examining these Because if Christ was not Truly In-Carnat He cou'd not Truly Suffer And tho' He be said to Suffer Die c. yet that is not cannot be meant Properly by those who think that the Person which Suffer'd was not Properly the Son of God But they call these the Sufferings of Christ only because He permitted that Body to be Crucify'd which He assum'd as a Cloak or Vail but did not take it into His own Person by which Means only those Sufferings cou'd be said to be His Properly Therefore all they can say of the Death and Sufferings of Christ will never Clear them while they tell us that they mean it not in a Plain and Proper Sense But as our Sufferings may be call'd the Sufferings of Christ Col 1.24 Which in a Large Sense is True But our Dispute proceeds of Christ's Sufferings only in the Strict and Proper Sense Not as the Quakers think their own Blood to be the Blood of Christ And that same Blood by which we are sav'd Thus they told some who they said had shed their Blood You will by no means be thence Cleansed but by the same Blood which you so Cruelly shed This is in a Book Publish'd by them An. 1657. call'd The Guilty Clergy-Man Vnvail'd c. p. 17. Many Quotations of the like Nature can be Produc'd out of their Books But I stay not here Of the Resurrection and Future Judgment III. Appen Sect. iv p. 25. begins the Contrary Testimonies concerning The Resurrection and Future Judgment Where observe first their stating of the Case ibid. p. 25. We are more Learned say they in the School of Christ than to Deny or be Ignorant of so Inestimable an Advantage as is The Resurrection by Christ to Eternal Glory and of that Future Judgment by which the States of Men must be Determined Now nothing at all of this is the Question The Quakers have been told in the Sn. and Sat. Dis. of their Notion of an Inward Resurrection of Christ or the Light in their Hearts and of a Judgment there likewise Past upon Sin But the Question is of the Resurrection of the Body of the Same Body that Dy'd And concerning this ther is not one word of a Contrary Testimony among all those here Produc'd The word Body is not so much as nam'd in all these Testimonies except one which is a Testimony brought from Will. Penn. p. 29. where he says as there Quoted We own the Resurrection of the Body according to the Pleasure of God And every Seed shall have its own Body What Body they mean by this is told in the Sn. Sect. xii That by a Spiritual Body they mean no Body at all but only the Soul freed from the Natural Body which Natural Body they do not allow ever to be Raised again or Joyn'd to the Soul And there it is shewn at large That Will. Penn allows no Resurrection of the Body that Dies and Denies Positively That that Description of the Resurrection 1 Cor. xv Relates to the Resurrection of the Body at all but to the two States of Man in the Natural and Spiritual Birth And this same Appen instead of Contradicting do's Re-assert and endeavours to Justifie the Testimonies of the Quakers against the Resurrection of the Body And Repeats their old Argument against it p. 31. thus As for the Body 1 Cor. xv 37. Thou sowest not that Body that shall be Thence they Inferr That it is not the Same Body that Rises This is fully Answer'd in the Sn. Sect. xii of which no Notice at all is taken by Appen But the old Objection still Insisted upon And this where they Pretend to bring Contrary Testimonies to those Produc'd which Deny the Resurrection of the Body Yet this hinders not their Constant Boast which concludes Every of their Arguments of having fully Clear'd themselves and totally Overthrown their Adversaries Here says Appen p. 30. I have brought Twelve Witnesses to Testifie contrary to this Man 's
False Charge which they do so Scripturally and Truly as Effectually to wipe it off and leave no Room for this Snake of Envy to Hide himself c. And this Appen will make up the Baker's Dozen who do All Justify the Charge of the Snake And Effectually shew Themselves not only to be Hereticks in this Article of our Faith but of the most Impudent and Shameless sort that ever yet Appear'd In the Quotation brought from G. Fox p. 28. of Appen Reciting these words of the Apostle's We are Witnesses of all things which He did both in the Land of the Jews and in Jerusalem And we did Eat and Drink with Him after He Arose from the Dead it is added And to this do we Testifie which are the People of God in Scorn call'd Quakers See hereafter Sect. vii N. 3. more Quotations where they do vouch Themselves to be Eye-Witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ which shews what Resurrection they mean They are Witnesses too of Their own Resurrection And have Got if you will believe them their resurrection-Resurrection-Bodies Already That is The Bodies of Pure Souls This is all they mean by it If not Let them tell us how our resurrection-Resurrection-Bodies if they be not the same Bodies that Died are sown in Corruption and natural-Natural-Bodies If the Soul gets a New Body at the Resurrection and that a Spiritual and Heavenly Body How was it Sown or When a Natural Body if it never was Natural or Corruptible Or how was it Sown that is Dead if it never Died And how is this then a Resurrection of the Dead for the Soul never Died. What Dead then Rises if not the Dead Body Their Testimonies