is Equal with God or supply the Deficiency with the Addition of hath what and it will run thus He that hath the same Spirit that raised up Jesus Christ hath what is Equal with God I am induced to imagine that there rather is a Deficiency than a Redundancy because the Book is very ill Printed and I observe there are several Words omitted in it to make the Discourse Sense in the Line precedent to this is a Quotation out of the Scriptures in which there is a word omitted which could not be designedly because it doth not any ways alter the Sense of the Text that G. Fox attributes an Equality with God to nothing in Man but to the Holy Spirit is obvious to any unbiassed Person that will attentively read Saul's Errand p. 5. and duly consider the drift of his Discourse in this or any other of his Books look back to p. 5. of the same Treatise and there ex professo he answereth the same Objection He being then accused by the Lancashire Petition that he professed and avowed that he was Equal with God His own Answer there is It was not so spoken that G. F. was equal with God but that the Father and the Son is One. Six Lines under this G. F. saith The same Spirit where it is is equal with God And in p. 10. he repeats again almost the same words near the foot of that Page Being accused of the same thing i. e. That he was equal with God by one C. Wade His Answer was * Great Mystery p. 248. All that have the Son and the Holy Ghost have that which is equal in Power and Glory with the Father And by the Text of Scripture cited by G. F. in the Margin and these Quotations out of his own Writings it is undeniable that he attributed Equality solely to the Spirit of God and Christ in Man and not to any thing in Man simply considered as Man without the Indwelling of the Holy Ghost They that have been concerned in Printing will not think it impossible for an Error to happen in a Book the Printed Errata's are an undeniable Witness thereof either from the unfairness of the Copy or from the heedlesness of the Corrector especially in the absence of the Author and it is not unknown to many that G. F. was generally in Prison or in the Country when his Books were a Printing I see no occasion to deny that some of our Writings may be Elliptical seeing the Scriptures are also under the same Predicament if we may credit Bishop Kidder in his Demonstration of the Messias * Part II. p. 129. where he produces some Quotations out of the Holy Scriptures where he saith the word only is vertually included tho' not verbally express'd If the Quakers have in like manner in some places omitted the word only I hope they are not guilty of an unpardonable Error Neither is a Book to be rejected if I were to give in my Verdict because there may be some Difficulties or seeming Inconsistencies in it Where is that Author even amongst the Learned Rabbies of this Age that hath so Clear and so Logical a Head as to be able to word his matter so nicely that a Critick cannot observe a Flaw in his Writings If they that have all the advantages of Education are liable to have their words wrested to a Sense they never Dream'd of who then can imagine that the Illiterate Man's Sayings will be exempted from the like Inconveniencies Are the Scriptures which by all Christians are allowed to be dictated by the eternal Spirit totally free from Difficulties or seeming Inconsistencies For deciding this Matter Let us hear what the Learned Bishop Kidder saith * Demon. Mes P. II. p. 129. They are very weak and foolish Men who will renounce the whole Religion because there are some things said or taught in it which they are not able to comprehend or give an account of There are many Difficulties in the Old Testament and seeming Contradictions and yet both the Jews and Christians do with great Reason receive those Books with great Veneration It were a very casie thing to perplex a learned Jew with many Difficulties to be found in the Books of Moses of Samuel the Kings and Chronicles but he will not therefore doubt of the whole because he is not able to give a clear account of those difficult Passages which are found therein What he saith here of the Old he grants the same of the New Testament That lately common tho' in my Opinion silly Objection i. e. That I may see cause otherwise to word the Matter and yet my intention be the same Were they only illiterate Creatures that Objected this as an Heretical saying against the Quakers I should not be surprized at it but for Men of Letters who have been Educated at the Universities as most of the Ministers of the National Church have been to recite this as a Notorious Crime in them is a sign of a disingenuous Nature if they are found tardy in the same thing G. K. to expose the Quakers or Himself in his late Broad Sheet Entituled A Serious Call to the Quakers c. under the head of Vile and Monstrous Doctrines Principles and Uncharitable Sayings hath cited this saying of G. W. viz. * Count. Conv. p. 12. I may see cause otherwise to word the Mat and yet my Intention be the same Is this a Vile and Monstrous Doctrine Is this a Vile and Monstrous Principle or an Uncharitable saying Under which of these three Heads to reduce it I do confess I am at a loss and if G. K. would so far oblige me as to tell me under which of them it is to be placed I shall acknowledge it as some part of a Satisfaction for telling his Auditory at Turner's Hall That I was a Fool. A few Lines under this Citation G. K. it may be fearing his single affirmation would not be Credited borrows the Names of Three Doctors and Five Masters of Arts of the Church of England so called to Co-attest the Truth of this and some other Citations I am satisfied the Quakers will never see Cause to retract this saying of G. W. viz. I may see cause otherwise to word the Matter and yet my intention be the same if wording a Subject differently is an Antichristian act how Guilty then are your School-Masters c. who daily teach their Scholars not to use the same Term or reiterate the same Phrase in any Epistle Theme Copy of Verses or Declamation they Compose but as often as they are barren of Synonymous Terms or Phrases to fertilize their Mind they are order'd to have recourse to Gradus ad Parnassum Winchester Phrases c. which are Books Composed only for that intent If these Treatises are Pernicious to the Christian Religion let them be exiled the Schools and let those that presume to Print them be Excommunicated But should we view G. K's Writings or these
