Spiritual c. Of this false Doctrine G. K. complained to the Quarterly Meeting at Philadelphia but no Answer could he have nor no blame nor condemnation must pass against their Brother J. Humphery for this false Doctrine tho' its near six Years since these Letters were writ Well Reader This is a Taste of the Doctrine and Faith of our Delaware Quakers though as I said before we hear the contrary Doctrine is now preached in London and thou mayst expect to find much more such like false Doctrine Clashes and Contradictions in the ensuing Treatise And I should have been glad if I could been easie without detecting the same but I have now done it and have it may be the last I shall be concerned in And whatever maâ—â—e my lot for this I am content knowning my Intentions proceeding herein to be honest and sincere Amen D. L. The Contents THe Introduction page 1. Chap. 1. The Dis-harmony Clashes and Contradictions of the Quakers in both their antient and later Writings p. 4. Chap. 2. Of Opposition at Vnity p. 46. Chap. 3. A short Summary of Citations from the Quakers Books shewing that they deny Jesus of Nazareth to be the Christ p. 52. Chap. 4. Of calling Names for Religion p. 55. Chap. 5. Of Prophecyes p. 59. Chap. 6. Of Infallible Discerning p 61. Chap. 7. Of the Scriptures p. 68. Chap. 8. Of Magistracy and Government p 77. Chap. 9. O Persecution and Prosecution p 81. Chap 10. Friends Sufferings to be recorded by London Meeting p. 91. Chap. 11. Of Swearing p. 97. Chap. 12. Of Fighting Swearing and paying Tythes p. 202. Chap. 13. Of Miracles p. 810 Chap. 14. Of Life and Doctrine p. 113. Chap. 15. Sabbath Day Wheel turned round p. 118. An Appendix p. 121 Of In alliâ—lity p. 129 Oâ— Temporizing p. 130 Concerning Papists p. 134. A Postscript by way of Question to the Leaders of my Old Fâ—iends p. 137. A Proposition to meet our Adversaries in a publick Meeting concerning the matters contained in this Book p. 140. A Copy of a Letter sent to the Author by a Person of Note p. 142. INTODVCTION EXperience shews That the Quakers have always been exceeding Clamorons against those who have opposed any of their Doctrines especially in those books whose Authors are dead And yet notwithstanding no Christian Professors are moâ—e guilty than themselves not only of condemning Doctrines of Persons that are dead as diver of their Books testify but also guilty of Censâ—ring Persons too after their decease especially such as have been their opposers For this take one Example from W Penn viz. Reason against Raiâ—ing p. 163. Tho. Hicks complaining of E. Burroughs for giving ill Names to P. Bennit for asking Questions of the Quakers W. P. makes Thomas Hicks this Reply viz. 'T is Wicked with a witness and like a most irreligions Miscreant indeed God is my Record this day I would not to inherit more Worlds than there are Stars in the Firmament have so violated the Laws of Charity against the most violent of our deceased Opposers Vngodly Traducer whose Envy no doubt has fire enough in it to burn this good mans bones c. Note at what a rate he goes on considering the cause more like a Domineering Ranter then a meek and humble Quaker seeing himself is really guilty of Censuring and inveighing at â— Perrot one of there deceased Opposers as may be seen in his Book call'd Judas and the Jews And yet I know not that he got so much by so doing as to pay one Debt and much less so many Worlds as there are Stars in the Firmament but having not the Book at hand to cite particulars I 'll set down what John â—aylâ— and Jo. Feild Brethren of W. P say of the said Perrot after his decease p. 9. of their Loving Invitation viz. J. Perrot say they became a Troubler and Opposer and lost the Vnity of Friends in general and so was cut off from the Vine Christ and dyed miserably being in debt as the say See now here they censure one of there deceased Opposers to Damnation Behold the self-condemnation of these men their want of charity to the deceased Where has any of their Opposers been so Vncharitable to any of them after death especially But my present business is not at all about the Dead neither about Men nor Things that are Dead but against confused Doctrines now living viz. owned patronized and justified by men now living as witness the late general account given in the City Merurcy or News Book by the 24 Quakers at London And W. Bayly p. 568. opposing some Doctrine of a Quaker who was dead says As for that which is dead I have little to say one way or other I look not sayes he at the Person of any Living or Dead in that respect but it is that that lives that makes the difference And just as W Bayly sayes so it is For those citations following are the Doctrines of those now living tho' some of the first Authors be dead And my care has been to cite the Passages so large as to deliver the plain and full sense and meaning of their Authors to all intelligent Readers as they will find who please to examine and compare the same impartially But if through my distance from the Press some Errors or Escapes should pass Uncorrected I desire the candid Readers excuse or pardon seeing none are designed Lastly Whereas some Preachers of late to eyâ—se such confused Doctrines as follow tell the People That 't is easie to find seeming Contradictions in the Scriptures And why then may it not be so in our Friends Books To which I say they themselves in their Books give the reason why 't is so with the Scriptures which reason cannot hold as to their Books for W. Penn takes up several pages in his Rejoynder to shew to J. Faldo the Uncertainty of the Scriptures bringing Reasons to Prove them not the same as given forth but altered and corruptud so Joan Whitehead to the same effect in Refuge fixed also G. Whitehead in divers Books and S. Fisher at large in Rusticus c. all which shall be shewed hereafter Now this cannot be alledged of their Books because we have the first Impression of them and therefore they cannot be altered or corrupted So that this is too short a cover for this Mystry of Confusion which I desire all sober Readers well to Note Having thus premised shall now proceed to note some of the Contradictions and Clashes of the Quakers as I find them set down in their antient and latter Writings with some Observations on the same CHAP. I. The Dis-harmony Clashes and Contradictions of the Quakers in both their antient and latter Writings Numb I. SAnâ—y Foundat p. 13. W. P. saith Since the Father is God and the Son is God the Spirit 〈…〉 unless the Fathers 〈◊〉 and holy Ghost are 3 distirct Nothings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be â—â—eâ— distinct S. â—â—â—ances