Allow'd to be Contrary upon the Point of Government and Fighting And Why. Wherein a Deep Secret of their Government is Laid open IV. The next Contrary Testimonies and they are all that are Produc'd are Sect. vi beginning at p. 40. of their Submission to Government And these I Grant to be Contrary Testimonies and have told them That I cou'd Produce ten times as many more for them of their speaking Pro and Con For and Against Every Government as it was Vp or Down of their Dis-owning all Fighting with the Carnal Weapon and yet setting it up at other times beyond All the Bully's in Alsatia That one Quaker cou'd Cuff with Seven men as G. Fox their General did Vapour But I wou'd Desire a Contrary Testimony to a Declaration told in the Sn. Sect. xviii p. 212. where the Captains and Colonels of the Quakers do give it under their Hands in Name of their whole Army That they have an Heirship to Possess The Vttermost Parts of the Earth And a Right to Fight for it too This Declaration was Drawn by Lieutenant General Edw. Burrough and being sign'd by himself and Fourteen or Fifteen of the Principal Officers was Printed in the year 1659. And has never yet been Call'd in Retracted or Condemn'd that I cou'd hear of Now Here some Contrary Testimonies wou'd do well your Trimming and Shamming every Turn of Government will not do while this your Declaration of War against the whole Earth stands Vn-Repeal'd your Magna Charta to take up Arms whenever you see your Time Till this be Cancell'd and Effectually Disown'd by you we lie at your Mercy or else must Watch your Waters to put it out of your Power And the rather because this very Declaration is Particularly Insisted upon in Prim. Heres to which this Appen pretends to be an Answer and Referrs to Quotations out of Sam. Fisher's works which are in the same page p. 15. and are there brought only as a further Attestation to Second this Declaration And yet ther is not the least Notice taken of this Declaration in the Appen or so much as Nam'd as if no stress had been laid upon it or that it did not Concern the Quakers at all They wou'd fain keep this as a Secret they are loath it shou'd be known and therefore wou'd not stirr the Coals by Mentioning of it in the Least But as to other Quotations they Fight amain and Vindicate Tooth and Nail as p. 47. where they Quote p. 16. and 17. of Prim. Heres in which are some Passages out of the Works of Edw. Burrough of Fighting Killing Slaying c. And this Appen wou'd have them only to Referr to the Spiritual warfare and says but do's not Prove That they have not Any Tendency to outward War Of which the Reader shall be Judge Among these Quotations ther are these Give the Whore that is Rome double into her Bosom as she hath loved Blood so give her Blood and Dash her Children against the stones And to the English Army he says Avenge the Blood of the Guiltless thro' all the Dominions of the Pope the Blood of the Just it crys thro' Italy and Spain wherefore How down the Tops strike at the Branches make way that the Ax may be laid to the Root of the Tree That your Sword and the Sword of the Lord may neither leave Root nor Branch of Idolatry c. Now were they Spiritual Swords which the Parliament Red-Coats then wore Were these the Proper Persons to be Employ'd in a Spiritual Warfare Was ther no Tendency at all Here to any Outward War Yet but for supposing such a thing see how this Appen do's handle the Author of Prim. Heres By what hath been now said and shewn says Appen p. 47. it may plainly appear that his Charges are utterly False and notwithstanding he Makes Quotations Page 16.17 which he calls Edw. Burrough's and Appen do's not Deny it to Countenance his villany herein yet he is as far from Honesty in his Quotation as he is from Truth in all those for I shall shew that he hath Committed Forgery to make this Mans writings Answer his Mind This is an High Charge But how do's the Forgery appear Why in Splitting Sentences in Colons and Semi-Colons as Before Because he do's not Transscribe whole Pages together which are nothing to the Purpose But not a word that he Quotes is Deny'd by Appen or any thing Added to Burrough's words yet Appen calls this An Outrage for which the Inquisition will hardly afford him President they meant Precedent We see by this what stress is to be laid upon the Out-Crys of the Quakers And how to Construe their Villany Forgery c. when bestow'd by them upon any who Oppose them that is you may be sure then They are in a Desperate Plunge some Villanous Hard Proof It wou'd not vex one to be Call'd a Knave or a Cheat But to have it Prov'd Patience cannot Bear it Besides it is Vn-Mannerly What! not to leave One small Starting-Hole No Remedy but Confess and Repent which they have Abdicated Bid men Retract who cannot Err Ther is no such Outrage in the Inquisition Yet these Quakers do not Cry before they are Hurt for they were touch'd here in a very Sore Place And they have not told
