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
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
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
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