that in such low and external things too as in giving the Hand pulling off the Hat and coming to Quakers Meetings Sect. 4. Is not the Hat and the Hand SEEN Is it not a strange thing that giving the Hand and pulling off the Hat should be Ordinances to CONTINVE in the True Church but not Water-Baptism and Material Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper Note Readers I pray you Weigh this seriously and what their Reasons can be Remembring G. Fox's words at the beginning of this Section Consider well whither it is these Quakers are a Running laying such a Necessity on such a Ceremonial and external thing as giving the Hand do they not in this of the Hand exceed the Church of Rome in her impositions I have Transcribed the more of this that you may see how far the Quakers themselves are now come to own Forms and disown the Spirit in particular Persons and are already got to the Spirit IN the Body yea and OF the Body of Friends that is the Spirit in and of their Church Like as the Pope and Church of Rome and thus you may understand how the Quakers are and have been Divided amongst themselves one pretending the Spirit and others pretending the Spirit one against another and that which one calls the Spirit of Christ the other Quaker calls the Spirit of Antichrist and that which one calls Light the other says is Darkness and if they will continue running round and groping up and down in that Darkness notwithstanding this Faithful Admonition so let them SECT IV. The Quakers Quibbles about Flesh being Silent Sect. 1. IT is as generally known that this was at first the Quakers Doctrine and they used to cry out to others Cease from Man let all Flesh be silent and so would stop the Mouths of other Men and Teachers and draw People away from hearing of others Sect. 2. But now when other Quakers tell them so then hear how they wheel about again P. Livingstone Idem p. 14.15 You that cry let all Flesh be silent and yet not silent in your selves you but mock God and belie him he hath not bid you cry so For it is seen in the eternal Light that such would have the Truth silenc'd and its Children And the Prophet said Cease from Man but HE taught or the LIFE in and by him taught but all teaching that comes not from the LIFE are Mâ—n's teachings that is the Flesh to be silenced But such as be taught of the Lord and sent of him to Publish his Truth this is not to be denyed nor is denyed by them that know its teachings in themselves c. Oh Excellent Quibbling but pitiful begging of the Question for they still take that for granted which never was nor can be granted them That that onely in them is the Life and the Lords teaching which they call so MORE than that in others who oppose them Sest 3. Thus you see one while they would have us cease from Man another while to go round we must not cease from Man nor the Light and Life in the Man another while to face about again and meet in the middle we must cease from the Man but not from the Light in the Man and one while the pretended Light in the Man is Light and at other times 't is Darkness and all this as they the Men or the Life in them fancy and please when they please how they please or what they please One while all Flesh and Man is to be silent but another time to dance the Rounds the Prophet who was a Man and Flesh Taught or the Life in and by him Taught one or the other or both or he knows not whether Oh! the profound Riddles and Quibbles of these Quakers Sect. 4. For that 's a great Mystery and a Riddle that deserves unriddling upon all Occasions that when a Quaker says I say this or I write this or I Act this or I thought good or I thought meet as G.W. said to write an Answer to the Quakers Quibbles whether he means the Man George or the Light within or both or neither And pray George be so favourable to thy Countrey-men and me as to let us know when it is the Light in thee or the Flesh that speaks or writes when thou or any for thee writes again SECT V. The Quakers Quibbles about the Anoyntting Sect. 1. THat the Quakers one while did most frequently cry out the Anoynting which they had Received abideth in them and they need not that any Man teach them but as the same Anoynting teaches them all things c. I think themselves should not have Confidence though they have abundantly too much to deny and that their Doctrine was at first This is the New Covenant I will put my Laws into their Minds and Write them in their Hearts and they shall not teach every Man his Neighbour and every Man his Brother c. G. Fox Testimony of the True Light p. 37. Sect. 2. But now when others among themselves have Objected this very thing against them then hear the Quibble P. Livingstone p. 15. Here indeed is a subtle Bait of the Enemy to stop Truths Testimony through them that are called to bear it and to Publish it to the Nations And ye need that no Man Teach you but as the same Anoynting Teacheth you â—â— all things say they But why did HE Teach both by writing and speaking who spake or wrâ—t these words Or rather was it not the Anoynting in him that wrote unto them That they needed not the Teaching of Man who was meerly Man and was not come to the Anoynting in themselves but this forbids not the Anoynting to Edifie the Church as it doth move through either Son or Daughter and this is not Man's Teaching but this is the Anoynting which is Truth Sect. 3. Excellent still the Old begging of the Question