Trasubstantiation For the absurdity of that is â—ather outdone than equal'd by this Carnal Resurrection p. 135. Dialog Ibid. And this Mortal shall put on Immortality this Corruptible shall put on Incorruption 1 Cor. 15.53 I grant that this implies a Change but I deny that it so much as intimates that Men shall rise with those very Carnal Bodies that were buried No the Apostle not only tells us that Body which is sown is not the Body that shall be But that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God vers 50. If T. Hicks should tell me no it is meant that the Mortal Body should be changed into an Immortal Body it follows that he is gone from the Letter of the Text into an Interpretation as well as that it contradicts his absurd Identity or Sameness of Body If so it is as lawful for me and more if in the right to construe it thus p. 336. That we who are Mortals respecting our Bodies put off the Mortal Part and put on instead thereof Immortality Suitable to that weighty passage of the Apostle Paul 2 Cor. 5.1 For we know that if our Earthly House of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a Building of God an House not made with hands Eternal in the Heavens Which as directly concludes the Change not of Accidents but Bodies from an Earthly House or Tabernacle to an Heavenly House or Building as ever any thing can be spoken by Men or Angels p. 137. The third place he brings is out of the Epistle Paul writ to the Philippians He shall change our vile Bodies upon which he says This cannot be meant of a New Created Body because such a Body cnnnot be said to be either Vile or Changed But what makes this for his Conceit Surely nothing For if the Vile Body be changed then it is not that Vile Body therefore not the same Body Again To say that Scripture can't be meant of a New Created Body because such one can't be said to be either Vile or Changed makes much against him For 1. It is to say that the Body that shall be is Vile else what means his saying Because such a Body cannot be said to be not to have been either Vile or Changed 2. Tho' the Body that shall be may not be said to be either Vile or Changed yet it may be given of God in lieu of a Vile Body and so the Vile Body changed for one that is Glorious But Tho. Hicks thinks the Joys of Heaven imperfect else P. 138. I answer Is the Joy of the Ancients now in Glory imperfect or are they in Heaven but by halves If it be unequitable that the Body which hath suffered should not partake of the Joys Coelestial Is it not in measure unequal that the Soul should be rewarded so long before the Body This Principle brings to the Mortality of the Soul held by many Baptists or I am mistaken But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Widow and so in a state of Mourning and Disconsolateness to be without its beloved Body Which State is but a better sort of Purgatory See T. V. and T. D. What made the Apostle willing to be absent from the Body that he might be present with the Lord 2 Cor. 5.8 9. If such a Dissolution brought Sadness instead of Joy as our Adversaries in the point of the Resurrection suggest if not boldly affirm In short If the Compleat Happiness of the Soul rests in a Reunion to a Carnal Body for such it is sown Then never cry out upon the Turks Alcoran for such a Heaven and the Joys of it suit admirably well with such a Resurrection The Reasons I have to give against this Barbarous Conceit I thus Contract Because that the Scripture speaks of a Dissolution and no Resurrection of that which is Dissolved being Earthly and unfit for a Coelestial Paradice and therefore hold forth a building of God Eternal in the Heavens P. 139. 2. If the Body be the same it must have the same Nature otherwise not the same Body But if it have the same Nature it will be corruptible still Mortal Seeds bring forth Mortal Natures not Immortal neither can Mortal be Immortal and yet the same Nature as before for that Change made tell me what remains of the Old Earthly Body P. 140. For our Parts a Resurrection we believe and of Bodies too unto Eternal Life What they shall not be I have briefly said and prov'd What they shall be we leave with God who will give every one a Body as pleaseth him and Thou Fool belongs to the unnecessary Medler Thus W. P. and also more large to the same purpose in the place refer'd to From which it may appear that that which he compares to Transubstantiation and the Turks Alcoran Is that Gross Conceit of the Resurrection of the same Carnal Body which is not Scriptural and is exploded by Men eminent in the Church of England Which tho' the Snake with his usual assurance peremptorily asserts p. 156. No Christian ever held Yet it does appear that T. H. with others whom if the Snake will not acknowledge to be such he must prove them otherwise did so hold Ibid. p. 156. Some of them the Quakers suppose a perfectly New Body will be made for the Soul but others that the Soul it self is the Spiritual Body which is mentioned 1 Cor. 15.44 I do more than suppose for I have prov'd the Snake a very false Relater of our Actions and Words and if he will name who them some or others are whose Suppositions he pretends to give it is not unlikely but the Suppositions may prove to be his own Ibid. And in consequence of this these believe no General Resurrection no nor some of them any End of the World I have the greater reason to believe the Suppositions above to be the Snake's being well assur'd the Consequence is his For I know of no Quakers who do not believe the General Resurrection as declared in Scripture and also what is there declared concerning the End of the World and if he knows any who do not let him name them Ibid. p. 157. The Church of Rome owes Mr. Penn thanks for so very kind a Representation of Transubstantiation as to make it stand upon a better foot than the Resurrection of the Body which is an Article of our Creed and receiv'd by the Catholick Church in all ages For thanks merited from Rome the Snake may outâ—ie W. P. For he alas has only represented Transubstantiation to be as easie in belief as the Resurrection of the same Carnal Body which Dies which I may safely say no Christian ought to believe But the Snake as pro Aris Focis has Combated the Reformation opposed the Reasons and Arguments on which it is in part built and has absolutely condemn'd the setting up opposite Altars and affirm'd that necessary Reformation had been best