If by Natural says he p. 14. he meant a Created thing as man is or any thing that is Requisite to the Composition of a Man I Deny it For Man can no more be a Light to his Mind than he is to his Body he has the Capacity of seeing objects when he has the help of Light but cannot be a Light to himself by which to see them Wherefore as the Sun in the Firmament is the Light of the Body and gives us Discerning in our Temporal affairs so the Life of the Word is the Glorious Light and Sun of the Soul c. By which Logick the Vnderstanding has no more Light in it self than the Eye only a Capacity to Receive Light ab Extrà And consequently has no Natural Light only a Natural Capacity to Receive it when sent from another And this is Quoted and thus Urg'd in Prim. Heres p. 21. Yet Appen has Look'd and cou'd not see it By which he offers us an Experiment if we cou'd Believe him of the Natural Dulness of Human Vnderstanding But ther is an Old saying None so Blind as they that Will not see These men do their best to Divest themselves of Reason and they have gon very far towards it And had done it if Disowning of it and Disputing Against it cou'd have done it Rich. Hubberthorn was an Eminent Apostle of the Quakers His works were Collected and Re-Printed An. 1663. with Mighty Encomiums from G. Fox G. Whitehead c. There in a Treatise which he calls Truth and Innocency Clearing its self c. p. 41. he Denies Reason to be the Common Principle of Mankind or that Men have any Natural Light but only the Divine Which he Endeavours to Prove thus Some says he are Vnreasonable Men and so all have not Reason and some are Idiots and so have not Understanding So then all are not Enlightned with Reason and Vnderstanding If being Ideots or most Extravagantly Vn-Reasonable cou'd Prove this the Quakers have done it to Demonstration But it is that small Pittance of Reason which they have Debauch'd that Enables them to Dispute against Reason Reason can never be Totally Extinguished more than Life while Man Remains It Remains tho' Dreadfully Clouded even in Bedlam And therefore it is an Vniversal Principle or Light which is Essential to Mar as Man And the Quakers whether they will or not 't is a sad Story must have it Yes and must be Confounded by it or else Converted They say that All Men have not REASON But were it not much more true to say that All men have not GRACE that is the Divine and Saving Light And that the Light in some men is Darkness I hope they will not say the Divine Light which they make to be God Himself is Darkness Therefore they must find out some Fallible Light in Man that is Capable of being Darkned At least other men have found it and see it Plainly in Them tho' They cannot see it themselves it is so Darkned or will not Own it But Christ says Hubberthorn ibid. calls it not Reason nor Vnderstanding But where were Hubb's Eyes did he never Read Isai 1.18 Come now let us Reason together saith the Lord. And Prov. iii. 5. Lean not unto thine own Vnderstanding And 1 Cor xiv 15. I will Pray with the Spirit and I will Pray with the Understanding also Then sure they were Two things For ver 14. it is said My Spirit Prayeth but my Understanding is Vnfruitful Did Christ then never call the Light that is in Man by the Names of Reason or Vnderstanding or is ther no Light of Reason in Man besides the Light of the Spirit How then is the Light of the Spirit Distinguish'd from that of the Vnderstanding If it be said that Hubb Meant no more but that Christ did not call the Divine Light Reason or Vnderstanding That was a mighty saying upon the Quaker Principle that the Divine Light in Man is God And makes this Sense That Christ did not call God Reason or Vnderstanding But what was it which the Holy Scriptures call Reason or Vnderstanding in Man If it is not God it must be a Creature And if it be Created in Man and is Part of the Composition of a Man then it is of his Nature And is Justly and Truly call'd a Natural Light or Natural Reason And is Distinguish'd from the Divine Light which is God It was to this Natural Light or Vnderstanding of our own that we are Commanded not to Lean that is to Follow it Absolutely without a Due Sense of its weakness and therefore Acknowleging the over-Ruling Hand of God to put our whole Trust in Him The Foundation Principle of Quakerism is To Follow the Light within But here is a Light within which God Commands Us not to Follow Therefore this Light cannot be Himself And therefore ther must be Another and a Fallible Light in Man which it is Dangerous to Follow without a Guard And this is our Natural Light or Reason Which do's Manifest God to us in a Great Measure even His Eternal Power and Godhead Rom. 1.19.20 Which Renders all Sinners even of the Gentiles without Excuse who do not Worship and Serve that God Infinit and Eternal Sutably to those Discoveries which by their own Natural Reason they can Make of Him Rom. 2.14.15 And the Same Natural Concience do's also bear Witness and Accuse or Excuse according as men follow that Law written in their Hearts by Nature as the Apostle of the Gentiles did Admonish them But Hubb says ibid. That that Light in Man is not Natural He do's not Square with Paul there as one of them said unless as W. P. says Extraordinarily p. 15. It is Natural to Man to have a Super-Natural Light For which he is Spar'd in Prim Heres for if it be Natural to have any thing that is Super-Natural how is it Super-Natural Or if it be Super-Natural how is it Natural This looks very like a Figure they call a Bull. But to Proceed W. P. says in the same p. 15. of his Primitive Christianity as before Quoted That Man can no more be a Light to his Mind than he is to his Body To this says Appen p. 54. That W. P. adds afterwards About those things that more Immediatly concern our Better Inward and Eternal Man He might have added too Or about any thing Else For if ther be no Light in the Vnderstanding it cannot see these or any other things Why did you not likewise say That ther was no Light in the Eye but that you meant only to see Dun Colours For if the Vnderstanding can see no more than the Eye as W. P. says without an Adventitious Natural Super Natural Light then it can see Nothing for the Eye without Light can neither see Dun nor if it were Dipt in Yallow And if ther be nothing in a mans Vaderstanding more than in his Eye to shew it Light or as W. P. words it