to this Question viz. Why this following Doctrine so frequently preached formâ—rly by antient Friends is now let fall and not preached by any of you viz. I the Light will overturn Nations Kingdoms and gathered Churches that will not own me the Light in them I will make you knew that I the Light am the true Eternal God p. 1â— Ligâ—t and Lâ—â—e c. Again News out of the North p. 15. I am the same Door that ever was says G. F. the same Christ to day yesterday and forever the Light is the Eye that sees it Again Quest. to Professors p 27. Dâ—th not the Name Christ belong â—o the whole Body and to every Member of the Body aswell as to the Head Again News from the North say I speak the same Seed which is Christ says G. F. and if the Seed speak which is Christ be hath no other Name Again Saul's Errand to Damaâ—cus p. 7 8. If Christ be in you must â—e not say I am the Way the Truth and the Life And he that hath the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead is Equal with God viz. the holy Ghost see great Mystry p. 66 127. To â—â—e short I omit much more such Doctliâ—e from divers others Now I say seeing you have hitherto justified this as Gospel and Christian Doctrine in those who publisht it why do you not continue to preach it as they did seeing also 't is the Faith or Belief of all you Preachers in general That when you preach or pray 't is not you but Christ in you that prays I prove this to be your Belief by these two Reasons First You do never in your Meetings pray for Pardon or Forgivenâ—â— of Sin Not that I have heard in Twenty years due attendance for seeing 't is Christ in you that prays there is no need of it he being without sin Secondly You do not pray to Christ because it being Christ in you that prays it is absurd for Christ to pray to himself But I 'll take leave to tell you and prove it too if need be That you are of a different Faith in these two things from the Apostles Saints and Martyrs yea your Faith or Principle herein is contrary to all the primitive Christians in general for the Scripture Church History and Book of Martyrs shew that then Religion led them to pray publickly for Pardon for their Sins and some even at the point of Death and also both Apostles and other Christians frequently prayed to Jesus Christ as well as to God the Father Indeed your Presumption in this Anti-christian Principle is to be lamented for when some of your Fellow Ministers have been guilty of Whoredoms Adulteries c. though not then openly known yet these men thus secretly guilty cannot stoop no more than you to pray for Pardon for their Sins but still keep to their common Form in Prayer and this is a Truth known to more than your selves Now I ask you Whether do you Believe 't is Christ that prays in these men too as well as in you who may not so be guilty Pray answer in Truth and Sincerity to this and the rest of the particulars or other ways â—e silent out I have cause to believe you will do neither but rather as G. W. has of late years done in answering Books as I have seen where he has not taken notice of scarce a twentith part of a Book out only send out something and call it an Answer to Please your People and that they may have something to say when people cry where is the Answer to such of such a Book Now I sincerely profess that I have done nothing herein but with an honest design not having wilfully or knowingly wronged either Books or Authors in any one passage Therefore I propose this to you Preachers who publickly accuse us that have lately printed calling us Apostates Lyars and that we have both abused you and your Friends Books in falsly citing Passages out of the same and wronging their sense and the like to come forth to prove these Charges in the face of the world and if it be found that we have indeed therein wronged you Errors of the Press and other causual Mistakes excepted which are incident to all you shall in justice and equity have publick Satisfaction Come S Jenings Come John Simcock Come John Rodman Juda Allen W. Gabitas and all other our Accusers appoint a publick Meeting at Philadelphia at a Months warning by a few Lines under your hands put at some publick places at Burlington and Philadelphia and giving me also under your hand that you intend no other and I promise in the behalf of my self and Friends to meet you if God permit provided it be in some publick place where all may hear how you prove your Charges Come forth I say fairly to prove your Charges and no longer lie backbiting belying and abusing of us in your own Meeting-houses as you do where you will give none leave to answer you But I must tell you â—lainly I know you so well that I expect no such fair dealing at your hands Therefore I 'll give the world a Sign by which they may know that you do not only abuse bely and Charge us falslâ— in this case But also that your own Consciences tells you that you are guilty of so doing The Sign is this If you know and are conscious to your selves that you have and do so bely us c. then you 'll not come forth according to this Proposition But if you find you can get the least advantage of us by out-witting or otherways wording the matter tho' with never so much falsity Then you 'll come forth and be glad I give you this opportunity And by this SIGN shall you be Proved Thus my Conscience bears witness that I am clear of the guilt of your charge Therefore as says W. P. with Religious boldness â— subscribe your Friend Daniel Leâ—ds A COPY of A LETTER Sent to the Author by a Person of Note whose 〈◊〉 Name is left out because printed without his Knowledge Esteemed Friend D. L. I Have perused thy Book entituled News of a Trumpet sounding in the Wildernessâ— c. in which thou hast discovered and laid open the Mystery of Iniquity more clearly than I have seen done by any other And for thy labour and painâ— therein I pray God of his Bounty to reward thee and also protect thee from the cruel Effects of the Envy of those People therein concerned who being Potent round about thee thou canst expeâ—t no other Protection Though perhaps the thoughts of the suddain stop that the Philadelphia Quakers met with when they were so hot at persecuting G. K. and his Friends may in some degree check them and hinder them from doing what otherwise they would Since I was with thee at Burlington in 16â—2 I have thought God Almighty was then fitting thee for some purpose because of the suddain and Miraculous Recovery in
consequently three distinct Gods Qrs. Plainness p. 2â— G. W. saith That the Distinction of the Father and Son are not only Nominal but Real Note here if G. W's Real distinction do not make the Father Son distinct Substances But W. Penn tells him they are distirct nothings Reconcile these who can Numb II. Quakers Plainness p. 24. G. W. saith we own that the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father And also that the Son is the mighty God the Everlasting Father the Prince of Peace Sandy Foundation p. 14. W. Penn saith If the only God is the Father and Christ be the only God then is Christ the Father which is Ridiculous and Shamefull Note how W P. calls his Brother Whitehead's Doctrine Ridiculous Shamefull Numb III. Qrs. plainness p. 19. G W. there declares that they cannot deviate from Scripture Phrase in their Creed For untill you bring us plain Scripture saith he that saith the humane Nature is the Christ which phrase is conscientiously scrupled we must rather patiently bear your censure than deviate from Scripture Language in our Creed But in p. 18. G. W. sayes Have we not plainly and often confest than the divine Nature or word cloathed with the most holy Manhood was and is the Christ Note cloathed with the most holy Manhood is not Scripture Language on phrase so that here he deviates from Scripture Language in his Creed in the very next page Pray what is this but Hypocrisie Numb IV. Sandy Founda p. 22. W. Penn saith Since Christ could not pay what was not his own Debt it follows