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.
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
George Keith's FOURTH NARRATIVE OF HIS PROCEEDINGS AT TURNERS-HALL 1699. WE whose Names are under written having at Mr. Keith's Request and by the Allowance of the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London carefully examin'd the Quotations of this Narrative do testifie the Faithfulness of them and that they exactly agree with the Books out of which they are taken And as we commend his Integrity in retracting publickly his Errors and his Christian Zeal for the reducing of his Brethren who are yet entangled with them so we hope they will follow his Example and discern the Perniciousness of their Ways and be led by the Grace of God to the Acknowledgment of the Truth and to the Communion of the Church Z. Isham D. D. Rector of St. Botolph Bishops-gate W. Bedford D. D. Rector of St. George Botolph-Lane R. Altham B. D. Rector of St. Andrew Vndershaft Will. Whitfield Rector of St. Martins at Ludgate J. Adams Rector of St. Alban Woodstreet George Keith's FOURTH NARRATIVE OF HIS PROCEEDINGS AT TURNERS-HALL Divided into Three Parts Detecting the Quakers Gross Errors Vile Heresies and Antichristian Principles oppugning the Fundamentals of Christianity by clear and evident Proofs in above Two Hundred and Fifty Quotations faithfully taken out of their Books and read at three several Meetings the 11th the 18th and 23d of Jan. 1699. before a great Auditory of Judicious Persons Ministers and others More particularly discovering the Fallacious and Sophistical Defences of George Whitehead Joseph Wyeth and seven Quakers of Colchester in their late Books on all the several Heads contained in the printed Advertisement To which is prefix'd The Attestation of five Ministers of the Church of England to the Truth of the said Quotations And a POSTCRIPT By GEORGE KEITH LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill 1700. Advertisement THIS is to signifie that it is my purpose God-willing and by his Assistance to be present at Turners-Hall in Philpot-Lane by Fanchurch-Street in London being our ordinary Meeting-place Licensed by Authority on the Eleventh Day of the Eleventh Month called January in the Forenoon there to detect and discover Gross Errors and Anti-christian Principles plainly repugnant to the Fundamentals of Christianity in the Books of the approved Authors and Writers of the People called Quakers by ocular Inspection presenting them in fair and full Quotations to as many as are willing to be present and make Inspection into them And also to lay open the great Fallacy and Sophistry of George Whitehead and Joseph Wyeth and some of their Brethren at Colchester which they have used in their late printed Defences of their Own and their Brethrens most Erronious Passages contained in their Books in order to Cloak and Hide their Antichristian Principles and vile Errors not only to the great Scandal of all true Protestants in this Nation of whom they pretend to be the more refined Part but of all true Christians any where And I do hereby desire George Whitehead and Joseph Wyeth and their Brethren of the Second Days Meeting at London who have approved their late Books to be present at the said Meeting for which I have Permission by Civil Authority or any others who think themselves concerned at the Time and Place above-mentioned to hear and see out of their own Books their Errors and Fallacies detected who if they have any thing to offer in their own or Brethrens Defence shall be fairly heard The particular Errors that I intend God-willing to discover them guilty of out of their Books and Authors are Concerning their Pretences to Infallibility and sinless Perfection Concerning the Scriptures Concerning the Holy Trinity Concerning Christ his Incarnation his Soul and Body and Blood his coming to Judgment at the Last Day Concerning Justification Concerning the Soul Concerning the Light within Concerning the Resurrection Concerning the outward Baptism and the Supper Concerning doing servile Work on the First Day George Keith London 18th 10th Month 1699-1700 A few Words of PREFACE TO THE IMPARTIAL READERS IMpartial Readers I have these few things to acquaint you with and recommend to your Consideration First that I found just and necessary Cause to recite diverse former Quotations given in my former Narratives and in other Books formerly publish'd against the Quakers Errors to detect the fallacious and sophistical Defences that they have made in their late Books in Vindication of those Quotations to cover their vile Errors Secondly Beside the former Quotations above mentioned I have brought many new Quotations which are neither in my former Narratives