THE MALICE OF THE Independent-Agent AGAIN REBUKED And his Falshood Detected Chiefly about the Man Christ Jesus in Reply to his Answer to a Sheet Entituled The Independent-Agent His Lyâ—s shall not so effect it Jer. 48. 10. SInce that William Haworth an Independent-Guide hath pretended he was encouraged to print against us and that we might well say that we have all this while waged War not only with single W. H. but with all the Independent Party in England and that be need not fear but that he shall have their Prayers and Encouragement to stand by him c. in his Book entit Jâ—s Naz. p. 38 39. Thus eminent thus popular thus potent an Agent and Representative of all the Independent Party has W. H. rendred himself which if true their Cause must needs be concluded in him either to stand or fall with him But being closely urged in our last sheet against him To produce his Deputation for this his undertaking against us under the hands of some of the chief Pastors of the Independent Congregations or otherwise we shall absolutely look upon his Work as the Fruit of his own silly Presumption and Usurpation as we had cause so to do since he bragg'd so loud and so lively undertook to personate all the Independent Party in England But instead of producing such Deputation he gives us this put off viz. My Deputation for this Work is from the Word of Christ Jud. 3. I need no other Deputation p. 8. of his sheet Answer Whereas any Counterfeit may pretend the same from others Lines an immediate Mission he pretends not for his Work against us he comes off after a sorry and beggarly manner here what 's this to his approbation from his honourable Party the Independents whom he has taken on him to represent and personate but we thought they were wiser then to trust their Cause in his Hands or Management therefore how plain is it that his Work against us in his several Books and Pamphlets is a Fruit of his own silly presumption and usurpation and that he is but a Counterfeit Agent who appears to represent such an honourable Party as he calls them and not so much as two or three of those most honourable among them dare trust him with their Cause or adventure to own him in print 't is probable the wiser sort of them also look upon Him to be a presumptuous Busie-Body except some of his prejudiced Hearers Benefactors and such like Note also that we referr'd him for a more full Answer to the Substance of his Book then we have given about Christ's manhood entituled The Way Cast Vp c. by George Keith But this he takes no notice of but proceeds to cover himself with his former Falshoods and Reiterations of Matters already answered To make his Independent Cause seem very credible he gives us this proffer viz. If the Independents please to take cognizance of the Debate I dare appeal to them pag. 1. What a wonderful Hazard this man dares run that he dares adventure to appeal to his Own Party It seems he has far more Confidence in them then they have in him in that hitherto they dare not so far trust him as to allow him a Deputation or vindicate his Work in Print he is left to shift for himself only he would make us â—elieve he has them all on his side because of his owning their Savoy Confession whenas he has writ far more against the Quakers then that comes to in his several Books and Pamphlets containing many false Doctrines Contradictions Slanders Abuses and Perversions which are not in that Confession and had he not persisted therein we might have forborn farther taking notice thereof but we must yet shew what a bad Cause his is that needs Lyes and Slanders for its Refuge And now again as to some of those horrid Falshoods and Blasphemies which he most falsly saith Are the Quakers Doctrines whereof he saith Three are cull'd out of Thirteen so that Ten remain upon us still pag. 2. as if we granted all we have not cited which also is an implicit Untruth for we plainly tell him after the citation of a few of his Slanders and Reproachful Language viz. These with many more Slanders and Revilings are disperst throughout W. H's last Book see Independent Agent p. 3. The first of the three that he sayes are the Quakers Doctrines is That the Ordinances of the Gospel are vain and ceased This being denyed he quotes William Penn thus viz. I affirm Circumcision is as much in force as Water-Baptism and the Pascal Lamb as Bread and Wine the Appellation Ordinances of Christ I therefore Renounce as Inevangelical they are not now required Reason against Railing pag. 108 109. From whence this Independent Agent concludes viz. There is Proof enough that the Quakers Doctrine is that the Ordinances of the Gospel are vain and ceased Wherein his Charge and Inference is still false even as to matter of fact as if the Quakers did so teach concerning what are really the Ordinances of the Gospel which is a falsly begging the Question W. P. believes not that Water-Baptism and Bread and Wine