Argument ad hominem whereby I am induced to believe that if one of G. K's Inferences is conclusive it will undeniably follow that all the Orthodox Doctrines c. contained in any of his Books that have been Countenanced by the Second-Days-Meeting at London and have been allowed to be sold by the Quakers there are to be Esteemed as their Principles from these following Words * Ancich and Sadd. p. 5. Seeing the Second-Days-Meeting at London hath Countenanced his i. e Caleb Pusey 's Book and the Quakers generally at London allow it to be sold next Door to their Meeting-House in Grace-Church-street they make his Ignorance Unbelief Sadducism and Antichristian Doctrine to be theirs Then with a parity of Reason all the Knowledge Orthodox Faith and Christian Doctrine that is contained in G. K. or any other person's Books that have been Countenanced by the Second-Days-Meeting at London or are generally allowed to be sold next Door to their Meeting-House in Grace-Church-street are theirs I asked D. Phillips what he said to my former Question Fourth Narr p. 58. Did Men by their Sins really wound God in them as some of their Preachers 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 Obser My Answer to his Query is here mis-stated whether Designedly or Accidentally I shall not positively affirm but this I can say He hath not related one Sentence in Terminis as it was delivered by me Therefore to undeceive his Reader I shall give him a Summary Account why a Priest did speak favourably of an Answer I gave which was on this occasion G. K. holding a little Book in his Hand read a Passage in it as soon as he had done reading it he asked my Opinion thereof I replyed D. P. I must take time to Consider it Minist That is Modestly said Another Minister But you should either have owned or disowned it D. P. Would it have been Prudence in any Man either to Justifie or Condemn a Book meerly on the reading of one or two Lines of it without considering the Context Scope or Drift of the Author Minist But you should have consider'd this Book D. P. I do not know where to procure it Minist You may have it at Mrs. Sowle's D. P. I am satisfied of the contrary because most of these Books here produced were out of Print before I was Born and if I would give Ten times their value I do not know where to buy them If thou wilt but oblige us so far as to give us the same liberty to defend our Antient Friends Books that Bishop Kidder takes in defending the Holy Scriptures against the Jews I doubt not but we may easily defend our Antient Friends Writings against all the Cavils of our Mercenary Adversaries Minist But who can tell where to have you seeing you may hereafter see cause otherwise to Word the Matter and yet your Intentions the same D. P. Yes indeed we can sometimes use Neco other times Occido and yet intend the same thing conceiving Neco and Occido to be Synonymous Terms and I am apt to think that variety of Synonymous Expressions is acceptable to most Readers Obser I always was and yet am of Opinion that it was and also is a great hardship for any Subject to be tried as a Criminal without a Copy of his Indictment even for a Fact that he himself hath Committed But a Barbarity nay a Tyranny not to be Parallell'd to impeach a Man and try him as an Offender for a Fact his Ancestors or some Friend of his Communion perpetrated and it may be before he was Born without favouring him with the sight of what he is in particular not in general Terms to be tried for This was the State of the Case of the Poor Quakers at West-Dereham they were there to be Tryed Judged and Condemned by their professed Enemies for pretended Blasphemies which their deceased or absent Friends were affirmed to be Guilty of and most if not all their pretended Proofs were to be taken out of certain Old Books and Manuscripts A Copy whereof was often and in the Opinion of very Judicious Persons justly by the Quakers desired nevertheless it was as often by the Arbitrary Priest denied To this Method of indicting People in general Termes G. K. is no Stranger How easie is it for a Critick to pick and cull a Sentence or by splitting it in two to render it thereby Obnoxious to the Ears of an Auditory to which as I conceive it would not be Prudence for any Man to give a present Answer until he had maturely consider'd the Context Scope and Intent of the Author How Unjust how Illegal how Arbitrary then is it for G. K. or any other to demand a direct Answer to a particular Sentence pick'd out of a Book which his Respondent never saw before I leave to the Determination of every moderate Man Would our Adversaries grant us that favour which I am confident they would expect if not demand from their Opponents being as it appears to me nothing but a right All Authors are Intituled to viz. where a Writer treats on any Subject Concisely or Dubiously if the same Person Writes on the same Matter more Prolixly and Perspicuously in some other part of his Works that is to be the Standard whereby the former is to be regulated