carried on by continuing in their Communion as I have before shewn for all which and more to the same purpose it may be supposed the Church of Rome owes him many Thanks But what thanks soever Rome may owe the Snake it is very plain W. P. owes him none for charging him indefinitely with representing the Resurrection of the Body upon a worse foot than Transubstantiation What W. P. did so represent was the Resurrection of the same Carnal Body which Dies Now if the Snake will please to tell us that this is an Article in his Creed and hath been received by the Catholick Church in all Ages It will be as easie to shew that he says false with respect to the Catholick Church as it will be to prove that himself believes falsly in the Article As for the Resurrection of the Body we with the Catholick Church do firmly believe it and have always so declared and have at all times been ready to testifie so much in the Language of Holy Writ Ibid. p. 158. What does he think Was not Christ's Body changed in his Transfiguration upon the Mount The Snake hath just before told us that Transubstantiation supposes a Change of Substance upon which in my turn I may ask What does he think Was Christ's Body so Changed upon the Mount Ibid. p. 159. The Grain must die or else it will not fructifie or rise again In this Death it loses something as the Husks but it retains the Substance which rises again And let it be observed by way of addition to the Snake's Agriculture that the Substance the full Grain in the Ear is covered when risen with much such an Husk the same for Nature with that which was lost in the Earth Ibid. p. 160. Death is a great Change yet if William dies it is William even the same William that Liv'd who Died And as sure it will be the same who shall rise again That Death is a great Change is doubtless very true but to bring the Question pretty near if Charles dies even the same Charles that lives shall Charles the same Charles of Flesh the same both for Substance and Husk rise again Ibid. p. 160. But I am now to tell you a very strange thing Yet if it be true its strangeness need not afright Ibid. Mr. Penn does understand that long and elegant Description of the Resurrection of our Bodies from the 35 th verse of the 15 th of the 1 st Epistle to the Corinthians only of the Spiritual State of the Soul in this Life And if so what then Does W. Penn therefore deny the Resurrection of the Body because he hath said that the Apostle 1 Cor. 15.35 doth here speak of the Spiritual State of the Soul If that be good Logick then it concludes thus against the Snake that he denies the Spiritual State of the Soul in this Life because he declares the 1 Cor. 15.35 is to be understood of the Resurrection of our Bodies And this Conclusion is very Natural till the Snake can give a good Reason why W. P. hath not as much liberty as himself to expound 1 Cor. 15.35 and that W. P's Interpretation is against the meaning of the Place But Reader for thy more full satisfaction concerning W. P. as quoted by the Snake from that Book of his Invalidity c. of which I have already given some small hint p. 239. foregoing I shall here briefly first speak to its occasion and afterwards pretty largely transcribe W. P's words whereby thou wilt fully see that he in this as in Reason against Railing c. does only deny that gross Conceit of the Resurrection of a Carnal Body which was the Question As to the first the Occasion it was this J. F. published a Discourse entituled Quakerism no Christianity made up in great part of Quotations as the Snake is so that he has not the Glory of being the first tho' he may stand in Competition with him for falsity in them out of our Books This W. P. answer'd in a piece of his Quakerism a New Nick-Name for Old Christianity And therein shews how grosly J. F. had mistaken our Principles perverted our Words in his Quotations And finally confirms our true sense with the Authority of the Scriptures In Reply to this J. Faldo published what he calls his Vindication to which W.P. did Rejoin under the Title of the Invalidity of J. F 's Vindication c. which is the Book now in Question from which the Snake does suggest W. P. to deny the Resurrection For utter confutation of which I entreat thy patience Reader to consider what I shall transcribe from that Book which will be the Substance of what W. P. hath there said on this Head Invalidity c. p. 368. We may guess how well he prov'd it in his Book the Resurrection of the Natural Body of Flesh and Bones by the strength he hath imploy'd to maintain it in his Second But let all Sober Men judge if this Reply be pertinent to this part of my Answer yet he promised he would answer my Arguments For the Scripture is clear That corruption shall not inherit incorruption neither can Flesh and Blood inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15.50 Thus Annot. cert Divin Anno 1645. upon the place And if he will know the true Resurrection let him learn to understand this weighty passage For we know that if our Earthly House of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a Building of God an House not made with hands Eternal in the Heavens 2 Cor. 5.1 And I cannot but wonder my Adversaries Understanding should be so benighted as that contrary to express Scripture he should assert a Resurrection of the Same Body that is Buried Properly and Strictly so The Apostle p. 369. teaches us to believe that it is not that same Body that is sown that shall be for though we shall be changed from Mortality to Immortality Corruption to Incorruption 2 Cor. 5.1 and 1 Cor. 15.37 50. yet Mens Bodies of Flesh and Blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God For the word Resurrection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not strictly imply a taking up of the same numerical Body as he would have us believe from his new found relative It 1 st Book 2 part p. 138. for which Beza shall give him a release both from the Latin and Original Greek there being no word in either for his relative It on which he and his Factious Brother Hicks have so relatively insisted indeed as their last and best refuge The Text lieth thus 1 Cor. 15.44 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seritur Corpus Animale resuscitatur Corpus Spirituale i. e. A Natural Body is sown a Spiritual Body is raised That is They lay down a Natural and take up a Spiritual Body or in lieu of a Natural receive a Spiritual Body not that the Natural Body shall be transubstantiated into a Spiritual Body or that admitting of such an exchange that the Spiritual is the same