practised by the Anabaptists c. against whom he was writing to be Ordinances of Christ or now required he does not say that the Ordinances of the Gospel or of Christ are vain and ceased but only that these are not such See now how W. H. has plainly belyed the Quakers 2. His second Doctrine charged upon the Quakers is That it was the s Devil that suffered without the Gates c. for proof he brings u this Certificate viz. WE whose Names are subscribed do testifie that when this Question was asked Samuel Pryor a Quaker now dwelling at Hatfield Hall in Hartfordshire by Joseph Saward concerning the Soul of Christ being made an Offering for Sin whether it was God or the Devil that was made an Offering for Sin the said Samuel Pryor answered That it was the Devil that was made an Offering for Sin Joseph Saward Sarah Saward Sarah Farr Note here that though they have varyed in this Certificate from the words Suffered without the Gate first charged by W. Haworth and instead thereof to was made an Offering for Sin which shews his Uncertainty and Fallacy in stating matters of fact yet both as stated by him and his Witnesses being bad enough are utterly denyed by the Quakers as falsly charged upon them And by the way let 's query of W. H. and his Witnesses about their Question 1st If the Question in the said Certificate be owned by the Independent Teachers c. as a Learned Sound or Scriptural Question And secondly If the Independents do use thus to Catechize their People viz. of the Soul of Christ being made an Offering for Sin whether it was God or the Devil that was made an Offering for Sin implying that the Soul of Christ which was made an Offering for Sin and which he poured out unto Death c.
directly contrary to David's Testimony in the Psalm cited See now where the Contradiction is evidently placed by us 'T is between W. Haworth and the Prophet David and not between the Apostle Paul and David Another of William Haworth's Forgeries is that William Bates saith He is ONLY SORRY for his Weakness and Over-sight in giving him any such Answer We told him he addeth Only Sorry and makes himself work on this Lye To come off with an Excuse here he tells us The word ONLY the Printer should have put into another Character As if another Character would make that true which is an apparent Lye as in his saying That William Bates in his Retractation saith he is only sorry c. for 't was none of his saying nor sense of all he says in his Retractation and neither consist in the Emphasis which a different Character may shew And William Haworth does not at all amend his matter by saying that William Bates mentions not any more that he is sorry for but that he gave him such an Answer If for nothing else for that only Here he makes his own implicite Consequence to prove that William Bates said that in his Retractation which he did not say viz. that he is ONLY SORRY c. which words are not there William Haworth is a Forger in this and many more things against us then as yet we divulged Besides William Bates did not only acknowledge his Weakness in giving any such Answer as is cited in his Retractation but also clears the People called Quakers from teaching or holding any such thing to his Knowledge and likewise from William Haworth's Reproaching them on that Occasion as being No Christians but Seducers c. which with many more False Aspersions he has cast upon us Subscribed on the Behalf of Truth our selves and the rest of our Friends concerned Hertford 3d mon. 1678. Henry Stout Henry Sweeting Richard Thomas Richard Martin Edward Plumsted The Publication of this has been occasionally delayed for 't was writ not long after our Adversary's Answer came out A Postscript in Answer to William Haworth 's QVESTIONS SInce that William Haworth hath been far louder in his Charge against us then in his Proofs either from the Dispute at Barbican London which in his Antidote he unjustly quoted or from any of our Writings since pretended by him for Proof viz. That we deny the Manhood of Christ and Jesus of Nazareth to be the Christ But on the contrary to discover his shortness and failure of proof he is fain after all to Query us and put Questions to sift us further p. 8. for matter against us However wee 'l adventure a brief and plain Answer Question I do but query what is become of that Flesh wherein he i. Christ was manifested is that Flesh now in being and if so where is it in every place or circumscribed in Heaven Answer That Flesh saw no Corruption but was raised from the Dead Acts 2. 31. Christ did rise in that Body wherein he suffered and in the same ascended into the Heavens where the Patriarch David did not as to his Bâ—dy which was in the Sepulchre Acts 2. 29 to ver 36. And that very Body of Christ which was rais'd from the dead or that flesh which saw no Corruption how should it but be in being ‖ In our Testimony for the Man Christ pag. 7. we plainly told him our Belief viz. That the Man Christ did neither vanish nor perish in any thing essential to him either as to his Soul Spirit or Body that is in that Spiritual Sense we have given seeing he dyed not again according to Rom. 6. 