no good Answer from thee because thou thy self dost and hast asked many Questions which are not in Scripture-Phrase and besides that can be but a silly pretence no better than a Shuffle from thee because thou dost not own the Scripture or Scripture-Phrase to be the Rule of thy Faith Therefore Quibble no more about it but Answer it 11. Then p. 21 22 23. G.W. instead of Answering my Epistle as he pretends in his Title putâ— many new Questions to the Baptists and prays them to agree upon a consistent Creed amongst themselves and so slily gives me the go-by to which I need only say this That I am of the Opinion it may be â—â— easy for the Baptists to form a Creed wherein they are all agreed as it is for the Quakers to Form a Creed wherein they their writings do all agree Let the Quakers do this themselves which they require of others Further I dare adventure to say that let a Baptist or some other Person give but three Texts of Scripture to be interpreted or put but three Questions to six Quakers all apart and let them answer apart and that there shall not three of the six Quakers alike give the same Answer or Interpretation thereto either in form or substance notwithstanding their pretended inspiration and unity 12. Pag. 23. G.W. says That though the meer Body of Jesus was not the ENTIRE Christ yet the Name Christ is sometimes given to the Body though not so properly as to the whole Man Christ Reply But thou-wilt not own that the meer Body was part of Christ so far art thou from owning it to be the entire Christ and though they acknowledg the Scripture calls the Body Christ yet they are so obstinate in their own conceits that they will not believe it is what the Scripture calls it but thus will be wise above what 's written Oh deceit you think the Body so far from being the entire Christ that you will not allow it to be any part of him but such as a Garment is that is none at all 13. Pag. 23 24. G.W. says That the Distinction of Father and Son is not only Nominal but Real c. How then doth G.F. say Myst p. 142. Christ is not distinct from the Father and that they are all one p. 99 will G.W. and the Quakers Condemn those sayings and disclaim them till then they are Quibblers and Equivocators G.W. p. 24. and also known as Co-workers in the order and degrees of Manifestation and discovery And yet G.W. himself when he writ against a Baptist for saying now as he was God he was Co-Creator with the Father Then he condemned it as nonsence saying What nonsence and UNSCRIPTURAL LANGUAGE is this to tell of God being Co-CREATOR with the Father or that God had Glory with God DOES NOT THIS IMPLY TWO GODS AND THAT GOD HAD A FATHER says G.W. The Light and Life c. p. 47. Oh excellent George what difference between Co-Workers and Co-Creators Do ye not most frequently and importunely charge your Socinians with the horrible Crime of denying that Jesus Christ made or created the World And yet is there any Socinian nay Jew or Turk that will deny that one God whom we call the Father of Jesus Christ made the World And thou sayest it's nonsence to tell of God or Christ as God being Co-Creator with the Father oh disingenuous Man that endeavours to get repute to your selves by Reviling others with that very thing whereof your selves are guilty And the ground of your Reproach is that you can equivocate and they cannot 14. G.W. p. 24. says That the Distinction of Father and Son is not only nominal but real Now then let him if he can answer and confute his sincere-hearted and Zealous Brother W.P. in his Sandy-Foundation p. 13. Mr. Pen's Argument is this Since the Father is God the Son is God and the Spirit is God which their Opinion necessitates them to confess THEN UNLESS the Father Son and Spirit ARE THREE DISTINCT NOTHINGS they must be THREE DISTINCT SUBSTANCES and Consequently THREE DISTINCT GODS Now G. if this Distinction of thine does not make them DISTINCT SUBSTANCES thy Brother Penn tells thee they are DISTINCT NOTHINGS Reconcile this if thou canst and agree amongst your selves upon a Creed before you go about to Correct others 15. G.W. p. 24. further says We own that the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father as also that the SON IS THE MIGHTY GOD THE EVERLASTING FATHER the Prince of Peace But they do not own any such separation between God and Christ as these words the Christ of himself and the God of himself do imply Socinian-like For this let his Brother W.P. Socinian-like Answer him and see what he makes of such Doctrine as G.W. here teaches and let G. W. refute his Brother Penn's Argument Sandy Foundation p. 14. he proves the Ridiculousness and irrationality of such an Opinion by this Argument viz. If that the ONLY God is the FATHER and CHRIST be that ONLY God then is CHRIST the FATHER So if that ONE GOD be the SON and the Spirit that one God then is the Spirit the SON and so round nor is it possible to stop says he And this he brings many Arguments to prove to be both an irrational and a Ridiculous Opinion and yet now is this the very Opinion of G.W. and other Quakers viz. That Christ or the Son is the Father as you see G. W's words above do confess Now let us know which of these two Brethren the Quakers will own to be wrong For according to these words it is impossible they can be both right and let us know in Plainness if there be any such thing now left among the Quakers whether W.P. will own his own Argument or whether thou G.W. wilt disclaim him or it or thy own wordâ— For they are as contrary as Yea and Nay 16. G.W. p. 24. Confesses that the Title of Person without us is un-scriptural and too low to give to the CHRIST or the Son and yet his Brother W.P. in his Sandy Foundation p. 15. could give the Title of Person to Christ or the Son these are his words Who speaking of the SON so many hundred years since in PERSON testified the Vertue of it Now then G. thou must say Christ is a Person within us or else disclaim and disown W.P. for giving such an unscriptual and too low a Title to Christ the Son if not dost thou not dissemble and did not W.P. speak of a Person without us as his words who so many hundred years since testified do evince plainly enough 17. The Quakers being charged that according to their Principle They cannot and do not Believe that CHRIST INDEED DYED G. W. does not deny it but asks the Baptists If any more of Christ properly dyed than the Body Do you hold that his Soul Spirit or Divinity dyed If not the Charge is foolish and silly Reply No
ridiculous words as these I could tell the Quakers that some of them have a Record somewhere else be-besides the Court of Heaven viz. in the Court of Chancery for Swearing or Oaths I told W.P. That if his Church be the True and the Baptists Church false rightly to convince others thereof upon good and infallible grounds he must pretend to and produce some such discriminating Evidence or Sign for Proof thereof which the Baptists nor no false Church could in like manner produce as he doth I pray'd W.P. to shew wherein the POWER of GOD or the SPIRIT DEMONSTRATED it self MORE in the Quakers than the Baptists or a false Church And that he must do say something for his Church if he would say any thing to purpose which they could not do and say for theirs as an Evidence or Demonstration thereof and that this was NO MORE than what the true Primitive Church had and could and did on all necessary occasions visibly produce and Demonstrate Now what does the Quibbler Answer to all this he says nothing but what the Baptists can or do say that they have a Record in Heaven and in many Consciences also and that they doubt not but where the Spirit of God Lives and Rules it will manifest it self for it is self-Evidencing Then by that Rule the Quakers should not have the Spirit of God at best no more than others have because it does not manifest it self in them more than in others 11. P. 33. says G.W. This seems to be a hard task and I believe so indeed and too hard for all the Quakers though I was so reasonable as to demand but one such Testimony or Gift in all their Churches and they never read of any christian-Christian-Church in Holy Scripture that had not