nor in any other Books that hitherto have been published against them which obviates the cavelling of the Quakers who would be ready to say There is nothing to be expected of new Matter but what is contained in other Books and which hath been already answered by them The contrary whereof will sufficiently appear to any that shall compare this fourth Narrative with any other Books before this published against them Thirdly Whereas the common Objection of the Quakers is That their Books are neither fully nor fairly quoted To remove the Ground of any such Objection I have got the Attestation of Persons of known Integrity and Judgment to the Truth of them as I got the like Attestation from some the former Year to attest to my third Narrative I have given the Quotations as fully and fairly as is requisite to satisfie any reasonable Persons But the Men I have to deal with for all this will I expect renew their unjust Complaint and will tell their Readers This and the other Passage going before or following should have been inserted in the Quotations whereas the not inserting of them makes not their Cause one whit the worse nor the inserting them makes their Cause one whit the better as could be shewed in many Instances and is shewed in their late Books for when so much is quoted out of any Book that gives the full Sense of the Writer whatever is more is superfluous Note for a Proof on the last Head That the Quakers deny the Moral Law or Ten Commandments to be a Rule to the Christian's Life and thereupon do not blame but justifie doing servile Work on the first Day yea and in the Face of a Congregation while the Minister was preaching See p. 28. of this Narrative G. K. George Keith's Fourth Narrative OF HIS Proceedings at Turners-Hall 1699. For the Detecting the QUAKERS ERRORS The first Part giving an Account of his Proofs on the first four Heads contained in his printed Advertisement viz. Concerning I. Their Infallibility II. Their sinless Perfection III. The Scriptures IV. The Holy Trinity Proofs out of the Quakers Books on the first Head concerning their Infallibility 1. GEORGE Fox Great Mystery pag. 105. For who witness these Conditions that they were in that gave forth the Scriptures They witness Infallibility an infallible Spirit which is now possessed and witnessed among those called Quakers Glory to the Highest for
ever Again a little after So Isay the Devil false Prophets Antichrists Deceivers Beast Mother of Harlots none of these can witness an infallible Spirit But being out of the Spirit that Christ the Prophets and Apostles was in that gave forth Scriptures they are not infallible as they were but with that they are all judged out II. Great Mystery pag. 98. And thou and you all that speak and write and not from God immediately and infallibly as the Apostles did and Prophets and Christ but only have gotten the Words you are all under the Curse in another Spirit ravenned from the Spirit that was in the Apostles Saul 's Errand to Damascus pag. 7. They are Conjurers and Diviners and their Teaching is from Conjuration which is not spoken from the Mouth of the Lord and the Lord is against all such and who are of God are against all such Truth defended by G. F. and Rich. Hubb p. 104. Our giving forth Papers or printed Books it is from the immediate eternal Spirit of God to the shewing forth the filthy Practices of the World's Teachers c. George Whitehead Voice of Wisdom pag 33. his Opponent Th. Danson having said As for our Want of Infallibility 't is no valid Plea against our Ministry G.W. answers His Falshood here appears plainly for they that want Infallibility and have not the Spirit of Christ they are out of the Truth and are fallible and their ministry is not of the Spirit seeing they speak not from the Spirit but from their own Hearts which are deceitful where they want Infallibility so out of the Abundance of the Heart the Mouth speaketh Note Jos Wyeth in his Switch for the Snake p. 87. states the Question concerning their Infallibility fallaciously in three several Particulars 1. That the holy Spirit of God is infallible c. This is no Part of the Controversie 2. That the holy Spirit leads all such who obey him infallibly into all Truth necessary to Salvation This is wrongly stated the true State of the Question being Whether the Holy Spirit leads us into all Truth necessary to Salvation without the external Doctrine externally delivered in the holy Scriptures by preaching and reading and without all external means This they affirm as shall hereafter be proved but this all sound Christians deny who yet grant that all the Faithful are infallibly led into all Truth necessary to Salvation by the infallible Spirit in the Use of the holy Scriptures which