and trembles is a Saint of God and doth it by the impulse of the Spirit of God The next thing I shall speak to is their Doctrines And though I confess they preach somewhat that is true yet in this they are but the greater Deceivers For what Heretick is there but preaches some truth and what counterfeit silver will pass in pay if there be not some appearance of real silver So these men to put off their bad ware which other wise would not vent do usher it in with many truths But that the Reader may see that All is not gold that glisters take notice in the first place that these men will allow nothing to be call'd God's Word but Christ This is their first Errour in Doctrine which I thus prove 1 Error First because God hath but one onely-begotten Son Jesus Christ but he hath many Words That he hath but one Son Jesus Christ I prove from Joh. 3.16 1 Cor. 8.6 Eph. 4.5 That he hath more words then one I prove from Deut. 8.3 Man liveth not by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God Prov. 30.5 EVERY word of God is pure Jer. 23.36 the complaint is that the false Prophets had perverted the WORDS of the living God So that from this Scripture this Argument may be drawn against this Error viz. If God have plurality of words then somewhat else may be called the Word of God beside his onely Son Jesus Christ But God hath plurality of words Therefore somewhat else may be call'd Gods Word besides his onely begotten Son Jesus Christ And the fallacie of the Argument for the contrary is thus detected Jesus Christ is called the Word Ergo Nothing else must be call'd the Word but Jesus Christ May not a man as well say that Jesus Christ is call'd God's Son Ergo No one else may be call'd Gods son but Jesus Christ When we read that men are the sons of God by saith and Joh. 1. As many as believed to them be gave porter to become the sons of God though I confess they are not sons in the same sense that Christ is so likewise nothing is call'd the Word of God in the same sense the Scriptures call Christ so but himself Again the Scriptures call Christ a vine a door a shepherd but would it not be madness to say Where-ever we read of a vine a door or a shepherd it must be understood of Christ Their next Errour that I shall name 2 Error and which is a consequence of the former is this That they say the Scriptures may not be call'd the word of God and in many of their books they blame the Ministery of the Nation and others for saying the Scriptures are the word of God when Christ calls the written Law of Moses the word of God which he said the Pharisees had made of none effect by their traditions Mark 7.13 But see the horrible deceit of these men The Scriptures they say must be call'd a declaration of the minde of God but at no hand they must be call'd the word of God see their book call'd A cloud of witnesses in the Title-page and also in pag. 3. of the same Book toward the later end of it and the beginning of pag. 4. you have these words But the blinde guides the Priests of England that Preach for Tythes hire gists and rewards they do teach the people and say Hearken to the Word of the Lord as it is in a chapter and a verse and many other passages which I forbear to cite because it is a thing so generally preached and received by them viz. That the Scriptures are not the word of God but a declaration of the minde and will of God See now their deceit they would make the world believe that it detracts from the honour of Christ to call the Scriptures the word of the Lord and the word of God when in truth the designe is to raise up the honour of their own Pamphlets by the ruines of the Scriptures reputation in the hearts and mindes of men And therefore do but behold their impudence The holy Scripture say they must not be call'd God's word no no but see if they do not give the same titles and as great to their own bumbasted contradictious lying Pamphlets And for the proof of this let me give thee a recital of some of them among many They have one book called Love to the lost which is a Title proper to none but God and Christ yet this is given to one of their books Another is called A discovery of the wisdom from beneath which none but the word of God can do by their own confession many a time Another book is called The power and glory of God shining out of the North. Is not this Title as great as if they had call'd it the word of God Read and judge you whose light is not darkness Another is call'd The Royal law and Covenant of God which is as great a Title as the word of God Another is call'd News out of the North written from the mouth of God Another is call'd The Vials of the wrath of God upon the seat of the man of sin Another is call'd A warning from the Lord to Teachers and people Another is call'd A true prophecie of the mighty day of the Lord. Now if by the mighty day of the Lord they mean that there shall be such a day which they can hardly do because some of them have said The day of Judgment is past already but if that should be their meaning it could be no Prophecie for what prophesying is it for men to foretel such a thing shall be if others have said it before them for do not many by the writing of the Scriptures believe there shall be such a day yet these cannot be said to prophesie of it But if by prophesying of the mighty day of the Lord they mean to foretel the very day then they presume to know more then Christ or the Angels or any man according to that of Mark 13.22 But to proceed They have another book that is called A Trumpet from the Lord sounded out of Sion Another is call'd A whirlwinde of the Lord given forth as a flying fiery roll I would from all this ask but one question Whether these Titles which they give these books are not equipollent to the Title we give the Scriptures viz. The Word of God and yet these men blame us for this and give as great to their own Pamphlets But what shall we say they stop not here but at last call their own writings The Word of the Lord and A Word from the Lord as you may see in a book of theirs called A prophecie of the mighty day of the Lord p. 13. and the like in a book called The vials of the wrath of God p. 57. p. 9. p. 10. and in a book called News out of the North p. 10. and p. 24.