If this would be admitted I doubt not but to demonstrate that all our Primitive Friends were sound in the Christian Faith even in express Terms as worded by themselves but it hath been our Lot to have our Writings wrested by our Enemies to the worst whereas Christian Charity should have given them the best Sense they will bear and many times directly contrary to the Scope Intent and formal Expressions of the same Author in some other Page of his Writings The very Errors of the Press I am satisfied are imputed to us as often as they render the Sense Obnoxious Should any without Prejudice seriously consider that noted Expression of G. F. which was objected against him as a vile Error about 45 Years since by his Adversaries and as I am subject to believe hath been Reprinted against us with the greatest Aggravations imaginable a Hundred times as a most horrid Error viz. * Saul's Errand p. 8. He that hath the same Spirit that raised up Jesus Christ is equal with God may easily by considering the Context and the Text of Scripture there cited in the Margin Rom. 8.11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the Dead dwell in you he that raised up Christ from the Dead shall also quicken your mortal Bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you determine what he meant and that there is a word or two either Redundant or Deficient take away what is Redundant i. e. he that hath and it will read thus The same Spirit that raised up Jesus Christ
to consider here the Reasons G. K. advances to prove the Scriptures are the Word of God because in reading his Fourth Narrative I met with a Passage where he positively asserts p. 22. The Scriptures are the Word of God Fourth Narr p. 22. and the Word most frequently so called in Scripture To confirm his Reader in a belief that he had good Authority to prove so bold an Assertion he cites Three Texts of Scripture out of the New Testament viz. 1. Thes 1.5 John 15.25 Acts 1.1 May I presume to look into the 7th page of G. K. Presbyterian and Independent Visible Churches in New England printed Anno 1691. I doubt not but I shall find George there in Opposition to Parson Keith because in that Book he positively saith That Logos 1 Thes 1.5 Signifies word of talk or discourse Now by Logos there is meant Doctrine and that Logos Acts 1.1 Signified Treatise but now it signifies Word how to reconcile these seeming Contradictions of this Weather-Cock I profess I am in a Quandary On the other hand should I say as it appears to me that he is Guilty of a perfect Contradiction he might thereby imagine that I did Insinuate That he was stark Mad and Crazed in his Understanding because he lays it down as a Maxim in his Preface to his Exact Narrative That none but stark mad Men and Crazed in their Understanding will hold perfect Contradictions That things may be put into a true Light and that the Reader may be capable to judge for himself I shall here subject to his Consideration the original Texts and their Translations into Latin Dutch French and English whereby it may be the more facile for him to determine whether G. K. hath not to serve a turn given them a Sense different from all others nay from himself a few Years since is not this in effect to make a Nose of Wax a Lesbian Rule of the Scriptures by giving them this Year one signification the next a different one What advantages this may give to the Enemies of Christianity I shall not now Demonstrate The first of these Texts is 1 Thes 1.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quoniam Evangelium nostrum constitit apud vos non locutione duntâ—â—â—â— sed etiam Virtute Spiritu Sancto Want on s Evangelium en is onder uniet alleen in Woorden gheweest maer oock in Kracht ende in den Heyligen Grest Car nostre Predication de l'Evangile n'a point este en vostre endroit seulement en Parole mais ausi en vertu en Saint Esprit For our Gospel came or more properly was not unto you in Word only but also in Power and in the Holy Ghost It may be observed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not Translated came in the Latin Dutch or French Versions neither in the Bible that was Printed in Queen Elizabeth's Time Anno 1578. Should I confine my self solely to the Modern English Translation I do not perceive any advantage that G. K. will get thereby seeing the Apostle Paul's Sense of this Verse is obvious to any unprejudiced Person that the Gospel which he Preached to the Thessalonians was not only to be believed because of the perswasiveness of the Word Talk or Discourse he made use of when he Preached the Gospel to them but principally because the Power and Efficacy of the Holy Ghost accompanied it that this is the literal Sense of this Text I conceive none will deny By what figure then this 1 Thes 1.5 proves that all the Books of the Old and New Testament are the Word of God I confess my self Ignorant and am likely so to remain unless G. K. or some of his Disciples can inform me better The Second Text of Scripture that I shall consider is John 15.