and Quibbling it is when they please not the Man but the Anoynting in the Man that writes and Teaches and when they Pope-like please it is not the Anoynting in the Man but the Man that Teaches or Writes But how came this Foxonian Quaker to have this Popedome and Infallibility of Judgment MORE than these other Quakers Who gave it him hath he not arrogantly assumed it to himself most certainly No Quaker can justly blame me if I require satisfaction of them in this particular or for asking them to shew them how they run round in a Circle about the Voyce of God the Word or Anoynting and Light within them one of their own Teachers and Learned Men having not thought it uncivil nor abusive to ask and publish the like concerning the SACRED SCRIPTVRES except they will be so hardy as to say now what or to the like purpose some of them heretofore have not much stuck at That the Voyce of God and the Light IN THEMSELVES is better higher and more certain and infallible than the Voyce of God and Light in the HOLY
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
does Surely it will be a strange piece of Confidence for you to Claim Credence from People if you cannot produce something Considerable beyond such as your selves own to be a GRAND IMPOSTOR and a DECEIVER Our Saviour the True Christ said If I bear witness of my Self my witness is not true But I have greater Witness than that of John c. The same Works that I do bear witness of Me that the Father hath sent Me. If I do not the Works of my Father believe me not If I had not done among them the Works which none other Man did they had not had Sin 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 Let all the House of Israel know assuredly That God hath made that Same Jesus whom ye have Crucified both Lord and Christ How shall we escape if we neglect so great Salvation which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him God also bearing them Witness both with Signs and Wonders and with divers Miracles and Gifts of the Holy Ghost according to his own Will Sir Dost thou think thy self more worthy of Credit than Jesus Christ Or that your Ministers ought to be believed on easier terms than Christ and his Ministers were you bringing to us New Doctrines and New Revelations Some of which yet are not such New Discoveries from Heaven manifest by the Light within as pretended being in truth but the old Fancies of Sabellius manifested by him without reviv'd and new vamp't not heard of till long after Christ and then quickly exploded the Church about 1400 years ago as any one that can read may see in the Ecclesiastical Histories It may be thou mayst inquire what I am that writes thus plainly to thee thou mayst answer thy self I am a Man because I Speak or Write and heard thee Discourse the Language of Men and so consequently thou must Judg me One that hath the Light within me If thou wouldst know what I am not I 'le assure thee I am neither Baptist nor Quaker nor ever was though I have had a love for both and have still for many amongst you whom I hope are innocent as to these Mysteriouâ— Subtilties and Quibbles of your Leaders But such Ridiculous doings as in th' aforesaid Meeting does rather lessen than increase it If thou desirest to know why I Expostulate with thee unknown I answer 'T is because I was one of thy abused Auditors thou spending so much time to so little purpose to the hazard of Mens Lives and because I think thou hast need of a Faithful Monitor If I am mistaken therein do not blame my Charity nor yet my plain dealing with thee in this Epistle If thou demandest why I print it 'T is because I would have others see it that they might receive benefit by it as well as thee Remembring what Solomon says Open Rebuke is better than secret Love And because I would have thee answer it in Print that so Others may judg as well as I whether thou wilt deal any fairer more soberly in plainness and simplicity and Godly sincerity with me than thou hast done with others If I have mistaken thee or any of thy Friends I assure thee it is not willingly and if thou shewest me honestly wherein without Railing and ill Language I 'le beg thy excuse and thank thee for it I not pretending to Infallibility my Opinion being still so long as we are Men in this condition Humanum est errare notwithstanding what Spiritual-Pride Self-Conceit or Melancholy Fancies may suggest to distempered Brains or weak Heads whose Affections may be stronger than their Reasons FINIS Mr. Smith I Have thought fit to write this to thee to let thee know That if thou art willing to Print this Epistle thou mayest if not return it by this Bearer But if thou dost Print it I desire thee to take care before thou publish any of them to send one to Mr. Pen or to his Lodging which I presume thou knowest or may easily know for I do not know where it is I am though unknown Thy Friend Thomas Tompson THE SECOND PART OF THE QUAKERS QUIBBLES Set forth In a Reply to a Quibbling pretended Answer of G. Whiteheads Intituled the Quakers Plainness c. WHEREIN Many more of their Quibbles and Equivocations are manifested Also the Comparison betwixt the pretended Prophet Muggleton and the Quakers Justified to be True Rational and necessary Whereunto is added an Advertisement to Mr. W. Penn George Whitehead and the Quakers TOUCHING Their Jesuitical shifts Evasions and unparallel'd CONFIDENCE Their grand Mystery of directing the intention with