for would not the Quakers account it a great Sin and Trespass if any of the Church of England or Dissenter should sit in one of their Galleries where they stand to preach and kneel at Prayer and mend an old Doublet while they are preaching in their Meeting Places Surely they would greatly aggravate it and call it rude and unmannerly and profane Again whereas they query Where dost thou read in the Scripture that Men must do no Work on the first Day of the Week And this Query is made to justifie the Quaker's sitting on the Communion Table to mend an old Doublet on the first Day in time of Divine Service Is not this a great Shame to print and reprint such avowed Profanation of the Lord's Day and Worship also in the Face of a Protestant Nation that zealously profess to be against the Profanation of it and where are standing Laws against the Profanation of it Note here that whereas the Quakers affirm that what they speak and write is immediately and infallibly from God their professed Principle obligeth them to hold that what they speak and write is of greater Certainty and consequently of greater Authority than the Scriptures because they are certain of what they speak and write from the Spirit in themselves but they are not certain of the Writings of the Scriptures as W. P. argues in his Discourse concerning the General Rule They have not the Autographa the Copies differ and so do the Translations but they have their own Autographa and their Books and Writings are from the Original immediately Thus when G. W. sent me his Curse Thus saith the Lord c. and signed G. W. This had more Authority with him than the Scripture by his own Doctrine and if he please let him add simply considered as without the Spirit Proofs on the fourth Head Concerning the Holy Trinity GEorge Whitehead G. W's Truth and Inn. p. 50. in his Truth and Inn. and Jos Wyeth in his Switch pretends That it is not the Doctrine or thing intended that they deny i. e. the Father the Word and Holy Spirit which three are one And saith Jos Switch p. 184. Wyeth We own their Distinction in all the Instances of it recorded in Holy Writ The only thing they pretend to scruple at or deny is the calling them three Persons which they say are not Scripture Terms and they are wholly for keeping to Scripture Terms in Matters of Doctrine But to this I say ' first How many unscripture Terms do they freequently use Where do they find in Scripture the Term immediate Revelation immediate teaching of the Spirit immediate Word which they so commonly use Again where do they find in Scripture That see G. M. p. 324. the Seed to which the Promise of Salvation is is Christ within Several Papers c. p. 47. And that Expression where do they find it in Scripture That the same Spirit takes upon it the same Seed which is Christ now as ever c. That God the Father took upon him Humane Nature That the Spirit is the Rule and many more not only unscripture Terms but contrary to Scripture But why do they call them Three Witnesses as G. W. hath so expresly called them Where do they find them in Scripture so called That Place in John's first Epistle doth not call them Three Witnesses but Three bearing Record or witnessing But it is not only the Words Three Persons wherewith they are offended thâ— unjustly for personal Acts and Properties are given to them and therefore according to plain Consequence from Scripture they may be called Persons but the Doctrine or thing intended they deny for they allow not that they are distinct otherwise than in Manifestation see G. W's Divinity of Christ p. 94. he saith The Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit or the Father Son and Holy Ghost are one and inseparable no where in Scripture called three separate Persons nor finite in Personalities though Three in Manifestation and so testified of as Three Witnesses for the Confirmation of the Gospel Note Seeing G. W. doth not own them to be Three otherwise but in Manifestation this is not only to deny the Names or Words Three Persons but to deny that they were Three from all Eternity or before all Ages for there was no Manifestation either of One or Two or Three from Eternity His calling them Three in Manifestation is to call them three Manifestations and seeing all Manifestation has a Beginning with Time by his Doctrine there were not Father Son and Holy Ghost three any wise distinct from Eternity There was no God the Father from Eternity that did beger nor no Son from Eternity that was begotten nor Holy Ghost that from Eternity did proceed from the Father and the Son by G. VVhitehead's Doctrine And F. Hougil in his Collection p. 308. delivers the same erronious Doctrine He saith That the Holy Ghost is called another than Christ Another is not understood of another Life of another Substance but is understood of another Manifestation or Operation of the same God who subsists in the same Power in which the Father the Son and the Spirit subsist as I said unto thee before Another as to distinguish of the Operation and VVork of the Spirit and of the Son we do not refuse By this Doctrine of F. Hougil they are but distinct Manifestations Operations and Works Now if G. VV. or the Author of the Switch will say that there were three Manifestations Operations or Works in the Godhead from all Eternity It is absurd to suppose such Manifestations beside that they are unscripture Terms the same Arguments that they use against three Persons will as much and indeed much more be of Force against three Manifestations for if the Father be a Manifestation from Eternity of what is he a Manifestation Can he be a Manifestation of himself Or is he a Manifestation of the Son who as they say is a Manifestation Thus one Manifestation would be the Manifestation of another Manifestation but then what would the Holy Spirit be a Manifestation of And seeing in God there are no Accidents these three Manifestations are not three Accidents nor three Subsistences nor three Substances nor three Persons and consequently according to these Men they are nothing at all but their own Inventions But VV. Penn in his Sandy Foundation has not only argued against three Persons but against the Holy Three for he bringeth five Arguments against their being a Holy Three Page 12 13 14. one of which is this in express Words 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 let his Argument be applied to the unscripture Terms three Manifestations and it will have the same Force or rather
greater but indeed it hath none at all against three distinct Persons for there is a plain Distinction of a Medium in created Beings betwixt Substance and Nothing the three Dimensions of a Body Length Breadth and Depth are neither three Nothings nor three Substances the Understanding Will and Locomotive Power of Man's Soul are neither three Nothings nor three Substances and yet they are but one Soul though all Creaturely Similitudes are improper to express this Mystery Beside how could a Manifestation become Flesh or take Man's Nature as the Son did And how could one Manifestation send another or beget another or a third Manifestation proceed from two other Manifestations But whereas Jos VVyeth saith in his Switch p. 184. VVe own their Distinction in all the Instances of it recorded in Holy VVrit In contradiction to this hear F. Hougil in his Collection p. 251. he calls it damnable Doctrine to say That Christ must be distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost Before in God and now from God their Quibble about separate doth not help them for some that have so called them have declared they meant nothing by separate but distinct and now if Jos VVyeth and G. VV. will have distinct to signifie separate seeing they pretend to own the Distinction of the Father and the Son they must own the Separation And whereas the Teachers among the Quakers profess they are not changed in any thing of Doctrine or Practice from what they were from the Beginning for Truth is one say they and changes not and as God is one and Truth is one and changeth not so his People are one Now let us compare the Doctrine of G. VVhitehead what it was in the Year 1659. when he writ his Truth defending the Quakers which he said was written from the Spirit of Truth concerning the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and what it was in the Year 1697 when he wrote his Antidote against the Venome of the Snake In his Truth defending c. printed 1659. in p. 2. he saith VVhat the Scripture saith of the Godhead the Father the VVord and the Spirit which are one 1 Joh. 5. 