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sed oportet ut impleatur Sermo qui in lege ipsorum Scriptus est Maer dit gescheit op dat het woort vervult worde dat in hare wet geschreven is Mais c ' est a fin-que soit accomplie la parole qui est ecrite en leur Loi But this cometh to pass that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their Law It is evident from all these Translations of the Greek Text that G. K. hath seen cause otherwise to word the Matter here than either the Latin Dutch French or English Translators have but whether his Intentions are the same I shall leave that to the uninterested to determine As G. K. in his former Proof gave us only the English version of the Text so here he omitteth that being little for his purpose and favours us only with a scrap of the Original viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and translateth it Written Word should it be admitted for a Genuine interpretation though different from all others of the Original it would only prove that Sentence in their i. e. the Jews Law was called the written Word yet it is altogether insufficient to prove the Bible collectively i. e. as it contains all the Books of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God because the Evangelist restricts it here to Four Words which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they hated me without a Cause The Controversie between G. K. c. hath not been whether one particular Sentence in the Bible but whether all the Books therein contained are the Word of God all Citations of the Scriptures that do not prove that are in my Opinion far remote from the subject of this Dispute and till this is proved in express Scripture Terms by him or some other I hope he will be so favourable to us as not to Stigmatize us with the Name of Hereticks especially if he hath not forgot what he lately said viz. * Retract p. 34. I still adhere to my former Advice that nothing be required by one sort from another as an Article of Faith or Doctrine in common to be believed but what is expresly delivered in the Scriptures in plain express Scripture Terms The Term Logos is variously used and translated in the New Testament G. K. recites * Presb. and Inde Vis Chur. p. 7. Ten different Significations it hath Had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 been translated in John 15.25 as it in 1 Cor. 15.54 the saying that is written there would be scarce any shadow of an Argument to be deduced from that Citation to have proved that the Scriptures are the written Word of God unless wheresoever the Term Written is to be found in the Scriptures he will say Word is there meant tho' not expressed Perchance G. K. may have so much Effrontery as to deny that Logos signifies Saying because he hath not given that Sense of it in the Book and Page above-cited If he will but please to Read Bishop Kidder's Demonstration of the Messias p. 11. p. 251. there he may see the Bishop affirming that Legos signifies Saying or Thing and translating the very Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Saying
than Explications adapted to his Private Designs and his general one * Retrack p. 42. I submit all that I have at any time given forth in Word Writ or Print by way of Doctrine in Religious Matters to the Test Touch-stone and Rule of the Scriptures Renouncing Revoking Retracting Disowning and Denying whatever is contained in any of my former or latter Books that doth not perfectly agree with the Holy Scriptures is no more as I verily believe than any Quaker will readily do Had G. K. been really convinced he had acted the Part of a Sophister in defending the Quakers Opinion by putting false Glosses on the Scriptures or by using any inconclusive Arguments he should as I conceive have been as particular in his Retractations as he was in his Vindications of them and ingenuously have demonstrated wherein each particular Perversion of the Scriptures and every Numerical Sophism did consist Till this is done his former now the Quakers Arguments are as good a Defence for them against him or any other Adversary as formerly when he was one of them 'T is not enough in my Thoughts for G. K. when his own Arguments are urged against him in general to say I have Retracted I have Retracted them and that 't is great Impudence in any to object against me what I have long since Retracted We do not consider them now only as G. K's but as our own Reasons and might have used them had he never been known nor any of his Books seen by us and we may presume to use any or all the Arguments which he hath formerly Printed in our Defence let him mutter never so much till he or some of his Adherents shall shew their Inconclusiveness I am sensible Reader that many are perchance thou art also of opinion that G. K. hath discovered monstrous Errors amongst the Quakers that were never detected before and indeed he seems to insinuate as much in his Advertisement to his Fourth Narrative by saying It is my purpose to detect and discover Gross Errors and Antichristian Principles c. Whereby thou mightest be apt to inferr he was an Original and not a Transcriber To undeceive thee in this matter I shall subject to thy Consideration what one tho' I might what one Hundred of their Opposers said of them above Forty Years since conceiving thou canst discover Ex ungue Leonem And that thou may'st the more easily perceive the Harmony not to say Plagiasm of G. K. with one Jonathan Clapham who writ a Book stiled A Full Discovery and Confutation of the Wicked and Damnable Doctrines of the Quakers c. and dedicated it to Oliver Cromwel then Lord Protector Printed Anno 1656. I shall set Eight of G. K.'s Ten Calumnies as they are Printed in an Advertisement prefixed to his Fourth Narrative in a Column opposite to what J. C. also falsly affirmed that their Agreement may the easier be perceived J. C. in the abovesaid Book pretends to prove the Quakers guilty of 1. Being Enemies to the Holy Scriptures 2. Denying Christ come in the Flesh his Death Resurrection c. 3. Denying the Doctrine of the Trinity 4. Holding Equality with God and the Soul to be one Being with God 5. Corrupting the Doctrine of Justification 6. Denying the Resurrection of the Body last Judgment Heaven and Hell 7. Being Enemies to all the Ordinances of Jesus Christ 8. Being no Friends to the Lord's day making all days alike 9. Pretending to Miracles 10. Being no truly Mortified Persons notwithstanding Pretences