and yet you are so impudent as to say That None can come but they that come to perfection The fourteenth Errour is 14 Error That James Nayler in his book call'd Love to the Lost p. 23 speaking of the Lords Supper saith That at all seasons whensoever they eat or drink they were to have communion with the Body and Blood of the Lord in their eating and drinking though it were at the Gentiles or Unbelievers Table alluding to that place of Scripture 1 Cor. 10.27 And another of them in a Book of theirs call'd Truths Defence against refined Subtilty pag. 100. calls a man Carnal Sot for asking whether Paul did administer the Lords Supper with Bread and Wine and thereupon demands Whether the Apostles did give to the Corinthians Bread and Wine The fifteenth Errour is That James Parnel in his Book call'd A Shield of Truth hath these words viz. That he denies all Baptism but that of the holy Ghost and Fire See page 12. Another of them in a Book call'd Truths Defence against refined Subtilty hath these words he being asked Whether Christ did command his Disciples to baptize with water or whether they did baptize with water he answers That the querent had shewed his subtilty in being ignorant of the Letter alluding to that place Matth. 28.19 But I demand Why these perfect men cannot speak perfect sense for what subtilty is it for a man to be ignorant yet he tells his querent he hath shewed his subtilty in being ignorant But to the thing it self viz. That there is no baptism but that of the Spirit and Fire when as the Scripture tells us of a baptism with water which is also required of them that do believe But to evade the force of the Scriptures that speak in the behalf of water-baptism they use to say That water-baptism did end when other Ceremonies of the Law ended but after the Resurrection of Christ it was not to be practised To which I answer That it was by Christ commanded after that he rose from the dead See Mat. 28. and Mark 16.16 But if any shall say This was to baptize with the Holy Ghost I demand First Whether that this baptism was not peculiar to Christ himself as appears by John's words Matth. 3.11 HE meaning Christ shall baptize with the holy Ghost and fire Secondly Whether that if the command of Mat. 28. and Mark 16. be for to command the Apostles to baptize with the holy Ghost and fire they did ever obey it if they did shew when and where Thirdly Whether we may not judge that the baptizing men and women in water in the Name of Christ which the Apostles frequently did was not in obedience to some Commission they had received from their Lord If so Fourthly Do you shew us where and when their Lord gave them a command so to do if this of Mat. 28. and Mark 16. was not it If you shall say They did it in order to the peoples weaknesses as Paul's circumcising Timothy was then I demand Fifthly Whether Paul did in the Name of the Lord Jesus impose Circumcision upon Timothy if not How doth this parallel with the case in hand viz. water-baptism which Peter Acts 10. doth command in the Name of the Lord But if you shall say That baptism with water was not commanded but left to liberty I demand Sixthly Whether to command a thing to be done in the Lords Name which he commands not be not to sin take his Name in vain See to this purpose Deut. 18.20 But the Prophet that shall presume to speak a word in my Name which I have not commanded him to speak c. even the same Prophet shall dye Seventhly And whereas it is alledged That water-baptism is a thing of indifferency that may be done or lawfully left undone I demand Whether it was not then as great a sin in Peter Acts 10. to command the doing of it in the Name of the Lord as it was for men to forbid to marry or to command to abstain from meats 1 Tim. 4.2 3. seeing that to command the doing of that which God hath left to liberty is a sin of equal extent with the forbidding of that he hath left to liberty Eighthly But if it shall be said as sometimes it is That they in the Primitive Times did receive water-baptism because they had a command immediately so to do and therefore we are not to be baptized till so commanded I answer First how will this be proved that all they that were then-baptized were so commanded is not the contrary to this easily made manifest from Acts 2. and Acts 8. and many other places where the people were mediately by means of the Apostles preaching put upon this duty and not by extraordinary Revelations But to the main Question and that is this Whether or no that this very Principle doth not lay all other Precepts waste and excuse the observance of them till I am immediately inspired thereto I believe if a man did owe a Quaker a sum of money he would be loth to be served as he would have men serve Christ As for instance Suppose I did owe James Nayler a sum of money and he should desire me to pay him and should urge this Scripture Owe nothing to any man as an argument to perswade me to pay him what if I should say It is true James this