Enthusiasts both born in the Year 1650. for then it was Muggleton says he got his Inspiration If Muggleton did come forth in the Spirit of Deceit in the same Year that G. F. came forth in the Spirit and Power of the Lord What can be inferr'd from thence Theudas and Judas of Galilee came forth with their Impostors not much differing in time from our Saviour's coming in the Flesh Yet to correct the Snake's Lying Chronology the Reader may please to know that G. F. did come forth in the Power and Spirit of the Lord some Years before the Date the Snake assigns Ibid. p. 6. It will be proper in this place once for all to obviate a Prejudice which some may take at a little Railery I am forc'd to now and then in answer to such Sensless Arguments and Pretences as deserve no otherwise to be Confuted The Sober and Judicious Reader will no doubt but be Prejudic'd against such prophane Railery and manifest Contradictions as frequently appear of which these Lines are one Instance In pag. 34. foregoing We are the most subtle in Distinction of any Hereticks and it is not usual for such who Distinguish Subtilly to Argue Senslesly But Contradictions of this sort are frequent with our Adversary who throughout his whole Book as the Sober Reader may hereafter Observe doth frequently Contradict himself that he may Bely Us Mistake our Principles that he might have the Glory of a Triumph and Pervert and false Quote our Books that he might have the Reputation of Great Discoveries Of all which having gone through his Introduction remains next in order to be spoken SECT I. Our Principle of the Light of Christ in Men shewn to be Scriptural and our Books herein agreeable thereto THE Light preached and testified to by us ever since we were a People is no other than Jesus Christ the Son of the Father's Love who in due time was born of the Virgin Mary dwelt on the Earth and was in all things like unto Us Sin only excepted Who was Crucify'd under Pontius Pilate died was buried and rose again the third Day and ascended into Heaven This Jesus Christ while he dwelt on Earth preached himself the Light and Way to the Father and speaking of himself to his Disciples John 14.17 said He Dwelleth with you and shall be in you And of this Jesus Christ John Testifies He was the Word in the Beginning with God and that this Word was God and that in him is Life and that Life the Light of Men and that this Light Lighteth every Man that cometh into the World John 1.1 4 9. This is that Glorious Truth testified unto by us which is not Notion except to those only who have barely an Historical Knowledge hereof For to those that do reverently attend its discoveries it is no more Notion but a Home-felt Truth With this Testimony it was that it pleased God to send forth his Servant George Fox who tho' despised mean and unlearned in the accounts of Men was of God made an Apostle in this Age and hath been instrumental in his hand for the directing of Thousands to the Light of Christ in Men. Upon which Light as Men come to attend it will fully teach them their Duty to God and enable them to perform it it will discover to them a System of Principles truly Orthodox with more certainty than Council or Synod can not taught by it for he is indeed a Wonderful Counsellor And this not in Notion not meerly Historical No! But in Practice according to their Obedience to it It will first fully and truly beyond any Casuist shew unto Man what is his Sin and if Man dispise not this Discovery but close with it it will beget in him a loathing of his Sin and then procede to work in him a repentance from Dead Works which if unfeigned it will go on to sanctify him and when Man by this Light Spirit or Grace is sanctified it will then witness to his Spirit that he is justified So will Man truly come to be redeemed This in short is the substance of what hath been by us declared concerning this Divine Light Christ in Men and which is not more than is witnessed of it in the Holy Scriptures in the words whereof our Friends have frequently given their belief in this as in other Articles and that with good reason for the Spirit of God in his Church in this Age can well agree with the Language of the same Spirit in and to the Churches in the former Ages And here I may fitly observe that too nice expressing and minute particularizing of Articles of Faith has been frequently one ground of Heresie and Schism and occasioned great disturbance in the World and indeed it 's no wonder that when Men forsake that teaching Grace which brings Salvation they should set up that Earthly Wisdom which in matters of Faith breeds confusion Ibid. p. 7 8. And this Notion of the Light within as a Ray only or Illumination from the Holy Spirit the Ingenious Mr. Penn has let us see in some of his late Books to draw us insensibly off the Scent of the Quaker Notion of the Light within This Adversary that he may scratch more undiscernedly he Hypocritically flatters W. Penn of which as we pass shall meet with divers instances But it is false that W. Penn hath in any of his Books explained our Belief of the Light within in terms contrary to what G. Fox or other our Ancient Friends have done He being a Scholar might use other terms but not contrary he might vary from the express words of G. Fox or others but not from their sense Of this Holy Writ affords instances The Holy Apostle Paul's rethorical forms of Speech might be more agreeable to the Rules of Art but not of the Holy Spirit than those of the rest of the Holy Apostles Yet his Learning and their Illiterature were both of excellent use the minds of the Persons being under subjection to the Spirit of God This was their great Rule so that though according to the Humane helps they had had they might use various yet not contrary terms in the same Article Ibid. p. 8. And that is to make this their Light within not only an Inspiration or Illumination sent from God but to be it self the Essential God and Christ. What Christ hath promised and by the Holy Spirit hath dictated concerning God and Christ's Dwelling in Men as in these places refer'd to among many others it may be seen is so experienced a Truth as well as good an Authority for such like Scriptural expressions that it will stand the Shock of any capricious Gramarian who would pretend to speak more properly and distinguish more nicely than it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost to do John 14.17 20. Rom. 8.10 1 Cor. 10.4 2 Cor. 15.4.10.6 7.14.25.13.7 Gal. 2.20 Heb. 2.11 Col. 1.27.4.19.2.6 Ibid. 8. And from hence O Blasphemy to repeat it they