contain the infallible Truths of the Gospel 3. That the Ministers who are sent forth in the Work of the Ministry have or may have if they diligently attend to the Voice of the infallible Spirit speaking in them a certain infallible Knowledge and Assurance of the Truth of what they so deliver This also is wrongly stated the true State is not what they have or may have but what they really have in all they preach and write as is clear from the above given Quotations of G. F. and G. W. their great Leaders To say they may have implies that they may not have and in that case they are fallible and so by their own Verdict are under the Curse Conjurers Deceivers Note that their great Teachers and Leaders G. F. and G. W. have taught that the infallible teaching of the Spirit is not by the medium or external Means of the Scriptures and that Faith is not given by the external Word doth appear from their Books 1. G.F. Gr. Myst pag. 350. Ye tell People of an outward ordinary means by which Christ communicates the Benefit of Redemption The means of Salvation is not ordinary nor outward but Christ is the Salvation who is eternal 2. Gr. M. p. 133. His Opponent T. Moor having said The Scripture is the absolute Rule and Medium of our Faith In pag. 134. he answereth The Scriptures is not the Author nor the Means of it nor the Rule but Christ who gives it and he encreaseth it 3. Gr. Myst pag. 243. And the things of the Gospel and of the Spirit are not attained by an external means 4. Gr. Myst pag. 320. His Opponents having said God works Faith in us inwardly by his Spirit and outwardly by his Word He answers Here thou goest about to make the Spirit and the Word not one is not the Word Spiritual and Christ called the Word Gr. Myst p. 168. Them that never heard the Scripture outwardly the Light that every Man hath that cometh into the World being turned to it with that they will see Christ with that they will know Scripture with that they will be led out of all Delusion come into Covenant with God with which they will come to worship God in the Spirit and serve him Note the Quakers that say they are turned to the Light yet are not led out of all Delusion but many of them are under great Delusions and Error concerning the great Truths of the Gospel as doth evidently appear by these and the following Quotations A Quotation being brought out of Gr. Myst in the Snake of the Grass G. Myst p. 213. Switch pag. 79. Thou cast not know the Scriptures but by the same Degree of the Spirit that the Prophets and Apostles had Jos Wyeth saith in his Switch By the Error of the Press the Word ALL is left out For which he quotes Gr. Myst pag. 212. In answer to this hear what G. F. saith in Gr. M. pag. 120. And he that hath found the true Record the Spirit of God with that he shall know ALL the Scriptures and is come within the Book where all things are written and which writes all things forth the Spirit Note G. F. no doubt and G. W. did think they had found the true Record the Spirit c. and therefore they knew ALL Scripture and had the same Degree that the Prophets and Apostles had G. F. G. M. p. 222. The Light c. is the Substance of all Scriptures opens all Scriptures and that all Scriptures ends in Le ts see all Scripture But that the Quotation of the Switch G. M. p. 212. is lamely made the following Words prove that some of the Quakers at least did understand as they thought ALL Scripture The Passage is this But they cannot know all Scriptures but as they vttain to the full Measure of the Spirit of the Prophets and Apostles and to the Measure and Stature and Fullness of Christ And if they do not attain to all this they are not able to know all the Scriptures and the Work of the Ministers of God was to bring People to this to the Measure and Stature and Fullness of Christ. Note that they thought their Ministry had brought some of the Quakers to this we shall see hereafter and no doubt they judged they were come to it viz. G. F. and G. W Gr. M. p. 47. The Light which every one hath that cometh into the World is sufficient to Salvation without the Help of any other Means or Discovery But which