7. we own but deny the Popish Term of three distinct Persons which you call God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost which tends to the dividing God and to the making three Gods Note here he not only denies the three Persons but the Orthodox and Scriptural Explanation of them of God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost And thou who hast vindicated such a Dream could never prove it by the Scripture when thou wast put upon it And do not you Priests in your Divinity as you call it affirm that a Person is a single rational compleat Substance and differing from another by an incommunicable Property And art thou so blind as to think that there is such a Difference in the Godhead Seeing Christ is equal with his Father who is a Spirit then what incommunicable Property can he differ in from the Father that is not communicable to the one as well as the other Here we see he not only opposes the Terms Three Persons but the Distinction of the Three their incommunicable Properties which are these That the Father begot the Son from everlasting the Son was begot of the Father from everlasting and the Holy Ghost did proceed both from the Father and the Son from everlasting and surely the Father's Property is incommunicable to the Son and so is the Son 's to the Father and the Holy Ghost's Property to both for it cannot be said that the Son begot the Father or that the Son is the Father c. or that the Holy Ghost is either the Father or the Son But now let us hear his late Doctrine in his printed Antidote 1697. p. 139. Though 't is true saith he in one Sense the Father Son and Holy Ghost are not essentially distinct as to their divine Being which is but one they are but one God but in respect to their Properties of Relation as Father Son and Holy Ghost as such they are distinct but not divided nor separate either in themselves or VVork of the old or new Creation First G. VV. should tell us where doth he find in Scripture in express Terms that they are distinct in respect to their Properties of Relation Secondly Whether these Properties of Relation are communicable or incommunicable Properties Surely he must say incommunicable and that he did in his Book Truth defending expresly deny For if he should say these Properties are communicable such as God's absolute Properties are as holy wise good c. then the Son might beget and the Father might be begotten And lastly Seeing he now owns a Distinction of Properties of Relation though in unscripture Terms he must by good consequence own three Persons to be the Subjects of those Properties for no Properties or Predicates or Attributes can be without their proper Subjects for though it is the Father's Property to have begot the Son from everlasting yet the Father is not a Property but the Person or Subject that has that Property Thus we see how Proteus-like G. VV. has changed his Shapes in the Years 1659. and 1697. and yet there is no Shadow of Change in him for all this if we will believe him But further by some of his late Books we shall find him not only owning the Distinction of the three in respect to their Properties of Relation but advanced much nearer so far as to disown his former Opposition to the Terms Three Persons which in his Book called Ishmael that was his jointly with others he had charged his Opponent to have conjured out of one and told him that both they and he are shut up in perpetual Darkness for the Lake and this he doth in two several Books one printed in the Year 1690. called The Christianity of the People commonly called Quakers where he sets down the Words quoted out of his Ishmael more largely the other called Truth and Innocency printed this very Year 1699. where he leaves out the most offensive Words and puts an c. in their room as being I supose ashamed of them and well he might but he is not ashamed to affirm he is not changed in his Faith But let us hear how he excuseth what he writ in his Ishmael that was printed in the Year 1655. Truth and Inn. p. 51. Though his Name is at the Book yet he positively disowns the Words and affirms They are none of his and that he writ not that Part of the Answer to Townsend And in his Book called The Christianity c. above mentioned he saith He looks on the Words as wrong writ or wrong printed and that he raced them out or corrected them long since where he has met with that Answer But is not this a Piece of dull Sophistry to save the Credit of his Infallibility Had he not better more like a Man and a Christian
acknowledged his Error than to lay the Fault upon as wrong writ or wrong printed And if he corrected them long since how comes it that he never published his Correction in any of the Books he has published since betwixt the Year 1655. and 1690. containing the space of 36. Years But for evidence against him that he hath not sincerely said That he writ not that Part of the Book it is enough that he owned it and this I can prove that without Exception he owned it to be his jointly with these others who signed it with him as appears from his Truth defending the Quakers p. 1. printed four Years after the Ishmael And he belches out the like antichristian and profane Expressions against the three Persons in the Godhead in Terms equivalent to those in the Ishmael He saith in his first Page in Answer to the first Question Do not you repent for your endeavouring vainly to defend August 29. 1659. in so great a Congregation these Positions printed in a Book writ by George Whitehead He answers for himself and his Brethren thus The Positions we defended are according to the Scriptures of Truth and them we need not repent of These were they contained in that very Book called Ishmael as doth appear out of the Book Ishmael it self here the Book was produced one of which Positions were in asserting the Scriptures or Writing not to be the Word Another was That there is no such Word in the Scriptures as Three Persons in the Trinity but it is a Popish Doctrine as the Mass or Common-Prayer-Book mentions it Fourthly And thou that affirms three distinct Persons in the Godhead art a Dreamer and he that dreams and tells Lies contrary to the Scriptures of Truth which we own he with his Imaginations and Dreams is for the Lake Here it is plain that by his Imaginations and Dreams G.W. meant the Ministers Doctrines of calling the Scriptures the Word and affirming that there are three Persons in the Godhead so whereas he said in his Ishmael Townsend and the three Persons are shut up in perpetual Doctrines Here in Truth defending c. he saith He with his Imaginations and Dreams that is the three Persons is for the Lake Now this is not one whit more sober than his Words in the Ishmael how then is it that G. Whitehead has not found some shift to put this part of his Truth defending upon another Again in his Truth defending c. p. 25. he plainly owns that Book called Ishmael to be his four Years after it was printed and now though in his Truth defending c. he saith That he and his Brethren need not repent of the Positions laid down in that called Ishmael yet now in the Year 1690. in his Christianity he saith He was sorry his Name was to that Paper and yet as before is mentioned in Truth defending p. 1. he saith They need not repent of it Is not this a plain Change in G. W. He need not repent of what was writ and yet was sorry that it was writ Formerly he owned that Book in the Year 1659 and in the Year 1690 He writ not that Part and was sorry it was writ and all this without any Change in his Mind But when People are sorry for what they do we commonly reckon they repent of it This offensive Passage objected against G. Whitehead out of his Ishmael was objected against him by Christopher Wade in his Quakery slain p. 9. printed in 1657. And though G. W. printed against C. Wade in his Truth defending 1659. yet he then took no notice of that Passage to disown it to be his But how is it that G. W. disowns what was written in the Book called Ishmael against the three Persons Doth he now own the three Persons not to be Popish as he formerly charged them Truth def p. 2 Though he has not in the least retracted his abusive and reviling Speeches against this glorious Truth both in the Ishmael and in his Truth defending c. for that would reflect upon his Infallibility yet he would seem now to own the Doctrine of the three Persons since the Act for Toleration came forth for that Act of Toleration does except those who deny in their preaching or writing the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity as it is declared in the Articles of Religion viz. the 39 Articles But that G. W. may have the Benefit of the Act which at present he has not by Law whatever he has by Indulgence he ought also to disown some other abusive Expressions of his and sophistical Arguings he has used in his other Books as particularly not only in his Truth defending c. above mentioned but in his Divinity of Christ signed by the two Letters G. W. see p. 18. he hath these Words As to T. D ' s telling of the Son of God's Incarnation the Creation of his Body and Soul the Parts of that Nature be subsisted in c. To this I say saith G. W. if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both created doth not this render him a fourth Person And as nonsensical and abusive is the reasoning of G. Fox their great Apostle in the Epistle prefixed to the Divinity signed by him and John Stubbs where in the 9th Page of that Epistle they thus argue And he speaks again in his 14th Page of three distinct Persons are one with the Godhead Now Reader is not here four to wit three Persons and the Godhead And thus G. F. and G. W. make no less by their wild and nonsensical Reasonings than five Persons in the Godhead an Absurdity they would fix on the Doctrine of three Persons for by their Arguments the Godhead is the fourth Person and Christ's created Soul and Body is the fifth Do not these Passages require a Retractation and will they say they are Protestants and one with the Church of England in Matter of Doctrine and in the common Principles of Christianity and yet boldly stand in the Defence of those abusive Passages But whereas they argue ad hominem that there must be five Persons if Father Son and Holy Ghost be said to be three Persons seeing G. W. calls them three Witnesses by their nonsensical Argument there must be five Witnesses that bear Record in Heaven viz. the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost and the Godhead these are four and the created Soul and Body of Christ that is the fifth But G.W. has a way to evade this last by denying that Christ has any created Soul or Body as in the Words in p. 18. above mentioned doth appear for which I shall have some use hereafter Jos Wyeth in his Switch p. 184. would make his Readers believe It 's only the Word Person they object against as too gross We cannot saith he but think the VVord Person too gross to express them But to detect this Fallacy pray let us take notice that G. F. whom he calls an Apostle has expresly