said Lord what wilt thou have me to do Which shews his inward sense of Mind But the Apostle Rom. 7.9 is large in the account of the Work of his Regeneration and he does acknowledge he was alive without the Law once But when the Commandment came Sin revived and I died Which plainly shews the Command was inward and it was hard for Paul to kick against this Command which did thus slay him as in the 11th verse Our Adversary does acknowledge that the Pricks there are to be understood the Power of Christ. And this Power it was Acts 2.37 That prickt them at the heart who were witnesses of the sheddings abroad of the Spirit at the time of Pentecost And of this Power David speaks Psal. 73.21 Thus my heart was grieved and I was pricked in my reins Whence thus in short Paul a zealous Man and a Persecutor is by the Power of Christ let see that he was opposing his Power in his Saints by such Persecution At this in the Apostle's language Sin revived i. e. the sense of it whereby he saw his guiltiness and then he died from any further Life in it And whether this be not a heart work all experienced Readers may judge Ibid. p. 12. Besides they are in great confusion and contradictions amongst themselves concerning their Notion of the Light within denying and affirming backwards and forwards as you may see in Mr. Tho. Crisp his just and lawful Tryal of the Foxonian Quakers Reader This is one of those Instances wherein the great Injustice of this adversary appears in that he takes this false Charge from a Book writ against us by an open Enemy and takes no notice of any reply by us Which was largely and fully given to this Adversary by our Friend Ed. Penington And if after the same manner I should object and say The Church of England are in great Confusions and Contradictions amongst themselves in their Notion of the Trinity which has been abundantly treated of here of late affirming backwards and forwards and recommend for proof of this some Book disowned by that Church the Proof were much the same Or if I should object and say They are in great confusion and contradiction in their Notion of any other Article and bring for proof Harding Stapelton or any of the Romish Church who being Adversaries have so affirmed having no regard to the disallowance of the first or answers to the last I might deservedly be accounted a confident and prejudic'd but not a fair or reasonable Man Yet Reader this is the practice of this Snake with us SECT II. Shewing that we do not make our Souls of the same Person and Substance with God nor aspire to an Equality with him I Shall here consider and reply to his Second and Third Sections together the Charge being the same and the distinction unnecessary For in his mode of speaking a Sameness of Person and Substance imply an Equality concerning which before I procede to the Quotations in the Snake I shall observe to thee Friendly Reader That having in the beginning of the foregoing Section given a brief but real and true account of our Scriptural Belief concerning The Light of Christ in Men. Shewing that the Soul of Man being subjected thereunto he may by the guidance and assistance thereof without it he cannot attain unto Salvation I say having shewn thus much concerning our belief herein it is impossible that we so believing as we do should make our Souls to use his phrase of the same Person and Substance with God or Aspire to an Equality with him Our Friends according to Holy Writ have frequently said and writ and may safely That those who by walking in the Light are become Children of it are such for whom our Saviour Jesus Christ did pray to his Father John 17.21 22 23. That they all may be one as thou Father art in me and I in thee That they also may be one in us That they may be one even as we are one I in them and thou in me that they may be made perfect in one and that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them as thou hast loved me This Oneness in the Holy Spirit our Friends have pressed and contended for in Opposition to the hurtful belief that had too much prevailed upon Men of an imagined Distance of God from Man at this Day and that Man was now no more to expect the Revelation of the Holy Spirit without which our Saviour hath testified Mat. 11.27 And no Man knoweth the Son but the Father neither knoweth any Man the Father but the Son and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him This testimony of Jesus Christ with many more to the same purpose do shew the certainty of Revelation as in many others the absolute necessity of it is shewn First By our Saviour who saith John 12.50 And I know that this Commandment is Life Everlasting and the Apostle 2 Cor. 13.5 Know ye not your own selves that Jesus Christ is in you except you be Reprobates And for our acknowledging to and witnessing of the truth of these Testimonies declared in Holy Writ have we met with great opposition and misrepresentation of which Reader there follows now divers instances in these Sections of the Snake's which he thus begins p. 13. Thou sayest says G. Fox to his Opponet Great Mystery p. 247. Christ doth not dwell in them Personally Doth not Christ dwell in his Saints as he is in the Person of the Father the Substance Reader This our Adversary gives for a quotation from G. Fox his Great Mystery and that we might see at what he carps he puts it in Large Black Characters which yet are not blacker than his Envy and Injustice which will appear thus First In that he hath left out the Priests Words which are unsound and unscriptural Secondly In that he hath left out the beginning and end of G. Fox his Answer For thy more certain knowledge of which I subjoin first the Priest's Words and then G. Fox his Answer Priest The Scriptures are the Word except yâ—u dare to deny Christ is God Let the Word of God meaning the Scripture dwell in you richly To this G. Fox thus Answers So he makes the Scripture Christ and God and he doth not say Let Christ dwell in you but means the Scripture and God dwells in you The Apostle saith Let Christ Dwell in your hearts by faith and God will dwell in you But thou sayst Christ doth not dwell in Them Personally Doth not Christ dwell in his Saints as he is in the Person of his Father the Substance And are they not of his Flesh and of his Bone Here Reader thou mayst see that the plain meaning and drift of G. Fox's words are to assert and maintain that Spiritual Oneness of which I have been speaking and shewing that Christ prayed that his Followers might witness and not to make the Soul of the same Person