no Medium And not only thus Negatively have they Asserted it But Positively and in the Affirmative They say that the Soul is Infinite even Infinitness it self and without Beginning Which nothing can be but God And if the Soul be God it must follow that ther is no Soul but God Which R. Farmer p. 27. above Quoted do's charge upon the Quakers That they say Ther is no Spirit but One and so Deny any Angel or Spirit Which page G. Fox do's Quote in his Answer Gr. Myst p. 173. but says nothing at all to this he cou'd not Deny this to be the Quaker Principle And the Consequence of this is That ther is nothing Natural in Man for if all in Man be God then ther is no Nature of Man but only the Nature of God This is the true Ground why the Quakers will not allow any Light that is in Man to be Natural no not that Light or Reason which is Common to All Men. Nor will be Content to say That this comes from God No. They will have it nothing Less than God Himself It was Granted to G. Fox That the Eternal word Enlightneth All men with the Common Light of Nature This G. F. Repeats and Opposes The Light says he which Every Man that cometh into the world is Enlightned withal is not Natural Gr. Myst p. 172. What is his Reason Because says he The Light was before any thing was Made and all things that was made was made by it which Lightneth every Man that cometh into the World By this Argument nothing at all can be Natural to Us because not only our Light but out Life and Every thing we have is from God And Consequently we nor any other Creature can have any Nature at all And then ther can he No Creature at all but All is God This was the Ranters Blasphemous Notion That God is Every thing And Every thing is God Thus they Understand that Text That God is All in All. i. e. That Every thing comes by Emanation from God or that Every thing is the Nature and Essence of God Extended and Vary'd which Returns again into its self as Rivers come from and Return into the Sea And so All things Return into the Nature of God whence they Came. And that ther is no Nature or Being but only that of God And this the Quakers have Lick'd up from the Ranters from whom they came And tho' they seem to oppose them yet from them they Learn'd And still Propagate this with others of their Vile Errors This is the very Language of the Quakers Is not this that cometh out from God which is in God's hand Gr. Must p. 100. Part of God and from God and to God again is not this of God's Being And doth not the Scripture say God is All and in All Is not the Soul without Beginning ib. p. 90. coming from God Returning into God again who hath it in His hand Which brings it up into God which came out from Him hath this a Beginning or Ending And is it not Infinite in it self and more than all the world Now Consider what a Condition they call'd Ministers are in ib. p. 29. They say that which is a Spiritual Substance is not Infinite in it self but a Creature That which came out from the Creator and is in the Hand of the Creator which brings it up and to the Creator again that is Infinite it self And thou says ib. p. 91. the Soul is a Spiritual thing and yet a Creature But the Bishop of their Souls Christ the Power of God brings the Soul up into God from whence it came whereby they come to be One Soul Thus G. Fox which he had learn'd from his Lear-Father as he was call'd John Hinks a Chief man among the Ranters Who allow'd no Distinction at all betwixt God and Creatures but said that All was God And after him the other Quakers proceed in the same strain Christoph Atkinson sets down this as a False Principle which he opposes viz. That God who is Creator Sword of the Lord. p. 3. is Eternally DISTINCT from all Creatures in His Being and Blessedness And Replies in these words The Being of God is not Distinct from them that are Begotten of Him for as the Father and the Son are one without Distinction so are they that are Begotten by Him And p. 5. he Denies that Christ or God is a Distinct Person from all Saints and Angels For says he Christ is but one in All and not Distinct And this says he in his Title-Page I was moved by the Lord God of Life to lay open as it was made Manifest in me from the Lord. And now we see the Reason why G. Fox did not oppose what R. Farmer charg'd upon the Quakers of their Denying and Created Angel or Spirit and holding no other Spirit but God This G. Fox cou'd not Deny to be the very Principle of the Quakers Nay he Contends and Disputes for it In his Gr. Myst p. 207. he sets this as an Error of the Professors that they say God hath a Christ Distinct from all other things whatsoever whether they be