to constitute one Christ which is by a miraculous and extraordinary Union that no other Creatures neither Angels or Men are dignified with and though Christ as Man was the Son of God miraculously conceived and born in Time and also as God was by a Generation from Eternity before all Worlds and Times yet he is but one Son of God and because of the personal Union of the Word with his Manhood both as God and Man he is properly the Son of God But there is yet another Fallacy in G. W's Words which is that neither the visible Body nor Manhood that was born of the Virgin was any Part of the true Christ or Son of God and first As to that visible Body of Flesh and Bones he denies that Christ consisted of it I distinguish said he between consisting and having Christ had visible Flesh and Bones but he did not consist of them Christian Quaker p. 139 140. This shews us the very Heart of their Heresie In like manner W. P's Rejoinder p. 299 to 307. W. P. argues for 16. Pages in his Rejoinder against Faldo That Christ never died for they will not have any thing properly to be the Christ but his Godhead which they make to be all one identically and essentially with his Heavenly Mandhood consisting of Heavenly Flesh and Blood that he had from all Eternity Here a Quaker called John Whiting opposed in Defence of W. Penn and said W. Penn did not deny that that outward Person was the Son of God I askt him whose Son was he properly He said The Son of Mary I replied Mary was his Mother but who was his Father properly He said He was conceived by the Holy Ghost I again replied But that 's no Answer to my Question who was his Father Every Son must have a Father and seeing Christ had no immediate Father but God then surely he was properly the Son of God as the Scripture plainly testifieth To this he made no Reply but opposed in Defence of G. W. I having said that G. W. denied that visible Body that hung on the Cross to be any Part of the true Christ I replied I have proved it already by the late Quotation here read wherein he says He denies that Christ consisted of Flesh and Bones I distinguish said he between consisting and having Christ had Flesh and Bones but did not consist of them as a Man has a Coat or Garment but doth not consist of it and that outward Person that suffered at Jerusalem was Christ by a Metonimy saith VV. P. of the thing containing having the Name of the thing contained And at this rate VV. P. himself may be called Christ because he hath Christ in him The Excuse That Christ did not Meerly consist of Flesh and Bones signifies nothing for that was no Part of the Question betwixt G.VV. and his Opponent None ever said That Christ did meerly consist of Flesh Blood and Bones no Socinian will so affirm for that were to say Christ was meerly a Body of Flesh and Bones without a rational Soul whatever hath Parts doth consist of those Parts incompleatly of one or more Parts compleatly of them all The Foundation of the Quakers great Error on this Head lieth here That because Christ was before the Body was therefore that Body is no Part of him which is easily answered thus Christ was before that Body was but he was not compleatly and in all Respects fitted to be the anointed Saviour of the World until the Word was made Flesh i. e. until the Word did take our Flesh and whole Nature into a personal Union with himself the which was necessary to the compleat Performance of his Mediatory Offices of King Priest and Prophet and especially of his Priestly Office And not only G. VV. hath denyed Christ to have any created Body whereof he consists but he hath denyed that he hath any created Soul in his Answer to T. Danson ' s Synopsis p. 18. As to T. Danson's telling of the Son of God's Incarnation the Creation of his Body and Soul the Parts of that Nature he subsisted in c. To this I say if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both created doth not this render him a fourth Person For Creation was in Time which contradicts their Doctrine of three distinct increated coeternal coessential Persons in the Deity seeing that which was created was not so But herein whether doth not his and their Ignorance of the only begotten of the Father and their Denial of Christ's Divinity plainly appear yea or nay VVhere doth the Scripture say that his Soul was created For was not he the Brightness of his Father's Glory and the express Image of his Divine Substance But supposing the Soul of Christ was with the Body created in time I ask if from Eternity he was a Person distinct from God and his holy Spirit without either Soul or Body and where doth the Scripture speak of any Person without either Soul or Body T. Elwood to cover this gross Error of G.VV. in his pretended Answer to my first Narrative saith That G. W. only denyed that Christ had a created Soul as God But this was not the State of the Question for neither T. D. nor any other Man were ever so gross as to affirm that Christ as God had a created Soul And the like Evasion doth G. VV. use himself in his Antidote p. 191. This Question saith he is no Determination that it was or was not Christ as God his Soul was increated as Man his Soul or Spirit was not the Deity but formed and assumed by the VVord But it 's Evident that his accusing T. D. and others of Ignorance for saying it was created determines it sufficiently But as is above said G. W. and his Brethren will have only the Godhead to be the Christ which they call The Heavenly Man having Soul and Body Flesh Blood and Bones uncreated and existing from all Eternity which they call The Seed within them the Seed of the Woman that bruiseth the Serpent's Head which G. F. as is above quoted denyeth to be a Creature What the Seed spoke in him he said he spoke it not as a Creature therefore that Heavenly Man or Seed consisting of Heavenly Flesh and Blood which they say is in them not being a Creature must needs in their Sense be from all Eternity and not from the Beginning of the World only This appears yet more fully from R. Hubberthorn When was that Christ created R. Hub. Coll. p. 49 50. which you say must as a Creature judge the World And if in Mary's Time who was Judge of the World till then Was not the Person of Christ Jesus before the World was Note here he owns Christ to be a Person and by G. W's Argument above mentioned he must being a Person have both Soul and Body before the World was And when had the Man Christ Jesus his Beginning If you can declare it how is
George Keith's FOURTH NARRATIVE OF HIS PROCEEDINGS AT TURNERS-HALL 1699. WE whose Names are under written having at Mr. Keith's Request and by the Allowance of the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London carefully examin'd the Quotations of this Narrative do testifie the Faithfulness of them and that they exactly agree with the Books out of which they are taken And as we commend his Integrity in retracting publickly his Errors and his Christian Zeal for the reducing of his Brethren who are yet entangled with them so we hope they will follow his Example and discern the Perniciousness of their Ways and be led by the Grace of God to the Acknowledgment of the Truth and to the Communion of the Church Z. Isham D. D. Rector of St. Botolph Bishops-gate W. Bedford D. D. Rector of St. George Botolph-Lane R. Altham B. D. Rector of St. Andrew Vndershaft Will. Whitfield Rector of St. Martins at Ludgate J. Adams Rector of St. Alban Woodstreet George Keith's FOURTH NARRATIVE OF HIS PROCEEDINGS AT TURNERS-HALL Divided into Three Parts Detecting the Quakers Gross Errors Vile Heresies and Antichristian Principles oppugning the Fundamentals of Christianity by clear and evident Proofs in above Two Hundred and Fifty Quotations faithfully taken out of their Books and read at three several Meetings the 11th the 18th and 23d of Jan. 1699. before a great Auditory of Judicious Persons Ministers and others More particularly discovering the Fallacious and Sophistical Defences of George Whitehead Joseph Wyeth and seven Quakers of Colchester in their late Books on all the several Heads contained in the printed Advertisement To which is prefix'd The Attestation of five Ministers of the Church of England to the Truth of the said Quotations And a POSTCRIPT By GEORGE KEITH LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill 1700. Advertisement THIS is to signifie that it is my purpose God-willing and by his Assistance to be present at Turners-Hall in Philpot-Lane by Fanchurch-Street in London being our ordinary Meeting-place Licensed by Authority on the Eleventh Day of the Eleventh Month called January in the Forenoon there to detect and discover Gross Errors and Anti-christian Principles plainly repugnant to the Fundamentals of Christianity in the Books of the approved Authors and Writers of the People called Quakers by ocular Inspection presenting them in fair and full Quotations to as many as are willing to be present and make Inspection into them And also to lay open the great Fallacy and Sophistry of George Whitehead and Joseph Wyeth and some of their Brethren at Colchester which they have used in their late printed Defences of their Own and their Brethrens most Erronious Passages contained in their Books in order to Cloak and Hide their Antichristian Principles and vile Errors not only to the great Scandal of all true Protestants in this Nation of whom they pretend to be the more refined Part but of all true Christians any where And I do hereby desire George Whitehead and Joseph Wyeth and their Brethren of the Second Days Meeting at London who have approved their late Books to be present at the said Meeting for which I have Permission by Civil Authority or any others who think themselves concerned at the Time and Place above-mentioned to hear and see out of their own Books their Errors and Fallacies detected who if they have any