is much more than that of Degrees G. F. tells of them that were come to that which is above Degrees Gr. Myst pag. 281. And the Blood of the Seed it cleanseth from Sin the Power and Stain of it and then the Guilt is gone of it and where this is known the Seed that destroys Death and him that hath the Power of it which is the Devil the Fullness is known which is above Degrees that which Degrees ends in Again G. Myst pag. 318. For who comes to the Spirit and to Christ comes to that which is perfect who comes to the Kingdom of Heaven in them comes to be perfect yea to a perfect Man and that is above any Degree Note by this it appears G. F. thought himself and some others of the Quakers come above any Degree and that is beyond and above the Apostles themselves who were but in the Degrees but they were come to the Fulness it self that is to be equal with Christ himself But let us next hear G. Whitehead 's Excuse of G F's Saying None can understand Scripture but by the same Degree of the Spirit the Prophets and Apostles had In his late Book called Truth and Innocency pag. 19. But if any true Knowledge of the Scripture be received that must be by a Degree of the same Spirit as I suppose the Words before-cited should be so transposed and so intended Note If this Liberty be allowed to transpose Words in a Sentence the falsest Assertions may be made true and the truest made false as Acts 12. It 's said Herod killed James by transposing James killed Herod Is not this a rare Evidence of G. W's Truth and Innocency or rather of his shameful Sophistry But whereas he saith the Words were so intended the above Quotations prove that G. F's Intention was that some of the Quakers and to be sure HE for one were come to the same Degree yea which is more to the Fullness and that is above any Degree But it 's no wonder G. F. thought he was come to such Height of Perfection when he said in his Battle-door All Languages are to me no more than Dust who was before Languages were This Passage Jos Wyeth quotes lamely Switch pag. 149. leaving out the Words which were chiefly offensive who was before Languages were What saith Jos Wyeth to this Snake pag. 85. And why did he not fully quote it as it was objected in the Snake It seems he found Difficulty to give a plain Answer to it therefore made a lame Quotation The like or rather more blasphemous Assertion is in a Book of J. Parnel called The Watcher p. 37. But to the end of all Disputes and Arguments I am come for before they was I am and in the Light do them comprehend and judge to be out of the Light in Babylon c. But here again let us note that the Author of the Switch acts the dull Sophister very manifestly Switch p. 453 465. when on the one hand he seems to be highly pleased with the Doctrine of the Church of England in the Point of Inspiration and saith He is glad that so essential a Truth as is the Inspiration of the holy Spirit is owned by her And on the other hand for blaming the Author of the Snake for his contradicting himself by his approving the Inspirations owned by the Church of England and yet faulting the Quakers Pretences to Inspirations The Author of the Snake had sufficiently cleared this in his Book called the Snake c. pag. 322. what sort of Inspiration the Church of England owned which is that of sanctifying and saving Graces but for the extraordinary and miraculous Inspirations of Prophecy and Tongues she doth not pretend to nor teach that they are commonly given or that they are to be sought there being no need of them The manner of prophetical Inspirations which the Prophets and Apostles had was such as they had given them by the Spirit without all outward teaching of Men or Books and beside this they had the ordinary Inspirations of the Spirit given in the use of the external means in God's ordinary way to wit the sanctifying and saving Graces of the Spirit inspired into them Here is a plain Difference betwixt the Inspirations which the Quakers pretend to given them without the external means of hearing reading c. and the Inspirations given in the use of the ordinary means of the written Word both preached and read that the Church of England lays claim unto which makes the Sophistry of the Author of the Switch very manifest and also his great Injustice to the Author of the Snake so to charge him without ground But let us hear what great matters the Author of the Switch pretends that the Inspirations of the Light within Switch pag. 38. will teach them who attend upon it It will saith he fully teach them their Duty to God and enable them to perform it It will discover to them a System of Principles truly Orthodox with more Certainty than Counsel or Synod can not taught by it for be is indeed a wonderful Counseller It will first fully and truly beyond any Casuist shew unto Man what is his Sin and if Man despile not this Discovery but close with it it will beget in him a Loathing of his Sin and then proceed to work in him a Repentance from dead Works which if unfeigned you see he is very cautious but why If unfeigned Can the Light within work any other Repentance but that which is unfeigned It will go on to sanctifie him and when Man by this Light Spirit or Grace is sanctified it will then witness to his Spirit that he is justified so will Man come truly to be redeemed This he saith in short is the Substance of what hath been by us declared concerning this Divine Light Christ in Man and which is not more than is witnessed of it in the Holy Scriptures Note By this plain Confession we see what sort of System of Divinity the Inspiration the Quakers plead for doth or will give them who attend upon it to wit a-Scheme of Deism or refined Paganism In all this Substance of his whole System not one word of Faith in Christ as he outwardly dyed for our Sins his being the great Sacrifice for the Remission of our Sins by Faith in his Blood outwardly shed But the Inspirations of the holy Prophets and Apostles taught them this Faith and the necessity of it as well as of Repentance for the Remission of Sins And seeing the Quakers Inspiration teacheth them nothing of such a Faith and the necessity of it it is a plain case tho the Quakers pretend to the same Inspirations that the Prophets and Apostles had yet they have them not nay nor the ordinary Inspirations that common true Believers have in and by the means of the external Doctrine contained in the holy Scriptures that lead them to regard Christ outwardly as he was crucified and raised
the Light within is not sufficient to Salvation or not sufficient without something else the which Proposition seeing he blames as false he must hold the contradictory to be true That the Light within is sufficient to Salvation without any thing else yea G. W. hath granted in his Antidote p. 28. That Christ as outwardly considered is that something else which G. K. meant This is an evident proof beside many others above-given That it is G. W.'s and his Brethren's Principle That the Blood of Christ that was outwardly shed on the Cross is not a meritorious Cause of our Salvation nay not so much as in part and that Faith in that Blood is not necessary for our Justification expresly contrary to Scripture Rom. 3. 25. Hence it is that neither in their Books nor Preachings is any thing generally of this Doctrine Preached That Christ God-Man as without us as he Died for us c. is the object and foundation of our Faith for remission of Sin and for our Justification and eternal Salvation but there is much to be both read in their Books and heard in their daily Preachings against the necessity of any such Faith The farthest that they go at this day is to Preach a little of him Historically and as an Example but to Preach him as without us in the true nature of Man to be the great Object of our Faith Love and Adoration they think is hurtful as above-proved yea W. Smith in his Primmer gives it as a mark of distinction whereby to know true Ministers from false They that are false Preach Christ without and bid People believe in him as he is in Heaven above Jos Wyeth's excuse of this in his Switch p. 220. is extreamly fallacious he thinks he may supply the defect in W. Smith's Words by an Ellipsis telling us The Church hath given abundant encouragement to supply Elliptick defects by her example and practise in the holy Scriptures and what is so familiarly done with holy Writ surely me may do with our Friends Books But to detect this fallacy what Elliptical defects the Church has supplied in some places of the holy Scripture she had ground so to do from other places of Scripture more full that taught her to make that supply but the case is far otherwise here it being so far from being the Quakers way generally to preach Faith in Christ without Men for Salvation that they oppose it and call them Reprobates who profess any such Faith and this their great Apostle G. F. has taught them by his Example so to do in his G. M. p. 248. he saith to C. Wade The Devil was in thee and thou saith thou art saved by Christ without thee and so hath recorded thy self to be a Reprobate and ignorant of the Mystery of Christ within thee for without that thou dost not know Salvation And yet this same C. Wade hath fully owned the Mystery of Christ within Switch p. 205. as above-quoted Jos Wyeth's excuse for G. F.'s saying to C. VVade The Devil was in him He saith Was for his stuffing his Book with Lyes but of this he gives not one Proof though I have given several evident Proofs That G. F. did grosly bely him To the other part of G. F.'s charge Thou art saved by Christ without thee Jos VVyeth Answereth It doth plainly contradict the Doctrine of the Apostle Thus we see what value he and all his Brethren have in whose Name he writes for Christ without us that he saith it plainly contradicts the Doctrine of the Apostle but by his so saying he palpably bewrays his and his Brethrens Infidelity and Heathenism and hath prepared a Rod for his own Back instead of a Switch for the Author of the Snake To suppose that C. VVade meant that he was saved by Christ without him without the inward Operation of Christ by the holy Spirit to Sanctifie him is great injustice done to him for he hath sufficiently cleared himself of that charge as I have above-quoted him But that Faith in Christ without us as he Died for our Sins c. is no part of the Quakers Faith or Systeme of Doctrine is evident from Jos VVâ—â—h's plain confession as above-noted it is none of the Systeme of Principles truly Orthodox or Substance of the Doctrine which the Light within has taught them for he wholly passeth it by p. 38. and yet tells us he has given us the Substance of what the Light within has taught them Besides who will consider W. Smith's Primer out of which the above given Quotation is taken will find that his Words wanted no Ellipsis to explain his sense for he gives it very fully to be his sense that the Light within is the only Foundation and that there is not another see this more largely quoted in my Third Narrative p. 11. Proofs out of the Quakers Books on the following Heads viz. Christ's Coming to Judgment The Resurrection of the Body The Light Within Baptism and the Lord's Supper Eighthly Concerning Christ's last Coming to Judgment G. F. in his G. M. p. 9. quotes J. Bunyan saying That the Place where Christ shall come to Judgment is at the Mount of Olives at the East-side of Jerusalem to this he Answers Thou hast put him far enough off from thee and hast not yet judged thy self and Christ is come to Judgment and so art one of the false Prophets who bids People look for him beyond the Sea lo here lo there but who are come to Christ the Light the Life they need not go forth who abide here are sealed by the Spirit puts not off the good and evil Day Note Waving that Question over what place on Earth Christ shall appear at his last Coming we see here That G. F. opposeth not only to the place of his Coming but to any outward and personal Coming yet to be and chargeth J. B. to be one of the false Prophets for asserting it and saith Christ is come to Judgment as if there were no other for that 's the true state of the Controversie betwixt J. B. and him J. B. did not deny that Christ was inwardly Come to reprove and judge for Sin but he asserted his Coming personally to Judgment without us also G. W. in his Light and Life p. 40. 41. Disputing with W. B. about Christ's outward Coming in his Glorified Body to Judge the Quick and the Dead answereth to the several Scriptures that W. B. brought for Christ's outward Coming at the end of the World and carries them all to his inward Coming already fulfilled such as 1 Thess 4. 15 17. and Acts 1. 9 10 11. Acts 2 32 33 34. Matth. 24. 30. and Verse 26. 14. and opposeth W. B. in his understanding them of his outward Coming in Glory at the end of the World And as to that 1 Thess 4. 17. saith G. W. which W. B. brings to prove that Christ shall come in the latter end of the World from Heaven above the Clouds