Church who yet have not arrived to a sinless Perfection but are in that Time of Travel But what if they die in that Time of Travel before a sinless Perfection be attained G. VV. has passed a nibst severe and uncharitable Censure on them Voice of VVisdom p. 42 43. This sinless Perfection for that 's the true State of the Question all must come to witness who ever come to be saved for there is no unclean thing must enter into Christ's Kingdom therefore People must either expect Freedom from Sin in this Life or never Note Thus he has passed a most uncharitable and cruel Sentence nor only upon many who were in a sincere Travel towards Perfection and yet have not attained to a sinless Perfection before their Decease but also upon his deceased Brethren many of whom deceased as I judge he must confess while they were in the Travel towards it for Quakers commonly are not longer lived than other Men they die at all Ages young as well as old and many die that are but Novices in their Way And certainly G. Fox and E. Burr Fr. Hougel Rich. Hubb and some of their greatest Saints lived in great Ignorance Error and Unbelief in divers great Fundamentals of the Christian Faith and in great Uncharitableness towards such as differed from them and remained in these Sins to their dying Day shall we therefore be so uncharitable to them as G. Ws Doctrine is to conclude they are all damned and parished eternally God forbid we will be more charitable to them than his Doctrine alloweth But then again in Contradiction not only to G. F. but himself he pleads in his Voice of Wisdom That the Believers Works are perfect and God hath wrought all their VVorks in them citing Isa 26. 12. So these VVorks of God which true Believers witness are perfect and the Believers have ceased from their own VVorks which were imperfect and are come into God's VVorks which are perfect But then what saith he concerning them who are in the Travel towards Perfection Are not they Believers Have they no Faith Thus their Confusion is evident They do not consider that though the Work of Faith Labour of Love and Patience of Hope in Believers are the Works of God yet they are also the Works of those Men in whom they are wrought it 's they who believe who love and hope by God's Operation or working in them and therefore they being imperfect though God is a perfect Being and Agent their Faith Love and Hope are imperfect it being the Property of all Effects to be according to the weaker and more imperfect Causes according to that true Maxim Bonum ex integra causa malum ex quolibet defectu a perfect Effect must have all its Causes perfect But whatever Charity we may suppose they may have for their deceased Brethren they have little or none for any such who do not believe to the Hight of their Doctrine of a sinless Perfection before Death their Doctrine obligeth them to judge that none of other Societies are saved because they do not believe the Quakers Doctrine of Perfection before they die the contrary of which they call the Doctrine of Devils the which if any die and do not renounce before their Decease by the Quakers Principle they cannot be saved But some of them now begin to go into the same Road with others of other Professions and after a large Circumference wherein they have far departed from them who say That the Souls of Believers are at the instant of Death made perfect in Holiness yet return and say the same thing concerning their imperfect Brethren who are deceased and yet before their Decease arrived not to a sinless Perfection which if it may be allowed to imperfect Quakers may be as well allowed to others sineere Travellers towards Perfection many of whom no doubt have arrived to greater Perfection before their Decease than any among the Quakers Worthies of whose Perfection they so much boast who lived in great Error and Unbelief in the great Fundamentals of Christianity and Uncharitableness towards others and of whose Repentance for the same we never heard any Account Again G. F. in his G. M. p. 251. in Defence of his and his Brethrens sinless Perfection thus answers to that in Eccles 7. 20. There is not a just Man upon the Earth which doth good and sinneth not This just this wise Man upon the Earth which doth good and sinneth not that was the Estate of the Law which Christ is the End of who is a greater than Solomon who is the just and Righteousness it self and makes Men free from Sin Note that G. F. in Contradiction to his own Gloss in the same Page to prove a sinless Perfection brings the Examples of Job and David both which were long before Christ came and to prove David's sinless Perfection he brings David's Words and David said He had seen the End of all Perfection Is not this a rare Proof for a sinless Perfection But if G. F. did not mean Christ without but Christ within to be the End of the Law As this is a false Gloss on Paul's Words so that imports that Solomon was not come to the Light within him which G. F. calls Christ within but how then could Solomon pen such Books of the Scripture which the Quakers confess to have been writ by Divine Inspiration if Solomon had not come to the Light within him But let us hear another as nonsensical Gloss of G. VV. on the same Place Voice of VVisd p. 18. Eccles 7. 20. Ans The Conversation of the Saints is in Heaven Eph. 2. 6. Philip. 3. 