thing to offer in their own or Brethrens Defence shall be fairly heard The particular Errors that I intend God-willing to discover them guilty of out of their Books and Authors are Concerning their Pretences to Infallibility and sinless Perfection Concerning the Scriptures Concerning the Holy Trinity Concerning Christ his Incarnation his Soul and Body and Blood his coming to Judgment at the Last Day Concerning Justification Concerning the Soul Concerning the Light within Concerning the Resurrection Concerning the outward Baptism and the Supper Concerning doing servile Work on the First Day George Keith London 18th 10th Month 1699-1700 A few Words of PREFACE TO THE IMPARTIAL READERS IMpartial Readers I have these few things to acquaint you with and recommend to your Consideration First that I found just and necessary Cause to recite diverse former Quotations given in my former Narratives and in other Books formerly publish'd against the Quakers Errors to detect the fallacious and sophistical Defences that they have made in their late Books in Vindication of those Quotations to cover their vile Errors Secondly Beside the former Quotations above mentioned I have brought many new Quotations which are neither in my former Narratives nor in any other Books that hitherto have been published against them which obviates the cavelling of the Quakers who would be ready to say There is nothing to be expected of new Matter but what is contained in other Books and which hath been already answered by them The contrary whereof will sufficiently appear to any that shall compare this fourth Narrative with any other Books before this published against them Thirdly Whereas the common Objection of the Quakers is That their Books are neither fully nor fairly quoted To remove the Ground of any such Objection I have got the Attestation of Persons of known Integrity and Judgment to the Truth of them as I got the like Attestation from some the former Year to attest to my third Narrative I have given the Quotations as fully and fairly as is requisite to satisfie any reasonable Persons But the Men I have to deal with for all this will I expect renew their unjust Complaint and will tell their Readers This and the other Passage going before or following should have been inserted in the Quotations whereas the not inserting of them makes not their Cause one whit the worse nor the inserting them makes their Cause one whit the better as could be shewed in many Instances and is shewed in their late Books for when so much is quoted out of any Book that gives the full Sense of the Writer whatever is more is superfluous Note for a Proof on the last Head That the Quakers deny the Moral Law or Ten Commandments to be a Rule to the Christian's Life and thereupon do not blame but justifie doing servile Work on the first Day yea and in the Face of a Congregation while the Minister was preaching See p. 28. of this Narrative G. K. George Keith's Fourth Narrative OF HIS Proceedings at Turners-Hall 1699. For the Detecting the QUAKERS ERRORS The first Part giving an Account of his Proofs on the first four Heads contained in his printed Advertisement viz. Concerning I. Their Infallibility II. Their sinless Perfection III. The Scriptures IV. The Holy Trinity Proofs out of the Quakers Books on the first Head concerning their Infallibility 1. GEORGE Fox Great Mystery pag. 105. For who witness these Conditions that they were in that gave forth the Scriptures They witness Infallibility an infallible Spirit which is now possessed and witnessed among those called Quakers Glory to the Highest for
departed from his Conscience He answers I take no Attribute of God to my self but what God hath given me by whose Gift I witness that Promise fulfilled in me ye shall discern between the righteous and the wicked between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not Mal. 3. 18. This arrogant assuming of one of God's Attributes of knowing Men's Hearts being objected against him lately in a printed Sheet called An Account from Colchester c. In another late printed Paper signed by seven Quakers at Colchester called Some Account from Colchester they expostulate the Case with them who made the Objection Is it such an Error to believe or witness the fulfilling of this plain Promise Mal. 3. 18. How do you then believe in Christ in whom all the Promises of God are yea and amen Is the contrary good Doctrine for you our Acculers to hold that ye or Christians shall not return nor discern between the righteous and the wicked c. Do you not thereby prove your selves blind and in Vnbelief Note This in Mal. 3. 18. or any other Place of Scripture proves not that any Men shall have one of God 's Attributes given them to know Men's Hearts which is no where promised but Christ hath taught us to know Men by their Works and Fruits and not by his giving them one of God's Attributes whereby to know Men's Hearts for if they had that they should be as God himself to know without regard to the Fruits But that Place Mal. 3. 18. seems to have a plain Reference to the Day of Judgment wherein the Works of all Men however secret shall be made manifest and yet not by Men's having one of God's Attributes given them even then And as to G. VV's Argument for the necessity of this infallible discerning given to Ministers otherwise Christ's Sheep may follow Strangers and be destroyed This Consequence doth not follow for while they follow the Voice of Christ that is his Doctrine outwardly deLivered in the holy Scriptures and inwardly set home and applied to their Hearts by the holy Spirit they are safe and when they follow not that but Men of false Pretences who bring a contrary Doctrine and yet say they have the infallible Spirit as the Followers of G.VV. and his Brethren do they are in great Danger of perishing and though the true Sheep of Christ shall not finally be deceived nor finally perish yet they at times may be deceived and have been deceived by false Teachers and by none more than such false Teachers who falsly pretend to the Spirit of Christ and yet preach contrary to his Doctrine But that the Quakers did not only pretend to extraordinary Inspirations of the Spirit but to miraculous Operations I shall shew you out of G. F's G. M. p. 254. Some of them having asked the Question VVhether your Baptizers cast out Devils and drink any deadly thing and it not hurt you And whether the House where you meet was ever shaken And where he did give the Holy Ghost to you The Opponent calls this an unlearned Question to which G. F. replies This is to shew that you are not Believers nor in the Power that the Apostles was in Note By this it appears they lay claim to the same Power of working Miracles that the Apostles had as to drink any deadly thing and it not to hurt them and that the House where they meet was shaken I have both heard and seen that some of the Quakers Bodies were shaken in their Meetings but I never heard nor saw that the House where they met was shaken Note while I was giving my Proofs out of G. F. and G. W. their Books concerning their high Pretences to an infallible discerning Men's Hearts a Quaker called Samuel Miller as I am informed a Bricklayer stood upon a Bench and for a further Confirmation said with a loud Voice George I had a Vision concerning thee twenty Years ago that though thou didst preach the Gospel to others thou thy self should be a Cast-away This he gave to corroborate G. F's Pretense of his knowing the State of Men's Souls from Eternity to Eternity But if his and their bare Affirmation must be received for Truth without all external Evidence that I am an Apostate a Cast-away what Man howsoever innocent can escape their uncharitable Censure Another Quaker called Thomas Kent stood up and would have preached telling the Auditory He felt a Fire or Flame burn in his Breast he had a Consciencious Concern upon him but the People forbidding him to preach he cried out The Quotations were false but gave not the least Proof I told them he has been disowned by the Quakers and recorded out of the Unity these many Years for his Drunkenness and opposing G. Fox's Orders so after a short time he was silent Proofs out of the Quakers Books on the second Head concerning their Sinless Perfection IT being objected against G. F. that he had said He was as upright as Christ He answers Saul's Errand p. 11. Thâ—se VVords were not so spoken by me but that as he is so are we in this present VVorld that the Saints are made the Righteousness of God that the Saints are one in the Father and the Son that we shall be like him 1 Joh. 3. 2. And that all teaching which is given forth by Christ is to bring the Saints to Perfection even to the measure of the Stature of the Fullness of Christ this the Scripture doth witness and this I witness where Christ dwells must he not speak in his Temple It having been said by one of G. F 's Opponents G. Myst p. 282 They i.e. the Saints cannot be perfect here or hereafter in Equality but only in Quality G. F. answers Christ makes no Distinction in his Words but saith Be ye perfect even as your Heavenly Father is and be ye merciful as he is and as he is so are we and that which is perfect and merciful as he is perfect and merciful is in Equality with the same thing which is of God and from him G. Whitehead in Defence of this Passage in Truth and In. p. 14. saith Now where 's the Blasphemy pray Was it not Christ's own Doctrine Be ye perfect even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect and Luke 16. 36. Be ye therefore merciful as your Father is merciful Now what Distinction doth Christ make in these Words and Precepts as in point of Purity and where 's the Perfection in Quality granted then and wherein must this Perfection consist Note It was not Christ's Doctrine to be perfect in Equality with God's Perfection for that were to command them to be God himself and though Christ expresseth no Distinction yet it is implied and whereas G. W. pleads for the Saint's Equality with God in point of Purity he is still blasphemous the Saint's Perfection in Quality is not an essential Perfection for what Holiness and Purity they now have they formerly had