some and many such Gifts Yet G. undertakes to say that it is no difficult matter for W.P. and many more to produce or demonstrate some such effects of that living Testimony presence and power of God among us as no false Church CAN PRODUCE although herein neither W.P. nor any of us will ADMIT OF PREJUDICED and ENVIOUS SPIRITS to be our JUDGES or WITNESSES in thâ—se matters Reply Bravely said George if it were as well done but for all thy boasting that not only W.P. but many more among you could yet the poor Man does not dare produce or so much as name one of them is not this excellent What must all Men believe it because thou saiest it Is IPSE DIXIT come to Town and the Quakers bare word all the Evidence they have or can produce Now it would have been a great piece of this Quakers-plainness if he had produced one or two of those effects only which he boasts he 〈◊〉 and no Church which he Condemns for false can produce I charge him to do it if he will not prove himself a MEER PRETENDER and VAIN-BOASTER speaking high swelling words like them in Jude But this Man is very timerous I I perceive he would do it with Caution enough though so silly that he makes himself Ridiculous by it 1. Where did the Apostles or the Churches ever make such a Proviso in their producing the Testimony and Power of God Did they not do it before all and in the presence of Envious and malicious Spirits as well as others and left them to judg as it had operation upon them And 2. May not the Baptists say so and make this Proviso as well as you that they will not admit of prejudiced and envious Spirits to be their Judges or Witnesses in these matters and then no doubt they will be able to produce as many such effects as the Quakers Oh silly and absurd But 3. well G. produce those effects and that Power thou talkest of in W.P. however and I am contented with thee for this time that you shall not admit of Envious or Prejudiced Spirits to Judg of it but produce it that others may behold it though not Judg of it or wilt thou say that there 's not one person in all England except Quakers but what are Envious and Prejudiced Spirits Poor Evasion 12. As for them which thou sayst in whose Consciences there is a Record many of which were gathered out from Baptists and other Churches They say such are but Apostates from their Church and some such you have had in your Church which you call Apostates when they leave you and go to other Churches so that all this is nothing for proof of the thing nay several of your grand Prophets so once esteemed among some of you for true Prophets of the Lord did and have left you Witness CHARLES BAYLY JOHN PARROT c. and the Baptists have gathered amongst them several out of other Churches as well as you and what then The Baptists may tell you that if the Quakers see no such thing amongst them as the Blessed Operation and effect of the Power and Ministry of Christ Jesus That is because the Quakers have not honestly made Tryal bâ—t stood in Prejudice and gainsaying as many did against Christ the Apostles and Primitive Church of old and what can the Quakers say to it ONLY DENY IT and so may the Baptists Besides the Baptist Churches have this to say for themselves which you have not being you have denied and disowned it viz. They own the Holy Scriptures for the Rule of their Faith and Practice and pretend to no such extraordinary immediate Inspirations and Revelations as you do 13. But above all you ought not you cannot in good Conscience complain against others for Questioning whether you are Christians you having first not only Questioned others but pronounced them all both Ministers and People and Professors also unchristian See G.F. Professors Catechism his very first words are come you UNCHRISTIANS let us talk with you c. Therefore look at home and rebuke your selves first for this 14. And whereas G.W. p. 34. says That a foolish and Adulterous Generation seek a Sign 'T is true our Saviour did so upbraid the Jews and might very well they having had Sign upon Sign Miracle upon Miracle wrought by our SAVIOUR amongst them and such mighty Deeds almost innumerable wrought before them and yet to cry out for more when they saw so many from him was foolish but what is this to the Quakers who have not wrought one true Miracle nor produced so much as ONE such Sign notwithstanding all their Pretences among us that ever I heard of must we therefore be a foolish Generation that ask a Sign of them to prove such their pretences No surely it follows not I am certain from that Text and yet notwithstanding that the Jews were such an Adulterous Generation and had had so many Miracles wrought among them yet Jesus Christ said they should have one Sign more and that was doubtless the greatest Miracle and Sign of all By this Text then if the Quakers will stick close to it they may lawfully give this Adulterous Generation one Sign
are lyable to be WRESTED and Actually twisted twenty ways c. Now comes G.VV. with the Art and Mystery of Jesuitism and would DIRECT Fisher's INTENTION By asking me thus Hast thou dealt Honestly and Truly in this Was it S. F's positive Assertion concerning the Scriptures THEMSELVES c. Judge serious Reader says he whether it be S. Fishers own positive Assertion that the Scriptures are a Nose of Wax IN THEMSELVES or whether that they are not RATHER made so or no better by such as wrest and twist them And then hath the wicked Confidence to call me Manifest Perverter yea and to take the LORDS Name in vain upon it too saying Surely the Lord will Rebuke him and all perverse Opposers and Perverters What a sad thing is it to have to do with Men thus hardned false and impudent which I will shew to you as Clear as I think it is possible for any words to be Clear in three Particulars 1. This Man turns Perverter and Forger himself and then he Charges me with it for First to the word Scriptures he adds these words THEMSELVES and in THEMSELVES But if he or any Man can find those words Scriptures themselves and in themselves as my words in that whole Book I will never trust my own Eyes more He first foystes in words of his own to serve his Design which yet they will not and then falls abusing me as if I had abused Mr. Fisher Oh horrible add words of thy own Geo and then Charge me with the Guilt of Perversion and abuse if it were any such thing as it would not be neither 2. For though I did not say so much then yet now I find I safely may and will say it positively That Sam. Fisher did speak or write it with Reflection upon the Scriptures THEMSELVES as well as upon the Ministers who had the Scriptures going Round c. Yea rather MORE if not only at that place in Respect of the Scriptures themselves and do thou G.W. bring him honestly off if thou canst The Question then is Whether Sam. Fisher's words which are his Assertion mentioned are of or about the Scriptures THEMSELVES And 't is most certain that no Man that is honest and hath his Senses and Reason and can Read English that can doubt of that when he says WHICH Transcriptions and Translations it can be nothing else but the Scriptures themselves Because neither we the Ministers nor the Quakers have any other thing for the Scriptures themselves But ONELY these Transcriptions or Translations If the Quakers have any other than Ours Commonly called the Bible which are all and every one of them either Transcriptions or Translations let them tell us what and which it is if they can And when S.F. says were THEY never so CERTAIN and entire by ANSWERING to the FIRST ORIGINAL Copies Now is it not most Manifest that it is the Scriptures themselves he here speaks of Nay is it possible to be any thing else that can so certainly and entirely Answer the first Original Copies Oh wicked Man blush at thy Impudence that wouldst go about to make us believe that S.F. did not here speak of the Scriptures themselves Tell us what it was then To be sure thou wilt not say that it was the Ministers Rounds Confusions nor yet their Interpretations that either do or might so Answer to the first Original Copies for as to their Rounds and Interpretations S.F. Rebukes and Scoffs at them But were the Transcriptions