thereunto and how Popish Monks have out-stripped them therein 11. Destroying the True Doctrine of Sanctification 12. Being the common Sink of all the Heresies of our Times and how they agree with former Hereticks in many Particulars and are Enemies to all Civility and good Manners and to avoid them as Pernicious Enemies to the Souls of Men and to have no Communion with them c. G. K. Insinuates that the Errors he intends to discover the Quakers guilty of * In his Advertisment to his 4th Narrative are 1. Concerning the Scriptures 2. Concerning Christ's Incarnation his Soul and Body and Blood his coming to Judgment at the last day 3. Concerning the Holy Trinity 4. Concerning the Soul 5. Concerning Justification 6. Concerning the Resurrection 7. Concerning Outward Baptism and the Supper 8. Concerning doing Servile Work on the Lord's day The Analogy that here is between the Contents of G. K's Fourth Narrative and J. Clapham's Book is so conspicuous that some may be induced to think he borrowed a great deal of his Darkness from this Book in composing his last Narrative But waving that 't is undeniable that the Principal Errors pretended which G. K. and others now advance against the Quakers are mostly contained in this Treatise of J. C. If so it consequentially follows that they were forged long before G. K. was a Quaker How then it should happen seeing these Objections were so publickly Printed that he should live as now he pretends Thirty Years in Ignorance of them is so surprising that it gains little Credit with me how much it doth with thee I shall not determine In fine It may be obvious to any that have the Opportunity of reading our old Adversary's Books that there is little now objected against the Quakers but what is a Reiteration of things falsly affirmed of them and answered by them Thirty or Forty Years since If G. K. who is by some thought to have made the greatest Discoveries of their Errors should have his Writings deplumed of all the Feathers which his Envious Predecessors have made use of against them his Circumstances would not be much unlike that of the Crow in the Fable and under the same Predicament may be comprehended most of the Modern Writers against them As can be demonstrated by thy Sincere Friend D. P. London Septemb. 4. 1700. Proteus Redivivus OR The TURNER of Turner's-Hall Truly Represented c. THAT Persons who have been Banished a Society whether Civil or Religious for their Irregularities should afterwards use their utmost Efforts to excite the Enemies of such a Communion to disturb its Peace is as History relates so natural to Exiles that I am subject to imagine few will be surprized either to hear or see G. K. so Sedulous in perverting the Quaker's Books violating their Sense and ridiculing their Persons when they have a true Idea of the real Motives which induced him to be so maliciously Clamorous against them It was not my Design to have concerned my self in this publick Controversie neither do I now intend to go much farther than I am actually concerned would G. K. have answered my Letter delivered to him or given me a Meeting as he promised or Personally acknowledged he was Mistaken and had not designedly mis-represented my Words But seeing this could not be obtained to undeceive his Reader I shall here expose to his view and consideration a brief Account of the Substance of the Discourse that passed between
G. K. his abetting Ministers and my Self at Turner's Hall with some Observations on his Fourth Narrative relating thereunto And that I may not be altogether Immethodical I shall consider every Paragraph wherein I find my Name specified in the same order as they are printed in his Narrative beginning with p. 21. * Fourth Narr p. 21. A Quaker call'd D. Phillips standing by near where I stood said That Book i. e. The Way cast up was approved by the Second-Days-Meeting at London which was a great Vntruth 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 come over to London in the Year 1678. it met with great Opposition from divers of the Preachers of the Quakers at London as Steven Crisp William Shewen William Mead and Samuel Newton Obser I could deny what he asserts of me here to be True because of some Additions This Mistake I would rather impute to that Officious Person that gave him the Relation of what I said than to any design in G. K. to mis-represent my Words being well satisfied he cannot say he heard me speak any thing like it For when I spoke to some that were by me concerning that Book I stood in a Corner behind him so that he could neither conveniently see or hear me because he was then directing his Discourse to his Auditory that was before him But admitting it for granted that I did say his Book call'd The Way cast up was approved by the Second-Days-Meeting at London I am apt to think no unprejudiced Person will assert I am guilty of a great Untruth i. e. great Lye for saying that That Book was approved by the Second-Days-Meeting at London when he hath Read what G. K. saith concerning that very Book in the Defence of the Snake and duly considered the Reasons advanced by him here to prove it The First Reason whereby he would insinuate that I am guilty of a great Untruth seems to run thus That Book was Writ in Scotland Printed in Holland and therefore could not be Censured by the Second-Days-Meeting at London Is it not possible that a Book may be Writ in the East-Indies Printed in the West-Indies yet may be approved or disapproved of in London The inconclusiveness of this Argument is so obvious that I am of Opinion it would be nauseous to the Reader to detain him any longer thereon Therefore shall proceed to his Second When it i. e. The Way cast up came over to London in the Year 1678. it met with