is no Sin and who is in him sins not who put an End to the many things that must end and change Thus we see his and his Brethrens Presumption who plainly declare they were got beyond James and all the Faithful to whom he wrote those Words and he chargeth both James and all the Faithful to whom he wrote all these Words with a horrid Falshood that they were not come to the one thing to wit to Jesus Christ And if none are come to Christ or in Christ but who are perfect with a sinless Perfection as G. W. doth here argue then young Believers and Converts who are travelling towards Perfection are not in Christ nor come to Christ because they have not that sinless Perfection which is both a most false and most comfortless Doctrine and injurious to all young Christian Converts at least and may be thought by young Quaker Converts injurious to them also Note while the Proofs were reading out of the Quakers Books for their sinless Perfection a Quaker supposed to be John Whiting said George if Men are not perfect before Death when are they made perfect It must be either before Death or after Death I answered In the instant of Death and that is neither before Death nor after Death as if one should ask when did Peter and other deceased Saints put off the earthly Tabernacle whether before Death or after Death The Answer is neither before nor after but at the Instant of Death But let us hear yet somewhat more of G. F's great Conceit of his and his Brethrens Perfection even in Equality with God himself Abrief Discovery of the Threefold State of Antichrist G. W's brief Discovery p. 15. printed 1653. he being charged with saying That he was as upright as Christ he answers these Words were not spoken by me but that as he is so are we in this World that the Saints are made the Righteousness of God that the Saints are one in the Father and the Son that we shall be like him and that all teaching which is given forth by Jesus Christ is to bring up the Hearers to Perfection even to the Measure Stature and Fullness of Christ this the Scripture witnesseth and I witness fulfilled in me Note this is more than what is in Saul's Errand above-quoted for there the Words of Scripture are kept to that mention the Measure of the Stature of the Fullness but here it 's far beyond what is written in Scripture that he was come not only to the Measure but to the Stature and Fullness of Christ and what is this but to be equal with Christ and God Saul's Errand p. 13. G. F. He that is perfectly holy is perfectly just where this is revealed there needs no Addition for the Man of God is perfect This will yet more fully appear by the following Quotations In Truth def by G. Fox and R. Hubb page 65. a Query being proposed by the Opponent Who is like to be the Man thou speakest of he that saith he is equal with God and Christ or he that preacheth Christ the Head The Answer is Here in this Question thou openly shewâ—d by self 〈…〉 the Mind the Apostles had for saith he I would the some Mind were in you that was also in Christ Jesus who thought it no Robbery to be equal with God and yet made himself of no Reputation Philip. 2. 5. And here thou hast shewed thy self that thou hast neither the Mind of Christ nor his Apostles but art an Antichrist and an Enemy against them that witness these things which the Apostle said I would that ye were of the same Mind And again the Apostle saith Our Fellowship is with the Father and the Son 1 Joh. 1. 3. Again in his G. Mystery p. 248. he quotes but very lamely and corruptly C. Wade in his Book Quakery Slain He denies the Son of God to be revealed in Man only by Adoption and cries against Equality with the Father Here before I give you G. F's Answer I shall give you C. Wade's Words as they stand in his Book to which he answers C. Wade's Words in his Quakery slain are these p. 23. G. Fox in the 8. pag. of Saul's Errand affirmeth That he that hath the same Spirit that raised up Jesus Christ is equal with God and the Saints have the same Spirit in Measure for God's Spirit is but one And G. Fox saith in pag. 11. That he is a Saint Thus he would again prove That he a poor wicked Creature is equal with God the Creator and if so then G. Fox is the Creator of G. Fox and the whole World and he intimately claimeth Christ's Equality with God by his perverted citing of Philip. 2. 6 7. Now in Opposition to G. F's affirming He was equal with God C. Wade in his pag 24. saith The Scripture saith that even the Saints themselves are not God's Sons otherwise but by Adoption only by Christ note that you Quakers not as being Christ as you foolishly fancy but by Christ for it 's written Having predestinated us unto the Adoption of Children by Jesus Christ Eph. 1. 5. See this confirmed Gal. 4. 5. Rom. 8. 23. and Creature adopted Sons cannot be equal with their Heavenly uncreated Father who vouchsafeth by free Grace by and in his Son Christ to adopt them to be his Sons in Acceptation only Neither can any Creature adopted Sons be equal with God's only begotten Son the Creator of all adopted Sons and all other things both in Heaven and in Earth also This is the true and full Quotation out of C. Wade his Quakery slain In Opposition to which sound Doctrine of C. Wade G. Fox thus answers G. M. p. 248. Ans And that is contrary to the Apostle who had the Son of God revealed in him and the Assembly of Divines gave forth a Catechism which Children old and young was to learn and said The Holy Ghost and Son was equal in Substance and Power and Glory with the Father What Then all that have the Son and the Holy Ghost hath that which is equal in Power and Glory with the Father In this thou hast not only judged thy self but all the Assembly of Divines at Westminster 1649. Note G. Fox here doth not quote the Page of C. Wade's Book as frequently he doth not throughout his G. Myst give his Opponents Pages of their Books which it seems was in Design that his unfair Quotations might not be so easily found out Now observe whereas G. F. brings C. Wade crying against Equality with the Father we see by the Quotation given what Equality with the Father C. VVade cries against to wit not the Equality of Christ the only begotten of God with the Father for that he expresly affirms by saying That Christ God's only begotten Son is the Creator of all things but the Equality that C. Wade cryed against was the Equality of G. Fox and Creature adopted Sons with the Father and for his so saying G.
Fox makes him to have contradicted the Apostle and also the Assembly of Divines at Westminster and judged both himself and them This I think so evident a Proof that G. F. thought himself equal with the Father that neither G. W. nor Jos Wyeth nor any of their Brethren with all their little Craft and Sophistry can clear this Passage from that down-right Blasphemy That G. F. was equal with God for neither the Assembly of Divines at Westminster nor C. W. deny the Equality of the Son and of the Holy Ghost for G. Fox grants they owned it but the Equality which C. Wade cryed against was the Equality of G. F. or any of the Saints with the Father But here we find the Strength of G. Fox's Logick The Son and Holy Ghost are equal with the Father therefore G. F. is equal with the Father the Proof of which Consequence must be one of these two following Assertions the one is That G. Fox thought himself to be the Son of God or such a Son as was equal with the Father the other is That because the Son of God was revealed in G. Fox as he thought that therefore G. Fox was equal with the Father As to the first of these Assertions as it is utterly false that G. Fox was the Son of God to wit the only begotten Son of God the Word made Flesh so the other is utterly a false Consequence that because the Son of God was revealed in him that therefore he was equal with the Father but surely if the Son of God had been revealed in him that Revelation would have taught him not to utter such horrid Blasphemy But that C. Wade did not deny but own as much as the Scripture warranteth That God the Father as also Christ the Son were manifested or revealed in the Saints I shall quote a Passage in his Book being originally the Words of one T. Moor that wrote against the Quakers whom J. Nailer had charged That he would exclude God and Christ out of the World and that he should no more dwell in his People till Doomsday In Opposition to which C. Wade quotes the following saying of T. Moor which he approves pag. 23. of Quakery slain That the Majesty of God whose Throne is in Heaven is in his Inspections Influences and Operation every where and in his gracious and spiritual Presence and manifested Nighness in and through his Son dwelling in Sion even in the Hearts and Societies of his People Now let us hear what Jos Wyeth and G. Whitehead say in Defence of that blasphemous Passage above-mentioned quoted from Saul's Errand to Damascus p. 8. He that hath the same Spirit that raised up Jesus from the dead is equal with God Jos Wyeth doth plainly justifie it by the like false Consequence as G. Fox made Switch pag. 59. he saith For when Men are guided by the Holy Spirit they are certainly guided by God for the Father Son and Holy Spirit are one God and therefore equal and that which is equal as G. Fox he saith often expresseth it But doth it therefore follow that because the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are equal that therefore he that hath either the Son or the Holy Ghost is