or Translations which are and are onely the true Scriptures themselves which we and the Quakers now have that ever was heard of never so certain and entire says S.F. by Answering to the first Original Copies yet are not Capable to be to all Men any other than a Lesbian Rule or NOSE OF WAX Forasmuch as even where Men have them c. Here he comes to bring his Proof as he thinks of this his Doctrine 3. Besides the Absurdity that unavoidably follows such a Construction as G.W. would put upon S. F's words not onely evinces it to be false and not possible to be consistent with the rest of his words But also shews G. W's Construction to be so silly that if it were right and true yet would it not do the Quaker's a Pin's worth of Service For have not the Quakers the Scriptures as well as the Ministers And S.F. says That even where men have them even there without excepting the Quakers themselves they are lyable to be wrested and Actually twisted twenty ways by Interpreters Have not the Quakers then got much by this think you For their Brother Samuel hits them and all that have the Scriptures without excepting One so that now the Quakers must of Necessity either deny themselves to be Men or say they have not the Scriptures Or otherwise if the Quakers are Men and have the Scriptures they are lyable to be wrested and Actually twisted twenty ways by Interpreters WHOSE Expositions Sences and meanings which are as many and various as the Thoughts Conceits and Inventions of THE MEN are who Comment upon them must be the Rule to such without excepting any one Quaker as can Read them neither in Hebrew and Greek nor in their own Mother Tongues If Sam. Fisher is to be Credited either by us or them and so still they must indeed own what he Asserts That the Scripture can be no Rule to THEM but a LESBIAN RULE nor is CAPABLE to be any other than a NOSE OF WAX. And if it can be no other to them that have the Scriptures then certainly it cannot be so much or nothing at all to them that have it not and never had it and S. Fisher himself tells us that half the World has them not Moreover S.F. shews us in above Twenty several places the impossibility or unfitness of the Scriptures to be a RULE by Reason of the variabâ—eness of them the alteration and Change that hath been in them even the Scriptures themselves But that it is too long you should have it here Transcribed do but look in the Second Paragraph of this Section and in the Tenth Section fore-going Now then let the Serious Reader Judge whether I have not most Reason to Cry out What a Manifest Perverter is this Man The Lord Rebuke him and all perverse Opposers and Perverters What cannot a Man of Skill as G.W. is in this Jesuitical Art of Directing the Intention do Oh Quakers REPENT REPENT of such wicked doings loâ—â— upon it as you will God and good Men will abhor such base false indirect and impudent ways I shall onely desire my Reader at his leisure to peruse a Book Printed some Years since Entituled THE MYSTERY OF JESVITISM Compare it with this Mystery of the Quakers and consider how near they come Good Wits you know use to jump the Jesuites and the Quakers we know the Jesuites are Wits and you may be confident the Quakers will say themselves are no Fools This I leave with them and
nothing but the Divine Nature to be Christ and then How could any such Distinction take place if it had been there so as to make your Friend mean directly contrary to his own words That Christ was seen with Carnal Eyes Is not this then one of your Quibbles For although thereby you make your Friend's words to be double with two faces to say one thing and mean another Yet your own Principles concerning the Christ obstructs you absolutely from clearing them or proving Hicks a Forger in that Particular Neither can that Distinction serve you except you will alter your Principle and hold that there are two Natures which are both united in One Person The Christ which yet I do not understand you are free to do Might not Tho. Hicks then rather have said in thy own language Thou art a Forger and hast forged this Distinction and such a silly one as is impossible to hold good if thy Principle touching The Christ hold true Canst thou be ignorant that this was only an Evasion or no better than a Quibble Consider with thy self and Thou mayest see how easily it is seen through 5. In that when upon the Real Occasion of this thy Distinction the Question was askt thee Whether Christ's Humane Nature was a part of Christ Or Whether the Body that was seen with Carnal or Corporeal Eyes and heard with Carnal or Corporeal Ears was the Christ Thou so long refusedst to answer when if only innocency had been in thee plain-heartedness and Christian simplicity thou mightest have done it in one word or two but instead thereof I believe thou madest above a thousand and them to no purpose but to evade an Answer contrary to your former Rule Let your Yea be yea and your Nay nay for whatsoever is more cometh of evil One while thou wouldst tell us that which was not askt nor desired of thee That the Body in Scripture was somtimes called Christ and yet all the endeavours could not bring thee to say that I could hear that That Body was Christ Here 's another of thy Quibbles Is it not a pritty one that thou shouldst tell us that sometimes the Scripture calls the Body or the Humane Nature Christ and yet dost not believe that it is indeed what the Scripture calls it The Word Christ is somtimes applied in Scripture to Christ's Body of Flesh and Blood that was born of the Virgin Mary and yet thou wilt not or darest not own that Body to be Christ or Christ that Body Oh horrible Perversion Oh fine Quibbler Oh strange Christian But for all thou wouldst hide thy self by such subtile Expressions thou art easily discerned by any that will be any thing considerate and not captivate their understandings Another time thou wouldst tell us That thou believest Christ to be God over all Blessed for ever of the Seed of Abraham c. But was this direct to the Question Then thou wouldst ask them Questions before thou hadst answered theirs which was first proposed which me thinks was not fair Then thou wouldst rise up and promise to give a direct Answer to the Question and yet gave none that I could hear or understand to be plain and so thou didst two or three times thy Passion or the Interest of thy Party so far transporting thee that thou didst not mind thy Word Then the Auditors themselves requested thee over and over again to Answer Dost thou think this was like a Christian to run out about a whole hour thus not only wearying your Auditors but frustrating their Expectations and manifesting either your own weakness folly or obstinacy and unreasonableness till many of them were constrained to cry out Away away Quakers or Answer Pray Sir deal faithfully and plainly in the thing Why didst thou not answer it Or couldst thou not answer it Doubtless thou couldst if thou hadst not feared giving some advantage thereby to thy Opposites was not this the thing Or was it because thou wouldst keep any of thy own Friends still in the Dark concerning this Or wouldst thou have thy Doctrine in this Particular remain a deep Mystery and unintelligible still If so why didst thou not deal honestly and tell us so plainly Or are you not agreed amongst your selves about this What makes thee go about to use Words so subtilly that might seem to make us think thou believest one thing when indeed thou knowest that you or many of your Friends believe quite contrary Is this fair or honest dealing for thee to endeavour to blind our Eyes or deceive our Understanding be we either Simple or Learned Or if perhaps thou art of a different mind from some of thy Friends in this Particular as it is reported thou hast brought them off from some ridiculous Fancies Why wouldst thou not honestly tell us so Or art thou ashamed to declare freely and plainly the bottom and whole of the Doctrine thou holdest in so high a Concern as of Christ's Person You are Charged with and thy and thy Friends Speeches and Writings give me to understand that you Quakers hold this Doctrine concerning the Christ of