am equal with God Pray Reader observe had this been true that G. Fox had so answered as the Snake says he did in the presence of three Justices what need was there for Marshal and Altam to swear it against him since the Justices if they had heard it themselves might have convicted him thereof upon their own personal hearing without other evidence Or how likely is it that Col. West and Tho. Tell both Justices upon the Bench at this Tryal should sign a Supersedeas which both of them did for his acquittal if either of them had heard him say the words charged Or how could he have been discharged for want of another Evidence when his Adversaries might have brought in the three Justices against him had it been true that they had heard him themselves But besides there are two Lyes in this Paragraph the first is There was not any Justice of the Peace or Colonel named Tell. Secondly G. Fox did not answer that he was equal with God But thus it was There were Eight several Charges against him the fourth of which was that he had said he was equal with God which being asked in Court He made the following answer G. Fox That was not so spoken by me But he that sanctifieth and he that is sanctified is all of one Heb. 2.11 It is God and Christ that sanctifieth and the Saints are all one in the Father and the Son They are of his Bone and of his Flesh Ephes. 5.30 And the Father and the Son are one and they are the Sons of God Gal. 4.6 And as they that are joyned to the Lord are one Spirit so they that are joyned to an Harlot are one Flesh 1 Cor. 6.16 17. This the Scriptures witnesseth and I witness This Answer is Scriptural and is directly opposite to what he was then charged with as it also is to what the Snake's Pamphleteer says he did then answer Snake p. 20. This Blasphemy hath been attested upon Oath by the aforesaid Dr. Marshal and Mr. Altam School Master at Lancaster before the Justices at the last Sessions held at Appleby the 8 th of January 1652. and before Judge Puleston at the last Assizes held at Lancaster the 18 th of March 1652. This is false in both the parts of it For G. Fox had not any Tryal at any Sessions in Appleby in the year 52. Nor had he any Tryal before Judge Puleston or any other Judge at any Assize held in Lancaster in the year 1652. These notorious Lyes I charge upon the Snake let him clear himself if he can But for the Readers satisfaction and information I shall briefly say G. Fox was at Michaelmas Sessions in Lancaster in the year 1652. at which time was upon the Bench with others as Justices of the Peace Tho. Tell and Will. West called to answer to Eight Articles of Blasphemy c charged upon him by Three Witnesses viz. Altam but Marshal did not swear Birkett and Attkinson this last a young Lad which Charge the Evidence did swear was gathered by them from words spoken by him at a Meeting some time before But when to the several particulars they were by the Bench severally interrogated they were confounded insomuch that Birkett said he could not answer directly but the other could say it To which the Bench reply'd Have you charged the Prisoner upon your Oath and now say He can say it It seems you did not hear these words spoken your self To this Confusion of the Evidence was also added the Testimonies of many People who had been at that Meeting where the words were charged to be spoken and did then declare in the open Sessions that no such words as those charged were then spoken by G. Fox Besides all this G. Fox did then himself go through all the several Eight Articles of his Charge and shewed his Scriptural Belief in opposition to the Blasphemies they had sworn By which means the matter issued thus a Supersedeas was granted against a Writ which had gone out for his apprehending tho' he was not apprehended upon it but came voluntarily to this Sessions to answer his Enemies false Charges Besides this G. Fox had no Tryal at Appleby or Lancaster nor at any Assize at all in Lancaster in 1652. Thus Reader the Snake's Legal Form is false both in matter and form and himself by these his Lyes must be scandalous much below the dignity of a Pleni-Potent which by a ridiculous assurance he arrogates when in p. 336. He pretends to demand reparation in the Name of the Church of England By what Name must he be now impleaded whose Legal Form has only served to shew that he is Truly proved a Lyar But the Snake has not yet done with his Legal Form Ibid. p. 20. p. 3. He refers to the Brief Relation It is likewise witnessed That James Naylor affirmed That he was as Holy Just and Good as God himself 'T is true it was so witnessed but falsly wherefore when James Naylor was conven'd at Appleby Sessions in January 1652. The Evidence proving insufficient he was acquitted and did by the Answers he gave to the Questions put to him by the Bench in matters of Religion shew himself neither Blasphemer or Heretick as was charged Snake p. 21. These Monstrous Blasphemies occasioned a Petition from the Gentlemen of that County to the then Council of State Forbear Lying It was not monstrous Blasphemy but monstrous Disappointment did occasion that Petition For when G. Fox and J. Naylor in the face of the Country did appear Orthodox and Scriptural in their Faith and the Persons that Swore against them insufficient in their Evidence by which means they were both cleared Then it was they ran to White Hall with those Lyes which they could not prove at Lancaster against G. Fox nor at Appleby against J. Naylor And of these Petitioning Gentlemen there were of the Priesthood much about the number mentioned Acts 23.21 And they were no less disappointed For the Council dismist the Petition with it s annexed Schedule Wherefore I also shall only consider so much of it as is yet not reply'd to And first for James Milner mentioned in the Schedule I shall speak of him in answer to the Snake's 21st Section wherein the Snake speaks more largely concerning this Man Another Article in the Schedule is Leonard Fell Professeth that Christ had never any Body but his Church To this Article The Honest Old Man being yet in health and strength through the mercies of God and preserved out of the Jaws of Violence he answers for himself I have not at any time professed that Christ had never any Body but his Church nor did ever speak any words tending to it Leo. Fell. Snake p. 22. G. Fox wrote an Answer to this Petition and to every Article in the Schedule which he Entituled Saul's Errand to Damascus 'T is true he did so and a Pretty Book it is and answers the End for which it was writ Ibid.