us and by the Power of thy divine Life and Spirit raise us up over all Tentations and indue us with a Measure of the same Patience and Resignation that dwelt so fully in thee and which thou didst so abundantly manifest in all thy Sufferings in the Days of thy Flesh Thou art the same that thou wert thy Heart is the same towards thy Servants as when thou wert outwardly present with them in the Flesh Thou art our Advocate and Mediator in Heaven with the Father Our merciful High Priest who is not untouched with the feeling of our Infirmities Thou even thou blessed Jesus thou knowest our most secret Desires and Breathings which we offer up unto thee in the Enablings of the blessed Life and Spirit that thou mayest present them unto thy Father and our Father that in thee we may be accepted and our Services also and for thy sake our Defects and short Comings our Sins and Transgressions that we have committed may be forgiven us The Prayer being read divers Ministers and others said it was a good Prayer but they never heard that any such Prayer was used in any of the Quakers Meetings A Quaker called Daniel Philips standing by near where I stood said that Book was approved by the second Days Meeting at London which was a great Untruth I told how I wrote that Book in Scotland and from Scotland sent it to a Correspondent in Holland who printed it there and when it came over to London in the Year 1678. it met with great Opposition from divers of the Preachers of the Quakers at London as Stephen Crisp William Shewen William Mede and Samuel Newton and one of the chief things they blamed in my Book was this very Prayer and especially that Part of it Jesus Son of David have mercy on us Some of them said it was half Popery for though G. K. would not pray to Mary the Mother of Jesus as the Papists do yet he was for praying to the Son of Mary Others said it was Common Prayer A larger Account of things relating to the Opposition I met with from the Quakers for that Prayer and some other things in that Book ye will find in the late Book called A Defence of the Snake in that called A Collection from p. 16. to 38. I further shewed that what I had delivered in that Book and others of my Books in former times when I was reckoned in Unity with the Quakers did plainly evidence that I held the Faith of the Fundamentals of Christianity with all true Christians though in some lesser Matters I was biassed and misled by them into divers Errors particularly in rejecting the Sacraments of Baptism and the Supper which I have since retracted and for my holding the fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith as appears by that Book and other Books of mine All the Time of my Quakerism a Quaker in Ponsylvania who was a Justice of Peace his Name was Arthur Cook said unto me George thou never was a right Quaker all thy Days but an old rotten Presbyterian The reading of that Passage in my Book containing the Prayer aforesaid which the Quaker brought to make against me had a far contrary Effect to what he intended for many some Ministers and others present said This makes for G. K. not against him let the Quakers bring any such Passage out of their Books to prove they were of that Faith with him Some of the Quakers that objected against that Prayer in my Book asked me in one of the Meetings that were appointed to hear the Objections against my Book and my Answers Where did I ever hear any English Friend of the Ministry pray after that manner Possibly said they some Scots Friends who were thy Proselytes thou hast heard to pray so I confess they guessed right they were some Scots Friends whom I had heard to pray so and so I had prayed and being at a stand to instance any English Friend that I had heard so pray W. Penn told them he had so prayed and that not long ago but he said It was in private G. W. said Let the Scripture decide it whereupon he calls for the Bible and reads in 1 Cor. 1. 2. What say ye to this Friends said G. W Ye see that Paul did approve the Corinthians that called upon the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ Their Answer was Paul was dark and ignorant in that thing as G. K. is for our Parts we know better Here note the Fallacy both of G. W. and W. P. who for all this seemingly owning Faith in the Man Christ Jesus by confessing they were to pray to him yet in their printed Books have opposed that Faith without any Retractation Proofs on the third Head First That the Scriptures according to the Dictates of their greatest Teachers are not the Word of God THat the Scripture is not the written Word see G. Myst p. 68 75. The Word not contained in Scripture p. 232. The Scriptures not the Word of Reconciliation but Christ p. 186. The Scriptures not infallible nor divine but humane p. 302. He chargeth C. Wade with Blasphemy for affirming the Scriptures are the Word of God G. M. p. 246 247. Thus the Church of England and all Protestants are guilty of Blasphemy by his Assertion Note This Controversie betwixt all true Protestants and the Quakers whether the Scriptures are the Word of God which the Quakers have formerly most earnestly denyed and fiercely disputed against though some now begin to acknowledge it and yet they are still the same infallible Men is not a meer Strife of Words but a most material and important Controversie for when many Places of Scripture are brought to prove that God's Spirit doth inwardly teach us by means of the Word and that Faith comes by the Word of God outwardly heard or read that we are born of the Word and sanctified by it and all spiritual Effects that are attributed in Scripture to God Christ and the Spirit as the principal Agent and to the Word as instrumental they will not allow of any instrumental external Word but makes the Word to be the Spirit to be Christ and God which is in effect to render them of no use to us at all seeing by denying them to be the Word they deny them also to be the external Means or Medium whereby the Spirit teaceth us by his inward Operation in our Hearts and works any saving Knowledge and Faith in us and this also they have denyed viz. that the Scriptures are the Means or Medium But that the Scriptures are the Word of God and the Word most frequently so called in Scripture is clear from abundant Places to wit the external Doctrine contained in the Scriptures Our Gospel came unto you said Paul to the Thessalonians 1 Thess 1. 5. not in Word only by Word here is meant Doctrine Isaiah 28. 13. The Word of the Lord was unto them Precept upon Precept Line upon Line Here the Precepts and
acknowledged his Error than to lay the Fault upon as wrong writ or wrong printed And if he corrected them long since how comes it that he never published his Correction in any of the Books he has published since betwixt the Year 1655. and 1690. containing the space of 36. Years But for evidence against him that he hath not sincerely said That he writ not that Part of the Book it is enough that he owned it and this I can prove that without Exception he owned it to be his jointly with these others who signed it with him as appears from his Truth defending the Quakers p. 1. printed four Years after the Ishmael And he belches out the like antichristian and profane Expressions against the three Persons in the Godhead in Terms equivalent to those in the Ishmael He saith in his first Page in Answer to the first Question Do not you repent for your endeavouring vainly to defend August 29. 1659. in so great a Congregation these Positions printed in a Book writ by George Whitehead He answers for himself and his Brethren thus The Positions we defended are according to the Scriptures of Truth and them we need not repent of These were they contained in that very Book called Ishmael as doth appear out of the Book Ishmael it self here the Book was produced one of which Positions were in asserting the Scriptures or Writing not to be the Word Another was That there is no such Word in the Scriptures as Three Persons in the Trinity but it is a Popish Doctrine as the Mass or Common-Prayer-Book mentions it Fourthly And thou that affirms three distinct Persons in the Godhead art a Dreamer and he that dreams and tells Lies contrary to the Scriptures of Truth which we own he with his Imaginations and Dreams is for the Lake Here it is plain that by his Imaginations and Dreams G.W. meant the Ministers Doctrines of calling the Scriptures the Word and affirming that there are three Persons in the Godhead so whereas he said in his Ishmael Townsend and the three Persons are shut up in perpetual Doctrines Here in Truth defending c. he saith He with his Imaginations and Dreams that is the three Persons is for the Lake Now this is not one whit more sober than his Words in the Ishmael how then is it that G. Whitehead has not found some shift to put this part of his Truth defending upon another Again in his Truth defending c. p. 25. he plainly owns that Book called Ishmael to be his four Years after it was printed and now though in his Truth defending c. he saith That he and his Brethren need not repent of the Positions laid down in that called Ishmael yet now in the Year 1690. in his Christianity he saith He was sorry his Name was to that Paper and yet as before is mentioned in Truth defending p. 1. he saith They need not repent of it Is not this a plain Change in G. W. He need not repent of what was writ and yet was sorry that it was writ Formerly he owned that Book in the Year 1659 and in the Year 1690 He writ not that Part and was sorry it was writ and all this without any Change in his Mind But when People are sorry for what they do we commonly reckon they repent of it This offensive Passage objected against G. Whitehead out of his Ishmael was objected against him by Christopher Wade in his Quakery slain p. 9. printed in 1657. And though G. W. printed against C. Wade in his Truth defending 1659. yet he then took no notice of that Passage to disown it to be his But how is it that G. W. disowns what was written in the Book called Ishmael against the three Persons Doth he now own the three Persons not to be Popish as he formerly charged them Truth def p. 2 Though he has not in the least retracted his abusive and reviling Speeches against this glorious Truth both in the Ishmael and in his Truth defending c. for that would reflect upon his Infallibility yet he would seem now to own the Doctrine of the three Persons since the Act for Toleration came forth for that Act of Toleration does except those who deny in their preaching or writing the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity as it is declared in the Articles of Religion viz. the 39 Articles But that G. W. may have the Benefit of the Act which at present he has not by Law whatever he has by Indulgence he ought also to disown some other abusive Expressions of his and sophistical Arguings he has used in his other Books as particularly not only in his Truth defending c. above mentioned but in his Divinity of Christ signed by the two Letters G. W. see p. 18. he hath these Words As to T. D ' s telling of the Son of God's Incarnation the Creation of his Body and Soul the Parts of that Nature be subsisted in c. To this I say saith G. W. if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both created doth not this render him a fourth Person And as nonsensical and abusive is the reasoning of G. Fox their great Apostle in the Epistle prefixed to the Divinity signed by him and John Stubbs where in the 9th Page of that Epistle they thus argue And he speaks again in his 14th Page of three distinct Persons are one with the Godhead Now Reader is not here four to wit three Persons and the Godhead And thus G. F. and G. W. make no less by their wild and nonsensical Reasonings than five Persons in the Godhead an Absurdity they would fix on the Doctrine of three Persons for by their Arguments the Godhead is the fourth Person and Christ's created Soul and Body is the fifth Do not these Passages require a Retractation and will they say they are Protestants and one with the Church of England in Matter of Doctrine and in the common Principles of Christianity and yet boldly stand in the Defence of those abusive Passages But whereas they argue ad hominem that there must be five Persons if Father Son and Holy Ghost be said to be three Persons seeing G. W. calls them three Witnesses by their nonsensical Argument there must be five Witnesses that bear Record in Heaven viz. the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost and the Godhead these are four and the created Soul and Body of Christ that is the fifth But G.W. has a way to evade this last by denying that Christ has any created Soul or Body as in the Words in p. 18. above mentioned doth appear for which I shall have some use hereafter Jos Wyeth in his Switch p. 184. would make his Readers believe It 's only the Word Person they object against as too gross We cannot saith he but think the VVord Person too gross to express them But to detect this Fallacy pray let us take notice that G. F. whom he calls an Apostle has expresly
are sprung forth of the corrupt Tree which now is to be burned and its Fruit rejected Now these are all the Books and Catechisms published by any others but themselves Again in p. 23. they say And though some have known him viz. Christ after the Flesh yet henceforth know they him so no more as say the Scriptures of Truth Note Here they pervert the true Sence of Paul's Words as they commonly do in their Books and Preachings giving Paul's Words for a Reason why they do not preach Faith in Christ as he came in the Flesh died and rose again c as necessary to Salvation because say they VVe are no more to know Christ after the Flesh whereas it was the great Subject both of Paul's Preaching and of all the Apostles to wit Jesus Christ as he came in the Flesh died for our Sins and rose again and ascended c. insomuch that they did with one Accord declare That the Gift of the Holy Ghost with all the saving and sanctifying Graces of the Spirit do come to Men by Christ through Faith in him as he came in the Flesh died rose and ascended and that this Faith was wrought in Men by hearing the VVord outwardly preached Again in p. 23. they say Now Children the Scriptures of Truth do declare of God and Christ and the Spirit of Truth which are one but the Scriptures cannot bring you to know God and Christ and the Spirit of Truth And yet they say concerning this Primmer and the Contents of it p. 2. That they are very useful for Children and others to Learn that they may be turned unto the Light which is the Gift of God Here they seem to prefer their Primmer to the Scriptures for they say of the Contents of their Primmer That they are very useful for Children and others to Learn To learn what Surely some Knowledge of God and Christ they will say and yet they will not allow so much to the Scripture and on a diligent Search I find not in all this Primmer one simple Direction to Children and others to read the Scriptures and what they have quoted of Scripture in it is but little and much even of that grosly perverted and misapplied as in p. 44 45. they say They that hear the Light that is in all Men and common to all Men they hear God for God is Light and they that hear God they hear Christ also for God and Christ are one as saith the Scripture and they that hear Christ hear the Author of the true Faith and so hear the Saviour of their Souls and the Light is that Prophet which all that hear not him are to be cut off Here we see how grosly they pervert that Place of Scripture Deut. 18. 15. Acts 3. 22. 7. 37. which is not to be understood of the common Illumination given to all Mankind but of the Man Christ as he outwardly came in the Flesh and did execute his prophetical Office on Earth by preaching and teaching and as he doth now still execute his prophetical Office in his Church by his Word outwardly preached and his Spirit inwardly accompanying it to make it effectual Again p. 82. they run into the same wild Notion that others Familists and mad Enthusiasts run into of the Blood of Christ within them For say they and all wait together in the Light viz. as it is common to all Mankind Infidels Jews Mahumetans Heathens for so they understand it and believe in it that ye may be the Children of the Light and therein watch unto Prayer and one over another and this will beget ye into unfeigned Love and walk in the Light ye will have true Vnity and Fellowship one with another and the Blood which is the Life of Jesus Christ ye will feel cleansing you from all Sin and so ye will come into Vnity with God Note By this it is evident as will more fully appear on a particular Head following that by the Blood which they call the Life of Jesus Christ they meant not his Blood outwardly shed or his Life that he outwardly laid down viz. the Life of his Manhood without us for the Remission of our Sins and cleansing therefrom But according to their usual Cant and Phrase The Blood that is the Life and the Life is the Light within So that they make the Blood the Life and the Light within them to be one and the same thing but neither in this Primmer nor in any other of their Books do I find the least Direction to Faith in the Blood of Christ as it was outwardly shed on the Cross therefore in this Primmer and in their other Books they give Poison to poor Children to suck or receive instead of wholesome Food George Keith's Fourth Narrative OF HIS Proceedings at Turners-Hall 1699. For the Detecting the QUAKERS ERRORS PART II. Containing the Proofs out of the Quakers Books on the fifth Head concerning Christ his Incarnation his Soul Body and Blood And on the sixth Head concerning the Souls of Men. Read at the second Meeting at Turners-Hall January 19. 1699. W. P. in Serious Apology p. 146. saith That the outward Person which suffered was properly the Son of God we utterly deny This is expresly contrary to many Texts of Scripture and to a great Fundamental Article of our Christian Creed yea in a manner it overthrows the whole Christian Creed See the following Scriptures Mat. 16. 13 16. Luke 1. 32. Mat. 14. 33. Mark 1. 1. John 1. 14 34. John 9. 35. 10. 36. Acts 8. 37. Rom. 1. 4. Mat. 27. 54. G.W. in his Truth and Inn. p. 52. excuseth W. P ' s Words thus Here I take him to mean the Son of God in respect to his Divine Being as he is of one Substance with the Father which his Body that suffered Death was not though he was truly the Son of God as he took upon him that Body and as made of a Woman Gal. 4. 4. Being conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary The Fallacy of this is easily detected the Question in Debate betwixt W. P. and his Opponents who were Presbyterian Ministers in Ireland was not whether the Body was the Son of God abstractly considered from the Soul of Christ and his Godhead for no Presbyterian ever held that neither will any Socinian that denyeth the Godhead of Christ say that that meer Body without his created Soul was the Christ or Son of God But the true State of the Question was and is whether he that outwardly suffered Death without the Gates of Jerusalem whom W. P. calls that outward Person in Distinction from the Light within which the Quakers will have to be the whole Christ according to G. Fox's Doctrine was and is not properly the Son of God which all sound Christians say according to Scripture he was and is being both God and Man and yet one Person one Christ one Son of God having his Godhead-Nature and his Manhood-Nature so united as