was a command to them that could witness it in themselves and when by an immediate power they were inspired to the observance of it then they were to do it but till then they did not sin in omitting of it and therefore when I can witness this Text within me I will pay thee thy money Do you think they would count this fair dealing yet in this manner would they have men deal with the commands of our Lord Jesus and the truth of it is this evasion of the command of baptism doth as forcibly evade all other Precepts in the whole Bible By this the Reader may see that these men would make the commands of God of none effect by their tradition The sixteenth Errour that I shall insist upon is 16 Error That though they say they are perfect yet they are inconsistent with themselves as appears First in as much as they make it their daily practice to preach That every man in the world hath a light within him according to that Text John 1. And yet one of their Scribes asketh a Minister of the Nation Whether he had that light which doth lighten every one that comes into the world * See for this a book of theirs cal'd Truths defence p. 3 Oh horrible blindness Did ever any man in his right wits ever ask such a question having over and over asserted that every man hath that light spoken of John 1 and yet to ask a man Whether he hath that light spoken of John 1. Surely this man did not understand that the party of whom he demanded the
as a Flying fiery Roll another The Shield of Truth c. By these great bushes they call the simple in to drink of their adulterated Wine which is but as the Wine of Sodom and as the Grapes of Gomorrha These are the Out-cries by which they call the simple to drink of the wine of their Spiritual Fornications For I challenge any of them all to make it appear that any one of these Titles mere given these Pamphlets by him whom they intitle to them And therefore good Reader consider these following lines and what shall be found true imbrace though it be not bumbasted with the feigned words of them who would make merchandize of your Souls and slight it not in any thing wherein it speaks Scripture or right Reason though with some neither are of weight which is all that is desired from thy Friend JER IVES The QVAKERS Quaking OR The Foundation of their Deceipt shaken both in their Quakings Doctrines Ministerie and Lives IF ever the My stery of Iniquity or Iniquity in a mystery did work in the hearts and mindes of men or if ever the devil did manage a Designe under ground surely be doth it now by the men called QUAKERS who like so many Apes do imitate many of the Faithful in some circumstances that they may the better deceive in matters that are most substantial And this through the help of God I shall make appear by shewing that their Quaking and their Doctrine Ministery and Lives is a meer deceit And first I shall speaking somewhat touching their Quaking and therein I shall first speak something touching their Name and secondly something touching their Practice viz. Quaking and the Scriptures they urge in favour to such a practice I Shall in the first place speak to that Name or Title by which they are known to the world viz. QUAKERS In this they would make men believe they are nick-named as appears in a book of James Nayler's called The discovery of the first wisdom from beneath where in the Title-page he subscribes himself One whom the world scornsully nick-names and calls Quaker Again in another book of his called The power and glory of the Lord shining out of the North in the title-page he subscribes himself One whom Ishmael's brood calls a Quaker I could bring many instances of this kind to shew how they would make men believe they are greatly wronged when they are distinguished from other men by this term Quakers Now see their deceit they say Ishmael's Brood and the world calls them so and yet they take paines to prove themselves so see page 16 and 17 of the last fore-mentioned Book he saith But search the Scriptures and holy men of God do witness quaking and trembling See likewise Parnel's Shield of Truth p. 1. and a Book of theirs called Sauls Errand to Damasew p. 32. It being asked by a Justice How it came to pass that people quake and tremble James Nayler answered that the Scriptures witness the same condition in the Saints formerly c. Now pray observe the Christians of old were never offended at that which the Scriptures did witness them to be as for instance the Scripture calls them believers because they believed disciples because they had learned Saints because they were holy and they that prayed were called a praying people Now where do the Saints of old anywhere call these Nick-names when they were call'd according to what they either believed or practised Is it any more a Nick-name to call a man a Quaker that quakes by the power of God if that be true that they say then to call a righteous man a righteous man that is made righteous by the power of God or is it any more a Nick-name to call a man a Quaker that witnesses to quaking and owns it then it is to call a man a Christian that witnesses to Christ and owns him I believe a man may deridingly be call'd a Christian as doubtless some of these are call'd Quakers and so many are deridingly call'd Saints and holy men yet these are no Nick-names if they are so the people in captivity were deridingly bid to sing one of Sion's songs yet these were not Nick-names to those songs By this you may see that they are Lyers in saying that they are Nick-named Quakers when themselves say they witness quaking and though themselves witness quaking yet they say that they are Ishmael's brood that calls them so But I pray tell me if a man be frequently found in railing whether this be a Nick-name to call him a Railer In like maner if these people as themselves confess do frequently quake what Nick-name is it to call them Quakers But now to their Scriptures alleadged for quaking shaking and trembling it is true that some good men do say thus of themselves as Heb. 12.21 Ezek. 12.18 Jer. 33.9 Acts 9.6 Psal 119.6 and many other places To all which I answer first This doth not prove that all were good that did quake and tremble for the devils were quakers and tremblers James 2.19 Again good men made use of Scriptures to exhort and instruct yet some do make use of them to deceive and tempt as the devil did Christ Matth. 