9 Knowing Christ being raised from the dead dyeth no more Death hath no more dominion over him his dying was only as to the Body he was put to death as concerning the Flesh therefore the Flesh was raised from the dead Circumscribed It is so far circumscribed or encompassed in the Heavens as 't is capable of and as is proper to it and though it be spiritual and glorious yet a Body therefore not in every place where God is And as he has told us It is not limited or confined to any one place or corner as it were of Heaven To be Omnipresent is only proper to God and not to Bodies Q. How do they but deny the Manhood of Christ that say the Body of Jesus is changed as to Substance and his Soul is in every Saint Answ 1st They do not deny the Manhood of Christ that say his Body is so changed as to the quality and glory of it that it is a spiritual heavenly and glorious Body in a higher state then when on Earth under Sufferings this is no annihilating of the Body 2dly That his Soul doth powerfully extend to and is in every Saint in some sense and degree this must needs be if it act together in union with the Deity in perfecting all good in us as our Adversary has coufessed as also that it is virtually in the Saints Though we grant that it is in more fulness in himself then in us yet of his fulness we have all received Q. They own they say the real Birth Suffering and Resurrection of Christ but do they own bis Intercession in his Manhood as an High Priest in Heaven Answ Yes we do He is entred into Heaven it self to appear in the Face of God for us yet not wholely exclusively out of the Saints For this High Priest who is set on the Right Hand of the Throne of the Majesty in the Heavens is a Minister of the Sanctuary and of the true Tabernacle which is with men even with such whose Minister Leader Christ is And God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our Hearts crying Abba Father The Spirit makes intercession with Sighs and Groans c. W. H. So that as man he is not materially here on Earth Answ An impertinent and fallacious Addition if he own him not as man in any sense on Earth For doth not this imply that as Man he is immaterially on earth If by materially he means he is not corporally on earth as in the dayes of his Flesh we grant it But then we may not deny his being on Earth Spiritually and virtually as Man he being the spiritual and heavenly Man the Lord FROM Heaven and a quickening Spirit Else how are any on Earth quickened by him And how did he walk in the midst of the seven Golden Candle-sticks which were the seven Churches Rev 1. W. H. These are Scripture words Acts 3. 21. Whom the Heaven must receive or contein the reading will bear it until the time of the restitution of all things Is not that whom the Man Christ His Deity cannot be conteined any where Answ 1st Whom the Heaven must receive or take it is not contein nor retein and sometimes Heaven in the New Testament-Scriptures is put for God himself 2. It is times in the plural viz. whom Heaven chiefly
Isa 53. must needs be either God or the Devil which is as condemnable as the Answer which they say Samuel Pryor gave for to say it was the Devil is Blasphemy and to say it was God is not only Unreasonable and False Doctrine but also contraty to what W. H. has frequently said of the Soul of Christ's Manhood as against its being turned into an Immense Deity therefore he should have reproved Joseph Saward for his foolish and ungodly Question seeing he own it to be his as well as Samuel Pryor if guilty of such an Answer and teach his Hearers better then thus irreverently to catechize any Persons or to expose their Folly therein in Print as he has done his Disciple's unsavoury Question without Reproof But hear what the Person accused says to clear himself viz. THese are to certifie all Persons concerned that whereas William Haworth hath published in Print that I Samuel Pryor was askt this Question by Joseph Saward concerning the Soul of Christ being made an Offering for Sin Whether it was God or the Devil that was made an Offering for Sin unto which Question 't is said that I answered That it was the Devil that was made an Offering for Sin subscribed Joseph Saward Sarah Saward Sarah Farr Now this I affirm is a most false Accusation and wicked Slander for never was any such Question asked me by Joseph Saward or any other nor did ever any such Blasphemous Words concerning the Soul of Christ proceed out of my Mouth or enter into my Heart or Thoughts and I am clear in the Sight of God So the just God that knows the Secrets of all Hearts judge betwixt my Accusers and me in this matter Samuel Pryor Now hear what his Father and Brother say in this Matter viz. THis is