God 1. That the Body of Christ is not nor was the true Christ but the Spirit in that Body 2. That the Spirit in that Body was none other but God the Father and so the Father is the Son and the Son the Father in very deed and only nomically distinct and so God the Christ of himself and Christ the God of himself somewhat like as Muggleton does in this particular if my memory fail me not 3. That the True Christ is not a Person without us and so was not visible to Corporal eyes 4. And so of necessity you must hold that Christ died not but only the Body that he assumed for a time or that was prepared for him was laid down again For how is it possible for you to Believe really that Christ died when you hold that Christ is only God and God is and ever was immortal and so could not die Now either thou and thy Friends do hold these Doctrines or the contrary if either I or others have mistaken you herein through your own Friends ill expressing themselves or if you have since changed your Opinion in this particular what hurt can there be and why shouldst thou be so nice to inform us truly honestly and plainly like a Christian And if thou dost hold them what 's the Reason thou art unwilling to own it Therefore I request I pray I earnestly desire thee if thou hast any love for the Truth or for Men to tell me or the World the plain truth herein if not I must still conclude thou dealest not fair nor candidly like a reasonable Man or a Christian or willing plainly to vindicate thy Religion 6. In this that when thou shouldest have Replyed like a sober Disputant to the Answer that Jeremy Ives gave to shew the invalidity and falshood of thy Distinction instead thereof thou evadest doing of it
only and absurd G.VV. p. 18. acknowledges that they have plainly and often confest That the DIVINE NATURE or Word cloathed with the MOST HOLY MANHOOD and as having taken Flesh of the Seed of Abraham was and is the Christ Yet says he we must own that if he was the Son of God BEFORE he took Flesh he was Christ And in p. 19. he grants he doth not own the Humane Nature is the Christ for want of Plain Scripture that saith so and says some do conscientiously scruple it and pretend it is a deviating from Scripture-Language which they cannot do in their Creed 2. Reply What a pretty medly of Hypocrisie Quibbling and Confusion here is I will now shew you For Hypocrisie how palpable is it in that they pretend they conscientiously scruple owning in their Creed THAT THE HUMANE NATURE IS THE CHRIST because it is a Deviating from Scripture-Language and they pretend they find no plain Scripture that says so when yet at the same time they tell you they have often confessed that the DIVINE NATURE or Word as CLOATHED with the most HOLY MANHOOD is and was the Christ and this they do without scruple of Conscience And yet there 's no plain Scripture that I know of that says so yea and it is a Deviating from Scripture-Language for where can they shew me this Language in Scripture CLOATHED WITH THE HOLY MANHOOD or such a word there as MANHOOD and until they have done that I must charge them with HIPOCRISY and their pretended Scruples to be nothing but pretences and DECEIT 3. As to their Quibbling herein it plainly appears that to blind the eyes of the simple they sometimes pretend as in p. 18. to own the Holy Manhood to be Christ And yet p. 19. Deny the Humane Nature to be Christ By the first they would seem as if they owned the Humane Nature to be Christ when-as indeed they utterly deny it as you may see by the Latter But since they own the Divine Nature Cloathed with the most Holy Manhood and as having taken Flesh of the Seed of Abraham not only was but is the Christ and yet say that the Light which is in every Man is the Christ I considered with my self whether this most holy Manhood was in every Man and the Manhood was the Light in every Man or a part of that Light Taking these words in their proper and common signification among us English Men but so I could not find it consistent with their Doctrine of the LIGHT WITHIN and therefore would it not appear a pretty Quibble if some of them do mean by MANHOOD not MAN really and essentially but only a GARMENT or a certain quality as Power Fortitude or Valour So when they confess Christ Cloathed with the most Holy Manhood they mean Christ was Cloathed with the most Holy Power Valour c. or Cloathed with a Garment Or else if they deny this they must confute their other Principle of the Light within every Man being the Christ or speak as absurdly if they say Christ's Manhood as he is really and essentially Man is within every Man 4. And then I further enquire of the Quakers Whether the most Holy Manhood be indeed the Christ or a real part of Christ And whether the Flesh that Christ took of the Seed of Abraham since AS SUCH G.VV. sometimes viz. p. 18. confesses he IS the Christ be or can be the Christ the Light or a part of that Light which at other times the Quakers say is in every Man Or will they say that Christ's Flesh which he took of the Seed of Abraham is in every Man or is it another Christ See their confusions and absurdities 5. And when they say before Christ took Flesh let them deal plainly with us and tell us WHEN Christ FIRST took Flesh and whether they do not Believe he took Flesh BEFORE he was Conceived and Born of the Virgin Mary and what plain Scripture they have that saith so And if Christ took Flesh BEFORE whether it was Real Flesh and what sort and whether hâ—s Flesh that was born of the Virgin Mary was the same or had Christ at the time of his Birth two different sorts of Flesh not Figuratively but Really and Properly so called and all this will shew their Confusion and the Ridiculousness of their Fancies for by I. Pennington's Question p. 20. it seems the Quakers do hold that CHRIST's OWN FLESH BLOOD AND BONES are of an ETERNAL NATURE And that the FLESH AND BLOOD which Christ took of OUR NATURE was only OUR GARMENT and so of an EARTHLY PERISHING NATURE And thus would make Christ's Flesh Blood and Bones to be GOD for nothing can be of an ETERNAL NATURE but GOD. Monstrum Horrendum hear O Heavens and hearken O Earth What can be either Confusion or Equivocation in the World not to say worse of iâ— if this be not 6thly G.W. pag. 19. and in several other places says The Quakers must have not only Plain Scripture but Express Scripture viz. Scripture that saith so or else they cannot admit it into their Creed So in G.F. and J. Stubb's Epistle before G. W's Book intituled The Divinity of Christ Their very first Words are Whether do the Scriptures speak of three Persons in the God-head in these express words Let us see where it is written Come dâ— not Shuffle for we are resolved that the Scriptures shall buffet you about and that you shall be whipped aboâ—â— with the Rule Give us Plain Scripture for it without adding or diminishing or shuffling We charge you Presbyterians to give us Printed Scriptures for these following Words and let us see in whaâ— Chapter and verse they are Printed viz. Concrete Abstract Relative c. and so in this manner they arâ— giving Names to CHRIST and God besides the Rulâ— of Scripture c. And so they run on with it over and over again But now since they Impose Command and Charge others at this Rate and not only so but also pretend that they cannot admit of any thing in their Creed but what they have plain and express Scripture that saith so How Reasonable and Just is it to Charge them and accordingly I do here Charge them to produce where it is written in Scripture in these express words The Divine Nature or Word Cloathed with the most Holy Manhood was and is thâ— Christ which they have admitted into their Creed Let us see in what Chapter and Verse it is Printed So p. 24. The distinction of Father and Son is Real in the Divine Relation known as Co-workers in the Order and Degrees Where 's Chap. and Verse for these words Come G.W. Come Quakers shew me or any other the Chapter and Verse where these words are written viz. Manhood entire Manhood the most Holy Manhood Divine Relations Co-workers in the Order and Degrees Or henceforward be ashamed of your silly doings and such ridiculous scribbling I might think W.P. may yet have so much Ingenuity left in