departed from his Conscience He answers I take no Attribute of God to my self but what God hath given me by whose Gift I witness that Promise fulfilled in me ye shall discern between the righteous and the wicked between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not Mal. 3. 18. This arrogant assuming of one of God's Attributes of knowing Men's Hearts being objected against him lately in a printed Sheet called An Account from Colchester c. In another late printed Paper signed by seven Quakers at Colchester called Some Account from Colchester they expostulate the Case with them who made the Objection Is it such an Error to believe or witness the fulfilling of this plain Promise Mal. 3. 18. How do you then believe in Christ in whom all the Promises of God are yea and amen Is the contrary good Doctrine for you our Acculers to hold that ye or Christians shall not return nor discern between the righteous and the wicked c. Do you not thereby prove your selves blind and in Vnbelief Note This in Mal. 3. 18. or any other Place of Scripture proves not that any Men shall have one of God 's Attributes given them to know Men's Hearts which is no where promised but Christ hath taught us to know Men by their Works and Fruits and not by his giving them one of God's Attributes whereby to know Men's Hearts for if they had that they should be as God himself to know without regard to the Fruits But that Place Mal. 3. 18. seems to have a plain Reference to the Day of Judgment wherein the Works of all Men however secret shall be made manifest and yet not by Men's having one of God's Attributes given them even then And as to G. VV's Argument for the necessity of this infallible discerning given to Ministers otherwise Christ's Sheep may follow Strangers and be destroyed This Consequence doth not follow for while they follow the Voice of Christ that is his Doctrine outwardly deLivered in the holy Scriptures and inwardly set home and applied to their Hearts by the holy Spirit they are safe and when they follow not that but Men of false Pretences who bring a contrary Doctrine and yet say they have the infallible Spirit as the Followers of G.VV. and his Brethren do they are in great Danger of perishing and though the true Sheep of Christ shall not finally be deceived nor finally perish yet they at times may be deceived and have been deceived by false Teachers and by none more than such false Teachers who falsly pretend to the Spirit of Christ and yet preach contrary to his Doctrine But that the Quakers did not only pretend to extraordinary Inspirations of the Spirit but to miraculous Operations I shall shew you out of G. F's G. M. p. 254. Some of them having asked the Question VVhether your Baptizers cast out Devils and drink any deadly thing and it not hurt you And whether the House where you meet was ever shaken And where he did give the Holy Ghost to you The Opponent calls this an unlearned Question to which G. F. replies This is to shew that you are not Believers nor in the Power that the Apostles was in Note By this it appears they lay claim to the same Power of working Miracles that the Apostles had as to drink any deadly thing and it not to hurt them and that the House where they meet was shaken I have both heard and seen that some of the Quakers Bodies were shaken in their Meetings but I never heard nor saw that the House where they met was shaken Note while I was giving my Proofs out of G. F. and G. W. their Books concerning their high Pretences to an infallible discerning Men's Hearts a Quaker called Samuel Miller as I am informed a Bricklayer stood upon a Bench and for a further Confirmation said with a loud Voice George I had a Vision concerning thee twenty Years ago that though thou didst preach the Gospel to others thou thy self should be a Cast-away This he gave to corroborate G. F's Pretense of his knowing the State of Men's Souls from Eternity to Eternity But if his and their bare Affirmation must be received for Truth without all external Evidence that I am an Apostate a Cast-away what Man howsoever innocent can escape their uncharitable Censure Another Quaker called Thomas Kent stood up and would have preached telling the Auditory He felt a Fire or Flame burn in his Breast he had a Consciencious Concern upon him but the People forbidding him to preach he cried out The Quotations were false but gave not the least Proof I told them he has been disowned by the Quakers and recorded out of the Unity these many Years for his Drunkenness and opposing G. Fox's Orders so after a short time he was silent Proofs out of the Quakers Books on the second Head concerning their Sinless Perfection IT being objected against G. F. that he had said He was as upright as Christ He answers Saul's Errand p. 11. Thâ—se VVords were not so spoken by me but that as he is so are we in this present VVorld that the Saints are made the Righteousness of God that the Saints are one in the Father and the Son that we shall be like him 1 Joh. 3. 2. And that all teaching which is given forth by Christ is to bring the Saints to Perfection even to the measure of the Stature of the Fullness of Christ this the Scripture doth witness and this I witness where Christ dwells must he not speak in his Temple It having been said by one of G. F 's Opponents G. Myst p. 282 They i.e. the Saints cannot be perfect here or hereafter in Equality but only in Quality G. F. answers Christ makes no Distinction in his Words but saith Be ye perfect even as your Heavenly Father is and be ye merciful as he is and as he is so are we and that which is perfect and merciful as he is perfect and merciful is in Equality with the same thing which is of God and from him G. Whitehead in Defence of this Passage in Truth and In. p. 14. saith Now where 's the Blasphemy pray Was it not Christ's own Doctrine Be ye perfect even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect and Luke 16. 36. Be ye therefore merciful as your Father is merciful Now what Distinction doth Christ make in these Words and Precepts as in point of Purity and where 's the Perfection in Quality granted then and wherein must this Perfection consist Note It was not Christ's Doctrine to be perfect in Equality with God's Perfection for that were to command them to be God himself and though Christ expresseth no Distinction yet it is implied and whereas G. W. pleads for the Saint's Equality with God in point of Purity he is still blasphemous the Saint's Perfection in Quality is not an essential Perfection for what Holiness and Purity they now have they formerly had
is no Sin and who is in him sins not who put an End to the many things that must end and change Thus we see his and his Brethrens Presumption who plainly declare they were got beyond James and all the Faithful to whom he wrote those Words and he chargeth both James and all the Faithful to whom he wrote all these Words with a horrid Falshood that they were not come to the one thing to wit to Jesus Christ And if none are come to Christ or in Christ but who are perfect with a sinless Perfection as G. W. doth here argue then young Believers and Converts who are travelling towards Perfection are not in Christ nor come to Christ because they have not that sinless Perfection which is both a most false and most comfortless Doctrine and injurious to all young Christian Converts at least and may be thought by young Quaker Converts injurious to them also Note while the Proofs were reading out of the Quakers Books for their sinless Perfection a Quaker supposed to be John Whiting said George if Men are not perfect before Death when are they made perfect It must be either before Death or after Death I answered In the instant of Death and that is neither before Death nor after Death as if one should ask when did Peter and other deceased Saints put off the earthly Tabernacle whether before Death or after Death The Answer is neither before nor after but at the Instant of Death But let us hear yet somewhat more of G. F's great Conceit of his and his Brethrens Perfection even in Equality with God himself Abrief Discovery of the Threefold State of Antichrist G. W's brief Discovery p. 15. printed 1653. he being charged with saying That he was as upright as Christ he answers these Words were not spoken by me but that as he is so are we in this World that the Saints are made the Righteousness of God that the Saints are one in the Father and the Son that we shall be like him and that all teaching which is given forth by Jesus Christ is to bring up the Hearers to Perfection even to the Measure Stature and Fullness of Christ this the Scripture witnesseth and I witness fulfilled in me Note this is more than what is in Saul's Errand above-quoted for there the Words of Scripture are kept to that mention the Measure of the Stature of the Fullness but here it 's far beyond what is written in Scripture that he was come not only to the Measure but to the Stature and Fullness of Christ and what is this but to be equal with Christ and God Saul's Errand p. 13. G. F. He that is perfectly holy is perfectly just where this is revealed there needs no Addition for the Man of God is perfect This will yet more fully appear by the following Quotations In Truth def by G. Fox and R. Hubb page 65. a Query being proposed by the Opponent Who is like to be the Man thou speakest of he that saith he is equal with God and Christ or he that preacheth Christ the Head The Answer is Here in this Question thou openly shewâ—d by self 〈…〉 the Mind the Apostles had for saith he I would the some Mind were in you that was also in Christ Jesus who thought it no Robbery to be equal with God and yet made himself of no Reputation Philip. 2. 5. And here thou hast shewed thy self that thou hast neither the Mind of Christ nor his Apostles but art an Antichrist and an Enemy against them that witness these things which the Apostle said I would that ye were of the same Mind And again the Apostle saith Our Fellowship is with the Father and the Son 1 Joh. 1. 3. Again in his G. Mystery p. 248. he quotes but very lamely and corruptly C. Wade in his Book Quakery Slain He denies the Son of God to be revealed in Man only by Adoption and cries against Equality with the Father Here before I give you G. F's Answer I shall give you C. Wade's Words as they stand in his Book to which he answers C. Wade's Words in his Quakery slain are these p. 23. G. Fox in the 8. pag. of Saul's Errand affirmeth That he that hath the same Spirit that raised up Jesus Christ is equal with God and the Saints have the same Spirit in Measure for God's Spirit is but one And G. Fox saith in pag. 11. That he is a Saint Thus he would again prove That he a poor wicked Creature is equal with God the Creator and if so then G. Fox is the Creator of G. Fox and the whole World and he intimately claimeth Christ's Equality with God by his perverted citing of Philip. 2. 6 7. Now in Opposition to G. F's affirming He was equal with God C. Wade in his pag 24. saith The Scripture saith that even the Saints themselves are not God's Sons otherwise but by Adoption only by Christ note that you Quakers not as being Christ as you foolishly fancy but by Christ for it 's written Having predestinated us unto the Adoption of Children by Jesus Christ Eph. 1. 5. See this confirmed Gal. 4. 5. Rom. 8. 23. and Creature adopted Sons cannot be equal with their Heavenly uncreated Father who vouchsafeth by free Grace by and in his Son Christ to adopt them to be his Sons in Acceptation only Neither can any Creature adopted Sons be equal with God's only begotten Son the Creator of all adopted Sons and all other things both in Heaven and in Earth also This is the true and full Quotation out of C. Wade his Quakery slain In Opposition to which sound Doctrine of C. Wade G. Fox thus answers G. M. p. 248. Ans And that is contrary to the Apostle who had the Son of God revealed in him and the Assembly of Divines gave forth a Catechism which Children old and young was to learn and said The Holy Ghost and Son was equal in Substance and Power and Glory with the Father What Then all that have the Son and the Holy Ghost hath that which is equal in Power and Glory with the Father In this thou hast not only judged thy self but all the Assembly of Divines at Westminster 1649. Note G. Fox here doth not quote the Page of C. Wade's Book as frequently he doth not throughout his G. Myst give his Opponents Pages of their Books which it seems was in Design that his unfair Quotations might not be so easily found out Now observe whereas G. F. brings C. Wade crying against Equality with the Father we see by the Quotation given what Equality with the Father C. VVade cries against to wit not the Equality of Christ the only begotten of God with the Father for that he expresly affirms by saying That Christ God's only begotten Son is the Creator of all things but the Equality that C. Wade cryed against was the Equality of G. Fox and Creature adopted Sons with the Father and for his so saying G.