Spirits or Bodies And Answers God's Christ is not Distinct from His Saints nor His Bodies So that by this not only all Spirits but all Bodies are God's Bodies nay every Body as well as Spirit is God For so it must be if God is not Dictinct from them This is true Ranterism And is the Dreggs of that old Corrupt Heathen Philosophy which made God to be only Anima Mundi the Soul of the World and consequently every thing to be Part of God of His Essence and Being The Blasphemous Absurdity of which has been Expos'd by many of the Heathens themselves And is now lick'd up again by the most Gross of Heathens the Quakers Mr. Farmer in his Book before mention'd is Large p. 58. c. in shewing now the Quakers took up this from the Ranters That they Approv'd of the Ranters Principles But Blain'd them for not keeping up to them to the Light that was in them as they say of their own Quakers when they Listen to the Flesh and are taken Napping In a Book wrote by G. Fox and Jam. Naylor An. 1654. call'd A word from the Lord unto all the Faithless Generation of the World c. p. 13. they give this Testimony to the Ranters You had a Pure Convincement I witness which did Convince you and you started up to be as Gods And Gods they thought Themselves and were thought by the Quakers till their Vileness as of the Quakers now was so fully Discover'd that meer Shame Drove all People from them Their Great Edw. Burrough and Fr. Howgill wrote an Answer to some Quaeres put by one Reeve of which this is the Second viz. What the true Creator was in his own distinct Essence Nature and Glory from all Eternity in Time and to all Eternity And wherein Elect men and
Angels differ in their Natures and Glory Distinct from their Creator in their Persons And the Answer of the Quakers is That the Nature and Glory of the Elect differs not from the Nature and Glory of the Creator For the Elect are one with the Creator And thy word Distinct Essence I Deny For the Elect is not Distinct from the Creator The First Quaere Asks How God is Distinct from all Living Creatures And the Answer is He is not Distinct from Living Creatures for in Him Living Creatures Lives Moves and hath their Beings This shews how the Quakers and Ranters their Predecessors understand that Text. Act. xvii 28. Not as there Explain'd and ver 25. That God gives us all these things But that these things are Part of God's Essence and not any Distinct Essence from Him That ther is but one Essence or Being which is God Of which All Creatures do Partake in their several Degrees By which Hypothesis as Sebastian Frank one of this Horrid Gang in Germany did Impiously Blaspheme In Trunco Dcum esse Truncum in Porco Porcum in Diabolo Diabolum O Astonishment to Repeat it That In a Block God is a Block in a Swine a Swine and in a Devil He is a Devil These last Quotations I take from Mr. Farmer not having seen that Answer of Burrough and Howgil to Reeve But G. Fox in his Answer to this Book of Mr. Farmer do's not Deny them which ther is no Doubt he wou'd have done had they been False Nay on the Contrary he do's Justify the Doctrin and stand by it He Quotes the very Place in Farmer where these Quotations are viz. p. 60 61 62. In p. 61. is that Dreadful Blasphemy above Quoted of Sebast Frank there call'd one of the same Gang with the Quakers and in the same page and beginning of p. 62. it is Compar'd with what I have above Quoted out of Christopher Atkinson's Sword of the Lord c. where he Denies God to be a Distinct Being from All Creatures And G. Fox in his Gr. Myst p. 174. Quotes this same Page of Farmer viz. p. 62. and sets down this as one of Farmer 's False Principles which he Opposes He saith says Fox That God is Distinct in His Being and Blessedness from All Creatures and that God who is the Creator is Eternally Distinct from All Creatures He Quotes the same again from p. 53. of Farmer thus He saith That this God who is the Creator is Eternally Distinct from All Creatures And from p. 55. That Christ being God only in one Man's Person remains a Distinct Person from All Creatures and Angels And G. Fox's Answer is This is Contrary to Scripture And he Quotes some of the Scriptures which they use to wrest to this Blasphemous Purpose as That God is All in All. In Him we Live and move c. And he Disowns not Sebast Frank or his Blasphemy Thus they hold That Christ is God not only in One Man's Person i. e. in the Person of our Lord Jesus of Nazareth but in Every one of their Persons and as much Incarnat in Them as in Jesus Nay as much in Every other Man ay and Beast too by this Principle which Degrades God into a Stock to a Swine to a Devil O Horror who by this Means wou'd Maintain His Equality with God And has Taught it to the Quakers Who from his Inspiration think Themselves to be Infinit and Eternal as God is Thus says G. Fox in the Introduction to his Battle-doore for Teachers and Professors c. All Languages are to me says he no More than Dust who was before Languages were And p. 214. Next follow a few words by George Fox Who is before Confusion or Many Languages were In the same Strain says James Parnell in his Book Intituled The Watchers c. p. 37. To the End of all Disputes and Arguments I am come for before they was I AM. And thus it must be if their Soul be not a Creature and have no Beginning as before has been Quoted