that in the payment of his own the case still remains equally grievous since the debt is not hereby absolved or forgmen but transfered only Divi. of Christ Ans â—â— T. D. p. 16. How false and Blasphemous says G. W. this charge is against Christ I appeal to all sober Professors of Christianity viz. That when God required Satisfaction of Christ is was due from Christ. Now observe That as before W. P. Renders Geo. Whitehead's Doctrine Ridiculous Shamefull so here G. W. renders W. Penns Doctrine basphemous for holding that Christ had a Debt of his own to satisfy to God as W. P. more laregly affirms p. 22. of his Sandy Foundat Therefore as G. W. in his Quakers plainness p 20 says Pray you â—aptists agree upon a consistent Creed that you intend to stand by so now the Bapâ—â—sts may say Pray you Quakers agree upon a consistent Creed that you intend to stand by c. Again I cannot but observe that though G. Whitehead as before pretends that they concientiously scruple to deviate from Scripture Language or phrase yet I have not met with one Book of controversie that G. W. has written but he himself diviates from Scripture phrase herein Likewise in Divinity of Christ by G. W. and G. Fox they begin in the Epistle with Commanding and charging Professors to bring express Scripture for their Doctrine saying whether do the Scriptures speak of three Persons in the Godhead in these express words Let us see where it is written Comâ— do not shuffle for we are resolved the Scripture shall buffet you about And where doth the Scripture speak of a Humane Nature of Christ in Heaven And where doth the Scripture say the Soul is part of mans Nature Give us plain Scripture without adding or diminishing Come let us see Chapter and verse c. Now may not the Professors say Come G. W. Come Quakers where doth the Scripture say the Distinction of Father and Son is not only Nominal but Real in these express words Let us see where it is written Come do not shuffle And where doth the Scripture speak or say the divine Nature cloathed with the most holy Manhood was and is the Christ And where doth thâ— Scrip-say these words The Light within every man Give us plain express Scripture for this your first and grand Principle of all without adding or diminishing Come let us see Chapter and Verse seeing you pretend you cannot deviate from Scripture phrase in your Creed Besides if G. W. does not hereby mean deceit and hypocrisie for what end does he pretend they cannot own this or that in their Creed if it be expressed in plain Scripture seeing they so often and plainly testify that the Scripture is not their Rule but the light within is their rule in Faith But for Professors to call for Scripture is but according to their principles because they own it for their rule Numb V. Sandy Founda p. 15. W. P. saith In the fullness of time God sent his Son who so many hundred years since in PERSON testified the virtue c. Quakers plainness p. 24. G. W saith The Title PERSON is too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God Numb VI. E. Burroughs p. 142. J. Buâ—joâ— said How are they deceived who own Christ no otherwayes then as he was before the world began E. B. Replys Here then hast discovered thy selâ— more plainly Did not the Saints own Christ Jesus the same yesterday to day and for ever for Salvation Quakers vindication p. 16. by G. Bishop We distinguish between Christ which was before the Foundation of the World and his being within the true Light the Body which he took of the Virgin c. Note here G. B. owns Christ otherwayes For Salvation than as he was before the world began for he makes 3 distinctions of Châ—ist Numb VII R. Huberthorns works p. 20. Preist says Christ himself was not capable of Faith and Repentance R. H. Replys Here I Charge thee to be a Lyar and a Slanderer for he was capable of Faith and Repentance Divinity of Christ Ans to T. D. p. 22. Christ he never did nor could sin says G. Whitehead Note does not G. W. here hold Christ not capable of sin And how then was he capable of Repentance Numb VIII Quakers Challenge by Solomon Ecclâ—s George Fox whose Name says he thou art neâ— worthy to take in thy Mouth who is a Prophet indeed It was said of Christ that he was in the World and the World was made by him and the World knew him not so it may be said of this true Prophet whom John said he was not But thou wilt feel this Prophet one day as heavy as a Milstone upon thee c. G. W. excuses this in his serious search p. 58. Book call'd Ishmael c. p. 9. by G. W. One said It is all one to say the Scripture faith and God saith G. W. Replys Thou Blasphemous Beast dost thou make no difference between the Scripture and God! Here let all that reads this see thy Blasphemy Note upon what occasions they revile others for Blasphemy But G. W. excuses that real Blasphemy in his Brother S. E. and only sayes 'T is a little failure in syntax But let G. Whitehead tel me If a man should affirm it is all one to say His Book Ishmael saith and the
the Debt of our sins as he is God because then the Father Spirit being God they also pay the Debt Nor not as Man he being Finite as above Nor not as God Man as W. P. in that page expresly affirms A Little of G. Whiteheads help here might do well to word the matter so as to reconcile this Doctrine of W. P. and G. F. Numb 56. R. B's Apology p. 95. Wherefore as we believe he Christ was a true and real Man so we also believe that he continues so to be glorified in the Heavens in Soul and Body Note W. P. says as above Christ as Man was finite viz. came to an end But here R.B. says he continues a real man in Soul Body so is not finite Chuse which of these you will believe Numb 57. G F's Gr. Mysâ—ry p. 90 Priest says There is a kind of Infiniteness in the Soul but it cannot be infiniteness in it self G F. answers Is not the Soul without beginning coming out from God returning into God again Note W. P. as above holds the Soul to be properly the man And here according to G F. this Man is without bâ—ginning if no beginnâ—â—g then no end which is not only Infinite â—ut also Eternal And yet Mark the Confusion W. P. before denys the Man Christ to be Infinite Numb 58. G. W's Div. of Christ p. 27. The God whom we serve and bâ—lieve in is infiniâ—e the only wise God and nothing relating to him or his being finite Sandy Foundat p. 20. W. P. there calls the Man Christ The Finite Impotent Creature Note the Clash unless the Man Christ be not relating to God Here I cannot but take notice that tho' W. Penn blasphemously calls the Man Christ the finite impâ—tent Creature yet he afterwards in his Reas against Rail a above and in other Books calls his Body a holy Body as if he thought that way to salve and excuse his former gross Doctrine or at least to hood-wiâ—k his Readers so as to let them see that he has so reverent esteem of Christ as to call his Body a holy Body after he haâ—â— so irreverently call'd his whole Man the finite impotent Creature Again I observe W.P. to be one with his 24 Brethren that in the City Mercury or News Book owns and and defends these sayings first in the Battledoor viz. All Languages are to me sayes G. F. no more but Dust who was before Languages were Next in J. Pâ—s Collection p. 199. But to the end of all Dâ—sputâ—s and Argumeâ—ts I am come for before they were I AM