him as that he would be ashamed of it when I consider his Learning but that his undertaking to vindicate G.F. for notorious falshoods and nonsence evident to mens Eyes and Senses and against his own senses and ocular demonstration makes me much to doubt it see Contr. ended p. 39. being sorry to see that so ingenuous a Man as W.P. once was should Sacrifice his own Senses Reason Honour and Reputation to keep up the Credit of such a Man as G. F. who hath written in many things so ridiculously that it's impossible for any Man to vindicate him without making himself more ridiculous and by his Tautologies and incoherency a sober Man would take him to be Craz'd witness his Professors Catechism Testimony of the True Light and his Primmer for the Scholars and Doctors of Europe And which is yet more G. I have this to add That I do not think Thoâ— nor all the Quakers in England can bring Express Scripture for that which is your First and Grand Principle of all whâ—ch you talk of so much above all viz. The Light of Christ within every Man or Christ the Light within every Man Now to speak in G.F. and J. Stubb's words I charge you Quâ—kers Let us see where the Scripture speaks thus in these â—xpress words Let us see where it is written come do not Shuffle for we are resolved that the Scriptures shall buffet you Quakers about and that you shall be whipped about with the Rule Give us plain Scripture for it without shuffling adding or diminishing I charge you QUAKERS to give us Printed Scriptures for all these foregoing words and let us see in what Chapter and Verse they are Printed and if they do that I think I may promise them to turn Quaker presently But besides this their Hypocrisie herein is more gross For to what end except to deceive should they pretend that they cannot own this or that in theâ— Creed if it be not expressed in plain Scripture wheâ— they have so often and so plainly avowed That thâ— Scripture is not their Rule either for Faith or Prâ—ctice But now for the Protestants to call for plaiâ—-Scripture is but according to their Principle becausâ— they own it for their Rule 7. So again p. 19. G.W. confesses that JESUS CHRIST is MAN one at first view might think hâ— spoke well so he does if he did but mean truly whâ—â— he speaks But that you may plainly see he doth not and may see what kind of Man he means in the samâ— Page he gives you to understand that it is such â— Man as hath not HUMANE NATURE and p. 24 such a Man as is not a Person without us and whâ—â— kind of Man think you must or can this be Is noâ— this a fine Quibble Judg you That this their Equivocation may appear more plain even to the Capacitâ— of the Vulgar consider That when the Quakerâ— say that Jesus Christ is Man They must meaâ— either That he is truly and substantially a Man a created Body and Soul or that he is an Imaginary and Fictitious one only If the first then they must own he is a distinct Person haâ—h as essential to him Humane Nature For to be a Man is to have the Nature of Man and every substantial Man is a distinct Person But this they deny of Christ therefore they do not mean he is such a Man If the other viz. an Imaginary or Fictitious Man let them say so if they dare and consider how Blasphemous it would be and what horrible Consequences would follow thereon And therefore to go round again let the Quakers equivocate as much as they will they must hold that indeed Christ is not Man or else fall into the BLASPHEMY or Absurdity abovementioned In plainness G. is Jesus Christ a Man and not a Person Seeing thou dost define a Person to be a MAN c. In the Introduction of thy Book intituled the Divinity of Christ What meanest thou by the word MAN A Created Body and Soul or some uncreated thing Now G. use plainness and honesty in this particular if there be any in thee or whoever he be that undertakes to Answer for thee Generally all Men in the World that use the Term Man as properly an English word understand by it a PERSON or a RATIONAL CREATURE distinct from all other Men one that is in some certain Place and cannot be in distinct Places at the same time that hath in respect of his Body Dimensions of Length Breadth and Depth that is visible one that began to exist at a certain time one that hath a head and a body so closely united that when-ever they two are severed the Man ceases to be But the Quakers they seem to mean quite another thing by the term MAN sometimes one thing and sometimes another I believe themselves know not well what By the term MAN Do you not mean one that is not a Person or Rational Creature but Flesh Blood and Bones of an eternal Nature J. P's Qu. p. 20. an infinite Soul One whose Flesh is and he is in a multitude of Men and Women in distant Countreys at the same instant of time Myst p. 68. Christ ascend p. 18. One that is not in Heaven as a place to live in remote from Men that live on Earth Spir. of Truth p. 12. Christ ascen p. 21. one that is not VISIBLE Christ ascend p. 37. one that begâ—n not to be for he was eternal one that is as far remote from his Body as Heaven is from Earth and yet lives See Quak. Plainness p. 23. In fine it seems Jesus Christ is a Man whose Glorious Body in Heaven is not a Humane or Man 's Body see the same p. 23. and doth not the Quaker use now admirable Plainness in his Confession of Faith in Scripture-Language Doth Europe or America afford such Equivocation 8. G.W. p. 19. says further That Christ's Body of Flesh and Blood that was born of the VIRGIN-MARY and that suffered was Crucifyed Dye++d and Rose again the third day is called the Body of Jesus But yet G. thou wilt not say nor own That that Living Body is Jesus or that BODY is so much as a part of Jesus Consider this serious Reader here 's still the Quakers Quibble and a clear proof of the Quakers Mystery whereby their poor unwary Hearers are deluded and deceived So they will say the seventh day of the week called Saturday and the eleventh Month called January and the Scripture called the word of God and the Writing or Declaration of Matthew called the Gospel of St. Matthew and abundance the like Which yet they do not one whit the more Believe it for Truth for saying it is called so But Believe quite the Contrary as they believe the Scripture is not the Word of God though it may be called so so they can say by their Equivocation The Body that was born of the Virgin Mary is called in Scripture the Body of Jesus and
yet will not own that Body either to be a part of Jesus or do believe it to be that Jesus which the Scripture calls it And here I appeal to all sober and understanding People in England to Judg if ever they heard such Quibbling before as the Quakers here use about CHRIST JESUS and this they are constrained â—o do To maintain that first Principle they have took up The Light within for if they should own that living Body of Flesh and Blood that was born of the Virgin Mary and that was Crucified and dyed to be JESUS and the CHRIST then they foresee they should confound that their Beloved Principle The Light within every Man For how can that Man or Body of Flesh Bone and Blood that was born of the Virgin Mary be in every Man and also upon this Ground They deny that Person that Man that was born of the Virgin Mary to be the Christ Because they cannot tell how to make thaâ— very Person and Man to be in every Man and in all Persons and so rather than forego their Principle of the Light within They will adventure to fashion and form to themselves a new Jesus and a New Christ and have hid it and kept it as much as they could in a Mystery and in Dark sayings as long as they might till at last being pressed by many Contests and Disputes they have been forced to discover it And now Dear Friends and Country-Men give me leave to tell you that though I do not remember that I ever positively said That the Quakers were no Christians yet I have much and often doubted in my self and do still whether they can according to their Principles be true Christians since they do not own nor believe that Man nor that living Body that was born of the Virgin Mary