equal either with the Son or Holy Ghost or with the Father yet this is Jos Wyeth's blasphemous Consequence to justifie G. F's Blasphemy But G. W. hath found two other Ways to defend the above-said Blasphemy of G. F. in the Supplement to the Switch he saith p. 528. And if any among us have writ of them who are perfect in Christ Jesus being led by his Spirrt as in that Sense equal I understand equal only as like unto God or in Vnion with him being united unto him by his Spirit as he that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit Note first The Word Equal no where that I know either in Scripture or other Books or common Speech in any Language signifieth only as like therefore this is a meer Force put upon the Word and a strained Sense But Secondly That could not be the Sense intended by G. Fox because as I have above shewed in a former Quotation he proves that he is equal with God the Father because the Son and Holy Ghost are equal with the Father Now will G. W. say That the Equality betwixt the Son and the Holy Ghost and the Father is only an Equality of Likeness as to say the Son and the Holy Ghost are only like the Father but are not really equal with the Father This was the Arian Heresie that the Son was like the Father but not equal or of the same Substance with the Father they said he was Homoiusios but not Homouisios But he hath yet another String to his Bow in his Truth and Innocency pag. 10. Therefore the Words He that hath in the said Instance should be left out being contrary to G. F 's and our Principle and to his own very Words and Confession a little before in the same Book quoting Saul's Errand p. 5 6. where G. F. saith It was not so spoken as G. Fox was equal with God but the Father and the Son is one But the Fallacy lyeth here he did not say George Fox to wit the Name George Fox or the outward visible Body that bears that Carnal Name as he somewhere calls it but the new Name that he hath that is the He that is equal with God because that He is the Son and as to what G. W. saith of Union with God that G. F. did not mean Union by Faith and Love but a personal Union appears from G. M. p. 100. He brings in his Opponent saying God dwells not in the Saints as a Personal Union In Opposition to which he answers How comes the Saints then to eat of his Flesh and to be of his Flesh and Bone Note it should be by a personal Union And God dwelling in them and have Vnity with the Son and the Father and to be of his Body which is the Church and Christ the Head Yea he blames his Opponent G. M. p. 258. for saying To say that God is substantially in Man as essentially one with him can be no other but the Man of Sin But whereas G. W. saith He that hath should be left out pray who put them in That they were G. Fox's Words the Book called Saul's Errand affirms if this Liberty be allowed to transpose leave out and add Words in a Sentence nothing so vile and blasphemous or atheistical but may be justified by G. W. who hath used all these three Methods to defend his and his Brethrens vile Errors But let us hear one Passage more of G. F. out of G. Myst p. 299. to let us know what Conceit he had of himself as being more than a Creature he tells That one had raised a grievous Lye against G. F. and said he said he was Christ p. 298. to the End This Man having so charged him and having told him
owned the Person of the Father G. M. p. 247. But thou saith Christ doth not dwell in them personally doth not Christ dwell in his Saints as he is in the Person of the Father the Substance And are not they of his Flesh and of his Bone Again G. Fox G.M. p. 248. owns expresly Christ's Person for first having cited his Opponent's Words It is a false thing to say Christ's Person is in Man in his Answer without finding the least fault with the Term Person he makes Opposition thus VVhich is as much as to say none are of his Flesh or of his Bone nor eat it nor had not his Substance By this it appears that G. F. did not find fault either with the Word Person as belonging to the Father or with Christ's Person but he will not allow them to be two Persons but one Person But if any will say he allowed them to be two Persons then by the Arguments both of G. F. and G. VV. they must be two Gods for if three Persons infer by Argument three Gods by the same Argument two Persons will infer two Gods The above mentioned Words of G. F. in G. M. Doth not Christ dwell in his Saints as he is in the Person of the Father the Substance Jos VVyeth in his Switch recites as quoted out of the Snakâ— Here the Switch finds no fault with G. Fox's owning the Person of the Father which were G. F's own Words but labors to prove that by that spiritual Oneness betwixt Christ and his Followers G.F. did not mean to make the Soul of the same Person and Substance with God which how ineffectual his Labor is in that may be shewn afterwards Note that the Switch doth justifie G. F. his Saying That God the Father did take upon him Humane Nature p. 190. and in Truth 's defence by G. F. p. 85. The Son's Body is called the Father's they are one not two viz. the Son and the Father But here once more on this Head let us take notice of G. VV 's Fallibility and self Contradiction in most evident manner In his Light and Life p. 47. he blames his Opponent VV. B. for these Words following concerning Christ Now as he was God he was Co-creator with the Father and so was before Abraham and had Glory with God before the VVorld was and in this Sense came down from Heaven To this G.VV. replies VVhat Nonsence and unscripture Language is this to tell of God being Co-creator with the Father or that God had Glory with God Doth not this imply two Gods and that God had a Father let the Reader judge Note how he calleth it Nonsence and unscripture Language to say That Christ as God had Glory with God and that he had a Father which is a plain Evidence that G. VV. denied the eternal divine Generation of the Son contrary both to the Nicene and Athanasian Creed and Scripture also But let us see how he excuses himself in his Antidote p. 188. But the Phrase God Co-creator with God I think still implies two Creators and consequently two Gods 'T is not the Particle Co with in this case will excuse the matter for Co or Con is simul together as Co-workers Co-partners which are more distinct Agents than one but the Creator is but one God one VVord one Spirit and so one Creator Note Here we see the Force of G. VV's Argument against Christ the Word being God Co-creator with the Father is that it would infer the Father and the Son to be Co-workers and consequently two Gods This Antidote he writ in the Year 1697. but in the Year 1674. wherein he published his Quakers Plainness in p. 24. he allows the Father and the Son to be Co-workers in the following Words That the Distinction of the Father and the Son is not only nominal as this Opposer implies against us but real in the divine Relation of Father and Son the Son as being the only begotten of the Father and also known as Co-workers in the Order and Degrees of Manifestation and Discovery where it is plain by his late manner of arguing in his Antidote against the Father and the Son being Co-workers that it doth infer two Gods that in his Saying in his Quakers Plainness as above quoted That the Father and the Son are known as Co-workers he has rendred himself guilty by his own Argument of holding the Father and the Son to be two Gods This is not only a Contradiction to himself but a severe Censure on himself that in the Year 1674. he was guilty of Idolatry in holding That the Father and the Son are two Gods Note Reader that the Quakers use to object two things against my charging Contradictions upon G. W. and other their principal Authors First That I have contradicted my self in my former and later Writings To this I have answered What in my later Writings I have retracted of my former Errors is no Contradiction for that 's a Contradiction when a Man holds contradictory Propositions to be both true simul semel without retracting his Errors But what a Man retracts he is no more chargeable with let G. W. and his Brethren retract their Errors and I shall cease to charge them with them or with Contradictions Secondly they object That I may find as many Contradictions in the Scriptures as in their Books Thus we see how they undervalue the Scriptures to be as contradictory as their Authors but I deny there are any real Contradictions in the Scriptures but there are many in the Quakers Authors Again further hear a Quotation out of the Primmer of G. F. junior and S. Crisp p. 24. And they that come to see and know the Son they come to see and know the Father also for the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father as saith the Scriptures and they are called by one Name which is The Word or The Light For the Word is God and Christ is the Word and God is Light and Christ is the Light of the World and the Spirit of Life proceeds from God and Christ who are Light Note Seeing they hold that the Father and the Son are called by one Name which is The Word and that the Father is the Word and the Son is the Word it is evident they make no Distinction betwixt the Father and Son and therefore according to their false Doctrine seeing the Word was made Flesh and the Father is the Word the Father was made Flesh the Father was born of a Virgin the Father suffered Death on the Cross yea the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father which is a plain overturning the great Fundamentals of Christianity yet this Primmer is so highly magnified among the Quakers that almost every Family of them have it to teach it their Children and they call it in the Preface A Fruit of the Plant of Righteousness given forth for the removing the Vse of such Books and Catechisins as