Fox makes him to have contradicted the Apostle and also the Assembly of Divines at Westminster and judged both himself and them This I think so evident a Proof that G. F. thought himself equal with the Father that neither G. W. nor Jos Wyeth nor any of their Brethren with all their little Craft and Sophistry can clear this Passage from that down-right Blasphemy That G. F. was equal with God for neither the Assembly of Divines at Westminster nor C. W. deny the Equality of the Son and of the Holy Ghost for G. Fox grants they owned it but the Equality which C. Wade cryed against was the Equality of G. F. or any of the Saints with the Father But here we find the Strength of G. Fox's Logick The Son and Holy Ghost are equal with the Father therefore G. F. is equal with the Father the Proof of which Consequence must be one of these two following Assertions the one is That G. Fox thought himself to be the Son of God or such a Son as was equal with the Father the other is That because the Son of God was revealed in G. Fox as he thought that therefore G. Fox was equal with the Father As to the first of these Assertions as it is utterly false that G. Fox was the Son of God to wit the only begotten Son of God the Word made Flesh so the other is utterly a false Consequence that because the Son of God was revealed in him that therefore he was equal with the Father but surely if the Son of God had been revealed in him that Revelation would have taught him not to utter such horrid Blasphemy But that C. Wade did not deny but own as much as the Scripture warranteth That God the Father as also Christ the Son were manifested or revealed in the Saints I shall quote a Passage in his Book being originally the Words of one T. Moor that wrote against the Quakers whom J. Nailer had charged That he would exclude God and Christ out of the World and that he should no more dwell in his People till Doomsday In Opposition to which C. Wade quotes the following saying of T. Moor which he approves pag. 23. of Quakery slain That the Majesty of God whose Throne is in Heaven is in his Inspections Influences and Operation every where and in his gracious and spiritual Presence and manifested Nighness in and through his Son dwelling in Sion even in the Hearts and Societies of his People Now let us hear what Jos Wyeth and G. Whitehead say in Defence of that blasphemous Passage above-mentioned quoted from Saul's Errand to Damascus p. 8. He that hath the same Spirit that raised up Jesus from the dead is equal with God Jos Wyeth doth plainly justifie it by the like false Consequence as G. Fox made Switch pag. 59. he saith For when Men are guided by the Holy Spirit they are certainly guided by God for the Father Son and Holy Spirit are one God and therefore equal and that which is equal as G. Fox he saith often expresseth it But doth it therefore follow that because the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are equal that therefore he that hath either the Son or the Holy Ghost is equal either with the Son or Holy Ghost or with the Father yet this is Jos Wyeth's blasphemous Consequence to justifie G. F's Blasphemy But G. W. hath found two other Ways to defend the above-said Blasphemy of G. F. in the Supplement to the Switch he saith p. 528. And if any among us have writ of them who are perfect in Christ Jesus being led by his Spirrt as in that Sense equal I understand equal only as like unto God or in Vnion with him being united unto him by his Spirit as he that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit Note first The Word Equal no where that I know either in Scripture or other Books or common Speech in any Language signifieth only as like therefore this is a meer Force put upon the Word and a strained Sense But Secondly That could not be the Sense intended by G. Fox because as I have above shewed in a former Quotation he proves that he is equal with God the Father because the Son and Holy Ghost are equal with the Father Now will G. W. say That the Equality betwixt the Son and the Holy Ghost and the Father is only an Equality of Likeness as to say the Son and the Holy Ghost are only like the Father but are not really equal with the Father This was the Arian Heresie that the Son was like the Father but not equal or of the same Substance with the Father they said he was Homoiusios but not Homouisios But he hath yet another String to his Bow in his Truth and Innocency pag. 10. Therefore the Words He that hath in the said Instance should be left out being contrary to G. F 's and our Principle and to his own very Words and Confession a little before in the same Book quoting Saul's Errand p. 5 6. where G. F. saith It was not so spoken as G. Fox was equal with God but the Father and the Son is one But the Fallacy lyeth here he did not say George Fox to wit the Name George Fox or the outward visible Body that bears that Carnal Name as he somewhere calls it but the new Name that he hath that is the He that is equal with God because that He is the Son and as to what G. W. saith of Union with God that G. F. did not mean Union by Faith and Love but a personal Union appears from G. M. p. 100. He brings in his Opponent saying God dwells not in the Saints as a Personal Union In Opposition to which he answers How comes the Saints then to eat of his Flesh and to be of his Flesh and Bone Note it should be by a personal Union And God dwelling in them and have Vnity with the Son and the Father and to be of his Body which is the Church and Christ the Head Yea he blames his Opponent G. M. p. 258. for saying To say that God is substantially in Man as essentially one with him can be no other but the Man of Sin But whereas G. W. saith He that hath should be left out pray who put them in That they were G. Fox's Words the Book called Saul's Errand affirms if this Liberty be allowed to transpose leave out and add Words in a Sentence nothing so vile and blasphemous or atheistical but may be justified by G. W. who hath used all these three Methods to defend his and his Brethrens vile Errors But let us hear one Passage more of G. F. out of G. Myst p. 299. to let us know what Conceit he had of himself as being more than a Creature he tells That one had raised a grievous Lye against G. F. and said he said he was Christ p. 298. to the End This Man having so charged him and having told him
Humility But do no not they better who confess their Sins and yet through humane Frailty find that they relapse into some Sins than such proud Pharisees among the Quakers who neither confess nor forsake their Sins such as their sinful Ignorance and Errors in the great Fundamentals of the Christian Faith their too high Esteem of themselves and Uncharitableness towards others calling all others but themselves The World and Idolaters and their Worship Idolatry And if any formerly among them come to a more sober Mind and to a more sound Understanding and Faith in Christian Doctrine and are more charitable towards others They call them Apostates as they do call me and others whom God in his great Mercy has of late recovered from the Errors and Uncharitableness that were and are among them so that for owning the Protestant Churches and that we can join in the Worship of God with them we are rendred Apostates by G. VV and his Brethren in their printed Pamphlets against us But if we be Apostates for this then by G. VV's and his Brethrens Sentence all the Protestant Churches are Infidels and Idolaters But if the Church of the Quakers be a sinless Church that need not to confess their Sins nor pray for Forgiveness of their Sins how doth this agree with the large Acknowledgments that G. VV. has made in his Christian Epistle to the People called Quakers of so many things amiss among them as above quoted Either such faulty Persons are owned Members of their Church or they are not if they are not why do not they disown them and excommunicate them or declare them to be none of them If they own them to be of their Church then their Church is not without Spâ—t Wrinkle or Blemish and consequently not the Church of Christ by G. F's Doctrine If it be said The Tares cannot be discerned oft times from the Wheat then where 's their Spirit of discerning whereby they can know who are Saints or Devils without speaking ever a Word Surely if they have such a Spirit of discerning their Sin is great to suffer such a Mixture among them as G. W. complains of in his Christian Epistle especially now that they reckon Eâ—oth's Prophecy is fullfilled in them Truth and Inn. p. 13 They i. e. the Quakers are the ten thousand of his Saints in whom the Lord is come to execute Judgment upon all Why do they not begin at home and first cleanse their own House and purge out the old Leaven from among them How is it that diverse unclean Persons even of their Ministry have been owned to preach among them while living in secret Uncleanness diverse of whose Names they know I can produce Why did they not discern them seeing they have as they pretend an infallible discerning of Mens Hearts Or if they did discern them why did they not discover them and get them cast out of the Camp As to the Instance above given of the daily Sacrifices for Sin which were offered under the Law If it be replyed That they grant the Law made nothing perfect but now a sinless Perfection is brought in by the Gospel I ask them what became of them all of that ancient Church who daily confessed their Sins and prayed for Forgiveness when they died Did they die in their Sins Or where were they cleansed from their Sins after Death Or did they all perish according to G. W's manner of reasoning against his Opponents in his Voice of Wisdom above quoted As to that Place in Scripture The Law made nothing perfect and other the like Places they are to be understood first Comparatively the Gospel State under the New Testament as to the general is a State of more Purity and greater Perfection than the State of the People under the Law Secondly The ceremonial Part of the Law as Circumcision and the Sacrifices did neither in whole nor in part give them the Remission of their Sins but were Types of Christ that alone Sacrifice by which Remission of Sin and Sanctification both then was and now is obtained It is on the Conceit that the Quakers have of their sinless Perfection especially their Ministers that they are not known to pray for the Forgiveness of their Sins in their publick Meetings which gave occasion to that Question in Truth defending the Quak. by G. VV. p. 8. Q. 11. Do not you think it needless to pray for the Pardon of your Sins To this G. Whitehead replies We have prayed for the Pardon of our Sins and the Lord who heard our Prayers hath pardoned and remitted our Sins by the Power of the World to come which we have tasted and do taste of as many witness But of late some of them have got a way to pray in the third Person plural in their Meetings as I have observed as thus If any here have sinned against thee give them Repentance and Forgiveness Or thus Pardon them that have sinned against thee Thus I have heard John Field pray but I never heard him or any here in England to the best of my Remembrance pray in the first Person plural Forgive us our Sins though Daniel and the best of the holy Men recorded in Scripture prayed Forgive us our Sins A Quaker said George dost not thou know that it is the manner of Friends if any have done amiss to deal with them and get them to confess and ask Forgiveness I said that was but as to particular Persons and private Offences but that was no Proof as to their general Confession and praying for Pardon of Sin Another Quaker stood on a Bench and began to read a Passage out of a Book of mine called The Way cast up printed in the Year 1677 containing some Words of Prayer which I said I had heard or Words to that effect used in our Meetings both to God the Father in the Name of Jesus Christ and also to Jesus Christ naming him by the Name Son of David This Passage that Quaker brought his Name as I am informed is John Whiting to prove that the Quakers prayed for Forgiveness of Sin for I was then a Quaker but what he read out of my Book not being well heard he was desired to hand the Book to the Minister that stood by me and read the Quotations which was done and the whole Passage containing a Prayer was read which is this VVay cast up p 121. Son of David have mercy on us O thou blessed Lord Jesus that wert crucified and died for our Sins and shed thy precious Blood for us be gracious unto us Thou that in the Days of thy Flesh wert tempted of Satan afflicted bore our Sins on the Cross felt our Infirmities and wert touched with them O thou our merciful High Priest whose tender Bowls of Compassion are not more straitned since thy Ascension but rather more enlarged and whose Love and Kindness is the same towards thy Servants in our Days as it was of old help us and strengthen
written Lines of the Prophets are called the Word of the Lord and Joh. 15. 25. there we find the Word written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the written Word which was a short Sentence written in one of the Psalms but G. F. denyeth them to be the written Word G. M. p. 68 319. When Paul bid Timothy preach the Word it cannot be justly thought that he would have him only preach the inward Word or the essential Word or Light within but by the Word he meant the whole Doctrine of the Gospel The Quakers but trifle when they argue the Scriptures are Words and it is a Lye to call Words the Word which is not a Lye but a common Speech used by themselves who call an Epistle a Letter that yet contains many Letters And they do no less trifle when they argue to say the Scripture is the Word is to say the Scripture is Christ as if the Name Word did only belong to Christ whereas the Name Word as well as the Name Light is given both to Christ and other things Christ said to the Disciples Ye are the Light of the World and so said Christ of himself doth it therefore follow that they were Christ They say they call the Scriptures what they call themselves A Treatise but not the Word quoting Acts 1. the former Treatise but in the Greek it is Word the same in Joh. 1. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the former Word where it is plain he calls all the Words written in the Gospel according to St. Luke the Word as each Oration in Isocrates or Demosthenes is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Word Proofs that the Scriptures are not the Rule but the Spirit or Light within as is common to all Mankind G. F. G. M. p. 39 120. and in his G. M. p. 302. he saith The Spirit is the Rule that leads into all Truth so saith Christ Note Here he belyes and wrongs Christ's Words Christ did not say the Spirit is the Rule the Spirit is the Leader who leads us into all Truth by the Line or Rule of the holy Scriptures we not having those extraordinary Leading that the Apostles had Nor is this a meer Strife of Words but a most necessary Controversie which is the Foundation of their Deism and their overthrowing Christiany and yet this very Year they have reprinted W. P's Discourse concerning the general Rule of Faith and Practice who brings fourteen Arguments to prove that the Scriptures are not the general Rule of Faith and Practice to which I have answered in my late Book in Print called The Deism of W. P. c. Three of which Arguments of his are 1. From their Imperfection Switch pag. 46. 2. Their Uncertainty 3. Their Obscurity Yea Jos Wyeth in his Switch chargeth the Scriptures with Vncertainty This is a most dangerous Heresie for by this Principle they are not obliged to believe one intire Doctrine in the Apostles Creed as indeed I could easily prove by their Principles they do not believe one intire Article in that called The Apostles Creed G. F. G. M. saith The Apostle doth not tell us of a Creed but the Pope's Canon Book p. 355. yet the Quakers now say they believe that called The Apostles Creed For seeing by denying the Scriptures to be either the Medium or Rule of their Faith what account can they give for their Faith to believe one peculiar Article of Christianity If they say they have a peculiar Inspiration from the Light within to believe these peculiar Doctrines this in the first place throws down the common Illumination from being the universal Rule for common and peculiar are differing things But next It is a meer Fiction if they should say they have such a peculiar Inspiration without Scripture viz. to believe that Christ was born of a Virgin died for our Sins rose again the third Day W. P. grants the Light within doth not reveal these things to them nor is it needful and he grants the Scriptures are an historical Rule but he will not allow that the Belief of the History of Christ's Birth Death c. is necessary to our Salvation It is none of the absolute Necessaries he saith But they have not only denied the Scriptures to be the Word the Rule the external Medium of Faith but have given them Names of Contempt particularly G. F. who has called them earthly and carnal Death Ink and Paper Dust and Serpents Meat G. F's Truth 's Defence p. 14 102. See several Papers given forth c. p. 45 46. So Dust is the Serpents Meat their Original is but Dust which is but the Letter which is Death so these Serpents feed upon Dust which feed upon all these carnal things and their Gospel is Dust Matthew Mark Luke and John which is the Letter The cursed Serpent is in the Letter R. Hub's Words Truth 's Def. p. 102. Is not this to fright People from reading the Letter to tell them the cursed Serpent i. e. the Devil is in it Their common Defence is that G. F. meant all this of the Ink and Paper but none of all whom he calls Serpents that is the Protestant Churches did ever say that the Ink and Paper was the Gospel they meant the Doctrines and Truths declared by what is writ or printed with Ink on Paper As for the Switch Quotations out of G. M. to prove that some of his Opponents had said The Scripture is God yea the Letter of the Scripture is God Switch p. 15. and for Proof of this he quotes G. Fox G. M. p. 261. who affirmed that one Roger Atkinson affirmed That the Scripture is God but had this been so will that justifie G. F. â—his giving them such opprobrious Names if one or two Particulars did run into one Extream Will this justifie G. F. his running into the other Extream The bending a crooked Plant the contrary way will not serve his turn in this case But that G. Fox his Evidence is not to be trusted in his quoting his Opponents I shall clearly prove G. F. in his Great Mystery p. 247. quotes C. Wade for the same Trespass that he quotes Roger Atkinson for namely that Christopher Wade should affirm That the Scripture Letter was God and Christ for this he quotes his Book called Quakery Slain but no such Passage is to be found in all that Book and C. Wade in another Book of his entituled To all those called Quakers he charges G. F. with a Hellish Lye and Slander for affirming that he called the Letter God and Christ see this last Book of C. Wade p. 7. and compare it with his Quakery slain p. 16. and his Words in that p. 16. being That the Letter of the New Testament or Gospel containeth in it the mediate inspired teaching written VVord of Christ the VVord that was and is God which saith C. VVade is flat contrary to thy Lye And in his last cited Book the said C.