20. And they are redeemed from the Earth and from the Vanity where Solomon saw all things in the Days of his Vanity in which all were Sinners Note Is this any Proof that the Saints such as Paul who writ these Words were not real Men upon Earth And is not G. W. a Man upon Earth so long as he eats drinks sleeps c Thus we see how they pervert the Scriptures to prove their sinless Perfection for if G. W. will own he is one of these just Men on Earth that Solomon writes of he must confess himself to be a Sinner if he will not own himself to be a just Man upon the Earth yet he must allow his Body to be upon Earth unless he will say our Sight deceives us when we see him in the Streets and then either his Body is no Part of him or if it be it hath Sin and consequently he also hath Sin if he will own his Body to be a Part of him But let us yet again hear another nonsensical Gloss of G. F. to maintain his and his Brethrens sinless Perfection on the Words of James In many things we offend all G. M. p 309. Mark saith G. F. In the many things we offend all but we are come to the one thing Christ Jesus the End of the many things and in him there
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
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
Quaker Zealots to this flat Denial of his own and his Brethrens former Doctrine and yet this without any Change in him he is the same infallible G. W. still for he is that incorruptible Seed and Word of Life which begets Forms and brings forth the Soul of Man into his own Nature and Image and so he renews his own Image in Man that believes in his Power and so Christ may be said to be formed in us as in a misterious and elegant way of speaking the Property and Effect being put for the Cause for Christ in himself hath all Power in Heaven an Earth given to him and it hath pleased the Father that all Fullness should dwell in him Again in Judgment fixed p. 322. We deny the Doctrine that the Word GOD is in Bondage or Captivity in the Sons and Daughters of Men but only that there is a Seed of God and of Christ that is opressed and suffers in many by reason of Transgression A Seed of God is commonly our Phrase and Terms in this case And p. 124. These are certain Allusions and Elegancies Note this is expresly contradictory to what he hath frequently printed in his other Books particularly to what is at great length quoted above out of his He-goat◠Horn p. 8. and his Brief Discovery p. 21. where he calls the Seed that suffers within People and that desires to be freed from Sin Christ and the Lamb that was slain that is worthy to receive Power and Wisdom and Riches and Strength and Honour and Glory and Blessing Now if by Christ the Lamb that was slain within the Seed that suffers within and desires to be freed from Sin c. G. W. does not mean Christ really and strictly speaking but will have it to be a misterious and elegant way of speaking the Property and Effect being put for the Cause so that by the Seed Christ in Men according to his Explication in Judgment fixed just now given he meaneth only the created Souls of Men as begotten and born of the immortal Seed then how will this agree with his making the created Soul as begotten and born of the immortal Seed to be the Lamb that was slain who is worthy to receive Power and Riches and Wisdom and Strength and Honour and Glory and Blessing Rev. 5. 12. which is a Doxology of divine Praise and an Act of divine Worship given to that Lamb by Angels and Saints and seeing according to G. W's Explication here given in his Judgment fixed the Seed that is born in them suffers in them slain in them is neither God nor Christ and yet had divine Worship and Honour given thereto by Angels and Saints It follows that according to G. W. divine Adoration is due to regenerated Souls of Men or at least to something in the Souls of regenerated Men that is neither God nor Christ but a meer Creature which is abominable Idolatry and yet justified here by G. W. in his Judgment fixed compared with his He goats Horn. I cannot understand how G. W. can clear himself here unless he should tell us of another elegant way of speaking that is to give to this Allegorical Christ Jesus born within them the Lamb that was slain within them an allegorical divine Adoration and Worship and that it was only this allegorical divine Adoration that the Saints and Angels gave to this Lamb slain within Men Rev. 5. 12. But how nonsensical and idle any such Gloss would be I need not shew and yet I suppose it is the best he can find But again that not only a Seed of God suffers in Men by their Sins but that God and Christ as God suffers in Men by their Sins in plain Contradiction to what he has delivered in his Judgment fixed is evident from his Divinity of Christ p. 55. 