great Opposition from divers of the Preachers of the Quakers at London Under this extensive term Divers only Four are here included and that is the greatest number that I have heard did then object against any of the Expressions contained in that Book Should all that he asserteth on this Subject be Credited as Truth tho' at the same time I have great cause to suspect his Sincerity in this Matter because in other Relations he has Printed Notorious Falshoods it would affect the whole Body of Quakers no more than if any should prove there were Four Ministers of the Church of England so call'd that were Socinians would affect the whole Episcopal Clergy in England neither do I conceive he would have continued Fourteen Years after this Strenuously defending their Principles as Orthodox or have said as he doth in his Preface to his Serious Appeal Printed in Pensilvania 1692. which is Fourteen Years after the Conference about this Book was managed viz. * Preface to the Serious Appeal It never yet hath been proved nor ever will be that the Religion professed by the Sincere and Faithful People called in Scorn Quakers is either Paganism or any other thing than real Christianity had he not been Convinced that they held no such Errors as by wresting of their Words he would now insinuate Had he deserted their Society immediately after this Conference it might have had some shadow of Reason to induce some to Credit this Story concerning our above-nominated Four Friends but I can scarce have so hard Thoughts of him as to imagine he would have tarried amongst them so many Years after this Conference had these Men Opinions as here related by him been the avowed Principles of the Quakers as now he seems to assert I am so far from an Opinion that he deserted them on this Account that I believe had he not been Expell'd their Society he would not have divested himself of the Title of a Quaker to this Day because several Years after he was Exiled their Communion for some Irregularities he own'd himself to be a Quaker which is almost a Demonstration to me that he did not think Antichristian Doctrines Essential to Quakerism so call'd My Sentiments are that he kept that Title as long as he was in any hopes of gaining a Party of them or any others to side with him but finding his greatest Endeavours to divide them Fruitless and it may be his Necessities very pressing partly out of Revenge and partly through the Charms of a good Stipend he makes his Intentions known to some of the Church of England so call'd who willingly received him not as I am subject to believe out of any great Esteem of his Sincerity but having a design against the Quakers c. they thought him a Tool as well qualified to stir up Persecution against them as any But to return to what more immediately concerns my self viz. to prove that Book i. e. The Way cast up was approved of by a Meeting of Friends I could produce a Cloud of Witnesses but doubting the Narrator will insinuate his Old Friends are now become his Enemies and therefore their Evidence against him is not to be Credited I shall omit theirs and only recite what G. K. saith conceiving he will not eat his own Words concerning this Treatise in the Defence of the Snake his Partiality therein I shall not now determine but shall suspend till I have seen his Opponents Answer his Words are * Defence of the Snake p. 25. In the Conclusion after there had been two Meetings about it the Persons that had accused me were desired by the Meeting to desist from their Charge and say nothing against the Book i. e. The Way cast up and whereas some Friends that were dissatisfied at my Book had forbidden the Stationer in George-yard to sell it because it was Unsound Order was given by the Meeting that the Stationer might be encouraged to Sell it that it might have its Service in City and Country as according was done It is to be observ'd that there is but one Meeting amongst Friends that doth actually concern themselves about Printing c. of Books if this Relation of G. K. is true how am I guilty then of a great Untruth I leave to the Consideration of the Unprejudiced to give in their Verdict I shall conclude my Observations on this Paragraph with one
that is Written or the Thing that is Written tho' the Quaker's Affirmation may be now of little Authority with him Yet I conceive he will not presume to contradict his Right Reverend Father in God so call'd but allow his ipse dixit sufficient to Patronize this Interpretation The third and last Quotation which I shall now examine to prove the Scriptures are the Word of God is brought by him from Acts 1.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primum Librum het Eersse Boetk Le premier Traitte the former Book but in the Greek saith G. K. it is Word He might e'en as well have said but in Greek 't is Christ 't is Communication 't is Utterance 't is Reason 't is Preaching or Doctrine for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in all these and several other Significations one whereof I remember G. K. makes mention of and that is Treatise and quoted Acts 1.1 to prove it in a * Presh Inde Vis Churches Book he writ about ten Years since notwithstanding G. K. the Episcopalian now asserts the contrary which brings to my remembrance an old Saying ☞ Conveniet nulli qui secum dissidet ipse Cato Before I leave this subject concerning the Equivocalness of words I shall concisely Anatomize one Query G. K. exultantly relates he put to John Whiting which was * Fourth Narr p. 41. whether he was of G. Whitehead 's and Edward Burroughs 's Faith who said Christ was not in Heaven in our Nature or that of W. Penn 's who said Christ took our Nature and triumphed in our Nature 'T will be necessary here before I proceed to