VVade mentions no less than twelve particular Lyes wherewith G. F. had belyed him in matter of fact as to his Quotations all which I have considered and so may others if they have the Books and will find them indeed to be abusive Perversions and Lies of G. F. upon this C. VVade but I shall give only two Instances more that out of the Mouth of two or three Witnesses that is plain matter of fact G. F. is guilty of false Quotations and belying the Innocent and yet these impudent Men will defend his Infallibility one of them is that G. F. in his G. M. p. 246. chargeth C. VVade to say O Luciferian Pride to save Souls to this C. VVade fully and effectually answereth and plainly detects the Lie and Perversion in his second Book where he shews out of the seventh and eighth Page of his Quakery slain that his Words were His crying out against James Milner ' s Luciferian Pride to save Souls as Christ did C. Wade's second Book p. 4. because he pretended himself to be Christ and audaciously took upon him to save Souls as Christ did by his suffering Death and hereupon James Milner did in a juggling manner die and in a juggling inchanting manner with a Knife and a Bason he pretended his Blood was shed to save the Souls of two VVomen this manner of saving Souls only C. Wade blames which G. F. either justifies or renders himself a Lyer by blaming C. Wade See the Places themselves The other Lye and Slander which G. F. is guilty of against C. Wade is that in his G. M. p. 247. he makes C. Wade to say God limits the Supreme Holy One by the inspired Writings of the Apostles but C. Wade's Words were That the Devil limits the Supreme Holy One see C. Wade's second Book p. 5. compared with p. 13. of Quakery slain Note If either the Switch or G. Whitehead could prove the like Perversions and Lies against the Author of the Snake as C. Wade hath here proved against G. F. how would they have sentenced him as indeed they have for things of small moment in comparison of what is here justly proved against their infallible Apostle as they pretend he was G. F But I do not know one Quotation of the Author of the Snake out of their Books wherein he hath in a substantial matter wronged him as G. F. here hath wronged C. Wade not only in these three but many more There yet remains two Quotations out of G. W's own Book called Truth defending the Quakers which he most fallaciously and sophistically endeavours to justifie The Question being put Whether the Quakers did esteem their Speakings to be of as great Authority as any Chapter in the Bible Truth and Inn. p. 16. 'T is answered That which is spoken from the Spirit of Truth in any is of as great Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are and greater This same Quotation is objected in a late printed Sheet called An Account from Colchester where the following Words are set down that G. W. blames the Norfolk Priests for leaving out which he calls the annexed explanatory Words and they are these As Christ's VVords were of greater Authority when he spoke than the Pharises reading the Letter and they in whom that Spirit speaks not are out of the Authority of the Scriptures and their speaking we deny But first These Words are not explanatory but a sophistical Argument to prove the former Assertion for G. VV. argues That because Christ's preaching was of greater Authority than the Pharisees reading the Scriptures that therefore what the Spirit speaks in the Quakers and by them is of greater Authority than the Scriptures which is both a false and foolish Consequence for it supposes that the Spirit of God speaks in the Quakers when they preach or speak in Meetings as it did in Christ and in the Apostles viz. by the same divine Inspiration in kind and manner immediately and infallibly which cannot be granted and the Falsehood of it appears by the many false things that they speak and write contrary to the Scriptures And though he mentions not Quakers yet that he does understand them and none else is clear from his own Words He saith They in whom that Spirit speaks not their speaking we deny This supposeth he grants that the Spirit spoke in some which they did not deny and who were these but the Ministers among the Quakers seeing they deny the Ministry of all others in our Days Next he has an impertinent Question as to the Division of Chapters and Verses Can these Men say that was done by Divine Authority But this is wholly from the purpose Another Evasion is That the Spirit of Truth immediately ministring in Man or by any spiritual Minister is of greater Authority Power or Efficacy than the Chapters are simply considered as without the Spirit But simply considered as without the Spirit is wholly remote from the Question and is no ways to be allowed for any true Vindication because the Spirit doth as truly and frequently accompany the Scriptures when read as when preached or whatever is preached by the Spirit 's Assistance if the Hearers in reading be as sincere as the Hearers in preaching But if the Hearers be careless suppose Men preach by the Spirit it doth not follow that carnal and careless Hearers hear by the Spirit more than that they read or hear what is read by the Spirit But if he will needs have the Words simply and abstractly considered without the Spirit be added to reading let them by the like reason be added to preaching what he adds of Christ and the Apostles living and powerful preaching being of greater Efficacy Power and Authority than the outward Writing or Scripture it self simply or abstractly considered as distinct from the Spirit As it was no Part of the Question nor Answer given by him in Truth 's Defence so it is altogether impertinent But he equivocates upon the Word Authority taking it for the effect it hath on the Hearers but that was not the Sense of the Word Authority in the Question asked but its Sense as it 's generally among all that treat of Scripture Authority above other Writings so taken the Obligation or Right that doth oblige or induce us to believe the Truth of them and that they are of divine Inspiration This is quite another thing than the Effect or Impression that Men feel in reading or hearing them read as well as when preached upon by way of expounding for whether the Effect or Influence and Impression be great or little as it is sometimes great and sometimes little and sometimes perhaps none upon hardned Hearts yet their Authority is still the same neither greater nor less at one time than another The other Quotation is taken out of his Truth defending and is objected against in that called An Account from Colchester to which a pretended Answer is given in that called Some Account from Colchester signed
greater but indeed it hath none at all against three distinct Persons for there is a plain Distinction of a Medium in created Beings betwixt Substance and Nothing the three Dimensions of a Body Length Breadth and Depth are neither three Nothings nor three Substances the Understanding Will and Locomotive Power of Man's Soul are neither three Nothings nor three Substances and yet they are but one Soul though all Creaturely Similitudes are improper to express this Mystery Beside how could a Manifestation become Flesh or take Man's Nature as the Son did And how could one Manifestation send another or beget another or a third Manifestation proceed from two other Manifestations But whereas Jos VVyeth saith in his Switch p. 184. VVe own their Distinction in all the Instances of it recorded in Holy VVrit In contradiction to this hear F. Hougil in his Collection p. 251. he calls it damnable Doctrine to say That Christ must be distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost Before in God and now from God their Quibble about separate doth not help them for some that have so called them have declared they meant nothing by separate but distinct and now if Jos VVyeth and G. VV. will have distinct to signifie separate seeing they pretend to own the Distinction of the Father and the Son they must own the Separation And whereas the Teachers among the Quakers profess they are not changed in any thing of Doctrine or Practice from what they were from the Beginning for Truth is one say they and changes not and as God is one and Truth is one and changeth not so his People are one Now let us compare the Doctrine of G. VVhitehead what it was in the Year 1659. when he writ his Truth defending the Quakers which he said was written from the Spirit of Truth concerning the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and what it was in the Year 1697 when he wrote his Antidote against the Venome of the Snake In his Truth defending c. printed 1659. in p. 2. he saith VVhat the Scripture saith of the Godhead the Father the VVord and the Spirit which are one 1 Joh. 5. 7. we own but deny the Popish Term of three distinct Persons which you call God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost which tends to the dividing God and to the making three Gods Note here he not only denies the three Persons but the Orthodox and Scriptural Explanation of them of God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost And thou who hast vindicated such a Dream could never prove it by the Scripture when thou wast put upon it And do not you Priests in your Divinity as you call it affirm that a Person is a single rational compleat Substance and differing from another by an incommunicable Property And art thou so blind as to think that there is such a Difference in the Godhead Seeing Christ is equal with his Father who is a Spirit then what incommunicable Property can he differ in from the Father that is not communicable to the one as well as the other Here we see he not only opposes the Terms Three Persons but the Distinction of the Three their incommunicable Properties which are these That the Father begot the Son from everlasting the Son was begot of the Father from everlasting and the Holy Ghost did proceed both from the Father and the Son from everlasting and surely the Father's Property is incommunicable to the Son and so is the Son 's to the Father and the Holy Ghost's Property to both for it cannot be said that the Son begot the Father or that the Son is the Father c. or that the Holy Ghost is either the Father or the Son But now let us hear his late Doctrine in his printed Antidote 1697. p. 139. Though 't is true saith he in one Sense the Father Son and Holy Ghost are not essentially distinct as to their divine Being which is but one they are but one God but in respect to their Properties of Relation as Father Son and Holy Ghost as such they are distinct but not divided nor separate either in themselves or VVork of the old or new Creation First G. VV. should tell us where doth he find in Scripture in express Terms that they are distinct in respect to their Properties of Relation Secondly Whether these Properties of Relation are communicable or incommunicable Properties Surely he must say incommunicable and that he did in his Book Truth defending expresly deny For if he should say these Properties are communicable such as God's absolute Properties are as holy wise good c. then the Son might beget and the Father might be begotten And lastly Seeing he now owns a Distinction of Properties of Relation though in unscripture Terms he must by good consequence own three Persons to be the Subjects of those Properties for no Properties or Predicates or Attributes can be without their proper Subjects for though it is the Father's Property to have begot the Son from everlasting yet the Father is not a Property but the Person or Subject that has that Property Thus we see how Proteus-like G. VV. has changed his Shapes in the Years 1659. and 1697. and yet there is no Shadow of Change in him for all this if we will believe him But further by some of his late Books we shall find him not only owning the Distinction of the three in respect to their Properties of Relation but advanced much nearer so far as to disown his former Opposition to the Terms Three Persons which in his Book called Ishmael that was his jointly with others he had charged his Opponent to have conjured out of one and told him that both they and he are shut up in perpetual Darkness for the Lake and this he doth in two several Books one printed in the Year 1690. called The Christianity of the People commonly called Quakers where he sets down the Words quoted out of his Ishmael more largely the other called Truth and Innocency printed this very Year 1699. where he leaves out the most offensive Words and puts an c. in their room as being I supose ashamed of them and well he might but he is not ashamed to affirm he is not changed in his Faith But let us hear how he excuseth what he writ in his Ishmael that was printed in the Year 1655. Truth and Inn. p. 51. Though his Name is at the Book yet he positively disowns the Words and affirms They are none of his and that he writ not that Part of the Answer to Townsend And in his Book called The Christianity c. above mentioned he saith He looks on the Words as wrong writ or wrong printed and that he raced them out or corrected them long since where he has met with that Answer But is not this a Piece of dull Sophistry to save the Credit of his Infallibility Had he not better more like a Man and a Christian
mean Jesus of Nazareth who is both God and Man the Word made Flesh as is clear from the foregoing Words even Christ crucified as being the Author of those Graces Blessings and Virtues unto all sincere Believers in him by bestowing on them his holy Spirit to indue them with Wisdom and Sanctification and freely imputing his Righteousness that he wrought in his own Person without them for their Justification and Redemption Also David in calling the Lord his Light and Salvation had a Respect to God in Christ even the Man Christ who was to come out of his Loins as the Object of his Faith for Redemption and Salvation But the whole Tendency of W. P's Discourse in that Passage and in other Passages going before and following is to perswade that Men are Christians if they have these moral Virtues without Faith in Christ as he was outwardly crucified for in the Enumeration of these Virtues he has not the least Word of Faith in Christ crucified as necessary to Christianity but pleads for a false Notion of the Christian Faith p. 118. At he that believes in Christ believes in God so he that believes in God believes in Christ Thus making Faith in Christ to be nothing else but a Belief in God as a Creator without any Respect to Christ crucified And p. 119. a little after that scandalous Passage above quoted he saith Christians ought to be distinguished by their Likeness to Christ and not their Notions of Christ which is likewise scandalous as implyâ— That Men may be like Christ without true Notions of him and Faith in him 〈◊〉 Christ Jesus of Nazareth that died and rose again yea he pleads p. 118. That a meer just Man ought not to be excluded the Communion of Christians and that to exclude him is partial and cruel And at this rate professed Infidel Jews and Mahumetans if they be but meer just Men are to be received into Christian Society as good Christians indeed good enough to be Members of the Quakers Church But now let us see how the following scandalous Passages quoted out of G. VV's own Books are defended by the Colchester Quakers in that they call Some Account from Colchester Some Account from Colchester p. 11. When you tell us you have Faith in Christ do you mean Christ whose Person is now ascended into Heaven above the Clouds or do you mean only a Christ within you Ans saith G.VV. Here thou would make two Christs a Christ whose Person is above the Clouds and a Christ within but how provest thou two such Christs VVe have Faith in that Christ that descended from the Father who is the same that ascended far above all Heavens and this Christ we witness in us who is not divided Note in their Vindication of this Passage they say This Answer appears pertinent to detect and reprehend an impertinent and foolish Question which whether it does not imply two Christs let the serious judge from the natural Import and Sense of the Question in the disjunctive Part of it or do you only mean a Christ within you Here their pretended Grammatical Skill of the Term disjunctive fails them To ask the Question