says James Parâ—ell To Pre-exist is to â—ave a being before where 't is plain the declare themselves at least to pre-exist and yet W. P. denys the Apostles to pre-exist for in his Rejoynder p. 299. he says Paul did not pre-exist Christ did Now is not this a setting themsâ—lves above the Apostles and equal with Christ For Christ pre-existed G. Fox and Ja. Parnell pre-existed but Paul did not pre-exist says VV. P. Nay further I find in pag. 1. of the Book of the two women at Malta D. Baker is not only for having his Friends the Quakers to pre-exist but also declares them to be Eternal saying O ye Eternal and blessed Ones whilest the man CHRIST must be calld The finite impotent Creature by this high and elevated dust and ashes VV. Penn. I shall now return to insert a few more Contradictory Clashes and so haste to another head Numb 59. W. P's Rejoynder p. 13 That Christ his coming was but Mark but to bring the world to a more improved knowledge and large enjoyment of that divine Power Wisdom Life and Righteousness which former Ages had comparatively but an obscure sight and imperfect sence of And p. 296-300 he justifies this saying viz. That which Christ took upon him was but a Garment even the flesh blood of our Nature which is of an earthly perishing Nature Truths Principles by J. Crook If Christ had not â—yed Man must have peâ—ished in sin this being the way found out by God to recover him Note Here 's one Christian he grants the merit of Christs coming and Death But W.P. makes the benefit of his coming to be no more but to shew man more plain what he saw before as through a glass perhaps thinks he mends â—he matter by often calling the Body A holy Body whilst yet he renders that earthly perishing Numb 60. G. F's Gr. Mystry p. 222. Priest says Câ—rtâ—â— is witâ—out his Saints in respect of his Bodily presence G. F. answers Hâ—w then are they of his flesh and his bone W. P. Chr. Quaker p. 97. The Body of Christ is not so much as in any one Note This W P. is still clashing against G. F. almost on every hand Numb 61. W. P's Address to Protestants p. 119. Let us saith he but soberly consider what Christ is and we shall the better know whether Moral men are to be reckoned Christians What is Christ but Meekness Justice Mercy Patience Charity Virtue in Perfection Note Tho' W. P. Allegoriâ—es Christ and makes him nothing but Virtues yet his Brother G. W. tells W. Hâ—râ—orth as above â—hat Christ is something else viz. a MAN consisting of Spirit Soul body the same Body as dyed or he only words the matter so to deceive the People Observe now That tho' these two mens Books quarrel about Doctrine yet they agreâ— in praising one another for G VV. in Qrs. plainnesâ— p 5 calls VV. P. A sincere hearted and zealous Man and VV. P in one of his Books does as â—uch for G. VV. And 't is abundance of Books these two men have written yea more by halâ— than ever I have seen nor do I desire to see them for truly I find Confusion enough in those I have seen yea more than I intend to â—emonstrate at this time here being enough to shew the reason why they have not profited the People at all W Penn says Christ left nothing in writing Chr. Quak. p 114 Christ wrote no Books But they have not followed his Example in this and yet he says Christ was their Example But Note further tho' W. P. will have Moral men to be Christians yet R. Habberthorn denys that Christ oâ— Gods gift is obtained by moral means and in p 33. he calls them Lyars that so affirm So let the Reader judge who is the Lyar in this case Again I cannot but mind W. P 's devised distinction and unscriptural Expression if it were no worse in calling the Man Christ The FINITE and IMPOTENT Creature and yet G. VV. in his Introduction to Divinity of Christ says We judge that such Expressions and words as the holy ghost taught the Apostles and holy Men mentioned in the Scriptures are most meet to speak of GOD and CHRIST and not the words of mans VVisdom and devised Distinctions since the Apostles days Now is not here a doublâ— face they carry in seeming
the Hat and going to Meetings for he affimâ—s p. 5. That Spirit that leads from the practice thereof to be A dark Spirit clearness and freedom is not in it but it doth lead into bondage But how quite contrary this is to that in Truths Principles p 24 51. Every Man ought to be left FREE as the Lord shall perswade his OWN Mind in doing or leaving undone this or the other Practice in Religion This indeed looks quite with another face clean contrary to Rome's Impositions aforesaid and yet these Quakers would have us believe they are led by the ONE Spirit But I perceive J. Crook That wrote that Book is not a fit Man for their Society CHAP VII Of the Scriptures CHristian Quaker pag 104. W. P. cites and transposes the Apostles words thus Lo in the Volumn of the Book it is written I come to do thy Will O God A Body hast thou prepared me But great W. P hath not altered the Sense of that Text yet by W. P 's own Doctrine 't is very questionable whether that be true Scripture especially because what is written in the volumn of the Book of the old Testament is only this Sacrifices and Offerings thou aidst not desire mine Ears â—ast thou opened Psal 40.6 Mark here is not a word of a Body hast thou prepared me which â—e â—nd his Brethren make such a Noise about in their Books Now says W. P. Rejoynder p. 38 I cannot but observe at what a suspected rate the Scriptures have been both first collected and then convered through the several succeeding Ages I may well object Are we sure the Judgment of them who first collected them was sufficient to determine what was right and what not Also How shall we be assâ—red that in above 300 years so many hundred Copies as were doubtless taken should be pure and uncorrupted considering the private Dissentions the readiness of each party to bend things to their own belief and the growing and succeeding Faults of leaving out aâ—ding transposing c. Nor was the Collectors Judgment Inâ—allible Learned men tell us of little less than 3000 several Readings of the Scriptures of the New-Testament in Greek Hence we may observe the Vncertainty of J. Faldo 's Word of God c. Now therefore since W. P. thus declares the Uncertainty of the Scriptures of the New-Testament and the Psalmist to which the Apostle seems to refer shews that Text to be altered why then should he and his Brethren build such monstrous Principles upon so uncertain a Foundation as they render it That upon these words which it seems are properly Mine Ears hast thou opened as that therefore he who dyed at Jerusalem was not Christ but a prepared Body and that the Jews did not see Christ but a prepared Body and that the outward Person born of the Virgin was no part of Christ but only a Garment see Numb 38 48. And to strengthen this Anti-scriptural Doctrine T. Elwood has one knack in his Truth Desended p. 138. where he ventures to belye the common Creed The common Creed says he called the Apostles Creed says Christ was conceived by the holy Ghost Though born of the Virgin Now pray search the common Creed and see if the word Though be there to be found Behold this great Quakers Champion O what an Imposture would he have rendered George Keith to the World had he wrote this Lye of the Creed Note further W Penn cites and