4.6 In like manner may Deceivers fall into quaking fits that so they may hoâ—â—â—â—me resemblance with the servants of God that did tremble for fear of God though the fear of God be departed from them for the devil many times and his ministers that they may the better effect their deceits do transform themselves into the likeness of the ministers and servants of Christ 2. None of the Saints of old did ever foam at mouth in this their trembling but some of you do as many are able to witness and as your selves cannot deny When it was objected against you in the Westmoreland-Petition that your practces did exceedingly savor of Sorcery because of the swellings quakings and roarings and foamings that were among you at your meetings but especially of young children you deny no part of the Charge in your Answer but Blasphemy and Sorcery by which it plainly appears that swellings and foamings could not be denyed else you would as well have replyed to that as Blasphemy and Sorcery For this see their Book in answer to the West morland-Petition p. 35. where they make no reply to foaming and swelling though it is charged upon them to be in yong children as well as old folks Whereupon I demand Whether any of the Saints of old ever foamed at mouth when they trembled 2. Whether any young children did ever foam at mouth quake swell and tremble in the Saints meetings 3. Whether such kinde of trembling that is accompanied with foamings do not rather argue a man to be possess'd with the devil then with the Spirit of God according to that of Luke 9.39 Lastly Whether this be a good Argument viz. Some of the Saints did quake and that by the impulse of the Spirit of God Therefore every one that quakes
question was a man or else he was not of age to understand that universals do include all particulars of their species and yet these are the men that witness perfection Let me tell thee Reader whoever thou art that these men are the saddest spectacles of Gods Spiritual Judgements that ever any Age hath heard of And surely if ever any people were given up to believe a lye these are the men for was it ever heard of that a man should profess to be immediately sent of God and to be infallibly guided by him and to have attained to perfection as these would have it and yet not know common sense What think ye if after Paul had told the Athenians Acts 17. that God did give to all life and breath if afterwards he should ask the Areopagite Whether God had given him life and breath Do you think he would ever have cleaved to Paul as the 34 Verse of the aforesaid Chapter doth declare he did and yet such are the injudicious mindes that many in our dayes are given up to that though an Angel from heaven should detect their vanity yet some would resolve to be vain A second instance of their inconsistency is That though they say the letter of the Scripture is carnal as appears by a Book of theirs call'd Sauls Errand to Damascus yet for the justifying of their conceited New-light they make use of the first of John and many other Texts in the letter though therein they stretch it beyond its line But further at another time they say That it is a sign of a dark minde to think the Scriptures should have another meaning * See a Book of theirs cal'd Truths Defence p. 1. And yet in the Book call'd Sauls Errand to Damascus they say The letter is carnal and yet for all this a little before in the same book they say He that raiseth Spirit out of it is a Conjurer as I have already mentioned upon another occasion What miserable confusion is here doth this look like perfection One while the letter is carnal and another while its conjury to raise Spirit out of it and another while its a sign of a dark minde to think the Scriptures should have another meaning and another while they will give other meanings to them then what is exprest in the letter A third instance of their inconsistency and by which all that I have said is justified is That though they say they own the Scriptures and will talk a few words sometimes in their behalf yet one of them said in a book call'd Truths Defence pag. 2. in answer to Parson Camelford of Stavely-Chappel That he might as well have condemned the Scriptures to the fire to be burned as his Quares that be sent unto him or that he might as well have said the sayings of Christ and his Apostles were absurd as to say those Quares were absurd they meaning his Quaeres being given forth by the same Spirit the Scriptures were A fourth instance of their inconsistency is That one William Tomlinson in a book of his call'd A word of Reproof p. 11. doth blame the Ministers for praying before or after Sermon and saith What did Christ or his Apostles fall short of what they ought to do and leave it to you to mend it And yet in other cases we must not follow Christ's and the Apostles example