disjunctively implies no more two Christs than it implies two George VVhiteheads to ask Is George VVhitehead a Londoner born or a North Country Man born in the North of England this doth not imply two G. Whiteheads But if one should say George Whitehead was born in the North of England some 64 Years ago and since that was born in London this would import two G. Whiteheads very plainly And no less indeed do the Quakers wild Notions that many of them have printed even the Men of great Note among them import not only two Christs but many Christs even thousands and they have no way to extricate themselves of this Difficulty but sophistical Evasions for if ye ask them Was that the true Christ who was born at Bethlehem of a Virgin called Mary above 1600 Years ago and do they believe in that Christ They will tell you yea but they have this sophistical Sense that he was the Light within that Person that was outwardly born who is by a Metonimy called Christ the thing containing for the thing contained See W. Penn's Rejoinder p. 304 305. But that that outward Person was properly the Son of God we utterly deny said W.P. as above quoted But the most true and proper Christ is the Christ born in them and growing up in them from a holy thing or Seed to a Child born and then to the Mighty God which three Steps are orderly set down by W.B. in his printed Collection p. 291. See third narrative p. 37. And he tells who is the Virgin in whom this Child is born not the Virgin Mary but every Quaker who is converted to the Light within And because this Child is not born in them all at once but at different times as they witness the Work of Regeneration and as many as come to witness Regeneration as many regenerated Persons there are in the World as many times Christ is born and though they say Christ is one in all and would defend their so saying by Scripture yet they mean not as the Scripture means for Christ as he is God is the same in all and as he dwells in all the faithful by his Spirit and by Faith yet not so as that Christ is really and truly begotten and born in regenerate Persons without any Alleâ—â—â—y as they hold for they make Christ as both without the Figure and Allâ—â—â—â—â— and Christ as born within c. the Substance and on Supposition that the◠〈◊〉 so many real Births of Christ it is impossible they could be one Christ otherwise than specifically one though consisting of many Individuals as many Individuals of Men are called Man but they are not one numerical Man no more can Christ be one numerical Christ but many if he were really begotten and born in many as they say he is It 's true the Scripture speaks of Christ being formed in Believers but this is a metaphorical Expression and allegory even as the Image of Caesar on Gold or Silver is called Caesar so the true lively Image of Christ is called Christ in true Believers and that is the meaning of Christ formed in Believers so that if they would be content with the allegorical Sense of the Word Christ formed within begotten and born within as sound and sober Christians understand it none would blame them and that they laid no more Stress upon it than they should but the contrary they do so as to make the Christ thus born within the greater Reality and Mystery than Christ born without and to make that inward Birth to have no Dependence on Christ as born without us and as he died for our Sins and rose and ascended into Heaven in the true intire Nature of Man consisting of a created Soul and Body and so as to witness the inward Work of Regeneration to
not witness the Word to be made Flesh once but art one of the Antichrists and Deceivers which John speaks of that are entred into the World which cannot confess Jesus Christ come in the Flesh and therefore thou queriest whether the Word was made Flesh any more or oftner than once Which Query comes from thy dark polluted Mind who is out of the Light And p. 30. And when thou canst witness the Word to be made Flesh once then thou wilt know whether the Son of God was made of a Woman any more or oftner than once But thou art the Dragon that would devour the Man-child which the Woman has brought forth who shall rule all Nations with a Rod of Iron Note some Expositors on the Book of the Revelation have by the Woman understood the Church and by the Man-child the Life of Christ or Christ formed in true Belidvers by way of Allegory and Metaphor only as is above noted but they never understood that Christ strictly speaking without-all Allegory or Metaphor was ever begotten or born in time but once or was ever made of a Woman but once viz. when he was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the Womb of the Virgin and born of her But the chief Teachers among the Quakers such as G. F. G. W. and W. P. and E. B. hath made Christ's Birth of the Virgin Mary and his Death and Sufferings and Blood shed without them the Type and Allegory and Christ born within crucified within them risen and ascended within them the Reallity and greatest Mystery as is above proved Like to this is another Passage in G. Whiteheads Jacob found in a desert Land p. 6 7. And in Simplicity I was made to wait upon God and to endure the Cross of Christ though for a Time and Times the Enmity of the wicked one was strong against me within and without seeking to devour that Seed which thro' the Word of the Lord was begotten in me And the Misteries of God and his Kingdom was revealed in me who brought me out of Darkness through the Wilderness where the Man-child was preserved for a Time and Times and half a Time from the Wrath of the Dragon who would have slain the Man-child But now is he arisen in his Power and Zeal and the Prince of the World is cast out and he is born which is the everlasting Counseller the Prince of Peace quoting in the Margin Isa 9. 6. who hath sent War and the Fire and the Sword into the Earth Note This I find was generally their manner of preaching and writing both at their first Appearance and long after to tell People that Christ was begotten in them born in them crucified dead and buried risen and ascended into Heaven within them and that every one in order to eternal Salvation must know Christ thus begotten and born in them crucified dead buried risen and ascended and this inward Conception and Birth of Christ c. they made the greatest Mistery and Reallity whereof Christ as born without in the Flesh was the Figure and a facile Representation to use W. P's Phrase in the case of what is to be transacted in us thus they did represent the inward Work of Regeneration to be a greater Mistery than God manifest in the Flesh viz. in that Body of Flesh that was born at Bethlehem as W. P. hath expresly affirmed as is above quoted And by this high sublime Doctrine which they gave forth to be given them by immediate Revelation from Heaven though it was no other but what G. F. had from some old Ranters and Familists who had it long before him They did mightily magnifie themselves above all others and cried out against all others as dark ignorant Sots Deceivers and Antichrists who denied Christ come in the Flesh because they did not receive this wild Notion they had got from Ranters and Familists That Christ was born crucified dead buried risen and ascended in them and though while I was with them I was not altogether ignorant that they had such Phrases and Methods of Speech as I had read in some of their Books yet I thought they understood it only by way of Allegory and Metaphor as Origen Augustine c. Some others of the Fathers both Greek and Latine used the like allegorical Phrases and which I my self have partly used in some of my former Books only by way of Allegory and Metaphor But I appeal to all who shall but impartially consider what I have above quoted out of their Books whether they will not judge and say that these Teachers of the Quakers whose Words I have quoted plainly import quite another thing than an allegorical Birth Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ in them even that which is real without an Allegory Metaphor or Figure for as G. F. said in Saul's Errand Christ's Flesh is a Figure and Christ in his People is the Substance of all Figures and consequently of that Figure also Besides if they meant it only by way of Allegory and Metaphor why did they cry out against all others as Antichrists Deceivers blind and dark Sots who did not receive this their Notion but opposed it as antichristian But if they had plainly told that they meant it not otherwise but by way of Allegory and Metaphor I know none that would have opposed them in that case But as in some other things after the Quakers have made a great Compass and yet return to say the same with others from whom they differed so in this very thing after all that G.W. as much as any had formerly contended for Christ begotten and both within suffering within his Blood shed within being a Sacrifice within Men to appease the Wrath of God and giving much more to Christ thus born within suffering within his Blood shed within than to Christ born without this Blood shed without being a Type of his Blood shed within Yet in his Judgment fixed printed 1682. which was 26. Years after his Jacob found in a desert Land printed 1656. above quoted he turns all that he had formerly writ and contended for Christ born within suffering within desiring to be freed from Sin into an Elegancy of Speech the Property and Effect being put for the Cause which is no more nor other than what all Christian Teachers and Expositors affirm For this hear what he saith in answer to his Opponent Jeffery Bullock who charged the Quakers with false Doctrine in saying That God's Appearance is to his Son Jesus Christs and for the begetting and bringing him forth in the Sons and Daughters of Men the which Doctrine said J. B. I do deny To this G.W. after some foregoing Words answereth in his Judgment fixed p. 330. This innocent Birth which God by his Spirit brings forth in the Sons and Daughters of Men who truly believe relate to them and their Souls as begotten and born of the immortal Seed by the living Word so that this Birth is not Christ Jesus What say the
as the following Words expresly declare But how could Christ in them be disobedient not only Spirits but disobedient Spirits This is that Apostle of the Quakers of whom VV. P. saith in his Preface to G. F's Journal He had an extraordinary Gift in opening the Scripture he would go to the Marrow of things saith VV. P. Is not this a rare Instance of it Upon the reading these Places Samuel Jobson one of the Quakers Elders said George doth not the Scriptures say that some crucifie Christ a-fresh I answered It is said in Scripture they crucifie him to themselves but it is not said they crucifie him to himself or in himself by crucifying him there is understood their rendring themselves guilty of his Death and depriving themselves by their unworthy Life and Practises of the Salvation purchased by him I asked him did he believe that wicked Men by their Sins do really wound Christ in them and kill him and let out his Blood in them and that that Blood is the Blood of Atonement He said The Scripture saith If we walk in the Light c. the Blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all Sin I asked him Whether that Blood was the Blood of Christ without us that was shed on the Cross He said The Blood was the Life But I asked again Was it the Blood without us or the Blood within us He said It was spiritual Blood But being much pressed not only by me but some Ministers present to answer whether it was Blood without him or Blood within him He waved any direct Answer and I shewing the Auditory that the Notion of G. F. and other Teachers of the Quakers who had learned it of him was That the Blood by which we are cleansed from Sin is the Blood within which he calls The Blood of the Seed as is more fully afterwards to be proved and this Seed is Christ and is not a Creature Another Quaker said Is not the Seed Christ and is not Christ within the Seed of the Woman that bruiseth the Head of the Serpent At this some of the Hearers said Here is Proof enough of their Error The Seed of the Woman it the Seed within them I answered Christ is called the Seed of the Woman and the Seed of Abraham as he came in the Flesh without us and was made of a Woman and was the Son of Abraham And though I own Christ within by his Godhead Presence and by his common Illumination in all Men and by his special Presence and special Illuminations in the faithful yet I deny that the Seed of God in Men is either Christ or God I own that there is a Seed of God in the faithful but I deny G. F. his Notion of it That it is not a Creature I asked Daniel Philips what he said to my former Question Did Men by their Sins really wound God in them as some of their Teachers have affirmed After some Demur he said he would not give a positive Answer but take it into further Consideration whereupon some of the Auditory did commend him I said it was better so to do than to assert such a vile Error however by this it appeared how uncertain they were and how little agreed about some of their chief Principles Having thus given an Account of G. W's wild Notions concerning Christ the Seed within that the Power takes hold of and raises up I will proceed to shew the like by some new Quotations out of G. F. referring to other Quotations given in my third Narrative especially on the same Subject See my third Narrative p. 25. G. F. in his G. M. p. 324. quotes his Opponent saying That the Seed to whom the Promise of Salvation is made is or hath been Sinners Ans The Promise of God is to the Seed which hath been laden as a Cart with Shaves by the Sinner which Seed is the Hope Christ that purifies even as God is pure and here is the Creature come to know its Liberty among the Sons of God and the Seed Christ never sinned in the Male nor in the Female in the Jew nor in the Gentiles And of this Mystery was the great High Professors ignorant of that stood at a Distance from the Gentiles that Christ had no room among them though they talked of him but in the Stable in the Manger and in their Mouths to talk of him with their Lips and such Christ calls Graves and Sepulchres and whited Walls and the Wall is not the Seed but the Seed is Christ and not the Sepulchre nor the Grave so this Promise is not unto Seeds as many but to one the Seed which is Christ. Note these gross Perversions of Scripture Again p. 171. G. M. Now they feel not the Comfort nor the Benefit but by the Faith of Christ Jesus the one Offering in which God is pleased with all which is acceptable which is Christ's Offering his Sacrifice his Flesh his Blood his Life his Word must be manifest and received within before they come to Justification Sanctification and Redemption P. 173. And where Jesus Christ is within the Word is there and God is there and this is the great Mistery of Godliness Again G. M. p. 158. Of this Body which is that by which Christ reconciles unto God are all the Professors Protestants and Papists ignorant of this Seed that breaks the Enmity P. 159. And by Faith is every one justified in the Blood of the Seed the Flesh of Christ the Lord from Heaven shed for the Sins of the whole World The Blood of the Seed which is the Life that cleanseth and this Blood is felt within for it purgeth the Conscience from dead VVorks to serve the living God and here is the great Mistery of God and the VVisdom of God Note This Flesh and Blood that he saith is the great Mistery which neither Papists nor Protestants know is that Flesh which was crucified in Adam when Adam sinned and the Blood that was then shed in which is the Belief that takes away the Sin as I have shewed in a large Quotation out of another Book of his in my third Narrative p. 25. For a Close upon this Head I shall quote a Passage of G. F. in that called Several Papers given forth c. by G. F. who is there called Minister of the eternal VVord of God p. 47. Now to all dear ones and dear Hearts I speak the same Seed which it Christ the same Spirit takes upon it now as ever yea the same Temptations the same Devil and the same VVorship of the VVorld is winding into another Form and Colour but Jesus Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life And the same Seed passing into the Wilderness and there is tempted to lust after the Creature you that are in the Wilderness witness this with me and the same Tentations even to Despair and make themselves away Note here all along from the Passages above quoted out of G. F. and G. W. and many