defends this Passage Râ—joynder p. 61. Quest Of what service are the Scriptures as they are given forth and recorded without Ans Much every way saith he and there is an Agreement and Vnion between the Spirit within and the words without Observe here how this wise Man confounds himself The Scriptures by his account are altogether Uncertain and suspicious at least of being corrupted and yet there is an agreement and union between the Scriptures as recorded without the Spirit within How does he here render the Spirit Uncertain One may see by this that a man who writes much had need have a good Memory or a stable Faith Again something like this is that late Confession of G. W. in his Counter Convert p 26. We prefer the holy Scriptures saith he before all the Books extant in the World Now observe here how G. W. carries a double face to deceive his Reader for he does not say that he prefers the Book called the Bible before all Books extant no for then he would contradict their Old Books for the Scriptures in the Bible they esteem Uncertain as above And their former Doctrine shews plainly what those holy Scriptures be which they prefer for in Truths Defence p. 2. 104. they say You might as well have condemned the Scriptures to the fire as our Papers and Querys for our giving forth Papers or printed Books it is from the immediate and eternal Spirit of God Hence it appears that those holy Scriptures which they prefer are their own Books and so much or such parts of the Bible as they will allow to remain uncorrupted c. And thus this insincere G. Whitehead hides himself by a deceivible meaning as is more plain by what he says in his antient Book called Truth defending p 7. That which is spoken from the Spirit of Truth in any says G. W. is of as great Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are and GREATER c. Now let the Reader judge what those holy Scriptues are that they prefer before all Booke exâ—aâ—â—n the Word And as to what parts of the 〈◊〉 they 〈◊〉 allow to be holy Scriptures hâ—a◠〈…〉 so hâ—ad says in Refuge fixed p. 17. viz. Whether Mo◠〈◊〉 Hâ—â—mis were the first Pen-man of the Scriptures or whether both these and not one And whether some words were not spoken by the grand Imposter some by Wicked Men some by Wise Men ill applyed some by good Men in expressed some by false Prophets and yet true some by true Prophets and yet false c. Now Reader do but compare this with what W. Penn says before and then if my old Friends for time to come should object and say There are seeming Contradictions in the Scriptures or Bible and therefore well may our Friends Books seem to contradict each other Pray let them know that there are not only seeming but real Contradictions in their Books but not in the Bible And as to any seeming Contradictions that may be in the Bible they themselves as above have given the reasons why 't is so viz. having been corrupted but their Books cannot be corrupted because we have the first Impression of them which they say are given forth from the Immediate and Eternal Spirit of God and so must reeds be better and more certain Scripture than the Bible aâ—câ—â—â—ng to their own Doctrine Now as to the Titlâ—s they give to the Scriptures take a little more of their Clink Clank as W. P. says of the Priests for in a Book of G W 's call'd
that they call them Amaleck exhort one another to smite Amaleck and yet like Cowards never come at them or like Cocks crowing on their own Dunghills they do it only in their own Meeting-houses among their own Friends and he that 's most ingenuous at comparing G. Keith and his Friends to the worst of Men and Devils they can find named in the whole Bible he 's an excellent Preacher and followed from Meeting to Meeting many Miles and of this Truth my own Eyes and Ears are witness In the years 1694 95. Ralph Ward a poor Friend at Philadelphia was several times fined for conscientiously refusing to serve on Juries and had Goods taken from him to the value of 4 l. 6 d of which he complained to the Governour and Council but had no Relief The Members of Council present were S. Carpenter S. Richardson A. Morris C. Pusey D. Lloyd all Quakers At a Court at Burlington 3d Mo. 1697. Daniel Bacon was fined 10 s. by Quaker Justices only for refusing to serve on a Jury tho' he pleaded both Liberty of Conscience and the Law lately made in England which says No Quaker or reputed Quaker shall serve on any Jury nor bear any Office of Profit in the Government Now here take Notice The Quakers in England used to plead with the Rulers against the Kings Laws for Liberty of Conscience But now being got into the Saddle of Government and being Rulers themselves they deny Liberty of Conscience to others that plead FOR the Kings Laws for Liberty of Conscience Let my old Friends at London consider that and whether 't is not Time now to cry out as Sam. Fisher once did p. 144. O Gross Horrid Hideous and Sordid Also several Friends in East and West-Jersey had Goods taken from them for not answering sumons to Courts also for refusing to pay a Tax raised to pay Souldiers wages Where Note the Quakers in East-Jersey who were in Unity with their persecuting Brethren at Philidelphia paid this Tax either directly or indirectly which was to pay Souldiers wages I shall give no perticular account of these distresses beâ—leving the rest are more than you wiâ—l Record but I cannot well omit to instance one more and leave it and the rest to your Consideration And that is John Wood one of your Brethren a Preacher in Gloucester County in West-Jersey being Sheriff of that County came with men armed to take Goods from John Roberts at Pensoaken sent two meâ— bâ—fore who pretended they had lost their way of which the said Joh. Roberts his Wife took pity and gave them meat to eat Soon after they espied Wood coming with his Company wherefore Roberts made fast the Door but Wood told him he had those within that would do his business they seeing him so treacherous opened the Door this Wood when came in offered his hand Roberts said if he came as a Friend it was well But said Wood I come not as John Wood the Preacher but as the Sheriff of Gloucester Now by the way observe that in the case between G. R. the Magistrates at Philadelphia those Magistrates could not find how to distinguish between Magistrates Quakers or Preachers but here you see their Brother J. W. had the art to do it But this J. VVood proceeded and took several soâ—s of Goods in use in the house among which was a Warming pan which the woman earnestly desired him to leave by reason of the great use themselves and the Nighbours had of it in case of Sickness or Child-bed there being none there about except that But she could not prevail with this VVood but away he carried it and soon after this Roberts fell sick and beginning to Recover again he sate up one day but at night going to his Cold Bed for want of the pâ—n to warm it being Winter the cold Bed made such impression on him that his speech was soon taken away which he did not recover again but dyed in a few days and what trouble this was to the Widdow the Neighbours can tell how much she imputed the death of her Husband to the want of the pan which she could not perswade this Wood to leave tho' she offered him to take any other thing instead of it Note the