and yet he would bring them to disprove the lawfulness of praying before or after Sermon because they did not so But further he inveighs against the Ministers for so doing yet one of their own Merlins prayed after Sermon at the Bull and Mouth at Aldersgate before hundreds of people I pray judge if any thing of this look like perfection nay are not these things Strong symptomes of the greatest degrees of defection that can befal the sons of men Now I come to the next Errour 17 Error and that is They study and devise deceitful terms that look with two faces like the Oracles of the heathen Gods that they may the better effect their deceits as for instance one of them namely Farnworth being charged by Hen Haggar and Tho Pollard for saying Paul was not converted when be spake those words in the 7 to the Romans where be cries out of a Body of Death To this they answer in a printed book call'd Scriptures freed from Scandals pag. 12 13. That there is not such an Affirmative in the whole Book Now mark the charge is a Negative Proposition viz. That Paul was not converted when he spake those words in the 7 of the Romans concerning a Body of death they answer That there is not such an Affirmative in the whole Book Reader had these words fallen from the mouth of a man that were conscious of his imperfection Charity would have taught me to have over-look'd them but now I cannot for such a speech as this either argues the speaker to be imperfect and so discovers his deceit in saying he is perfect else if he be perfect as believe it who 's will how could such a thing fall from his pen and on the other hand if he understood what he writ then it follows that he writ that to rescue himself from the force of the charge that so simple people that know not a Negative from an Affirmative might think he was not guilty of such a charge by his saying There is not such an Affirmative in the whole Book But Oh the impudence of these men that dare to say That one might as well burn the Scriptures as their Papers when if the Scriptures had let fall Negatives in stead of Affirmatives and Affirmatives in stead of Negatives how could they have been for our learning upon whom the ends of the world are come I dare challenge all men in the world either Quaker Atheist or Anti-Scripturalist to shew me such a piece of Non-sense from any of the Pen-men of old who were inspired by the holy Spirit Who will believe that these mens tongues and pens are infallible Oracles that know not I from No and that put Nay in stead of Yea for is it not the same he is charged for saying Paul was not converted and he saith There is no such Affirmative in his whole Book but then it seems there is such a negative and if so then how dare they call those honest servants of Christ lyers viz. H Haggar and Tho Pollard By this you may see that these are the greatest Seducers that these latter Times have produced and the Lord grant that these things that I do bring to thy minde concerning them may be as warnings to you that stand to take heed left you fall and you that know God delight to glorifie him left he give you over to a reprobate minde to do the things that are not covenient Take heed there fore and be warned of turning the truth of God into a lye as these men have done left God in his Justice give you up to believe
a lye The next thing I have to present the Reader with 18 Error is their Lying and that first in saying They are perfect when all the fore-cited imperfections are found in them besides many more as shall be named The second Lye is that they say They are immediately sent of God which nothing is more false The third Lye is That one Fox writ a book and in the Title-page said The world did not know his Name and yet in two several places of the said Book he subscribes himself Known by the Name of GEORGE FOX The fourth Lye is That one Edward Boroughs said His Book was sealed by the Spirit of the Eternal God and being demanded to prove it he asked If any thing he writ in it was false it was replyed to him again If he proved that God sealed his Book we would believe all that was in it which I am sure he can never do while the world stands A fifth Lye is That James Nayler in a written Paper which he sent to me calls me shameless man for tempting him to deny the Lord when I said no such thing but that I did say to which he alludes in his Paper was That either he should prove he was immediately sent of God as he profest or else that he should renounce it and thereupon he calls me shameless man in tempting him to deny the Lord. A sixth Lye is That James Nayler in the said Paper saith If he had come in his own Name I would have received him as he saith I did plainly confess I do believe this man hath bent his tongue like a Bowe for lyes for I dare appeal to all the company which I believe were at least two hundred if I said any such thing A seventh Lye is that being charged with writing such falsities in his Paper by a friend that read it and knew what was in it he at a Meeting at the Bull and Mouth at Aldersgate in London did utterly deny it and while the said friend ran from them to my house which is not farre to fetch the said Paper to prove that he had writ those untruths that he had charged Nayler with in the mean time he slips away and was gone If these are tokens of perfection sure one may as well say the Devil is perfect but sure if these men are perfect in any thing it is in the art of deceiving lying and equivocation These are but few of those legions of Lyes and Inconsistencies that their Writings and Preachings are stust withall as the judicious may perceive