our Life and Soul of our Soul he proceeds very regularly to tell That in this Soul of Man or in the Spirit or Mind of it as the highest Power when it is regenerated and resigned lives the great King manifested here he dwells as in Mount Sion here he delights to be as in his Temple And in this Soul of Man unenlightened and unrenewed Christ lies hid and is as one dead note he doth not say dead as the Quakers say but is as one dead and unsavory unto the Soul and so the Soul is in Darkness Weakness Sinfulness Sorrow Fear Bondage Thus we see Magnus Byne doth so clearly state the Subject of the Controversie betwixt him and the Quakers his Opponents which was the Soul of Man the created reasonable Soul that is neither God nor Christ though he owneth that God and Christ are in the Souls of Men both regenerate and unregenerate but after different Manners that he leaves no room for any of the least Capacity of Understanding to mistake the true Subject of the Controversie and therefore George Fox whom Joseph Wyeth magnifieth as the APOSTLE in this Age could not be such a Sot as not to understand the true Subject of the Dispute which was the Soul of Man the reasonable Soul that which thinks wills loves which dieth not when the Body dieth and which again and again he calleth a Creature and the created Soul distinguisheth it from Christ in the Soul which he saith is the Life of our Life and Soul of our Soul The same Expression used by George VVhitehead in his Truth and Innocency Yet notwithstanding all this clear stating the Subject of the Dispute which was the Soul of Man and not that divine Principle in the Soul George Fox doth make a great Difference with him and sets himself in great Opposition to him and will needs have it That the Soul to wit the Soul of Man which was the only Subject of the Dispute is without Beginning coming from God returning to God again Also he opposeth Magnus Byne's Saying There is a kind of Infiniteness in the Soul viz. with Respect to the Largeness of its Desires which the whole World cannot satisfie as he explained himself but it is not Infiniteness it self which George Fox wrongly quotes by adding the Word IN making him say It is not Infiniteness IN it self which mars the Sense But George Fox in Opposition to M. B. will have the Soul of Man which was the Subject of the Dispute to be Infiniteness it self without Beginning Note Here a Quaker Daniel Philips objected That Disputants might differ about the Subject of the Dispute so as the Opponent might mean one thing and the Respondent another But I answered They might so when the Matter is intricate and obscure by Ambiguities of Words but it could not be so here the Subject of the Dispute being so clearly proposed that none but a Sot or Cheat could or would mistake the Subject which the Quakers will not allow G. F. to be having so great an Esteem of his Wisdom as the Apostle in this Age. And the like is to be said of all the Disputes betwixt George Fox and his other Opponents about the Soul which were only about the Soul of Man and not at all about God or Christ in the Soul for they all did contend there was a real Distinction betwixt the Soul and God or Christ who was in it But George Fox would allow none but still contended That the Soul concerning which they and he disputed was a Part of God without Beginning c. And in his Great Mistery page 91. he blames Magnus Byne for calling the Soul a Creature and saith he is in Babylon and Confusion And in his Dispute with the five Ministers of New Castle Great Mistery pag. 227 228. he saith The Soul whereof Christ is the Bishop is divine and immortal also he most grosly wrongs the five Ministers of New Castle and charges them with holding it to be their own Principle Great Mistery page 227. That the Soul is a Part of the divine Essence And in his Great Mistery page 29. he saith to them And so you five have judged your selves to be Blasphemers who said The Soul was Part of the divine Essence and yet it is Blasphemy to say so This he most unjustly chargeth in them quoting their Book called A Discovery of that Generation of Men called Quakers but in that very Book which was produced and the Words quoted as they are in that Book page 5. the five Ministers deliver it not as any Position of theirs but as one of the Quakers Positions having this Title on the Top Quakers Positions being the third in Number and in all being seventeen That the Soul is a Part of the divine Essence What Excuse can George VVhitehead or any of his Brethren find for this palpable Injustice in George Fox Could he be so sottish as not to distinguish betwixt the five Ministers Positions and what they call the Quakers Positions and which they expresly blame and disown and give their Arguments against And if he was not so ignoratly sottish in the Case what can it be construed but a wilful Lie thus for him to charge them And for a further Confirmation that George Fox did hold That that very Soul of Man which George VVhitehead calls the reasonable and rational Soul Truth and Innocency pag. 7 8 9. and which George VVhitehead confesseth hath sinned doth not sin and is not at any time a sinful Soul consequently is according to him a Part of God I bring a Quotation out of his Great Mistery page 337. George Fox quotes his Opponent saying The Soul of Man is a reasonable sinful Substance To this George Fox answers How can that which is sinful be reasonable And if that which is unsinful be reasonable and sinful be reasonable both then they are one in Vnity The Lord will take the Soul for an Offering for Sin Isa 5. 3. See how thou and the Prophet agrees here But what is that Soul that the wicked is not able to kill Is it not that which God hath in his Hand And this is a Lye to say That which is reasonable is sinful Note how grosly he perverts that Place in Isa 53. 10. When thou shall make his Soul an Offering for Sin This is understood of the Soul of the Man Christ who suffered without us and not of any Soul within us which yet is George Fox's Notion and this very Soul in Men this reasonable Soul George Fox will have it to be the Odering for Sin And because it is so therefore he concludes it is not sinful not capable of sinning yet George Whitehead saith The reasonable Soul is capable of sinning and hath sinned in Men though it never sinned in Christ See how these two Apostles do now contradict one anoother and yet none of them fallible Note again how George Fox thought he put a very puzzling Query to his Opponent to
upon the Souls of Men But what then Must they therefore none of them that have sinned be saved Had not the Ephesians been great Sinners yea and they were dead in their Sins and Trespasses yet these very same Men having the same Souls were quickened and made alive by Christ Ephes 2. 3. And you hath he quickened who were dead in Trespasses and Sins And George Whitehead himself is guilty of the same absurd Doctrine with G. F. and Edward Burrough who in his He-goats Horn pag. 11 12. denieth that Christ hath our Nature in Heaven and that it is one and the same Nature in Men by which the Gentiles sinned aud by which they did the things contained in the Law And in his Voice of Wisdom page 20. he holdeth That Christ is both the Efficient and Subject of the good Works that are wrought in Men which is in effect to say it is not Men or the Souls of Men that repent believe obey God but Christ in them or else he must say The Soul that believes repents obeys is Christ and though in his later Books he seems to deny this yet will retract nothing for that would reflect on his Infallibility But his common Salve for this Sore is That he may see cause otherwise to word the Matter and yet mean the same thing as he has of late exprest in some of his Books Note Whereas in the Close of the third Meeting a Letter of John Audland a Preacher among the Quakers to George Fox was read wherein is contained gross Idolatry which confirms in matter of Fact what George Fox said of himself That he was equal to God and that he was Christ and upon this Notion John Audland addressed himself to George Fox as to God and Christ in his said Letter the which for its Affinity with the Doctrine of George Fox discovered in the first and second Part of this Narrative I think fit here to insert John Audland's Blasphemous Letter to George Fox Spelt and Pointed according to the Original DEare and presious one in whome my life is bound up and my strenth in thee stands by thy breathings I am nurished and refreshed and by thee my strenth is renewed blessed art thow for Ever more and blessed are all they that Enjoy thee life and strenth comes from thee holy one and thow art the blessed of the lord for Ever more dear dear reach unto mee that I may be strenthened to stand in the mighty power and dread of the lord for the sarvisse is very great my travell and burthen was never soe as now since I saw thee but dayly doe I find thy Presence with me which doth exceedingly Preserve mee for I cannot reane but in thy presence and power pray for me that I may stand in thy dread for Ever more deare my deare brother John Cam hath been Exceeding sicke and he is very weake I can say little of his Recovery as yet his wife is with him she is deare and preciously keept their deare love is to thee chreach through all in thy mighty power to him this bearer can declare to thee of the work this way Jo Willkinson and Jo Storey is heare their love is dearly to thee deare harte there is one thinge that lies upon mee I shall lay it before thee as tuching my coming into Wiltshire I was there at Justice Stoks house and his famaley is all prety loveing and convinced and he is a sober wise man and there is honesty in him which will stand and there is a pretey people that way it hath laid exceeddingly upon me these 3 days of thy beeing at that place I know not such another place in all the Counterey for thee dear I was much wounded to know that thow was in such a rude place and suffers soe amongst them and this was I moved to lay before thee and great is my disere that it may be soe the Place is about 20 miles from brestol in wiltshire one mile from chipenam a markete towne Justice stoks house Jo Cam tould me that the Justice he was with was a very Loving and prety man this bearer was there he can declare to thee more but oh that thou weare but at that place I mention it is free and suteable for frends coming to thee it lies much upon mee and if thow find movings strike over thither I shall say no more of it the worke is great heare away pray for us all that in thy Power we may abide for Evermore I am thyne begoten and nurished by thee and in thy Power am I preserved glory unto thee holy one for Ever John Audland The Letter being read the Auditory was struck with Admiration and generally signified their great Abhorrency of the Blasphemy and Idolatry contained in it to G. Fox I told them the Quakers had two Excuses as to this Letter one was that it was feigned because as it was once printed it had a wrong Date viz. 1665. which was some Years after John Audland was dead But that was the Fault or Mistake of the Publisher of that Letter that proves not the Letter to be feigned for the original Manuscript was read in the Meeting that had no date and was handed about to several Ministers and others together with another Letter of the same John Audland in Manuscript to another Person who did unanimously judge it was the same hand that writ both the Letters Their next Excuse is That these Words in John Audland's Letter were not intended to G. Fox but to Christ or the Life in G. Fox And the like Excuse G. F. made in a Letter writ with his own Hand which was produced and read in the Meeting and is ready to be produced before any that shall call for it for a Woman Quaker that in a Quakers Meeting said to George Fox Thou art the King of Israel That she spoke her Words to Christ viz. in G. Fox But I told This did not hinder it to be Idolatry nor was any just Excuse in the Case for it was the same Excuse that the Heathens gave for their worshiping Idols because it was not the Idol but the divine Power that was in it which they worshiped The like Excuse gave those Quakers that sung Hosanna to James Nailer at his Procession into Bristol and the same Excuse he made for them PART III. Containing the Proofs on the 7th Head concerning Justification and on the other following Heads contained in the Printed Advertisement Read at Turner's-Hall the 23d of January 1699. Concerning Justification by the Blood Merits and Righteousness of Christ. I Produced a Printed Paper in the Meeting call'd A few Positions of the sincere Belief and Christian Doctrine of the People call'd Quakers Sign'd by G. Whitehead to which is adjoined another printed Paper Sign'd by Thirty two Quakers which they say was given to the Members of Parliament in the Year 1693 In which Paper I noted divers gross Fallacies and gross Equivocations such as follow
Blood of Christ's Humanity but of his Godhead G. W. in his Truth Defended p. 66. quotes C. Wade saying The Lord hath Bought us and Redeemed us with the Precious Blood of his Humanity and saith your imagined Christ viz. their Notion of a Christ whose Blood is shed within them never had any Humane Blood to Redeem you with and to prove it he brings 1 Pet. 1. 19. G. W. Answers That Scripture 1 Pet. 1. hast thou perverted as thou hast done other Scriptures to thy own Destruction for there he witnesses to the Blood of the Lamb which Redeemed them from their vain Conversation but doth not tell them of Humane Blood to Redeem them with for that which is Humane is Earthly but Christ whose Blood is Spiritual is Lord from Heaven and he is not an imagined Spirit but a true Spirit And what say'st thou to this Was that Humane Blood which Christ saith Except a Man drink he hath no Life in him and which cleansed the Saints from all Sin who were Flesh of Christ's Flesh and Bone of his Bone Note Thus we see what Blood G. W. esteems the Precious Blood of Christ not his Humane Blood or Blood of his Humanity and that not only he denyeth that we are Redeemed or Cleansed by any Blood of his Humanity but denyeth that Christ had any Humane Blood or Blood of Humanity and giveth his Reason against it That Humane is Earthly but Christ whose Blood is Spiritual is Lord from Heaven But again For a further evidence of his undervaluing the outward Blood of Christ and denying it to be that Blood by which Christ purchased his Church in his Light and Life p. 56. It is confessed saith he that God by his own Blood purchased to himself a Church Acts 20. 