out of their Books It will not now seem Strange That they Allow no Created that is no Human Soul to Christ Since they Deny it to themselves This you may see in George Whitehead his Answer to Thomas Danson his Synopsis of Quakerism Printed An. 1669. p. 18. There he says As to T. Dansons telling of the Son of God's Incarnation the Creation of his Body and Soul the Parts of that Nature he Subsisted in c. To this I say if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both Created doth not this render him a Fourth Person for Creation was in Time Where doth the Scripture say That his Soul was Created The Consequences of this Horrid Opinion Engages the Quakers to believe That God may Grow and Encrease be Born and Suffer because they find it so with Themselves They Suppose that what they call the Seed in their Hearts do's Grow from a Seed to become a New-Born Child Thence to be a Son that is in the Perfection of a Man And thence by Degrees to Encrease till it be God! This is the Climax of the Quaker-Perfection for they Cannot say that they were Perfect at first Thus Will. Penn gives it Us in his Christian Quaker An. 1674. p. 98. When says he what was but in the Condition of a SEED or NEW-BORN CHILD shou'd become the ONLY SON the WONDERFVL COVNCELLOR the MIGHTY GOD the EVERLASTING FATHER This is the same Language with Will. Bayly in his Works p. 291. CHRIST is known says he to be first a Holy thing then a CHILD given and a SON Born Which is EMANVEL God with Vs a Saviour a Wonderful Councellor the MIGHTY GOD the PRINCE OF PEACE c. And this is not said of Our Blessed Lord Jesus of Nazareth his Conception in the Womb of the Virgin MARY and being Born of her Body But the Quakers Mean it as all fulfill'd Within Themselves viz. The SEED Sown or Conceiv'd in their VIRGIN Hearts which at the first in Embrio is only a Holy thing But Encreasing it becomes a Child in the Womb of the Heart thence Repening it has a Spiritual BIRTH and is a SON Born Which SON Grows up to be at last the MIGHTY GOD the EVERLASTING EATHER Nor do they Suppose that Christ was any otherwise Born of the Blessed Virgin than as He is thus Born in Themselves They Allegorize all the History of His Incarnation into this Spiritual Birth of the Light which they Call CHRIST in their Hearts The Virgin MOTHER of God is a Virgin HEART wherein God is Conceiv'd and Born They have Spiritual Shepherds too heeping their Flocks by Night A Spiritual STAR in the EAST Spiritual WISE MEN who follow'd it to a Spiritual BABE in a Spiritual INN MANGER c. And all this Perform'd Within them Now at this Day Awake therefore NOW says Will. Bayly p. 292. of his Works Ye Shepherds who have been keeping your Flocks by Night and Look
in Pennsilvania An. 1695. And by this the Reader may Judge whether it proceeded from Want of Capacity or Sincerity in George Whitehead and the Rest of the London Quakers That in their Printed Answer to these Queries they say They are Not Plain and Direct Queries therefore cannot Positively be Answer'd by our Single Yea or Nay to Each Query as Desir'd We therefore at present send this General Answer to the Queries Of which Sufficient has been said in the First Part Sect. v. p. 9. c. But here I wou'd observe That the Pennist Quakers in Pennsilvania durst not trust their own Light within to Answer these Queries And bound themselves to stand by the Answer of their London Friends Whereas those who with G. Keith had Return'd to the Truth of Christianity took no time to Consider nor Ty'd themselves Implicitly to the Determination of Any Whatsoever They said not that the Truth was farr off beyond the Seas in Old England And they must stay till some Good Body shou'd Fetch it to them with Safe Wind and Tyde and Deut. xxx 13. See before Second Part. p. 225. From all this we may take Notice of the Different Assurances which Proceed from a Rational Faith Founded upon the Rock of the H. Scriptures And that which is Built upon the Sand of our own Imagination which the Quakers call their Light Within A FAITHFUL RELATION Of the great Opposition made by some Preachers among the Quakers to three great fundamental Doctrins of the Christian Faith at Two several Meetings at London in the year 1678 appointed to hear the Charges made by them against me George Keith for my asserting the said Three Fundamental Doctrins in my Book call'd The way cast up Printed 1677. AND The Reasons of my Publishing the said Relation IN the Year 1678 at London there being great Whisperings and Complaints privately spread among the People called Quakers against Me on the Account of Certain Principles laid down by Me in a Book of Mine Printed in the Year 1677 called The way Cast up And I happening to be then at London and hearing of the said Complaints against me and my said Book I spoke to diverse of the Ministry of the People called Quakers that they would appoint a Meeting to hear the Complaints of those Persons that Objected against some things Contain'd in my Book charging them to be False and Erronious and also to hear my Defence and Vindication touching the things to be charged against me A Meeting was procured at a Friends house call'd John Osgood a Merchant in White-Hart Court in Grace-Church-street London in the winter Season which began about the Sixth hour at Night where a Considerable number of