to be the Jesus and the Christ and so do not believe that the Christ indeâ—d dyed and if Christ did not indeed Dy he did nâ—t indeed rise again Nay though they own that the Scriptures call that living Body Christ and Jesus yet they give us at the same time to understand They do not Believe nor own it to be what they themselves say the Scripture calls it and so set up another Christ than what the Scripture call's Christ and declares to us to be the true Christ and Messiah of the World And for this Reason and out of this Godly-Jealousy and Fear and not out of Envy and wicked malicâ— as they pretend it is that I cannot own them but have thus opposed them And let all People consider it weigh it well and take heed It is not for nothing or yet a slâ—ght matter only that I set forth their Quibbles But for their setting up another Christ or another kind of Christ than the Scripture holds forth and calls the Christ to wit that Person Man or living Body that was born of the Virgin MARY and what can be of a higher Nature or more dangerous in the Christian Religion than for any to set up any other Christ or any other Person or thing for Christ 9. What plaâ—ner words is it possible to invent that are intelligible to Mankind than are used about this matter in Scripture if Men would not be wilfully Blind as to give you an Instance or two Acts 2.22 23. Ye Men of Israel ' hear these words Jesus of Nazareth A Man approved of God among you by Miracles and Wonders and Signs which God did by him in the midst of you as ye your selves also know HIM being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledg of God ye have taken and by wicked hands have Crucified and Slain v. 36. Let all the House of Israel know assuredly That God hath made that same Jesus whom ye have Crucifyed both LORD and Christ observe the Apostle says that same Jesus viz. Jesus of Nazareth A Man God hath made both Lord and Christ and if that same then no other and again that same Jesus whom the Men of Israel had taken and by wicked hands did Crucify and Slay That same Jesus and not any thing else hath God made both Lord and Christ Now it was not the Light within that the Men of Israel took and by wicked hands Crucified Hang'd on a Tree and Slew But it was that Man that Person that Body that was born of the Virgin Mary Jesus of Nazareth that the Jews took and by wicked hands Crucified and Hang'd on a Tree So it appears as plain as any thing in the World can be by words made Plain that that same Man that Body or that Person which was born of the Virgin Mary Jesus of Nazareth is he which God hath made both LORD and CHRIST and not the Light within every Man nor any other thing Luke 24.39 Behold my Hands and my Feet that it is I my self handle me and see For a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have and when he had thus spoken he shewed them his hands and his feet John 20.24 25. But Thomas one of the twelve called Dydimus was not with them when Jesus came The other Disciples therefore said unto him we have seen the Lord but he said unto them Except I shall see in his hands the Print of the Nails and put my finger into the Print of the Nails and thrust my hand into his side I will not believe v. 26 27 28. And after eight days again his Disciples were within and Thomas with them Then came Jesus the door being shut and stood in the midst and said Peace be unto you Then saith he to Thomas reach hither thy finger and behold my hands and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side and be not faithless but believing And Thomas answered and said unto him my Lord and my God v. 31. But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing ye might have Life through his Name What Jesus even That Jesus that same Person that was not within but without Thomas who had the Print of material nails in his hands that Thomas put his finger in is the Christ the Son of God Now G.W. Answer me in plainness once if thou wilt be so honest Was this Jesus that the Apostle says here we are to believe is the Christ the Son of God without Thomas then when he put his finger into the Print of the Nails Or was it only Acted within Thomas his Body And hath the Light within which thou ownest for thy Jesus any Print of Material Nails or hands properly so called of flesh and bone as this Jesus had which is the true CHRIST see also Math 1.1 with verse 16 and Heb. 2.14 10. G.W. p. 20. takes notice of Jer. Ives great Question as he calls it Whether Christ's Humane Nature was a part of Christ But he gives no Answer to it but gives it the go-by by saying it was not a Question in Scripture Phrase But that could be
draw back into many Natural Languages as into Hebrew and Greek yea and Latine too as G. W's Practice evinces in his Introduction to his Divinity of Christ though it is probable He understands as little Hebrew as G. Fox doth Greek and many more Natural Languages you have and more abundantly in W. P's Vindication of G. Foxes Falsities and Nonsence See here according to their own Verdict they are drawing back into the NATVRALS and so draw into CONFVSION and are not the Ministers of God who draw up into ONE Language for they now draw down into MANY Languages and therefore are utterly to be denyed if Quakers themselves may be Credited Sect. 3. And not onely so but also in their Practice it is to be further Observed that when any Publique Dispute is with them appointed notwithstanding all their Talk and Pretences to others of Immediate Revelation and Divine Inspiration and the sufficiency ALONE of the Light within yet they dare not trust to that but commonly they will have one if not two that are Scholars and that have been bred Scholars at our Schools as Sam. Fisher formerly and G. Keith or W. Pen of late Years and the like the Discourse or Dispute is for the most part managed by them and most commonly lyes wholly upon such whereas if their Light within every one was ALONE sufficient and they had it Divinely Inspired into them by the Spirit at that very Instant then any other of the Quakers might be as able to manage such Disputes as them that have been brought up Scholars at our Schools But alas when some such come to the business we have seen what pitiful work they have made on 't and how quickly they have been Non-plust for want of some of those School-distinctions that G.K. and W.P. can furnish them withal better than all the Light G.F. their great Prophet appears as yet to have Sect. 4. Yet to turn half round back again see G. Foxes words Testimony of the True Light at the beginning of p. 42. It 's too long and too full of Tautologies here to Transcribe But to dance the rounds and face quite about once more at last G. Keith can tell us and reprove Jer. Ives for Transgressing the Just Laws of Dispute by an Error called in the Schools 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Transition from one kind of Matter to another Did G. Keith speak and know this Just Law by immediate Inspiration at that instant since he assured us all along in that dispute he found the Presence of God assisting him Or had not he before learnt it at the Schools I Challenge them to nominate but ONE Quaker amongst them all that could have made that Answer to detect Jeremy by the ALONE sufficiency and Revelation of the Light within at that very Instant that had not first heard of it from some others or learnt it at School I press and urge any Quaker in England to Answer and Witness this in plainness if he can But alas poor Men if they would be ingenuously honest they must grant they cannot and that G. Keith did not there and therein speak ANY MORE by immediate Revelation than others and so was not Infallible in all he said Sect. 6. However now it seems ouâ— â—chools have the Just Laws of Dispute amongst them by a Present Quakers Confession thank thee George thanks kindly It is hoped W. Pen and thee Geo. may come to bring the silly Quakers off from some of their Old Fancies to own more of ours and amongst us e're long though to give you your due you are come a pretty way already and fall in softly by degrees even whilst you pretend the Contrary that so the People might not take