that will but strictly weigh what they either write on speak in the balance of the Sanctuary Having now been in the place of a Respondent to shew the Fallacies and Non-sequiturs and absurd Contradictions of the Arguments that these men bring for their Quakings and Infallible Preachings together with other their vain Conceits of the Scriptures and of the Ordinances of our Lord Jesus Christ I shall now assert something briefly by way of opposition to these mens conceits and endeavor the proof thereof from Scripture and Reason as God shall enable me And first of all I shall affirm That the written Precepts and Promises of God together with his Threatnings of Judgements and Exhortations to amendment of life they are and ought to be esteemed the Words of God That his written Commands may and ought to be so called I prove from Mark 7.10 for Moses said Honour thy Father and Mother c. which was the writing of Moses Exod. 20.12 And Christ saith their making this written Law of none effect in doing nothing for their Father or Mother was To MAKE THE WORD OF GOD of none effect by their Tradition John 10.35 and Jer. 36.2 5. And Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah all the WORDS OF THE LORD and ver 8. He was reading in a BOOK the WORDS OF THE LORD Again the Apostle calls the Law of Moses which contained Precepts Promises Threatnings and Exhortations The Oracles or WORDS OF GOD Rom. 3.2 But it is objected The written Word did not make the World To which I answer That if they mean the Ink and Paper we make one minde with them But yet further I reply That the same God whose Word made the World and whose Word preserves the Fabrick of the World did speak those words that are written for the admonition of the World and therefore they may truly be call'd Gods Words according to the fore-cited Scriptures and many other that may be named Again it is objected That the Word of God abides for ever but the Writings may be burned To which I answer That this doth not prove that which they would have viz. That the Commands contained in the Scriptures may be burned or any of Gods Promises to him that sears him or his Judgements upon them that do not fear him No these remain like Mount Sion that shall not be removed As for example the Words of God were writ upon Tables of Stone yet the breaking of the Tables did not put a dissolution to those words that were contained in them but they were as truly to be observed as if the Tables had been whole Reader I should not urge these as arguments to those that disown the Scriptures in words at length but sure I am that they will serve to confute these men that in words own them yet in works deny them Again I prove the Scriptures as aforesaid to be the VVord of God out of their own mouthes though it may be they may deny the consequent for they though they deny them to be the VVord of God yet they say they are a declaration of his Minde and VVill. VVhence I thus argue That which declares Gods VVill is Gods VVord But the Scriptures declare Gods VVill Ergo it is Gods VVord The major I prove out of their own mouthes for they all say that Nothing can inlighten but the Word and that Nothing can bring us to know Gods Minde but the Word though it may be they mean somewhat else by Word then I do yet that matters not for if nothing can manifest Gods Minde but Gods VVord and the Scriptures by their own confession do so then it follows That by their own Principles if they have any that the Scriptures may be so called though in words at length they do deny it By which you may see how miserably these men contradict themselves in saying The Scriptures are not Gods Word and yet say They are a declaration of his Will when at another time they say Nothing can declare Gods Will but his Word which they say the Scripture is not Secondly I do assert That the Light which every man hath doth not direct him into the worship and service of God and though Christ be the true Light that inlightens every man that comes into the world or that doth that which in its nature and property hath such a tendency for so the Scriptures speak sometimes Ezek. 24.14
Because I have purged thee and thou wast not purged that is as if God had said I have done that which was sufficient for thy purgation And the like in Joh. 1.29 Christ is called The Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world though he that believes not shall dye in his sins the meaning then must not be that every man hath his sins pardoned In like manner then when the same pen saith that as he taketh away the sins of the world ver 29. so he doth inlighten every one that comes into the world ver 9. which is as much as if he had said Jesus Christ by his blessed mediation hath done that which is able to effect pardon of sins for the world and which also is able to inlighten and inform the world into the knowledge of it How then doth this Text prove That every man hath this Light within him any more then the other Texts proves every mans sins were took away the latter of which themselves will not allow But further if every man hath received this Light Joh. 1. then every man hath received Christ for he is that Light ver 9. But every man hath not received Christ Ergo. The minor I prove from the 11 ver of the same Chapter He came to his own and his own received him not and the Builders were said to refuse him Matth. 