The Son is an Example of Imitation or Caution for the Father to follow it had been more agreeable to have said The Father is an Example of the Son for the Son to follow than to say The Son is an Example for the Father to follow seeing Christ said I can do nothing of my self for what I see the Father do that do I. But to give an Instance what an Ambidexter G.W. is in twisting and twining and bending the Scripture In his Antidote p. 191. he saith That He spoke for Christ's Divinity as he was the Brightness of the Father's Glory and the express Image of his divine Substance in Answer to T. Danson Here he forsaketh his former Translation which was Figure and taketh the Translation in our English Bible which is Image But how will this prove the Divinity of Christ so as to be one Substance with the Father if the express Image signifie our Example of Imitation as G.W. doth argue in his Truth and Innocency His being an Example of our Imitation is no sufficient Argument to prove his being one Substance with the Father for the Socinians will grant him to be a very excellent Example of our Imitation yet this is no sufficient Argument to convince them That he is one Substance with the Father from his being an Example of Imitation Is it not plain from all this shuffling and shifting that G.W. rather than he will confess his former Errors will wrong his own Conscience and bring the most nonsensical Excuses that ever were heard of to defend his Infallibility than give Glory to God by a plain and free Confession of his Errors Next let us hear G. W's Defence of that Saying of W. P's One outward thing cannot be the proper Figure or Representation of another the outward Lamb shews forth the inward Lamb. He labours to vindicate W. P's Saying by thus arguing How will these Men saith he prove that the outward Paschal Lamb was the proper Figure or Representation of Christ's outward Person Pray what proper Resemblance had they Was not rather the Lamb in respect of its Innocency a proper Figure of Christ's Innocency as the Lamb of God once offered for Sin I answer And was not the Lamb's Innocency an outward thing i.e. without Men and also Christ's Innocency as he lived and walked among Men and was not his outward Person innocent But had not G.W. been extreamly blind and ignorant he had never argued nor asked so foolishly what proper Resemblance had they viz. the Paschal Lamb and Christ's outward Person for the Generality of Christians know that as by God's Appointment the Paschal Lamb and Sacrifices were proper Types and Figures of Christ's outward Person as he was to be slain for the Sins of the World so the Resemblance was not only in Innocency but in many other Respects the Lamb was to be killed so was Christ the Lamb was to be without Blemish so was Christ the Lamb was to be of the Flock so was Christ to be of his Brethren the Blood of the Lamb sprinkled on the Door-posts and Lintels of the Israelites saved them from the Wrath of the destroying Angel so the Blood of Christ that was outwardly shed applyed by Faith saveth true Believers from Wrath the Lamb was to be eaten wholly so we are to receive Christ wholly in all his Offices These and many other Resemblances there are betwixt the Paschal Lamb and Christ known in general to Christians yea to many Children which yet G.W. here declares himself to seem wholly ignorant of Godwin in his Book called Moses and Aaron numbers at least twelve Particulars of Resemblance betwixt the Paschal Lamb and Christ without us and yet this G.W. more like a Heathen than a Christian queries Pray what proper Resemblance had they But to return his Question Pray what proper Resemblance had the Paschal Lamb to the inward Blood Christ which G.W. saith is the Life and Light and Spirit of God within and the Holy Ghost Was ever the Holy Ghost or the Godhead slain in Men Or is there an inward spiritual Blood of Christ slain in Men that is not the Godhead But we shall come anon to treat more fully of this And how is that fulfilled in Christ within A Bone of him shall not be broken Whether Christ without us as he died and rose again is the Object of Faith c. G.VV. Truth and Inn. p. 54. defends a most Antichristian Saying of his in his Light and Life and to cloak it the more he gives the Quotation lame The Quakers at Colchester in their late printed Paper called Some Account gives it more fully But in the Book Light and Life p. 38. it is thus Bapt. Now the Quakers would be so far from directing Men to go to the material Temple that they make it but a vain thing to look to Jerusalem to the Antitype of that Temple viz. to Jesus as he was there crucified or to that Blood that was there shed for Justification His Answer is The Quakers see no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype viz. neither to the outward Temple nor yet to Jerusalem either to Jesus Christ or his Blood knowing that neither the Righteousness of Faith nor the Word of it does so direct Rom 10. And is it the Baptists Doctrine to direct Men to the material Temple and Jerusalem the Type for the Antitype What Nonsense and Darkness is this And where do the Scriptures say That the Blood was there shed for Justification and that Men must be directed to Jerusalem whereas that Blood shed is not in being p. 40. But the true Apostles directed them to the Light which was so much opposed by the Baptists to walk in the Light for the Blood of Christ to cleanse them from all Sin Now let us hear his Defence Truth and Inn. p. 54. I ask these Men saith he where the Scripture doth so direct Men to go to the outward Temple at Jerusalem for Jesus Christ Nay doth it not contrarywise direct them See plain Scripture Deut. 30. 12 13 14. Rom. 10. 6 7 8. The same Answer in effect but in more Words quoting at full length Deut. 30. 12 13 14. and Rom. 10. 6 7 8. we find in that called Some Account from Colchester signed by seven Quakers there but likely enough to have been drawn up by G.W. himself though whether it was or not is not material to the case and on the Margin they say Must they then go on Pilgrimage Note This is a most shameful Evasion to cloak their vile Heresie of which yet to this very Day G. W. hath not plainly cleared himself nor ever can till he retract this and his many other Errors Can it be supposed that W. Burnet who was the Baptist that thus objected against the Quakers was for having the Quakers or any others go on Pilgrimage or on Feet to Jerusalem for Jesus Christ or his Blood G.W. knoweth in his Conscience the contrary yea in the
convince him that the reasonable Soul in Men did not sin What is that Soul that the wicked cannot kill Surely by this Query George Fox meant the Soul that the wicked cannot kill was not the Soul that could sin wherein he sheweth his great Ignorance for though the wicked cannot kill the sinful Souls of Men yet as Christ said in the following Words He is to be feared to wit God that can cast both Soul and Body into Hell Fire Now what Soul can be cast into Hell Fire but the Soul that sinneth But lastly By George Fox's Argument That if the sinful Soul be reasonable and the unsinful Soul be reasonable also then they are one in Unity which he would have to be a great Absurdity thus he hath plainly disclosed the Mistery of his profound Doctrine that is a Branch of Ranterism viz. that there are but two Principles one good in Man that never sinneth or doth evil the other bad that sinneth and never doeth good the one is God or a Part of God the other the Devil or a Part of the Devil And his denying that one and the same Soul doth sin at one Time and doth well at another Time clearly proveth that according to him there is not any Soul of Man but what is either a Part of God or of the Devil And he discovereth his great Ignorance in denying that the reasonable Soul is sinful the contrary whereof is true that no Soul but a reasonable Soul is or can be sinful for what is it that makes the Beasts uncapable of sinning but that they are not reasonable And whereas his Opponent had very well argued that the evil Spirits are both sinful and reasonable George Fox answereth This is a Lie for reasonable is not sinful unreasonable is sinful quoting 2 Thess 3. 2. And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked Men for all Men have not Faith But this doth nothing favour his Manichean Notion he was so ignorant as not to distinguish betwixt the Faculty of Reason and the Act of Reason when Men that are reasonable and have reasonable Souls act contrary to Reason they are said to be unreasonable to wit in Act but still the Soul that sinneth is reasonable with respect to the rational Faculty nor could evil Spirits sin if they were not reasonable i. e. indued with rational Faculties Besides the Greek Word in 2 Thess 3. 2. is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is not so properly translated Unreasonable but as it is on the Margin Absurd i. e. such who though they have Reason yet will not give place to Reason but act contrary to it and George Fox had he had the right Use of his Reason might have seen that it is no more an Argument against the Soul of Man being reasonable that it acts unreasonably than it is an Argument that the Soul is not enlightened by the Light within because it often acts contrary to the Dictates of it Again for a further Confirmation of George Fox's Doctrine That the Soul that sinneth is not the Soul that is to be saved and that therefore the Soul that is saved or is to be saved is only Christ the Seed within Men Hear what George Fox saith Great Mistery page 324. he quotes his Opponent saying That the Seed to whom the Promise of Salvation is made is or hath been Sinners This he opposeth saying The Promise of God is to the Seed which hath been laden as a Cart with Shaves by the Sinner which Seed is the Hope Christ that purifies even as God is pure So this Promise is not to Seeds as many but to one the Seed which is Christ Note In the same Paragraph he saith So here is the Creature come to know its Liberty amongst the Sons of God and the Seed Christ never sinned in the Male nor in the Female Note what he means by the Creature that comes to know its Liberty which hath not sinned and hath the Promise of Salvation seems not intelligible for he denieth that the Seed is a Creature and yet it is that to which the Promise of Salvation is to wit the Seed Christ in the Male and in the Female that never sinned but he grosly perverts that Place in Gal. 3. 