explain at least summarily a few of the many Senses the ambiguous Term Nature is used in because on the Equivocalness of that Term is hinged the Opposition that G. K. would insinuate there is between G. W. E. B. and W. Penn. The word Nature is variously sensed By the School-men it is used as a Synonymous Term with God and is called by them sometimes Natura Naturans by Seneca 't is affirmed to be one of the Names of God By Physicians it is considered as an Aggregate of Powers existing in a living animal Body as when they say Nature is strong or weak or that the Morbifick Matter is by the strength of Nature expelled from the Center to the Circumference as in the Eruption of the Small Pox Measles c. and also for an Essential Property as Alees naturally Purges Creeus Metallerum naturally Vomits By Natural Philosophers the settled order of things is understood as Fire naturally burns the Blood naturally circulates out of the Arteries into the Veins after a Summer naturally follows a Winter the Children of all Women have their solid parts naturally organized alike and in the texture of their Fluids naturally there is no visible difference The Terraqueous Globe is also comprehended under this Term as there is no such thing in Nature as a Salamander Phoenix c. By Theologists the State our first Parents by disobeying their Creator fell into wherein the Unregenerate Man now is is typified as the Ungodly Man is in the State of Nature but the Godly is in the State of Grace Besides these here recited there are several other Significations of this ambiguous word Nature too long here to be enumerated By what hath been said it is certain that there is a possibility the Term Nature may be variously considered and it is as clear as the Sun at Noon from G. Keith's Quotations out of their Books that when G. Whitehead and E. Burroughs said Christ was not in Heaven in our Nature as G. K. would infer from their words they spoke it of sinful wicked Devilish Nature but W. Penn when he said Christ took our Nature and triumphed in our Nature considered him as the Son of Mary a true and perfect Man having a Body organized like other Men. That this was their meaning is demonstrable from their own words as cited by G. K. in his * P. 39. fourth Narrative where G. Whitehead as the Narrator affirms doth severely blame John Horne and Thomas More in his †P. 11 12. He Goat's Horn c. for saying Christ took upon him their i. e. Sinful Nature Ed. Burroughs is very plain in distinguishing the subject of the Controversie by answering his Opponent as follows * E. B's Works p. 301. Thou sayest in that Answer that Christ ascended to the right hand of the Father in your Nature Mark now thy Nature and your Nature who are one with thee is sinful and wicked and of the Devil for so are all Lyars and it is Blasphemy to say sinful wicked devilish Nature is at the right hand of God in Heaven If G. K. hath different thoughts of Christ being in Heaven than E. B. here demonstrates he hath let him plainly declare it I do acknowledge I am not of opinion that Christ is in Heaven in the Nature of Lyars which is the thing E. B. here opposes W. Penn saith That * Prim. Christ p. 85. Jesus Christ took our Nature upon him and was like us in all things Sin excepted What Shadow of a Contradiction is here in these Proofs even as cited by G. K. he that can perceive it must have a more penetrating sight than I pretend to I acknowledge that I see nothing but a perfect Harmony G. Whitehead blames some for saying Christ took their i. e. sinful Nature on him E. Burroughs saith Christ is not at the right hand of God in that Nature which Lyars are in W. Penn faith Christ took our i. e. as he was the Seed of the Woman Nature upon him and was like unto us in all things Sin excepted The two first consider Nature as it is predicated of the Unregenerate as they are in a State of Enmity to God The last considers Nature as 't is predicated of a Being that hath the Essential Properties of a Man and a Body organized as our Bodies are Note G. K. did not propose his Question to John Whiting in the terms of G. W. who said their Nature nor of E. B. who said your Nature thy Nature his Nature the alteration of a material word in a Proposition savours very much of Sophistry If G. K. had demanded an Answer of me to this Query I am subject to believe that I might have given him the same Reply that J. W. did tho' it may be with a distinction viz. That I was of the Faith of both for I do not favour any Opinion that would insinuate that Christ was or is in Heaven in sinful Nature Yet I do believe that he was a true and perfect Man not imagining Sin to be Essential to our Nature or deducible from the abovesaid Premises as G. K. would * Narr p. 40. infer and then cry out from a false Consequence this is a most vile and gross Heresie If G. K. thinks I have by saying that I am of J. Whiting's Faith in this matter