5◠where he hath these following Words in Opposition to T. Vincent who had affirmed That Christ as God did not suffer but only as Man VVhereas saith he T. V. had affirmed That Christ as God could not suffer As to his saying That God cannot suffer is in one Sense not true though he intended as to Death yet the Spirit of God hath suffered and hath been grieved by Man's Transgressions And for this he cites Isa 63. 10. Amos 2. 13. Hos 11. 8 9. Psal 95. Gen. 6. 6. Psal 78. 40. Isa 1. 7 13. and Isa 43. 24 25. Note Here the State of the Controversie betwixt G. VV. and T. V. was not about a metaphorical suffering of God but a real which is here affirmed by G. VV. in Contradiction to what he has said in his Judgment fixed as above quoted And because G. VV. in his Judgment fixed p. 322. blames Jeffery Bullock for his dealing unfairly and fallaciously with charging it on the Quakers for preaching and printing That the Seed Spirit Word or God is both in Prison Bondage and Captivity and to be quickned raised c. withal adding That the said J. B. hath not produced any Book of ours or our Friends wherein this Doctrine is printed Surely G. VV. had a very treacherous Memory or writ this against his own Conscience seeing he had writ so expresly himself in his former Books as is above quoted out of his He-goats Horn his Brief Discovery and his Divinity of Christ all which were in print before J. B. gave this Charge against them And as to his Distinction betwixt God or Christ and a Seed of God or Christ that is oppressed and suffers in Men by their Sins as if it were not either God or Christ that thus suffers in Men by their Sins this is contradictory to G. W's own former Doctrine who brought Amos 2. 13. to prove that God suffers in Men by their Sins viz. not metaphorically by that Figure commonly called Anthropopathia but really which was the only State of the Controversie Behold I am pressed under you as a Cart that is full of Sheaves Now seeing this must be understood literally and strictly according to G. W. it must be a very great Suffering that he thinks God suffers in Men by their Sins that may be said to amount to an Oppression which yet he denies is applicable to God in his Judgment fixed And seeing the Seed within that is slain he would have it in his He-goats Horn to be the Lamb that was slain Rev. 5. 12. to whom the Angels gave divine Worship he must needs own that Seed to be Christ and that Christ to be God and consequently not only that God suffers in Men by their Sins but is slain in them or else confess Idolatry to be lawful But that the Seed that is within Men that W. Penn will have to be the promised Seed of the Woman that bruiseth the Head of the Serpent is Christ and God over all blessed for ev̄er more Take his express Words in his Christian Quaker p. 97 98. The Seed of the Promise is an holy and spiritual Principle of Light Life and Power that being
offering up his Body his Flesh that which hath been Slain from the Foundation of the World and yet never corrupted And this Flesh is a Mystery and in this Flesh is the Belief that takes away the Sin that never corrupted that is the Offering for Sin and the Blood of this Flesh clear seth from Sin so through this Offering is the Reconciliation through the Offering of his Flesh that never corrupted but takes away Corruptions and his Blood Cleanseth from Corrupâ—ions THE LIFE READ See the Quotation more at large in my Third Narrative p. 24 25. And it is observable that he saith with respect to Christ being thus inwardly Crucified for as he was God he did not die but whether he did suffer as he was God he doth not here determine tho' G. W. hath determined it as above-quoted That Christ as God doth suffer in Men by their Sins Note Whereas many of the Quakers particularly G. W. doth argue against Christ without us being the object of Faith Can saith he the object of Faith he divided from the Faith Which Argument has no more force than if he should argue Light and Life p. 45. The Sun cannot be the object or Foundation of his Sight because it is without him and at a great distance from him but his Sight is within him And he hath of late been heard several times to preach in the Quakers Meetings that Christ without us cannot be the object of our Faith doth not G. F. here propose an object of our Faith without us and such an object as is very difficult if not impossible to apprehend to wit the Flesh of Christ which was Crucified when Adam sinned and that Blood of his that was then shed or offered together with the Flesh And in this Flesh is the Belief saith he that takes away the Sin But possibly G. W. or some other will say the Flesh of Christ that was Crucified in Adam when he sinned is conveyed or transmitted from him