21.42 and many other places But if they shall think to be relieved at this turn with this distinction viz. That it is one thing to have the Light and another thing to receive it Then I demand If this Light was not received how can it be in all men unless they are born with it Secondly whether men HAVE ANY THING but what they have RECEIVED according to I Cor. 4.7 especially any Light or Knowledge of Jesus Christ Lastly whether the Scriptures do make a distinction between a mans having the Spirit of Christ or the Light of Christ within him and his receiving Christ and receiving of the Spirit within him or in his heart as the Apostle phrases it Rom. 8. But to proceed Doth not the Scripture say John 11.10 That He that walks in the dark stumbles because there is NO LIGHT in him And Isa 8.20 If they speak not according to this rule it is because there is NO LIGHT in them and yet these say Every man in the world hath the Light within him spoken of John 1. which Light is Christ Thirdly In opposition to another of their Errours I shall prove That the day of Judgement is not past which I prove thus If the Heavens and the Earth are reserved to the Fire of that Judgement-day then is it not past already But the Heavens and the Earth are reserved to the fire of that day therefore that day is not past already The major is unquestionable For if they are yet kept from the fire of that day and are reserved to the fire of it then it followeth That none bath seen that day because the Heavens have not felt the heat of it The minor is proved out of 2 Pet. 3.7 Again if the day of the perdition of the ungodly be not past then the day of Judgement is not But the day of the perdition of the ungodly is not therefore the day of Judgement is not Again if in that day all must give account of the deeds done in the body and there are thousands and ten thousands that have not given an account then it follows that the day of Judgement is not past But there are thousands and ten thousands that have not given an account of the deeds done in the body therefore the day of Judgement is not past already Again if the day of Judgement be past already then the Resurrection is past already But the Resurrection is not past already Ergo. The major I prove from John 5.29 The minor I prove thus In the Resurrection they neither marry nor give in marriage But now men do both therefore they are not in the Resurrection Fourthly They say There is no Baptism but that of the Spirit In opposition to which I do affirm a Baptism with water which I prove from Mark 16.16 and Matth. 28.19 * Act 2.38 41. 8.3 6. 10.4 7. And that the baptism here commanded was water-baptism it appears by what I have already said by way of Reply to this notion Also the Scripture tells us Heb. 6. of the Doctrine of BAPTISMS And whereas it is objected That the Scripture tells us of one Lord and one Baptism I answer First this is not exclusive for there are Lords many yet he saith There is but one Lord Jesus So in like manner we reade of divers baptisms as of water and afflictions and the holy Ghost yet there is but one properly so call'd to wit That of water and the other are metaphorical baptisms Fifthly That the Lord Christ did administer bread and wine in token of his blood-shedding and bodybreaking which they deny This I prove from Mai. 26.27 28. where Christ did use both bread and wine upon that occasion and that the Apostles did so appears from 1 Cor. 11.23 where he saith That that which he received of the Lord he did deliver unto them how that Christ when he was betrayed took bread and ver 25. In like manner saith the Apostle he took the Cup when he had supped c. All which shew That bread and wine was instituted by Christ and practised by the Primitive Christians in remembrance of the dyings of the Lord Jesus Sixthly That civil honour and respect is due to some persons more then other which they deny First from the childe to the father as Exod. 20.12 Eph. 6.2 Secondly from the wise to the husband Eph. 5.33 and 1 Pet. 3.6 Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him LORD Thirdly this is due from servants to their Masters 1 Tim. 6.1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their Masters worthy of All honour c. Fourthly it is due from young solks to the aged Levit. 19.32 Thou shalt rise up before the boary head and honour the face of the old man and fear thy God or as Beza hath it Thou shalt honour the PERSON of the old man Fifthly this respect is due to persons in Authority as not onely the Apostle exhorts I Pat. 2.17 but as Paul himself practiseth as I have said when he calls Festw Most Noble and our Lord Christ notes the unjust Judge for one that did not reverence man Luke 18.2 and yet the Quakers make it a note of their infallible Ministery that they do not reverence men when Christ makes it a character of a wicked man This was urged by James Nayler at the Bull and Mouth near Aldersgate viz. That their not respecting persons was a sign they were immediately sent of God as I have already minded Again was not Jacob a faithful man and doth not the Scripture say that he called Esau LORD Gen. 32.18 Gen. 33.13