the Papists print her answers and particularly Her Apology which was published 1617. From which it will be necessary to give briefly as I can her Answers to some of the Papists Charges afore-mentioned For it would take me up too much room and time to transcribe the Answers to them all tho' they are all well worth reading The Apology is writ in Latin and divided into 61 several Articles or Answers I shall give it as it is in the Book it self and then render it in English In doing of which if I hurt not the sense I desire of my Reader that less faults may be overlook'd The first Answer that I shall transcribe is to that Charge and Objection of the Romanists that they had Contention and Division among themselves And is in these words Eant ergo sane pacem potiùs inter suos domi sanciant Vnitas quidem consensio maximè convenit Religioni Non tamen est ea propria nota Ecclesiae Dei. Summa Enim erat consentio inter eos qui adorabant Aureum vitulum inter eos qui conjunctis vocibus in Servatorem Nostrum Jesum Christum clamabant crucifige Neque quia Corinthii Dissensionibus inter se laborabant aut quia Paulus à Petro aut Barnabas â Paulo aut Christiani Statim sub ipsis initiis Evangelii aliqua de re à se mutuò dissidebant idcirco nulla erat inter eos Ecclesia Dei Illi quidem quos isti contumeliae causà appellant Zuinglianos Lutheranos re autem verâ sunt utrique Christiani inter se amici ac fratres Non de principiis aut fundamentis Religionis nostrae non de Deo non de Christo non de Spiritu Sancto non de ratione Justificationis non de aeterna vita tantum de una nec ea ita gravi aut magna quaestione inter se dissentiunt Nec desperamus vel potiùs non dubitamus brevi fore concordiam et si qui sunt qui aliter sentiant quam par est positis aliquando affectionibus nominibus Deum id illis esse Patefacturum ut re melius animadversâ atque exploratâ quod olim in Calcedonensi Concilio factum est omnes dissentionum causae fibrae ab ipsis radicibus extirpentur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sepeliantur Sempiterna Amen Let them rather therefore go and establish Peace among themselves For in the forgoing Article is objected the variety of Dissentions amongst the Papists in their several orders Unity and Agreement is indeed most seemly in Religion yet it is not a certain and proper Mark of the Church of God For among those who worshipped the Golden Calf and among those who with conjoined Voices cried out against our Saviour Jesus Christ Crucifie him there was greatest agreement and accord Neither because the Corinthians laboured under Dissentions among themselves or because Paul from Peter or Barnabas from Paul or that under the very beginnings of the Gospel the Christians did in some things differ among themselves Was there therefore among them no Church of God Truly those who they in reproach and taunt call Zuinglians and Lutherans are really both Christians and among themselves Friends and Brethren For not concerning Principles or the Fundamentals of our Religion not concerning God or Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit not concerning the reason of Justification and Eternal Life Only concerning one and that not weighty or great Question Do they differ among themselves Neither do we despair but rather doubt not that that shortly will be agreed And if there are who think otherwise than is equal which sometimes hath its foundation in Names and Affections God will make it manifest to them that the thing may be better considered and more certainly known which was sometime done in the Council of Calcedon where were extirpated all Dissentions from their roots and causes and buried in a perpetual Oblivion Amen Upon which it may not be amiss to ask the Snake what certain proofs he can give that the Divisions since such there were or to use his own words the various Sects which were sown and set up about the middle of the last Century were not sown and set up by Rome And that these about the middle of this Century were It also will be proper for him to shew why the Church's Answer concerning Dissension does not suit us in answer to him as it did Her in answer to Rome For it is no proof barely to affirm as he does p. 187. Of this many Instances may be given and Proofs undeniable I say this is no Proof and any further he does not offer for he hath not given one of the many Instances of which he with great assurance says they are Proofs undeniable He expected surely that his Reader should take his Ipse dixit and ask no further Proof But that knowing it as I do in this as in many other particulars to be false and Scandalous I do therefore so far as his Assertion relates to us viz. That the Quakers were sown and set up by Rome deny his Charge and require him to prove it by the best Instances which he can which when he shall offer if we cannot disprove them I shall be content to say with him That Romish Emissaries did set up Quakerism in England But till then it must be accounted for one of his Falshoods Ibid. p. 187. Enthusiasm when it is a Delusion or falsly pretended is the surest means to overthrow all Church-Government and Order and all Sobriety of Religion for it is no less than Blasphemy falsly to pretend to extraordinary Inspirations from God Enthusiasm or Inspiration falsly pretended is all this But what is that to the purpose The Question is not now what Enthusiasm falsly pretended is But whether that Enthusiasm or Divine Inspiration of which we speak be false If the Snake prove not that which he can never he does but Plough the Air or strive to make Ropes of Sand. His attempts are foolish as well as false because that whatsoever Enthusiasm falsly pretended may be yet the Inspirations of the Holy Spirit of God which is the Enthusiasm that we own and profess does at this day as in all the Ages of the World first beget a People to be the Church of God and having so begotten them does lead them into such Order and Sobriety as does become that Holy Religion which it teaches Ibid. p. 188. And this Doctrine of Enthusiasm came chiefly from the Church of Rome Labade a Jesuit set it up in Holland and Robert Barclay the Quaker was tinctured with it in his younger Years in the Stotch Convent at Paris and John Vaughton was a Roman Catholick who is now a great Preacher among the Quakers in London and William Southby a Preacher now among them in Pensilvania As particular and positive as the Snake here is concerning the place from whence Enthusiasm came and who set it up in Holland