16. for by the Seed Christ is there meant Christ as he came outwardly according to the Flesh out of Abraham's Loins to whom the Promise was that in him all Nations of the Earth should be blessed but this was not to a Seed within that needed Salvation Like to this is what he saith in Great Mistery p. 15. having quoted his Opponent saying There is nothing in Man to be spoken to but Man To this he thus opposeth How then Ministred the Apostle to the Spirit and Christ spake to the Spirits in Prison and Timothy was to stir up the Gift that was in him and the Spirit of the Father speaks within them and the Light it shines in the Heart Here the Scriptures are for Correction of thee and Reproof of thee who said there is nothing to speak to in Man but Man Again In Great Mystery p. 187 he quotes his Opponent saying It would be good News if the Quakers should go and preach to the Spirits in Hell To this he answers The Quakers have been among the Prisoners that be in Hell and ministred to that and the CORRUPTIONS shall go into the Fire that hath no End and they that do wickedly and forget God shall go into Hell and Death and Hell shall go into the Lake of Fire and there is more in these Words yet than thou canst receive for God is the Salvation of all Men but specially them that believe Note thus we see he is very charitable and the Quakers Ministers are very charitable that they have been among the Prisoners in Hell and preached to that But how is this great Charity consistent with his saying That that which sinneth is not saved unless he mean that Sin is not saved though the Creature is The very same Doctrine concerning the Soul I find asserted by Edward Burrough in his Works Coll. page 27. Thou sayest one of us told thee That that which sinned could not be saved I answer saith Edward Burrough It is out of the Reach of the Wisdom and thy vulturous Eye shall never see it I say as the Scripture saith The Soul that sinneth must die and every Man must die for his own Iniquity If thou hast an Ear thou mayst hear Thus we see the Agreement of these two great Teachers of the Quakers about the Souls that sin that they shall not be saved nor can be saved But how grosly doth Edward Burrough pervert those Scriptures to prove his most corrupt Doctrine that is plain Ranterism Because the Scripture saith The Soul that sinneth must die doth it therefore follow That it cannot afterwards be saved both from Death and Sin that is the Cause of it Indeed Sin hath brought a Spiritual Death
Ministers have most justly charged them concerning God Christ and the holy Scriptures 11thly and 12thly Concerning Baptism and the Lord's-Supper IN a Book call'd Some Principles of the Elect People of God in Scorn call'd Quakers p. 75. The Baptism we own which is the Baptism of Christ with the Holy Ghost and with Fire but we deny all other for there is but one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all add they who would have one Baptism outward and another inward would have two Baptisms when the Scripture saith the Baptism is but one and whosoever hath the Baptism outward are the same they were before but the Baptism of Christ makes a new Creature And now I see the other to be formal Imitation and the invention of Man and so a meer Delusion and all are Heathens and no Christians who cannot witness this Baptism Matth 15. 4. who can witness this DENIES ALL OTHER for the Scripture saith the Baptism is but one And in p. 76. And are without feeding upon the Husk and Shadow which is carnal for the Bread which the World breaks is Carnal and Natural and only feeds the outward carnal Body and goeth into the Belly and so passeth out into the Dunghil and so likewise the Cup which they drink and so the Communion and Fellewship of the World passeth away but this is no nourishment to the Soul but still the Soul lies in Death and here is no Commnnion but natural outward and carnal of several Minds and Hearts full of Filthiness and Uncleanness which IS THE TABLE OF DEVILS Eating and Drinking their own Damnation not discerning the Lord's Body which is Spiritual which the natural Man discerns not W. P. in his Reason against Railing p. 108. I affirm by that one Scripture Heb. 9. 10. Circumcision is as much in force as Water-Baptism and the Paschal Lamb as Bread and Wine they were both Shadows and both elementary and perishable And we can testifie FROM THE SAME SPIRIT by which Paul renounced Circumcision that they are to be rejected as not now required neither have they since the false Church espoused and exalted them ever been taken up afresh by God's Command or in the leading of his Eternal Spirit and the Lord will appear to gather his People out of them but never to establish or keep People in them Note Notwithstanding the severe Censure that the Quakers have passed on the outward Administration of Baptism and the Lord's-Supper in the former Quotation and W. Penn in this latter Quotation in the one they say Baptism with Water and the Lord's-Supper with Bread and Wine are to BE DENYED WE DENY say they ALL OTHER and in the other W. P. saith they are to be REJECTED and this he saith they can testifie from the same Spirit by which Paul renounced Circumcision yet W. Penn in his Key Printed at London 1699. saith Hence it is that the People call'd Quakers cannot be said to deny them viz. the outward Administration of Baptism and the Supper that is saith he too hard a Word But they leave them off as fulfilled in Christ who is in them their hope of Glory Is there not here a palpable contradiction betwixt W. Penn and his Brethren He saith in his Key p. 28. The People call'd Quakers cannot be said to deny them that 's too hard and yet in the former Quotation they have used that very same Word WE DENY ALL OTHER say they and call it the Invention of Man and so a meer Delusion But it is fearful Delusion in them to call these so solemn Institutions of our Blessed Saviour expresly enjoyn'd to the end of the World and his coming to Judgment by such Names yea and the like contradiction is found betwixt W. P. in his Reason against Railing in the Year 1673. and the same W. P. in his Key Printed 1699. In the former he saith We can testifie from the same Spirit by which Paul rejected Circumcision that they are to be rejected In the latter he saith The People call'd Quakers cannot be said to deny them that 's too hard a Word yet we see they have denyed them both by Practise and verbal Confession yea and rejected them and with no less pretended Authority than the same Spirit by which Paul rejected Circumcision Where is now the Unity they boast of seeing in this as well as in divers other things of great weight they are so contradictory and unconstant to themselves and yet without all change if we will believe them And notwithstanding the severe Censure that the Quakers in general and G. W. in particular have passed on Baptism and the Lord's-Supper outwardly Administred calling them the Invention of Man a meer Delusion and Idolatry and the Lord's-Supper The Table of Devils and the Cup of Devils yet G. W. in his Antidote p. 114. Printed 1697 pretends a great deal of Moderation and Charity to some who practise them but without any change in him And tho' too many now are very Formal and Superstitious in those outward Observations and Shadows laying so much stress for Salvation upon them that they neglect the Substance yet others being more conscientiously tender in the observation thereof we are the more tender to these so as not to censure or condemn them meerly for practising that which they believe is their Duty either in breaking of Bread or Water Baptism yet desire they may see further Note What can this smooth Language of W. P. and G. W. concerning Baptism and the Supper now of late Years import or signifie to all impartial Persons but that thereby they seek to deceive the weak and simple seeing they will not acknowledge that they are changed in any respect from what they were in the beginning either in point of Perswasion or Charity They mean the same now as when they called them universally and without exception beggarly Elements worldly Rudiments Idolatry Invention of Man and meer Delusion But seeing they are not changed in their Faith and Perswasion concerning Water Baptism and the Supper they cannot with any good Conscience be changed in their being more charitable now then formerly so that G. W.'s saying they do not censure or condemn them who are more conscentiously tender in the observation thereof meerly for practising that which they believe is their duty is a meer fallacy Do they not condemn all visible Christian Societies but their own and call them Apostates the World Idolaters Worshippers of Baal and the Preachers belonging to those Societies Priests of Baal c. Do they not censure them who practise Idolatry and Man's Invention and meer Delusion as they have past Judgment on those outward practises to be such And if People's practising what they believe is their Duty being misled by an erring Conscience and Ignorance of Mind as the Quakers think all are so misled who practise the outward Baptism and Supper can excuse them from censure according to G. W.'s way of Argument they may extend