those called Friends of the Ministry were met together with divers other Persons of account among the Quakers among whom were William Penn George Whitehead Thomas Green William Mead William Gibson George Watt Francis More Thomas Hart James Claypowl John Bull And many other besides The persons that appeared against me at the said Meeting were chiefly Samuel Newtown a great Preacher then among them who not long after Broke and went to Virginia and still Preacheth there among the Quakers as I have been certainly inform'd by some that heard him and are ready to bear witness to it and William Shewen a Preacher and a great Writer among them who hath Printed divers Books highly approved by many of the People called Quakers Containing some abominable Principles whereof I have given some account in my Second and Third Narratives of the Proceedings at Turners-Hall This man was never Censured by Friends of the Ministry for his Antichristian Doctrin Contained in some of his Books but lived and dyed in Unity with them and had Solemn Commendations and Testimonies given him by some of the Ministry at his Funeral The first Meeting not having time sufficient to hear all that was to be said for and against appointed another Meeting at the house of James Claypool Merchant in Scotch Yard in London when some others were present and mostly all the foremention'd the Meeting began about the Sixth hour at night as did the former The particulars were Three especially wherewith these two above named Persons severally charged me and blamed my Doctrine and opposed against it to be Contradictory to the Ancient Friends Books whereof they brought a Considerable number which were laid on the Table but it happened that none of them were used but instead of them the Bible was called for and some places in it read and Discours'd upon The First Particular they blam'd in my said Book and charg'd to be false was that I had affirmed that Christ's Body that was Crucified on the Tree of the Cross and was Buried pag. 131. Rose again and Ascended into Heaven and was in Heaven Diverse spoke their mind to it one after another some against it and some for it and some very doubtfully which I was greatly astonished to find I Quoted that place of Scripture in defence of the Resurrection of Christ's Body Psal 16.10 compared with Act. 2.30 31 32. Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell nor suffer thy holy one to see Corruption Will. Mead said to me dost thou understand this of an outward Body that which was not to see Corruption was the Seed within I answered let the places be read and compared and it will be found that they are to be understood of Christ's Body that was laid in the outward Grave so these two places of Scripture were read and several gave their assent to it that by the Holy one that was not to see Corruption was to be understood Christ's Body that was laid in the Grave whereupon Thomas Green an ancient Preacher said Friends one of two things we must needs say either that Christ's Body remains in some hole or cave of the Earth or that it Rose and Ascended for it did not see Corruption and for my part I rather think it Rose and Ascended into Heaven as George Keith affirms than that it remains in any hole or cave of the Earth Diverse other places of Scripture I had to bring forth to prove the truth of the Resurrection of Christ's Body as his own words to the Jews Destroy this Temple meaning his Body and after three days I will raise it up and his appearing to his Disciples after his Resurrection having said as it is Luk. 24.39 Handle me and Feel me for a Spirit hath no Flesh and Bones as ye see me have After Thomas Green had spoke as is above related George Whitehead said that whereas many both Priests and Professors had questioned Friends much concerning Christ's Body what was become of it and where it was by occasion of Friends Preaching Christ within so frequently he confesses that Friends were at some stand to give a possitive answer but rather evaded the Question And though in former times Friends were shy to answer the Priests and Professors Questions about Christ's Body fearing they sought
by their subtilty to ensnare them yet now George Keith has given a plain answer to their Question he tells them Christ's Body is Ascended into Heaven and is in Heaven Note this fallacy G. W. knew well enough that what I had asserted about Christ's Body his Ascension into Heaven did contradict both his and his Brethren's Doctrine He doth Contradict what Friends had formerly said but is possitive and plain in his answer to the Professors question So my opposers ceased any more to object against me upon that Head The Second Particular they charged against me was that in my Book I had said the Friends did pray to Christ Jesus and did Worship and Pray unto the Mediator betwixt God and Man the Man Christ Jesus the Anointed King Priest and Prophet of his People who also is God over all blessed for ever pag. 123. of The way cast up And whereas I had set down some words of prayers that I had said I had heard some use in our own Meetings and I had used as Jesus son of David had mercy on us pag. 121. O thou blessed Lord Jesus that wert Crucified and Dyed for our sins and shed thy Precious Blood for us be gracious unto us c. the which prayer containeth a whole page