Hydropical shall rise with a Belly not much less than a Tun he that dyes of a Consumption shall rise extreamly emaciated resembling a Skeleton he that dies without his Legs and Arms shall arise without them and he that dies Gibbous shall arise Hunch-back'd This is so gross an Opinion of the Resurrection that I am subject to believe G. K. doth not incline to Patronize any such Carnal Notions of the Resurrection of the Dead tho' he did not condemn it in his Brother Priest who said at Turners-Hall that he believed Christ was now in Heaven with the same Stomach Guts c. that might be out of Policy not being willing to disoblige any of them into whose Society he daily expected to be initiated Secondly As to his Civility towards his quondam Friends if he dislikes their Discourse being perhaps better Orators than himself he orders his Janisaries to pull them down if they do not do it without a Command as soon as they are down they are hurried out of Doors with Violence scarce admitting them to speak a word in their own defence altho' it may be he bespatters them at the same time with some personal Reflections Thus Thomas Kent was served at Turners-Hall a partial account thereof may be seen in the ninth Page Other times tho' it may be he was the Aggressor he will complement them with the grateful Titles of Fool Madman Lyar c. especially when he is foiled by his Opponent He will not be more Civil when he invites them into his Friends House In confirmation hereof I will give the Reader a brief account how he treated me A few days after his pretended fourth Narrative came out I writ to him intimating that he had grosly misrepresented me desiring his Answer but with none could I be favoured to his day Some time after I accidentally met him in Cornhil he told me that he had received my Letter and if he had done me any Wrong he would give me Satisfaction inviting me into his Bookseller's Shop without any Hesitation I followed him where some of his Fraternity were who would have Catechised me I replied I am come in with G. K. in order to receive Satisfaction from him for some things he hath Printed concerning me in his last Narrative I charged him with misrepresenting me first in Page 21. concerning his Book called The Way Cast up and shewed them what he said concerning it in the Defence of the Snake how that Book was approved by a Meeting of Friends and that by his own Concession then there was no Meeting but the Second-days-Meeting that did authorize Books consequentially it could be no great Lye in any Person that had read his Books to say that his Book called The Way Cast up was approved by the Second-days-Meeting they assented to it I also there told him That I did not say that I did not know what Meritorious signified He replied He thought I meant so I told him If he had done candidly by me he should have given my own Words and not his Conjectures of my Meanings Insisting a little warmly on this Subject to clear himself of this apparent Forgery he said He did verily believe that I spoke as 't was Printed I replied 'T was abominable False He fell into an Exorbitant Passion calling me Mad-man Lyar c. One that belonged to the Shop seeing the little Man in so great a Disorder and People gathering about the Shop-door pulled me from the place I stood and with violence thrust me into the Street Perchance some may have so favourable Opinions of him as to say he did not order his Friends to abuse me To them my Answer is Neither did he reprove them in my hearing for their Incivilities which in some Mens Judgment is a tacit Approbation Thirdly What concerns his Definition of Substance it is deficient having no differentia specifica whereby one Classis of Beings is discriminated from another But why should I spend time in anatomizing the Defectiveness c. of his Definition when it is obvious to all that know the Nature of a Definition I could not have imagined that G. K. who would be esteemed a Philosopher would have entertained his Auditory with such a nauseous Dish of Philosophy Perhaps some may think I am too Censorious that are of Opinion he is introducing a new System of Philosophy from his saying at Turners-Hall My Philosophy teacheth me this and my Philosophy teacheth me that Whatever Sentiments any of his Admirers may have of his Philosophy I shall have a mean Esteem of it till I have seen a Vindication of his late Definition of Substance c. Ibid. I ask'd him i. e. D. P. again Was our Lord's Body Earthly when it was on Earth D. P. It was like unto ours in all things Sin excepted G. K. But was it Earthly or Terrestrial D. P. The Scriptures are very plain in this matter for which reason I do not conceive there is any necessity for me to use any Unscriptural Terms nevertheless I do sincerely believe that it was as the Scripture says like ours in all things Sin excepted Min. By his confessing it was like ours he hath confessed it was an Earthly Body G. K. To them that are Sound in the Faith 't is so but not to the Quakers for they will not allow that an Earthly Body and a Heavenly Body can be the same in Substance or that a Natural Body and a Spiritual Body are the same in Substance Obs The unsettled Sense of this Term Substance is as I conceive the sole Cause of several Differences that arises amongst them that Discourse about it Those that have not been Tinctured with the Notions of the Schools concerning Substance consider it as a material Being having Length Breadth Thickness Figure Colour and as a thing Cognizable to the External Senses G. K. and the School-men talk of it as a Being that hath neither Length Breadth Thickness Figure Colour nor as an Object perceptible by the Eye c. but only as a Substratum of certain Qualities commonly called Accidents But what this Substratum is I never could yet meet with any that could give me a clear distinct Idea of it If G. K. hath a clear distinct and comprehensive Idea of the Term Substance and would communicate it to G. W. it is very probable their Notions about it might easily be reconciled but if one talks of it as a Creature of the Mind invented by the Schools to support their Notions of Accidents actually existing per se no where unless it doth in the Mind as Substance distinct from all Accidents really doth not And the other considers it only as a visible material Being as the Scripture does Gen. 7.4 They may endlesly dispute about it till the precise Signification of that Term is settled when that is done this Controversie may then appear to be a Strife meerly thro' the Ambiguity of words Ibid. I told the Auditory how the Quakers Ignorance and