their Pope-like Power to Sanctify and unsanctify words By the same indifferent Penn. Job 21.34 How then comfort ye me in vain seeing in your answers there remaineth falshood LONDON Printed for F. Smith at the Elephant and Castle in Cornhil near the Royal-Exchange 1675. THE CONTENTS THE Epistle to the Vnprejudiced Reader demonstrating how G.W. hath with his own hands destroyed his own Cause and pluckt up by the Roots the grand Principles of the Quakers Religion The Introduction being some Remarks on G. W's Preface and his Treatise in general SECT I. Wherein the Author clears himself of self-contradiction and charges G.W. with several Self-contradictions or Inconsistences new Quibbles SECT II. Setting forth the Quakers Quibbles Equivocations and Confusions about JESUS CHRIST his Manhood his humane Nature his Person his Body and his Flesh SECT III. Demonstrating the Quakers Quibbles about and Ignorance of the True SPIRITS Evidence and Demonstration who deny the Gift of Tongues and Signs c. As also of the Quakers Miracles and Pope JOAN SECT IV. Justifying the Comparison betwixt Muggleton and the Quakers to be both true rational honest and necessary SECT V. Touching Sabellius and the Agreement of the Quakers Doctrine with his touching the three Persons notwithstanding their Quibbling An ADVERTISEMENT to George Whitehead W. Penn and the Quakers Touching I. Their JESUITICAL Shifts and Evasions in answering their Opponents Books II. Their unparallel'd Confidence in their Vindications of their grand Prophet G. Fox's Falsities and Nonsence III. Their grand Mystery of DIRECTING the INTENTION in matter of Blasphemy IV. Their POPE-like Power to Sanctify and unsanctify words at their Pleasure The Quakers Character of the Quakers Quibbles George Whitehead in his Quakers-Plainness P. 14. Speaking of certain true Gifts of the Spirit which were Spiritual-Gifts and Evidence indeed says thus And what if God will not bestow such Gifts and signs NOW must we therefore be no Christians P. 71. Speaking of the Titles that the Quakers use to give to and write on some of their Books says thus Such Titles therefore have been not STRICTLY but FIGURATIVELY placed upon some Books Quis non
HIS FACE Why George what wouldst thou do with him I assure thee he hath a Nose in his Face as well as any Quaker hath What if the Author instead of Thâ— Thomson had subscribed M.A. could not VV.P. have joyned N. after VV. L's way of Addition and then have read it thus A MAN But since thy friends so MAGISTERIALLY commanded this poor Man the Author of that moderate Epistle to be brought forth to them 't is happy for him that thou art so ignorant for all thy boasting Revelations and that thy Light leaves thee in so much darkness of the Author that thou canst not tell when thou readest it whether it is the real Author's Name or no for if he had been brought forth at the QUAKERS MANDAMUS he could not tell what QUAKERS SPIRITUAL-COURT might have been erected for him neither could he have hoped to have faired better there than in the POPISH INQUISITION if you had but as much power But blessed be the Lord that as yet you have not It appears the Author did not only believe but now experiments to be true what he wrote viz. That he had ground to question whether your pretending to Inspiration and immediate Revelation was not only a bare pretence and self-confidence without having ANY MORE to show for it than OTHERS had Otherwise if what your great Prophet Ed. Burroughs said be true thaâ— the Spirit of Christ gives infallibâ—lity of Judgment and discerning into all cases and things and that he had believed you had had it he could then never have imagined you should at all have doubted but have been infallibly assured whether that Epistle was writ by the person that subscribed it or not But what if it happen that you are not acquainted personally with the Author are there not a thousand and a thousand that you do not personally know Is the Author or his Book ever the worse or better for that surely no. Suppose the Author be a private person and is not ambitious to seek the publick applause of Men what hast thou to say to it What if he dwells fifty or sixty Miles from London or that his occasions call him to Chester Ireland or any other remote place Must he come up to London of necessity to be gazed upon by the Quakers is this reasonable think you What does my person signifie to the merit of the Cause that 's that which they ought to mind if they were ingenuously Honest and not my person Whatsoever that may be to the reputation of an Opinion I am sure it is nothing to the TRUTH of it that such or such a Man holds it as one of the Church of England hath rationally said whom doubtless the Quakers must acknowledg to be an indifferent person and not interessed in the late disputes and therefore it seems very absurd and ridiculous in any Argument to meddle with that which nothing concerns the Question Besides no Cause stands in need of such mean and unâ—anly Artifices but such an one as is extreamly baffled yea desperate and even then are they says he the worst Arguments in the World to support it for quick-sighted men will see through the Dust they endeavour to raise and those that are duller will be apt to suspect from their being so angry and waspish that they have but a bad matter to manage I wish the men that I have now to deal with were arrived to this degree of perfection that