oppose his Church whether his own Kings or others Whence else did proceed that Seditious Libel which I have before observed to be written in answer to Dr. King c and if it be not a Principle owned by the Communion he pretends Membership in yet one and he no small Member did once publish a Sheet intituled An Enquiry into the Measures of Submission to the Supream Authority In which is declared something to this purpose as it seems to me His Words in that Sheet are these p. 5. Here is the true Difficulty of this whole matter viz. of Submission and therefore it ought to be exactly considered First all general Words how large soever are still supposed to have a Tacit Exception and Reserve in them if the Matter seems to require it Children are Commanded to Obey their Parents in all things Wives are declared by the Scripture to be Subject to their Husbands in all things as the Church is unto Christ And yet how Comprehensive soever these Words may seem to be there is still a Reserve to be understood in them and though by our Form of Marriage the Parties Swear to one another till Death them do part yet few doubt but that this Bond is dissolved by Adultery though it is not nam'd for odious things ought not to be suspected and therefore not named upon such occasions but when they fall out they carry still their own force with them 2. When there seems to be a Contradiction between two Articles in the Constitution we ought to examine which of the two is the most Evident and the most Important and so we ought to fix upon it and then we must give such an accommodating Sense to that which seems to contradict it that so we may reconcile those together Here then are two seeming Contradictions in our Constitution The one is the Publick Liberty of the Nation the other is the Renounâ—ing of all Resistance in case that were invaded â—â—is plain that our Liberty is only a thing that we enjoy at the King's Discretion and during his Pleasure if the other against all Resistance is to be understood according to the utmost extent of thâ— Words Therefore since the chief Design of our whole Law and of all the several Rules of our Constitution is to Secure and Maintain our Liberty we ought to lay that down for a Conclusion that it is both the most Plain and the most Important of the two And therefore the other Article against Resistance ought to be so softned as that it do not destroy this Thus he Now I shall not hereupon Inquire Whether herein is asserted a Principle of Resisting by Arms such as oppose their Church whether their own Kings or others Nor whether they have so soften'd the Article against Resistance as not sometimes to lay it aside These I shall leave to the observing Reader and only ask Whether by the Declaration of the Lords Spiritual c. at Guild-hall 11 December 1688. this same Article against Resistance was not soften'd or as the Snake words it Whether those Spiritual Lords did not Sign it from a Principle of Resisting by Arms such as oppose their Church whether their own Kings or others That some few of them did afterward go back and grow stiff is nothing to the purpose for as that uncertainty of Conduct in them could not abate the Validity and Legality of the Present Established Government so neither could it clear them of having that viz. Resistance in Principle which some did first practise and then deny and others in the same Communion did first deny and then practise Reasons for which hath been I think by both sides given Ibid. P. 205. Nay farther they embrace the Principle of Mahomet that they may force their Religion upon others by the Sword When the Snake thus Painted the Heathenism of Persecution by calling it the Principle of Mahomet sure he forgot past Practices when they endeavoured to Dragoon us to Church and force their Religion upon us and others by the Sword Nay and to this Day there are that embrace this if it be a Mahometan Principle of which there are Instances of them that go to the utmost of their Power in point of Force tho' they cannot now use the Sword to cut the way for their Religion And the Snake was not more forgetful in this than he is false in the Charge upon us considering his own Words P. 204. Our so much cry'd up Principle against using outward Force for they are in direct Opposition and Contradiction How can they who in Word and Practice have always to use the Snakes Term much cry'd up a Principle against using outward Force at all soften the Article against Resistance much less force their Religion upon others by the Sword No it cannot be nor was it ever our Practice but by those whose Practice and Endeavour it hath been we have often deeply suffered So that if this be the Principle of Mahomet which the Liberty the Turks give to others to retain and exercise their own respective Religions and Ways of Worship even in and under their Dominions does not bespeak it is evident the Quakers have never embraced it Ibid. Let me first begin to shew how Active they were against their own Natural Prince joyning with all the Vsurpations upon him from their first Rise in 1650 to his Restauration 1660. That They the Quakers did act against the King and join with all the Vsurpations upon him from 1650 to 1660 is most notoriously false for that there is not any Instance to be given of such who after they became Quakers did so Act or Join But the Charge is as well Malicious as False for there were but few Quakers in the Year 1650. And E. B. Dating his Epist. Prefixt to G. F's Great Mystery in the Ninth Month 1658 says P. 7. It is now about Seven Years since the Lord raised us up in the North of England c. And Id. p. 13. he says In the beginning we were but few in Number And P. 17 he says It was in the Year 1654 that they enter'd into the South Parts What Quakers then were there in 1650 to act against the King or Join with Vsurpations upon him Ibid. They approv'd of the Murther of his Father and Glory'd in it and justified all the Rebellions before their own time as they joined with all afterwards 'T is false they the Quakers did not approve the putting the King to Death neither were they a gathered People when that was done nor did they ever Glory in it tho' sometimes they had occasion to mention it to those who came afterwards into Power by way of caution and warning to them not of Exprobation to the former That they might not oppress the Righteous and be cut off also as if they refused to Hear and Redress they were plainly told they should be And if the Snake will needs have such remembrances of that Fact to be approving of and