into us If any of them will adventure to say so it will occasion such Intricacies and Niceties that the Quakers pretended plainness doth not suit with for G. W. in his Book call'd The Divine Light of Christ in Man p. 13. giveth this description of the People call'd Quakers That they are not only esteemed an illiterate People but are a plain simple innocent People who most affect plain Scripture-Language without any School-glosses or nice distinctions to deck adorn or illustrate their Christian Profession of Christ or his Divine Light in Men. And many thousands may not understand the terms Vehiculum Dei Intermediate Being nor is Jesus Christ preached among us under those terms but in Scripture terms The terms Vehiculum Dei had been used by R. Barclay in his Apology p. 83. and Intermediate Being by me in some of my former Writings concerning the Seed of God or principle of God's Grace in Men but which we carried not to that height nor had that sense of it to be the Flesh and Blood of Christ that is the Offering for Sin and makes the Atonement by way of Expiation to take away the guilt of Sin But is not G. W.'s Fallacy very plain in this Case Did not G. F. Preach Christ as he Writ and Printed concerning him and what though G. F. and none of the Quakers ever used the word VEHICULUM DEI or INTERMEDIATE BEING before R. B. and G. K. used them which they chiefly used to help the Quakers out of the Mire and render if possible the Quakers Notions about the Seed within intelligible but they carrying it far beyond whatever R. B. or I ever thought of particularly G. F. and G. W. as I have found by my late more exact search into their Books than ever formerly I made I find it not only difficult but impossible to reconcile them either with Scripture or right and true Reason and therefore I disown them and whatever I have formerly Writ that seemed in the least to justifie such Notions as I have found in the Quakers Writings particularly in the Writings of G. F. and G. W. let them be as void and null as if they had never been Writ See my late Book of Retractations Altho' as I have already said I carried them not so far so much as in my thoughts and I think no more did R. B. as they have done Now since G. W. professeth that the Quakers are such a plain simple People who most affect plain Scripture Language how is it that both G. W. himself and G. F. the chief Leaders and Teachers among them have gone so far from Scripture Language about Christ within that they have run into most wild and extravagant Notions that they sucked in from Familists and Ranters about Christ within Where do they find such Scripture Language That Christ according to the Flesh was crucified when Adam sinned and his Blood then shed and that that Flesh then crucified was the Offering for Sin and the Blood of that Flesh cleanseth away Sin and that the Belief or Faith is in that Offering the Flesh that was then Crucified And where doth G. W. find his wild Notion of a Blood of Christ within Men that cleanseth from Sin by way of Sacrifice and Atonement or of any other Blood of Christ than the Blood of his Humanity for tho' that place of Scripture Acts 20. 28. calls the Blood of Christ wherewith he purchased his Church the Blood of God yet it doth not say it was a Blood within Men or the Blood of the Godhead and not of Christ's Humanity it is call'd the Blood of God because Christ whose Blood it was was not a meer Man but both God and Man the Man Christ Jesus was God tho' his Godhead was not his Manhood But as to this Conveyance of Christ's Flesh conveyed or transmitted from Adam into his Posterity since his Fall what Scripture Language is this If any of them will dare so to affirm give us Chapter and Verse for any such Doctrine or Terms But yet further to discover the grossness of this wild Notion Is this Flesh of Christ conveyed or transmitted into his Posterity Crucified or Alive If they say Crucified it is scarcely intelligible how dead or crucified Flesh however so Spiritual can be conveyed or transmitted from Adam into us or how any crucified Seed or Principle can be so conveyed and seeing that as we are all descended of Noah and he was descended of Seth and Seth was descended of Adam by humane Generation long after Adam's Fall and the Seed of the Woman was promised to him it is most probable That if there was any crucified Flesh or Body of Christ in Adam when he Fell that crucified Body Seed or Principle was quickened and raised in him some time before he begot Seth and it will-therefore follow rather that such a Body Seed or Principle if conveyed or transmitted from Adam into his Posterity is conveyed alive and not dead Beside how can it be conveyed
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