lay out hundreds of pounds to print so many Books when the world if your Doctrine be true might have known as much without them 9. Whether this is not as great superfluity and prodigality as wearing any thing that is not needful viz. your paying great Rents for places to meet and preach in when you say you know so much by the Light within you as you need no Teacher as appears by a Book of James Nayler's call'd A Discovery of the first Wisdome pag. 8. where he makes it the character of the first man or carnal man to know God by relation from others either by word or writing And to this purpose they apply 1 John 2.27 and Heb. 8.11 and in thee same page he makes it a note of a Spiritual man that he knows God from his dwelling-place and not by relation from others c. 10. Whether there is not the like vanity in your spending your precious Times and Moneys to go about the countreys if the Light which is within the countreys could have shewed them the same things without you 11. Whether you would not count it as vain a thing as wearing any thing that is needless is counted by you if any of you should be at great cost to carry a Bushel of coals to Newcastle where there is coals enow already 12. Whether the Moneys that is thus needlesly laid out would not be better bestowed where is more need viz. upon the hungry and the naked The fifth Error I shall name is 5 Error That there was one Jo Lawson accused for saying The day of Judgement was past which he in stead of disowning of the charge goes about to prove it from Matth. 12.20 and saith not one word touching the untruth of it See a Book of theirs called Sauls Errand to Damascus pag. 35. where you have that very Errour objected against them with their answer to it I should not have charged this Errour upon them all it being but the writing and the saying of one man did not all of them received and own it as appears by the printing of it in a book wherein many of them are concerned Now is not this a consequent of that devilish Doctrine taught by Hymeneus and Philetus which said that the Resurrection was already past and destroy the Faith of some 2 Tim. 2.17 18. For if the Judgement-day be past already Resurrection that goes before Judgement must be also past The sixth Errour I shall name is That George Fox 6 Error whom all of them own professeth himself to be the Eternal Judge of the World and being charged with it by the Petitioners of the County of Lancaster makes no denial of any part of the Charge but saith The Saints shall judge the World See pag. 6. of a book of theirs call'd Sauls Errand to Damascus The seventh Errour I shall mention is That George Fox 7 Error whom they all own said He was the Way the Truth and the Life and being charged with this by the Petitioners aforesaid he denies not a syllable of it though it is observable that many things that the said persons do object they in their Replies do deny that ever they said so yet to this he makes no denyal but saith The Old-Man cannot indure to hear the New-Man speak which is Christ. This you may finde to be his answer in pag. 7. of Sauls Errand to Damascus The eighth Errour I shall charge them with 8 Error is That the said Fox said That he which took a place of Scripture and made a Sermon of it or from it was a Conjurer and his preaching was Conjuration This he is charged with by the men aforesaid and in his printed answer denies not one syllable but saith He that raiseth the Spirit out of the Letter is a Conjurer * See p. 7. of the last mentioned Book First doth not the Scripture say Acts 8. that from that place of Scripture which the Eunuch was reading i. e viz. Philip preached unto him Jesus and did not the Eunuch reade the Letter and did not Philip preach the Christ was not that the Spirit as your selves notion it and yet you say They that raise the Spirit out of the Letter are Conjurers Oh horrible Profaneness The ninth Errour is 9 Error that being charged with saying The Scriptures are carnall In the book and page last mentioned he answers The Letter of the Scripture is carnall How now George what is the Letter of the Scripture carnal and do not you tell the people that you walk according to them But why should you walk after a carnal Rule since you profess to be such a Spiritual man But by this the world may see if their Candle be not put out that this cunning Fox can run with the Hare and hold with the Hound In the ninth page of the last mentioned Book 10 Error one Leonard Hill is charged with saying Christ had no body but his Church which he denies not but saith There is one Body and one Spirit even as ye are called The eleventh Errour is 11 Error That John Lawson said pag. 35. of Sauls Errand to Damascus that he had been in Hell but now was in Heaven Of this he is charged and denies it not but cites that place out of the second of Jonah where Jonah saith Out of the belly of Hell he cryed to the Lord Doth this prove Lauson was ever in this Hell or in any other but he may come there before he thinks of it if he repent not and his Heaven he is in will not shelter him The twelfth Errour is 12 Error That they say they are perfect and sin not See a Book of theirs in answer to Hen Haggar and Tho Pollard pag. 9. where they charge the men aforesaid for lying because they said The Quakers boast of perfection and yet in the same page they say They own perfection but do not boast of it Oh strange What that men should be telling and preaching of their perfection and in print proclaim they own it and yet call men Lyers for saying that they loast of it I pray resolve me this Question If any man should by word or writing or both publish his estate to the world that he is thus and thus rich would not your selves call him a proud boaster especially if he shall boast of that he never had and that you do so I shall make it manifest in due place The thirteenth Errour is that James Nayler said 13 Error that None can come to God nor Christ but they that come to perfection See Naylers Book call'd Love to the Lost pag. 23. If this be true Paul was not come to God nor Christ for he saith Phil. 3.12 Not as though I had already attained or were already PERFECT And in the seventh of the Romans the same Apostle saith once and again That sin did dwell in him and doth not Christ call sinners to come unto him