in Print wherein also the forgiveness of our sins is prayed for a thing many say they never heard in a Quaker's Meeting to this these two men observed that it was a sort of Popery but with this difference that the Papists prayed both to the Mother and the Son George Keith though he prayed not to the Mother yet he prayed to the Son Some present said it was a part of Common Prayer to say Son of David have mercy on us but these two before mention'd Persons my chief opposers put me hard to it to give some Instance where ever I heard any ancient Friend of the Ministry that was an English man pray to Christ Jesus It is possible said they thou hast heard some Scotch Friends pray so whom thou hast taught so and were thy Proselites I confess I was at a stand to name any one English man that ever I heard so pray though in Scotland I would have named one But William Penn prevented me and said Friends I am an English man and a Freind of the Ministry I have oft prayed to Christ Jesus to my great comfort and have been answered And not long ago being under some great weight upon my Spirit and like to have been swallowed up by a power of Darkness I uttered these words its true I was in private Lord Jesus who was Crucified for me have mercy on me and immediately I was eased and comforted They objected that William Penn was but a young Minister Let George Keith give an instance what ancient English Friend of the Ministry he ever heard pray to Christ Jesus As I could remember none so nor did any in all the Meeting give an Instance But said George Whitehead it is not what William Penn or George Keith saith let the Scripture decide it whereupon he call'd for the Bible and reads in 1 Cor. 1.2 Vnto the Church of God which is at Corinth to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus call'd to be Saints with all that in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ both theirs and ours What say ye to this Friends ye see that Paul did-approve the Corinthians that called upon the name of the Lord Jesus Note Reader one would think that if G. Whitehead had made it his practise to pray to Christ Jesus being an ancient Minister and using to pray frequently in the publick Meetings of the people call'd Quakers he would have named himself to have been one who had prayed to Christ Jesus or some that had oft heard him ther present might have given him for an instance but no instance was brought of any English ancient Friend of the Ministry who had ever been heard so to pray and had it been a frequent practise among them to call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ it could not be supposed to be possible that these two men my opposers could have objected it against me as a novelty or such a singular practise as that no English ancient Friend could be produced as a witness for that practise their answe to George Whitehead's Question was Paul was dark and ignorant in that thing as George Keith is for our parts we know better George Whitehead reply'd hold Friends say not so Ye know we have been accused by divers that we esteem our selves equal to the Apostles which for my part I never did how will this be received by Professors if they shou'd hear that we did set up our selves above them and above Paul one of the chiefest of them after he had so plentifully received the Holy Ghost and had planted so many Churches Pray let us not exalt our selves above Paul it is very well if we be where he was But they still continued blaming my assertion in my Book for saying that Christ was to be prayed unto and especially they blam'd the manner of praying to him by the name Son of David objecting against one of the prooffs in my Book how Bartimeus pray'd to Christ in these words Son of David have mercy on me Poor blind Bartimeus said they had George Keith no better Arguments for him than blind Bartimeus he was as blind in his Soul as he was in his Body Thomas Hart replyed to them Friends say not so ye are under a great mistake to think he was blind in his Soul he was greatly enlightned in his Soul and had a great Faith and Christ answered him and said thy Faith hath saved thee which proveth he was not blind in his Soul when he so prayed They still remaining dissatisfied and greatly blaming that manner of expression Son of David as improper William Penn said Friends we know that Christ after his Ascension call'd himself the root and off-spring of David Now why may it not be supposed that a Friend may be moved in prayer to say O thou root and off-spring of David have mercy on us Some also brought that place in Acts. 7.59 how Stephen being fill'd with the Holy Ghost at his death call'd saying Lord Jesus receive my spirit so after several words of discourse made by other Friends present mostly approving my assertion they passed to their Third particular charg'd against in my Book the passage in my Book that they blam'd is in pag. 123. Compared with pag. 136. where I had said pag. 123. He is that mighty one upon whom the Father hath laid help for that although the Father himself loveth us and is most willing and ready to help us in all our Necessities yet we can no otherwise receive his help but as it comes to us by the Conveyance of the Man Christ Jesus our alone Mediator And pag. 136. I had said But still as in respect of Union Manifestation