occasion of this Distress was only for not answering a Summons to Gloucester Court when the Court at Barlington required the same the place having been some years in contest between the wo Counties about the bounds not decided which County it belonged to Come you London Friends to say no more of the Inhumanity of this Action of a Preaching Quaker can you parrellel this in the whole Worlâ— that ever a preâ—ended Gospel Minister took the Office of sheriff before W. Penn cites plenty of old Authors in most of his Books pray set him to search all the Rusty Authors to see if he can find a President and if he can find none you may Record this for one if you please for the said Roberts was an honest Friend of your Society and I being wâ—â—h him in his sickâ—ess that very day that he sat up as aforesaid he desired me to publish this Preachers Action to the World and so far have I now fullfilled the Will of the deceased as also the Desire of his Widdow and Neighbours since his Death Now perhaps some for want of other Falsity to accuse me of will say I Taunt or Scoff But what would such say if I should use such Airy Expressions as that eminent Friend Sam. Fisher has done in his Rusticus ad Accademic 〈…〉 viz. As the Fool thinketh so the Clock Clinketh The Cat winkt when both her Eyes were shut The Wheel-barrow runs Rumble to Rumble A Tale of a Tub with the bottom out Tittles Tattle Twittle Twattle Whirle-gigs Flim-flams Gim-cracks Hog-styes Bumble-bee Propositions Magpye Premises Roaring Meggs Thundeâ—ing Canons to frighten poor fools c. This was Sam. Fishers phrase in writing Religious matters and re-printeâ— for Posterity by the lisence of the 2d Days Meeting in London And W. Penn in his Testimony before that Book makes the Scriptures their Rule for this stuff too and cites 1 Kings 18.27 of Elijah's words to Baal's Priests Thus I see how far I should be Justified were of their Society Though the same W P. with his t'other Tongue is so far from owning the Scriptures for their Rule that both he and S. Fisher as is before shewed would make them unfit for any Rule at all in any case by rendering them Vncertain c. Therefore pray ask W. P. by what Rule he knows any such word were spoke as recorded 1 Kings 18. seeing hâ— holds the Scriptures so Uncertain Doubtless he is as able to give an answer as if he had served seven years at Rome as G. W. tells the Baptists in his Quakers plainness p. 31. CHAP XI Of Swearing IN W Penn's Book called Reason against Railing p. 41. the Question is thus put How could you know
worst of Knaves So here G. W. is vindicating one of the worst of Knaves by his sincere hearted Brother W. P 's rule They are his own words let them share the matter as well as they can between them But says G. W. It is a little failure in Syntax that is to say S E. failed a LITTLE in the Joyning of his words Thus they can excuse blasphemy when uttered by their own Friend but if any of their Opposers do but write Aâ— or THE Yea for Thou or fail in a word O â—en they cry out Forgery Lyes Blasphemy and what not as I could give many instances Then it is not a little failure in Syntax only which the Law of Charity would not take notice of But if a Quaker write that which is ten times worse then they can use the Papists art to Dirâ—ct their Intention Pray read else in the Book call'd The Mystry of Jesuitism begin at p. 122. and see if George does not here teach people how to equivocate exactly like the Jesuites Now let all Intelligent people weigh and seriously consider whether this be like the simplicity and single heartedness that the Quakers pretend unto for them to write one thing and say themselves they mean Another or do not intend all they speak or write or as in the Title page see cause otherways to word the matter and yet intend the same just as S. Fisher says of the Priests p. 177 Shameful Shifting from sense to sense Misserable Marchings from Meaning to Meaning so that one can hardly know where nor hâ—â— to find them nor what they mean But says â—e WE mostly or EVER keep to the true honest ordinary and plain purporâ— of the words a they lie open and clear to EVERY ordinary and common Capacity that is willing to know and do the Truth Thus far S. E. but whether the Quakers do this I lavâ— to the Judgment of all Impartial Readers of this Book of which take a farther instanâ—e viz. They having in their Books called the Scriptures Carnal Death Dust Serpents Meat c. some of their own writings they call The Word of the Lord The Word of God The voice of Wisdom c. G W. to Quakers plainness p. 71. Replys That such Titles therefore have been not strictly but figuratively placed on some Books So here it seems they do not keep to the ordinary true honest and plain purport of the words but they must be understood in a Figurative sense Again on the other hand tho' the Quakers one while teach That all Figures were ended by Christ yet G. W. directs the intention for that too in his Timerous Reviler p. 4. where he lets us know They do not intend All but some viz. the figures under the Law And also there justifies their writing or speaking in Figurative Speeches Mataphors and Metonymyes and defends it from Scripture But here let G W. turn back to another of his own Books call'd The Divinity of Christ and Read these words in Epistle about figurative Speeches viz. We charge thee Priest Danson shew us a Verse in Scripture that speaks such Language and where one word may be put for another by Metalepses and so leave People in doubts and Questions Mark Reader does not here need some curious equivocating and otherways wording the matter to Reconcile these Doctrines clear themselves of the Guilt of what they condemn in others And seeing those high Titles they give their own Books are Figurative as they say let them therefore direct the intention next time they print so as we maâ— know whether those Titles they have given the Scriptures are figurative too viz. Death Dust Carnal Serpents Mâ—at c. for I cannot yet find in their Books whether whether they intend these Titles to be Figurative oâ— Real for they should not leave people in Doubts and Questions by putting one word for another by their own Doctrine Nay if we may believe S. Fisher they do keep to the plain true honest ordinary Sense of the words as they lie open and clear to common Capacities By which it appears their faith is that the Scriptures are Really Carnal Death Dust and Serpents Meat But then pray what are their Books what Naâ—â—s can be found out or invented bad enough for their Books seeing G. W. in Quakers plainness p. 71. positively asserts It was NEVER their intentions to bring their Books in Comparison with Scriptures but prefer the Scriptures before All Books O Rare and Base says S. F. p. 145. But if on the contrary they intend the said Titles given to the Scriptures to be figurative And if G. W. be Sincere in pretending to prefer the Scriptures above their Books then surely their Books should have had the worser Titles and the Scriptures the better Title Good Reader weigh this point well for if these Quakers do not really and indeed prefer their own Books above the Bible why can they not call the Scriptures The Word of the Lord or Word of God in a figurative sense as well as call their own Books so in a figurative sense