too much notice of it Sect. 7. And some do Observe that notwithstanding all the Quakers former hideous Out-crys against Schools of Learning Vniversities against Hamane Learning Philosophy Logick Scholastical Divinity and Doctrines yet now notable Mr. Pen is framing and setting up both a Formal Scholastical and Philosophical Divinity amongst the Quakers whether they mind it understand it or can see through it or no in his writings and Vindications of Resolves Decrees Rules or Aphorisms Bodies or Systems of Principles and Doctrines with Genus Species Proprium accidens differentia in Communem propriam maximè propriam formalitèr simplicitèr Relativè Secundùm se secùndum quid or the like as Substance Accidents Essential and Descriptive Simply and Relatively most proper proper and less proper abstract and Concrete and much more of the same Nature that Great Geo. Fox so long since Challenged the Scholars and Doctors of Europe about inquiring what was their Root Ground and Derivation and if they were not all begot in the Fall or sprang up out of Babel See G. Foxes Primmer for the Scholars and Doctors of Europe 't is a pretty piece indeed 't is conceived worthy of Mr. Penn's Study and I cannot think of any Body that would be so fit for the purpose as he to satisfie his great Prophet G. Fox in most of those vain silly and Ridiculous Questions about Words and Terms in the Schools the Ground the Root the Derivation c. of them Why may it not be as good and profitable employ for W. Pen to Answer them as for G. Fox to Ask them Write and Publish them I should think it the more profitable of the two For now the Questions being without Answers G. Foxes Primmer is of little Value and less Use except onely to shew the grand Prophets Whimsies and Wind-mill in his Brain or to Teach his silly Disciples the Art of Tautologizing Thus you may see Tempora mutantur and the Quakers run the Rounds but yet have a care that you do not imagine but that these their Teachers and Leaders are immediately inspired and Infallible still I warrant you as much as ever they were but not one whit MORE than before or since they became Quakers Sic Diruit aedificat muâ— at Quadrata Rotundis SECT VIII The Quakers Quibbles and Hypocrisie in their Doctrine about Punching People and Haling them out of Assemblies with reference to their own Practices now Sect. 1. ONE while that was when others thrust and punch'd and pulled the Quakers out of their Assemblies Meetings or Synagogues for coming in and disturbing them then the Quakers Doctrine was such as this They profess Moses Christ and the Apostles words but see not the fulfilling of Moses and the Prophets nor Christ's words and Apostles words such as be out of the Light that believes that 's G. Foxes English very frequent not in it these are now Haling out of the Synagogues Prisoning and Beating and Persecuting that believe not in the Light that enlightens every Man that cometh into the World as the Jews did out of their Temple c. G. Fox Testimony of the True Light p. 46. Come let us Reason had not many the Scriptures yet Haled out of the Synagogues what think you of them And
obscure something without them is A RVLE of the Quakers Faith and that 's not all neither But if what Sam. Fisher said be true then VV.P. hath a NOSE OF VVAX for a Rule of his Faith and Practice or one of the Quakers Rules for their Faith and Practice is no better than a Nose of VVax Nay if you will believe Sam. Fisher himself is not CAPABLE of being ANY OTHER to them that have the Scriptures which the Quakers have and as to them that have them not they can be surely nothing at all not so much as a Nose of VVax And is not this an Excellent Rule according to the Quakers own Confession that they now say they have for a Rule of their Faith and Practice Sect. 7. I am sorry that before I conclude I should have Occasion given me to Tax Mr. Pen of INSINCERITY and deceitful dealing about this matter of the Quakers Doctrine touching the Holy Scriptures by Reading the late little Book he set out Entituled A just Rebuke but more properly a huffing Rebuke p. 10. Those very words he tells his Opponents reflect most justly as a just Rebuke on himself I must tell him he hath Acted with them herein far from a Man of Common Ingenuity For whereas W.P. asserts The Quakers deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God in that sence wherein they deny them viz. The Word that was God the Essential Word Does not W.P. in his Conscience know that none of these Presbyterians Independents nor any others ever asserted against the Quakers that the Scriptures were in that sence the Word of God and consequently is no part of the matter in Dispute And not onely so but doth not W. P's Conscience witness that the Quakers have and do deny the Scriptures to be the written Word of God In which sence those men do not deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God and the Quakers do and therefore W.P. must Act against his Conscience in taxing them of being herein far from Men of Common Ingenuity when it is onely his own dis-ingenuity thus to Quibble and deceive People And Secondly The like Fallacy double dealing and Insincerity W.P. manifests in his words about the Scripture being a Rule as if the Quakers owned the Scripture to be a Rule in some things or some parts of the Scripture to be a Rule to them whereas it is manifest that the Quakers have over and over again denyed the Scriptures in general and not some part of it onely to be their Rule yea in these express words The Books of the Old and New Testament called the BIBLE See the beginning of this Section Oh Quakers REPENT REPENT of such wickedness and for shame leave off such double hearted dealing and most unparallel'd Confidence Do not think all your Countrey-men Fools besides your selves as if they could not discern such petty slights and Quibbles and take Notice of them and you also as not single-hearted in them Sect. 8. For my Part I never thought any man blame-worthy nor would be he that should blame any man for changing his Opinion or Judgment if so be he did it upon better ground and did not pretend to INFALLIBILITY nor scorn nor blame others for Confessing their Fallibility but did Honestly and Ingenuously acknowledge that he was before mistaken and in an Error But for Men to change their Opinions either really and yet endeavour confidently to vindicate and justifie their former Absurdities and Errors or pretendedly onely to fawn and flatter or curry favour with their Adversaries or any others of the World and yet still to pretend to Infallibility is so low abominably base and Hypocritical or so Impudent that it is not to be admitted by or among any Sober and Honest Men. Now whether this change alteration and difference in the Quakers words and Writings Epithets and Phrases about the Holy Scriptures be real or onely Hypocritical and Temporizing out of design to blind others and to ingratiate themselves a little more into Peoples Affections and good-will of the World God and their own Consciences best know yet the last is much to be feared for this Reason because they are so far from dis-owning their former mistakes and mis-expressing themselves that they stand to vindicate and justifie it But be it either way they thereby shew their uncertainty inconstancy and self-contradictions Confusions and the effects of their Fallibility Sect. 9. And therefore I would onely desire G.W. to tell me honestly if there be any such thing left in him or that he may return to without Quibbling or Equivocation or if not me that he would acquaint his Countrey-men 1. Whether he doth NOW Believe That the Holy Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament commonly called the Bible be the Letter which is Death and Killeth or whether they be the Letter mentioned or meant by the Apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 3.6 And 2. If he doâ—h NOW believe That were the Scriptures never so certain and entire yet that they are not capable to be to all men any other than a Nose of Wax 3. And whether he or W. Pen and the Quakers do NOW Witness and Believe that the Letter of the Scripture