to certifie all whom it may concern that I am Father to Samuel Pryor and that my Son was by me instructed in a Profession of Religion before he was one called a Quaker and since that also hath been careful in reading the Scriptures and having alwayes lived with me I have oftentimes discoursed with him about his Principles since he was a Quaker and he hath been asked by me whether he owned the Scriptures because he talked of a Light within him he told me he owned them from the beginning to the end and that Christ which suffered without the Gates of Jerusalem was both God and Man and that it was this Christ Jesus that was made an Offering for Sin and not the Devil as Joseph Saward his Wife and Maid have wrongfully accused my Son in saying it was the Devil that was offered for Sin for I never heard him speak any such words neither do I believe he ever had such a Blasphemous Thought or Word I my self have been a Hearer of William Haworth and formerly had a good Opinion of him until I found him so forward to print Lyes John Pryor the Elder THese are to certifie all whom it may concern that I am Elder Brother to Samuel Pryor and did live with him twenty years and since he hath been called a Quaker I have had often Reasoning with him and several Disputes and he alwayes owned Christ Jesus that suffered without the Gates of Jerusalem And whereas Mr. Haworth hath printed an Accusation against him of Joseph Saward and his Wife and Maid I dare believe it is very false for I never heard my Brother hold or speak such Principles and Blasphemous Tenents as he is in that Certificate accused to say John Pryor the Younger Note that the said Samuel Pryor has come some years amongst us called Quakers and we never understood that ever it was his Judgment to sleight or disesteem the Sufferings of Christ for Sin much less to speak any such contemptible words of Christ or his Suffering as are charged upon us concerning him but if we could find that he did but at unawares speak any such words as those before cited in answer to Joseph Saward's absurd and tempting Question about the Soul of Christ we should severely reprehend and admonish him about it howbeit if it had been so 't was no ingenuous part of W. H. or his Hearers to catch and snatch away words unadvisedly slipping from any Person upon a surprizal by a corrupt Question and then to expose him in print to be knockt in the Head in the Streets or High-way for a Blasphemer without first moderately enquiring into his Principle and Faith in the Matter after such words unwarily spoken and not only so but it must be charged as the Quakers Doctrine how absurd and blasphemous soever O disingenuous Persons is this your Religion far short of common Civility and Morality among the very Heathen 3. The third Doctrine charged by William Haworth upon the Quakers is most horrid viz. That Mary was a Whore and Christ a Bastard And for Proof he bids us read the following Certificate viz. THis is to certifie all whom it may concern that I whose Name is subscribed did hear James Naylor the Quaker say these words at York in Contempt of Christ Jesus viz. Mary was a Whore and Christ a Bastard William Craven William Craven should have certified the time when and in what place it was in York and in whose Presence besides himself that he did hear J. Naylor say these words in Contempt of Christ and on what Occasion he should have been plain if he had not been conscious and afraid of being manifestly detected in this thing for we are fully perswaded he is a False Accuser and has most grosly belyed James Naylor in this matter 1. Because he has written and divulged so much in his Books in Honour to Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures 2. Because neither W. C. nor any other of his Brethren have given us any such Certificate against J. N. either in his Life-time or since for above these twenty years until of late many years after J. N's Death that W. Haworth was minded through his deadly Malice to brand the People called Quakers therewith as by telling the World These are the Quakers Doctrines viz. That it was the Devil that suffered without the Gates that Mary was a Whore and Christ a Bastard which are so horrid and monstrous that its with a Dread and a kind of Reluctancy that we are occasioned to recite them By what follows the Reader may see how uncertain and inconsistent William Craven who is William Haworth's Witness is with himself viz. ABout those words concerning Mary and Christ whereof William Haworth has charged James Naylor and the People called Quakers in Print William Craven lately told me That James Naylor was Prisoner in York Castle when he spoke those words and that it was about thirty years since Witness H. Stout Which I suppose is as true as the Story he told of a Man who being set upon a Watch on a High Tower fell asleep upon a great Gun and fell down upon a Pavement and had no hurt and came and