28. Now the Blood of God or that Blood that relates to God must needs be Spiritual he being a Spirit and the Covenant of God is Inward and Spiritual Note This Quotation was lately published in the Printed Sheet call'd An Account from Colchester above-mention'd to which Seven Quakers at Colchester have given a pretended Answer call'd Some Account from Colchester c. In their Answer to this Quotation they quibble Sophistically upon the Word Spiritual We would ask these Men say they if God's own Blood be not Spiritual whether it be Carnal and the Blood of his Covenant such also But was not the Blood that was outwardly shed on the Cross which John said he saw and bare Record real material Blood as really as that of other Men And granting it to be Spiritual as Spiritual signifies Holy as a Holy Man is a Spiritual Man and yet is a Carnal Man with respect to his Body of Flesh yet it was Material and Corporal But G. W. by Spiritual meant inward Blood in Men and Women and so expressed it The Covenant saith he is Inward and Spiritual and so is the Blood of it so that Spiritual and Inward are with him Synonymous But for a further Answer they quote a passage in G. W.'s Antidote p. 233 234. where he grants contrary to his former Doctrine That God purchased his Church by Christ's Natural or Outward Blood but not only by that but principally by the Spiritual Blood or Life of Christ Jesus and this Spiritual Blood he holds to be Inward in Men The Blood is the Life and the Life is the Light of Men as W. Bailie phrased it perverting and confounding two sundry Texts of Scripture But the tenor and tendency of G. W.'s former Arguments were altogether against Redemption or Justification by any natural or outward Blood whatsoever for Humane is Natural but Humane Blood G. W. would by no means admit to be the Blood of Christ by which Men are Redeemed So now he will have God's own Blood to be no less than his own dear Son and the Blood to be both Natural and Outward and Spiritual and Inward by which we are Redeemed meaning by Inward Blood his Life Power and Spirit in Men and Women and yet in contradiction to himself he saith God's sparing not his own Son but delivering him up for us all includes the whole Sacrifice of Christ in Soul and Body which were offered Note If Christ's Soul and Body without us were the whole Sacrifice the outward Blood being a part of his Body then his Spirit Life and Light in us is no part of the Sacrifice and yet in contradiction to this in his Light and Life p. 44. He brings several Arguments and Scriptures but all grosly perverted to prove That Christ in us offers up himself a living Sacrifice refering to W. Burnets Book cap. prim p. 31. Where the words are more largely quoted thus out of W. Smiths Primmer We believe that Christ in us doth offer up himself a living Sacrifice unto God for us by which the Wrath and Justice of God is appeased towards us This layeth the whole stress upon Christ within Men being the offering but now G. W. would seem to give one part to Christ without and another part to Christ within Men to be the offering and to the Blood shed without that was Natural and Outward and to the Blood shed within Men that is Spiritual and Inward But then surely he gives very little to the Blood shed without that was but once and was Natural Blood the Blood of the Humanity but he gives very much to the Inward Blood shed within Men which is a more excellent Blood it is the Blood not of the Humanity but of the Divinity and is shed many Thousands yea Millions of times for it is shed in all Men who have lived in several Ages of the World And thus Christ hath offered up himself Inwardly Millions of times and had his Blood inwardly shed to appease the Wrath and Justice of God but this is directly contrary to the Scripture that saith That Christ by one Offering hath for ever perfected them that are Sanctified and by one Offering Heb. 9. 28. 10. 14. once offered not often offered he hath appeared to put away sin and as was Prophesied of him a Body thou hast prepared me not two Bodies or many Bodies And as Christ had not two Bodies to be offered for our Sins Heb. 8. so nor had he two Bloods the Scripture never mentioneth any Blood of Christ but one we no where read in Scripture of the Bloods of Christ plural but of Blood singular And according to G. W. the Blood of Christ in his former Books is but one and that is the Inward Blood the Blood of his Divinity but not of his Humanity yea he hath denyed the Body of Christ to be any part of him whereof he consisteth as above-quoted and consequently nor was the outward Blood shed on the Cross any part of him But suppose it were allowed to call the Spirit of Christ in Believers or the sanctifying and refreshing Influences thereof his Blood by way of metaphor as Wine is call'd in Scripture the Blood of the Grape
Suppose W. B. had positively said as if they had been his words originally That Blood is not in being yet he was far from inferring thence that we are not justified by that Blood this was G. W.'s consequence and not W. B.'s for W. B. did strongly assert that Men are justified by the Blood that was then shed tho' it was not now in being but said he the Efficacy of it is still in being but G. W. did draw a quite contradictory Conclusion to that of W. B. as thus That Blood that was shed by the Spear is not in being saith W. B. therefore G. W. concludes Men are not justified by it which Argument of G. W.'s has equal force against Christ's Death and Bodily pains as well as his Souls Dolours and Griefs they are not now in being therefore Men are not justified by them And his Argument has the like force against Men's being justified or having their Sins pardoned by the Merit of Christ's Blood before Christ came in the Flesh for example David had not the remission of his Sins by the Merit of Christ's Blood because G. W.'s Logick in David's time the Blood was not in being But as I shewed in the Meeting the Words that Blood is not in being were not originally W B's but some Quakers Words or some other that held the like false notions with them which W. B. calls a Cavillation Capital Principles p. 40. Of late saith he I have frequently met with a Query by way of Cavillation Which is whether that Blood spilt upon the Cross run not on the ground c. If so how then can Man be justified by that which is not in being Thus we see W. B. censures the consequence of that Argument to be invalid but G. W. again and again I know not how frequently makes use of it and thinks the Conclusion to be good and I said in the Meeting had G. W. been present I would have asked him what was his Answer to that Question Is the Blood that was shed on the Cross now in being If he happen to reply to this 4th Narative I desire him to give a positive answer to it seeing he makes it the Foundation of his Conclusion that Men are not justified by the Merit of that Blood because that Blood is not in being but seeing I had not G. W. there I asked Dan. Philip who was present and sat near where I stood and is one of the Quakers in the Unity whither that Blood was in being He replied he knew not whither I meant the Blood that was without Christ's Body or within it I told him the Blood that went out of his Body whether that Blood was in being but he gave no reply I asked him again whether he believed that the Blood that was outwardly shed was Meritorious to Justification and that true Believers were justified by it he said he knew not what I meant by the Word Merit or Meritorious I told him it was a shame for him to pretend to be so Ignorant of the signification of the Word that an ordinary School Boy did know seeing he was a Scholar and did not long ago commence Dr. of Physick at Leiden and had there a Latin Oration However I gave him the signification of it that Merit signified that it was of that Worth and Value by way of Atonement and Expiation to make satisfaction to God for the guilt of our Sins He also pretended he knew not what I meant by the Word Atonement I told him it signified reconciling and bringing Men into savour with God I asked again were Believers justified by the Merit of the Blood that was outwardly shed he answered it was a part of the Offering but I asked were Believers justified by it He said that Blood will justifie none that are not Sanctified I replied that was not the question nor is it any part of the Controversie I further asked him what did he mean by the Offering whether Christ only as without us or as within us or both without and within and both by Christ's Blood without us as outwardly shed and by the Blood of his God-Head as inwardly shed in Men as G. W. will have it now at last but to this he gave no positive answer and though in all his answers he gave on this or other heads he greatly foiled himself He is as I am informed so confident that he tells in private how he foiled me But seeing neither he nor any of the Quakers there present offered any answer to that question Is that Blood of Christ that was outwardly shed in being I told them I believed the substance of it was still in being for not the least atome of any Bodily substance was ever annihilated but to enquire where that Blood now was or whether Christ did take it back again into his Body which no doubt he was able to do having all power was a curious and unnecessary question to be resolved And here I brought a saying of B. Burnet whose Name I mentioned with due respect to the same effect in his Exposition on the xxxix Articles of the Church of England and also sometime afterwards at the same Meeting I quoted him in the same Book to show my Agreement with him as I do with all sound Christian Teachers that our Lord has the same Body in substance he had on Earth and that his Body is not changed in substance but in the different Contexture of parts And on this Head also I queried Dan. Philips Whither Christ's Body was the same in Substance now in Heaven that it was on Earth and whether it was when on Earth a terrestrial Body he said He did not know what I meant by Substance I told him the same that others meant who had any true skill in Natural Philosophy and it was a shame to a Dr. of Physick to profess his being ignorant to define a Substance however I told him that a Substance understanding a created Substance was a Being or Thing that did only depend on God Almighty the first Cause and was the subject of certain Accidents that did depend on it and could not be without it He asked whether a Substance could be without Accidents I answer'd him it could be without Accidents of this or that kind and could be wonderfully changed in Accidents and yet remain the same Substance I asked him again Was our Lord's Body earthly when it was on earth He answered it was like ours in all things Sin excepted I again asked but was it earthly when on earth Here he demurred and would not give a positive Answer a Minister that stood by said by his confessing it was like ours he has confessed it was an earthly Body I said to them that are sound in the Faith it is so but not to the Quakers for they will not allow that an earthly Body and an heavenly Body can be the same Body in Substance or that a natural Body and a spiritual Body are the
Baptized and here at London divers of both Sexes who were educated under the profession of Quakers have been lately Baptized and go to Church one of whom is my Youngest Daughter my Elder Daughter having been Baptized above a Year ago so that to my certain knowledge above forty Persons within a few Months past are come off from Quakerism and brought to the Church which gives a good ground of hope that many others will follow which God in his great Mercy grant and prosper my sincere tho' mean Endeavours and Labours and other his Servants whom he has made instrumental in this Work and for the success he has been pleased to give us therein all Glory and Honour and Praise be given to his most worthy Name through Jesus Christ Amen And whereas my adversaries G. W. and other of the Preachers of the Second Days meeting at London had given it as a reason why they would not meet me at Turners-Hall to dispute with me at the former Meetings for the Years 1696 97 98 according to my published Advertisements that they knew none who had been in Unity with them since I came into England who did own me or were in danger by me to be brought off from them that Objection to their Knowledge and full Conviction is now quite removed for both R. Bridgeman and M. Everard besides divers others that might be mentioned were not only in Unity with them since my arrival into England but in great repute among them R. Bridgeman having been but lately a Member of their Men's Meetings at London and one of the Twelve who were entrusted with the receiving and distributing the Money collected for their poor in the City of London and Margaret Everard having for many Years till of very late been received and well owned as a Speaker among them both in City and Country And it is most certain that the Quakers refusing to meet with me at Turners-Hall to answer to the Quotations I produced out of their Books has been a great means to let many of those formerly in Unity with them see their sandy Foundation and the badness of their Cause and will yet be a further means to give many others the like discovery who are dissatisfied with their not appearing either to vindicate their Books and Authors or to acknowledge the great Errors contained in them and publickly to retract them They are indeed brought to a very pinching dilemma if they will not appear in publick view to answer to the charges of the vile Errors and Heresies yea and Blasphemes brought against them by plain Quotations out of their Books presented to the People present by ocular inspection they now see by experience of what is past what the consequence will be even that many of themselves will see they have a bad Cause which because they are not able to defend they find out and devise frivolous excuses why they will not appear And if they will appear there is the like and equal danger that their Errors Heresies and Blasphemies will be detected to their own People as indeed the last Meetings where some of them though none principally concerned did appear have had a good service in some owned by them to give them a discovery of them There remains but two shadows of Reason why they will not appear one is that it is offensive to civil Authority but this is a meer pretence for whatever offence it may be to some particular Persons that may too much favour their errors yet it can be no just offence to Civil Authority there being no Law against it and where no Law is there is no transgression nor can it be supposed that it can offend the civil Authority that such an innocent and probable way to reduce the Quakers from their vile Heresie which God has in measure manifestly blessed with some Success and to bring them to the Church is used to that effect For must not some means be used to reclaim them and what means so probable as this The Act of Tolleration to be sure doth not forbid any by fair Reason and Argument to deal with them for their Convincement and for an Instance that this manner of proceeding is not offensive to Authority I had the leave of the Lord Mayor of London for each of the Meetings I have yet had Their other shadow of Reason is That they think it better to Answer in Print to what is objected against them out of their Books than by Word of Mouth I confess indeed it is the most ready and expedient way for them to hide and cloak their vile Errors and boldly to deny them whenever so justly charg'd with them by their Sophistical Quibling and Evasions and particularly by their boldly asserting the Quotations to be falsely or lamely given when they are ever so truly and fully given which not one of many thousands simply by Reading their pretended Answers and Defences in Print can be able to judge whether the Quotations be true or false perfect or lame because they have not nor can they easily find out the Books out of which the Quotations are taken whereby to compare them and suppose the Books could be found yet few will bestow so much either time or labour to compare them whereas the presenting the Books and the Quotations contain'd in them by Ocular inspection to Persons present saves all that labour and is the surest and readiest way to find out the truth of Matters in point of Truth or Error and whether or not the Quakers are justly charged with those Errors Beside if they think their Answering to the Charges against them by Print be profitable to them had they Truth on their side they would be ready to defend their Principles and Profession both ways that is both by Word of Mouth and also by their Pens for still two ways are better than one if both be proper to the same true end which is the Discovery of Truth and Error But notwithstanding of their brags and telling that they have Answered me from time to time in Print yet this is but an empty flourish divers of my chiefest Books against them for the detection of their Errors they have not given the least Reply unto as my Second and Third Narratives my Book call'd The Quakers Arguments against Baptism and the Supper c. Examin'd and Refuted my Larger and Shorter Catechisms my Book call'd The Deism of W. Penn and that call'd The Fallacies of W. P. and his Brethren c. And tho' T. Elwood Printed a pretended Reply to my First Narrative yet the Answer given to it call'd Satan Disrob'd which hath effectually discover'd the falseness and folly of it hath not received an Answer from them to this Day And their usual way of answering Books writ against them is to Quible and Evade in some few particulars and wholly to pass by the most material things urged against them And yet to boast and brag that they have given a sufficient