Therefore I am bold to affirm it as my real sense that those late confessions they have made in pretending a preference of the Scriptures above their own Books is gross Equivocation and Hypocrisie so long as they justify their old Doctrine in the case Behold how these men deserve to be mockt as S. Fisher Mocks the Priests viz. They sing their Old New Song to the Tune of the Truth turned out of doors p. 726. For do but read another short instance â—lso about Christ G. F. in his great Mysteâ—y â— as in Heb. 2.10 saith Christ took on him the â—eed of Abraham And in p. 223. Arreign of Popery he saith the Seed of Abraham is the Saviour of the world Thus it seems Christ took the Saviour of the World of the Virgin Mary But if that was the Saviour that Christ took what is Christ that took that Saviour Consider that However here he lets us know that what Christ took of the Virgin is both the Seed and the Saviour of the World Both which W. P. expresly denys in Chr. Quaker p. 97. where he largely declares That 't is the Light in man that is this Seed and not what Christ took of the Virgin And that this Light EVER was in ALL Ages Sufficient and Saâ—ing Reas Ag. Rail p. 16. Now chuse Reader whether to take to this Faith published in the year 1674. by W. Penn or that published a dozen years before by G. Fox or their more new Faith now published in the Year 1695. in answer to Dr. Lancaster's Queries before cited Great is their Confusion throughout their Books especially about Christ and the Scriptures and G. F. tells in his Several Papers for the spreading of Truth p. 17. That God is not the Author of Confusion but such hold the Truth in Vnrighteousness And G. W. and his Brethren in their Books frequently call to Priests
and Professors for Signs or Proofs of their Ministry saying Have you the same POWER and Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures see the Epist to Divinity of Christ. Again G. W. in his Enthusiasm above Atheism p. 5. says Timothy and Titus and others who had GIFTS in them for the Ministry were Approved but this is no Proof that these Opposers Ministers are either so gifted or approved Now may not their Opposers say the same viz. Neither is it any Proof that the Quakers Ministers are either so gifted or approved Again G W. in answer to R. Baxter p. 16. We never understood that they that set up these Priests were called as Peter or Paul or the Elders who had POWER to lay on the Hands that the holy Ghost fell on the Party on whom they laid their hands And I say let us see but one Quaker thus called But now take Notice that when others demand a Sign or Proof of the Quakers of their call to the Ministry or to prove themselves to be more the Ministers of Christ than others are Then they turn the t'other face and tell them That 't is a foolish and an Adulterous Generation seek a Sign Thus G. W. in Quakers plainness p. 34. Now I say 't is true our Saviour did so upbraid the Jews and might very well for he had shewed Sign upon Sign and wrought very many Miracles amongst them and done many mighty Deeds before them and â—et for them to cry out for more was indeed foolish But what is this to the Quakers who produce No such Miracles No such Signs No No more than other Professors Must all others therefore be a fooliâ—â— Generation for asking a Sign or Proof of the Quakers and yet the Quakers not foolish in demanding the same of others O consider the conceited Confidence Arrogance and Pride of these Men I pray God give them Humility and Charity instead thereof But notwithstanding though the Jews were such an Adulterous Generation and had so many Miracles wrought before them yet Jesus Chriâ—t promised them one Sign more and that doubtless was the greatest Sign of all Therefore if these Quakers will hold to this Scripture which they ought to do seeing they bring it against others they then ought to give this Adultrous Generation one sign and that doubtless would be more convincing then all their Books and what-ever they can say Of Infallibility VVIlliam Penn in his Rebuke to 21 Divineâ— p. 22 says We are horribly abused in saying we pretend all our Ministers to be Infallible But whether what W. P. here says be true Read what the same W. P. says in Judas and the Jews p. 43. viz. Our Ministry is of God it stands in the Power of the living spiritual Gift of God And in A True account c. p. 18. says We have Thousands at our Meetings and none of us dare speak a word but as eternally moved of the Lord. Now observe That which is spoak by the eternal Motion of the Lord must needs be â—nfallible or nothing is Infallibly spoke Therefore is not this rather horrible falsity Deceipt and Double dealing in W. P. c. especially seeing G. W. largely declares in his Voice of Wisdom p. 33 That they that want Infallibility are not true Ministers Besides G. F. says Their preaching is from Conjuration that is not spoken from the Mouth of the Lord All you that speak and not from the Mouth of the Lord are false Prophetâ— see his Ans to the West Pet. p. 25. and Sauls Errand â—c p. 7. And in Truths defence p. 107. and News from the North P. 1. and other Books they declare what themselves write and speak To be fâ—om the Mouth of the Lord. And also in Gr. Myst. p. 267. says The Quakers aâ—e the only Ministers of Christ. And E. Burrroughs says p 3â—8 462. All that ever own God and Salvation shall own us Wee are of one Mind and one Soul But though I have sufficiently shewed they are not of one mind and Soul yet here follows after more of their Temporizing Clashes which they write suiting the Times and their own Interest viz. Of Temporizing 1. G. Fox to the Parliament of the Common Weal c. p. 8. 1659. says Let All those Abby Lands 〈◊〉 are given to the Priests be given to the poor of the Nation But facing about in 1686. W. P. in Preface to Perswasive to Moderation says Far be it from me to Solicite any thing in Dimunition of the just Rights of the Church of England let her rest protected where she is E. Burroughs p. 105. says You are in the Witchcrafts who reeceive Commands from without from the Letter But to go round again in 1675. p 36. Englands Interest W P. says we say Holy writ is the declared Fundamental Law of Heaven Note how W. P. confounds himself or deceives his Readers or both for in his Rejoynder as aforesaid he takes up several pages to prove the Scripture Corrupt and uncertain so much sligating it that he terms it J. Faldo's Vncertain Word of God p. 39. and yet here calls it The declared Fundamental Law of Heaven 3. E. Burroughs in An Epistle 1661. Keep close to the Lords and to the measure of himself made manifest in your own hearts for unto THAT you were directed to in the beginning and in it is your safety and preservation to the end But afterwards W. P. controuls this plea of E. B. in his Breif Exam. p. 11. saving The Enemy is at work to scatter the minds of Fâ—einds by that loose plea viz What hast thou to do with me Leave me to my freedom and to the Grace of God in my self c. 4. W. Smith's Primmer p. 46. Give Honour to whom honour is due But to a proud heady high minded man there is no honour due Though he may be great in the World and in place to Rule But G F. in a time of need could say I honour ALL men much more the Kings see G. F 's Tryal c. p. 8. And G. F. in his Papers to the Presbyterians p. 2. says All Kings have sprung up in the Night since the days of the Apostles among the Antichrists Note the harmony Notwithstanding their saying They are of one Mind and Soul 5. E. Burroughs Advice to the Parliament 1659. says It was thorough Ignorance that the People subjected to herriditary Goverment or to the Goverment standing in a single Person successively and our Nation hath been under the Bonds of Slavery in this respect But let us hear what contrary Doctrine G. F. preached when Times were turned 1664. If I could take any Oath at all says he I could take that Oath viz. the Oath of Allegiance which Oath binds to the King his heirs and Successors see his Tryal c. Behold what good can be expected from that People whose Leaders are such Temporizers But Note this last passage of E. Burroughs is left out of his Works Printed 1672. 6. Quakers