stood or the Reformers must all be guilty of breaking the Fundamental Laws of the Realm which is a Charge that the Modesty of this Snake will hardly forbear to put upon them after having so warmly endeavoured to prove them Schismaticks as I have before shewn But while I am upon this point of Fundamental Laws I would ask the Snake to give if he can some Reason why the Act of Parliament made in the 27th H. 8. for setting out of Tythes was more a Fundamental Law of the Land than the other Act made in the 31st of the same Reign for Establishing the 6 Articles Tythes are rightly deem'd Anti-christian as impos'd by Popes and Popish Laws because they were so imposed by vertue of the Levitical abrogated Law Besides by Popish Laws there mentioned I take our Friends to mean not Acts of Parliament made in Popish Times which the Snake would craftily twine it to but Decrees or Constitutions of Popish Bishops or Councils because Popish Laws are joyned there with Popes impos'd by Popes and Popish Laws not Papists in their Civil Capacities only but Papists quatenus Papists in their Ecclesiastick Capacities and for Establishing not Civil Government but the Popish Religion and Church And indeed the Stature in the 27th H. 8. was not properly imposing of them for they were impos'd by the Lateran Council long before and the Impositions of them was intirely Popish And upon that Imposition Tythes being supposed to be due to God and Holy Church as the Preamble of that Statute shews the manner of Payment and direction for Recovery were appointed by that Statute and the other Statute made in the 2 d Edw. 6. is grounded on that of H. 8. and refers to it and expresly declares it is made to the intent the said Tythes may be hereafter truly paid according to the mind of the makers of the said Act. And that being made by H. 8. and his Parliament about four Years before the Act for the Six Articles was made sufficiently shews what the mind of the Makers of that Act was and whom they would have Tythes then paid to who profest Communion with the Church of Rome tho' they quarelled with the Pope and burnt the Protestants as fast as they appear'd so that if it should be supposed that Tythes were imposed by those Statutes it will be hard to free them from being a Popish Imposition Ibid. p. 248. There were no Tythes paid to any Popish Priests in England ever since Quakerism appear'd amongst us Nay rather was there any Tythes paid to any Priests but what in their Original here in England were demanded by Popish Priests Are not all Priests that take Tythes what ever other Denomination they may go under in that and so far at least Popish And this may serve for Answer to his Interrogative in the same Page Why do you not now pay your Tythes to the Ministers of the Church of England Ibid. Why do you boast of your Sufferings and Imprisonments c. We do not boast nor have we any thing to boast of that we can do or suffer it is the Lord that hath carried us through our Sufferings as he did his People in former times and the Glory belongs to him which it is fit we should give unto him by Commemorating his Goodness therein towards us But it is an Aggravation of Cruelty and an unusual sort of Barbarity to put Men to pain and then blame them for Groaning to oppress Men and not suffer them to Complain or seek Redress Ibid. p. 249. Why do you Persecute and Disown those of your Communion who pay their Tythes c. We Persecute none but in disowning such as pretending to own our Principle do act contrary to it we do but our Duty Ibid. Why are you so Zealous herein as not to leave them to their own Conviction or Light within c. We leave them to take their own way if they will persist therein after frequent Admonition and Endeavours to bring them to the right way Ibid. Why will you not allow them what your selves so much plead for Liberty of Conscience in this Case We do allow all such the same Liberty we our selves plead for For we don't plead for a Liberty to act contrary to the Principles of any other â—ociety and oppose them and yet require them to receive and own us as Members of that Society we oppose We meddle no further with any of those who have deserted our Principle than to declare they are gone from us and are no longer of us and to Defend our Principle and us against Assaults And if other Societies which we departed from had done no more nor otherwise by us we should not have complain'd of them Ibid. The Quakers are not fewer by the lowest Computation than One Hundred Thousand here in England I wish he speak true Let Joab's wish 2 Sam. 24.3 go with it The Lord add unto the People how many soever they be an hundred fold But since the Quakers are known to all and acknowledged even by their Enemies to be an Industrious People it may be hop'd this Intimation of their Numbers may occasion our Governours to consider How much more useful an Hundred Thousand working Bees may be to the Civil Government than Ten or Twenty Thousand Drones Ibid. If the Tythes first of all the Quakers and then of all those who to avoid Payment of their Tythes will pretend to be persuaded by them herein were Substracted there would not be Sufficient left to keep half the Clergy in England from Starving By this one wou'd think either that there are great Numbers of those who Pay their Tythes with an ill will and would gladly be eased of the Payment of them which I hope we may be allow'd to say is very good News because it bespeaks a growing Sense of the Oppression and Evil of Tythes For since the Clergy as they love to call themselves are not the hundredth part of the People if the Tythes of the one half of all those who Pay to them were Substracted they should have instead of the Tenth but the Twentieth nay the Thirtieth Part of the Increase they would have more than double or near treble to their Proportion than all the rest of the Inhabitants besides of the danger of whose Starving this Snake seems not at all apprehensive What he says Ibid. was Threaten'd or Prophesied he can't tell which it seems by Rich. Huberthorn seems to be a Reproof of the Priests Pride and Luxury who would be likely rather to Beg or suffer want than set their Bones to Work for their Living as others are glad to do And this being spoken of the Priests of that time when that Book was Written before the Year 1660 who were not of that Church which is now call'd the Church of England when they were turn'd out and the Law of the Land ceas'd to maintain them which came sooner upon them than they expected they might have begg'd their