is CARNAL A proper direct Answer is desired and required to this without any Quibbling or mental Reservations if the Quakers are indeed what they now would pretend to the World they are and will manifest themselves to be no Dissemblers The Conclusion To Sum up all in short and to Conclude this Mess and Medly of their most irreconcileable Contradictions and irrecoverable Gulph of Confusions in which they have plunged themselves o're Head and Ears take it thus Sometimes they can call yea and positively assert the Letter of the Scripture is CARNAL and the Letter is DEATH and KILLETH But their own pityful Scriblings or Books they can call The LIGHT and LIFE of Christ within and yet to go round again at other times they tell us that they prefer the Bible BEFORE all other Books extant in the World but then to go round again they tell us without excepting one that THEIR WRITINGS and BOOKS are given forth from the immediate ETERNAL SPIRIT of God Yet to face about again That their Intention and Principle NEVER WAS to bring their Books in COMPARISON with the Scriptures but yet to go round again though to their own Confusion the same man hath given us to understand that what the Quakers speak from the Spirit of Truth is not onely of AS GREAT Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are but GREATER And the Quakers can sometimes tell us that one might AS WELL condemn the SCRIPTURES to be BURNED as Their WRITINGS But come once more to turn about Robin Hood W. Pen now hath the Scripture positively says Mr. Keith as a Secondary Rule of Faith and Practice and yet to step half-way back again and Janus-like look two ways at once it is but much like the SHADOW of the true Rule and in that Respect
as it is like a shadow it may be a kind of Secondary Rule Mr. Pen himself thinks but he seems not certain of that neither But to turn quite back again if Sam. Fisher may be believed the Scriptures we have Though they were never so certain and entire by answering to the first Original Copies yet are not CAPABLE to be to all Men ANY OTHER than a Lesbian Rule or Nose of wax so far are they from being either a Primary or Secondary Rule that he says they are not so much as CAPABLE of being ANY OTHER than a Lesbian Rule and if that be the Rule G. Keith meant his Brother Pen had for his Faith and Practice it may be true enough and so he may well agree with his late Brother Fisher But yet to give one turn more the quondam sincere-hearted and Zealous man W. Pen whose Writings many times like squint-eyes which as they say look nine ways at once would make us believe if we were no wiser that notwithstanding all this the Quakers abuse of Scripture that 't is the Quakers are abused and if he does not Quibble and deal disingenuously they do indeed own what-ever they say to the contrary the Scripture to be a Rule in some things or some parts of the Scripture to be a Rule to them But yet says Mr. Fisher to confound the Quakers and knock all ot'h ' Head at once They say truly which say that A RULE and Guide should be CERTAIN which will not deceive and that which is VARIABLE and ALTERABLE cannot be A Persons Rule For it is the property of A Rule to be INVARIABLE and the SAME at ALL times But that as to the Scriptures we and the Quakers now have he tells us This is one plain VNDENIABLE Truth viz. That there are VARIOVS Lections in the Copies of the very ORIGINAL Texts of the Scripture this he asserts point blank and not onely that they are alterable and variable but varying and altered in abundance of places and some parts portions and whole Books thereof LOST and so is not fit nor capable to be a Rule or Foundation as he gives us to understand to cut the Throat of all and to make short work Thus. Sometimes 't is Carnal without Breath Sometimes the Letter oh 't is Death Sometimes 't is a Rule of Faith That 's impossible Fisher saith Sometimes a Nose of VVax no Rule They know as much as th' Ass or Mule Sometimes one way then another Sometimes both ways this and t'other Sometimes one o' th two take either Sometimes 'twixt both Rules but neither Some say it 's this some that some O Riddle Nor this nor that but just a Quibble And so they run the Rounds trace to and fro and dance up and down in their dark minds about the Holy Scriptures and their Rule of Faith I cannot think of any thing that the Quakers Doctrine about this better resembles than what their own Fisher brings to my Hand the so called Devils Neck verse which may be read upwards or downwards backwards or forwards which way they please to the scanning whereof I at present leave them wishing they may in time become wiser and honester and not run the round so still to make their Brains Giddy S A T O R A R E P O T E N E T O P E R A R O T A S Sam. Fisher Transpos'd THus Quaker's work who talk for self Is tangling talk against it self ' Gainst Truth a prate a piteous Preachment That can't make good its own Impeachment As Doctor REYNARD'S Doctrine does Who heeds not well which way he goes Whitehead's Live'stone's Pen's prances round And round again in th' self-same Ground It staggers to and fro and reels Skips up and down and runs on wheels Starts aside like some broken Bow Câ—osses Christ like Cris X Cross i' th Row Who so can feel in it may feel As 't were a wheel within a wheel A Net Ginn Trap a Snare's in It A VVhirlpool Gulph Bottomless-Pit Wind Dust Husk Chaff no Stable Steeple A Tale that takes unstable People A Toy a Cloud Mist Smoak a Fogg Both Quak'rism and some Quav'ring Bogg A Quick sand a Quagmire that sucks Who 's in 't his Feet out hardly plucks Himself who 's in gets seldom Out It self 's more seldom in than Out It flutters like some blind Night Bat Now here now there this way now That Now it is one thing then another And now and then nor t' one nor to'ther Sometimes it 's This sometimes it 's That Sometimes it 's This and This and That Sometimes 't is either this or that Sometimes 't is neither this nor that Now this not th' other anon it 's Either Then by and by both Both and Neither One while it looks like So not No Another while like No not So One way it seems or So or No Another way nor No nor So Some ways it shews both So and No So it 's a meer endless No and So. Here Follows THE QUAKING QUIBBLING ANSWERER Turned to A SLIGHT TIMEROUS REVILER OR Remarks on G. W's Slight silly Sheet styl'd The Timerous Reviler Sleighted Given forth by the said G.W. as a Reprehension for want of an Answer to the Second Part of the Quakers Quibbles COVRTEOVS READER THE Man I have here to deal withal having neither Honesty or Knowledge enough to give a Right Answer nor Prudence enough to hold his Peace you may it is not unlikely admire why I should trouble my self to take any Notice of so slight and silly a sheet the greatest part whereof is stuff'd according to the Quakers old Custom with nothing but bitter Railings scornful Revilings and false Suggestions as if the Quakers were dreyn'd and this the very dregs of their filthy Bottle wherefore I shall here acquaint you with the Considerations that moved and constrained me thereto First That Justice which I found lay upon me to clear an Innocent Gentleman and so far vindicate his Innocency and Reputation of whom this Man hath Published in Print a most gross false Suggestion Secondly To undeceive the World that I might not be false to the Truth nor unjust to my self they having raised and published of me not onely many false surmises but palpable falsities They first take me for another Person with whom they have had formerly some Contests and then New Baptizing me and dressing me up as they please they throw all the dirt at Me that they in their wicked and Malicious minds wish to Him though he be a Person by the faithfullest account I could have concerning him I not being acquainted with him whose Candor Judgment Parts and Deserts are as far beyond G. W's in Reality as Geo. can Conceit himself beyond others and so not deserving any such ill usage at their unmannerly Pens or Tongues but this confirms me in my Opinion that it is much at one and you may as soon expect an Ingenious Sober Rational Answer from a Scold at Billings-gate as