that Swearing in any case were unlawful if it had not been written Swear not at all Is not then the Scripture your Rule in this case W. Penn there answers This shews the Ignorance of Tho. Hicks in the Writings of the best Gentiles and his acknowledgment of the Light 's sufficiency in case we are able to prove Swearing disallowable before Christ came in the flesh The seven wise men saith he famous among the Greeks 500 years before Christ came in the flesh esteemed Swearing but a Remedy against Corruption Now observe does not this plainly shew that they held Swearing not only allowable but also good to be used for what good men would not use means to remedy Corruption was not W. P. dotish when he brought this Instance to prove the Light sufficient without the knowledge of what is written to shew men they should not sweaâ— Besides was it likely that the Light or Law in the best Gentiles would forbid all Swearing at the same time when the Law outward was in force that allowed and commanded Swearing or that the Gentiles had a light beyond the Prophets who never did forbid such Swearing but on the contrary commanded it Jer. 4 2. Another Instance W P brings is That Socrates said There is a Life more fâ—â—n and unquestionable than an Oath I Answ Does not the Law hold forth the same viz. that there is no need of an Oath amoâ—g men that live a life unquestionable or out of Strife for an Oath was for reconciling and putting an end to strife so that this of Socrates was so far from saying Sware not at all that it says as the â—aw says an evidence of what Paul said That the Gentiles did by Nature the things contained in the Law Now let wise men judge how far W.P. has proved the Light sufficient to shew men they should not swear without knowing the written Command of Christ And does not W. P. also confound himself in accusing T. Hicks of Ignorance for if we ask him who they be that live an unquestionable Life he shews us that the Saints do not for in Rejoynder p 175 he says The Saints shall judge the World and much more by their Judgment determine or reconcile things among themselves Thus seeing the Saints live not a life unquestionable but that they need to have things judged and reconciled how much less do others But more particular of Swearing W. P. and R. R. in their Treatise of Oathes put out in the Naâ—â—e of the Quakers p 46. cites this Passâ—ge viz. They Swear in God or to God or by God who promise an inviolable Obedience of Mind to him Now to say I solemnly Promise or Declare in the Presence of Almighty God c. is a calling upon God to be a Witness to the Truth of the Testimony given which in p 17. they look upon to be no less than a presumptuous Tempting of God to summons him to be a Witness not only to our Terrene but Trivial Business These are their express words And yet are they now so far apostatized and fallen from their antient Yea and Nay that this is the Oath that the Quakers have used under the new Name of a Test especially in W. Penn's Province of Pennsilvania till of late that G K. and his Friends bore Testimony against it And yet now in England they have got it confirmed by Law as I 'll shew anon But to proceed In pag. 68. they cite That it is evil to compell not only to Swear by God but by other things But how do they here condemn themselves for in their Courts about Delaware have seen Quakers give command the English formal Oath to be given to those that were not Quakers And yet for this very thing they condemn J. Perrot as an Apostate in their Book called A loving Invitation p 8. because when he was Clerk of a Court he gave some People the Oath Yet behold now their Brother Da Lloyd can do the like and be accounted no Apostate Again in the Book of the Tryal of G. Whithead and T. Barr at Norwich p. 2â— 29. the Recorder threatning to Praemunire them unless they would take the formal Oath We are ready and willing says G W. to sign this est or Declaration viz. I do in the Presence of Almighty God solemnly declare c. I do hereby faithfully promise by Gods help c. Note This they declare in p. 82. to be the Substance of the Oath which they then offered to sign and kissing the Book and saying I swear they there call the Ceremony and Circumstance so it seems they can now dispence with swallowing the Substance for they there say They conscientiously scruple the Ceremony and Circumstance to say I Swear and kiss the Book as much as to say We offer to swear but cannot in Conscience say I Swear Behold the Hypocrasie He further adds That he is willing to sign such Declaration of his Duty of Allegiance if he may not otherways be believed Mark If they may not be believed by saying Yea or Nay they 'll do that now which is more rather than be praemunired I confess that would have been hard but why then have they bound themselves up to Yea or Nay by printing so much in denyal of Swearing if they cannot defend it by Suffering out will Apostatize rather than Suffer Lastly in p. 35. their Keepers pulling them from the Bar to have them to Prison again Take noâ—â—e says G. W. to the Court we have not yet refused the Oath being not dâ—ly nor regularly brought upon the point c. Behold could any man knowing the Quakers Faith about Swearing ever have expected to hear such a word to come out of the mouths of Quakers and a chief Leader especially were it not better to be plain as those Quakers have been whosâ— Names are Râ—corded in thâ— Court of Chancery London for taking the formal Oath for this Hypocrisie has but caused some to publish in print That the Quakers can work Miracles for they can take an Oath and yet not Swear at all And G W. in said Book shews That he and some other Quakers did Petition to the Parliament to have the aforesaid Test established by Law for the Quakers to take instead of an Oath So the Parliament did last year grant their Request and confiâ—med it by Law in these words viz. I A. B. do declare in the Presence of Almighty God the Witness of the Truth of what I say This is the Quakers Oath that they call a Test now made into a Law according to their desire Behold now what 's become of their antient Yea or Nay Can now say this is no more than Yea or Nay Pray what is become of their tender Consciences that cannot Swear and yet can swallow down this Test without scruple Than which no Oath in the Woâ—ld can be greater or more binding yea were I read in History I doubt not but I could prove this Test to