they had so much lighâ— and rationality as even one of that Church which they have condemned as being in the dark to their shame doth see and declare But to return at last it seems George hath hit on 't when he tells you What-ever he be he writes like a confident Controuler of W.P. and the Quakers and would seem to be some body pag. 6th Well said George a thousand to one else but that he was some body except he was all Spirit and no Body which I am apt to think George himself is no tas much as he pretends to the Spirit I But he writes like a Confident Controuler of W.P. and the Quakers And why is VV.P. such a Gent. that he may not be upon any Terms controuled Or the Quakers such ingrossers of confidence that none may use it but themselves What 's VV.P. a Pope or a Prince that he must not be controuled Oh! daring some Body that presumes so much What controul VV.P. what controul the Quakers And which is worst yet I find Geoâ—ge is a little angry for want of other matter that some of the Anabaptists have commended it for an ingenuous piece How Is that possible to be ingenuous and yet controul VV.P. how can any Quaker admit of that But says George another of the most material things he hath to find fault withal his Complement of SIR and THOU SIR and THOU as also Mountebank Fool c. with much more such Language to VV.P. looks but oddly a strange way of Complementing says G. from such a Person as would be thought a Moderator Now Reader whether this be even or odd I have not reckoned up but I think it was very oddly done of G.VV. to express himself no evener for here the Man is pleased to find fault wiâ—h the word THOU as well as thou Sir When surely he forgets that one of his great Prophets G.F. and others thought the Quakers such Shuttle-Cocks as that they had need of so large a a Battledoor for to learn them HOW MAN THOU'D GOD and GOD THOU'D MAN Oh pure Language Is not this Spiritual-Doctrine think you Such as the Quakers are likely to be sent with and Commissioned from Heaven about And yet now are these Quakers so faced about that one may not thou VV.P. without being worthy of Reproof whether this be folly or Pride I leave others to enquire But says G. VV. a strange way of Complementing viz. Sir and thou Sir c. well well G. gives us hopes then that he will set up a new and better way of Complementing For here he doth not deny Complements or the way of complementing only gives you to understand that mine is a strange way and looks but oddly but yet if G. had not forgot himself it 's neither so odd nor strange but that the Apostles used it Acts 14.14 and 15. Now what wilt thou say that Paul and Barnabas used a strange way of Complementing here If so when thou set's up School and I find I have need to learn I 'le come to thee in the mean time I hope thou wilt hold me excused Yet I charge thee to Answer if thou canst whether the word SIR is a Complement if the Apostles did not use it See Joh. 20.15 But see how these Men can when they please strain at Gnats and swallow Camels To say Sir is dangerous but to call a Man Sott and blind Beast is with them Religious and pure Language As for the Word Mountebank I did not say VV.P. was one but I said
say again that 't is no new thing for a Mountebank or Stage-Player to have a grateful utterance or fluent Tongue c. and so that being a natural or an acquired gift in VV.P. proves not him to be any more immediately inspired than it will so prove a Mountebank or Stage-player and do thou deny it if thou canst But whoever the Author be G. hath it over once more his work will further declare what dark spirit it came from and that it much resembles that of a Prejudiced angry ANABAPTIST only disguised c. This surely should be G 's Master-piece though he does not know mens Bodies yet he knows their Spirits yet I wonder how the Man should come acquainted with dark Spirits I thinking he had pretended to have no Converse but with Spirits of Light However I can and do assure him he is mistaken and as ignorant of one as he confesses himself of the other I denying all prejudiced angry Anabaptists Spirits as much as he lawfully does or can do As to this pretended Answer in General I do further observe that he craftily all along takes me for a Baptist or would jumble me with them whether I will or no though I did so ingenuously profess to VV.P. and the World in my Epistle that I was none nay never was which he does wilfully that so he might in like manner jumble his Answer and so instead of Answering me as at first he pretended he palpably and deceitfully evades it and shuffles me off sometimes to and sometimes with the Anabaptists and this I and you must it seems take for the Quakers plainness Now how he could possibly think that I or if I that all other understanding Readers would be so fob'd off I cannot imagine As Dark as I am I am clear enough sighted to see that and so some think I had no need to make a Reply because he hath wrote almost nothing in Answer to me but talks to the Baptists Oh poor shift Oh pittiful shuffle seen through as it runs through thy Book with half an eye Yet however that G. might have no occasion vainly to boast of his Quibbling undertaking the QUAKERS-QUIBBLES I shall endeavour to enlighten him where he is wilfully blind and shew him where his real Fallacy is instead of Pretended Plainness And to take that false Cover from him and vindicate the baptists as to their Innocency in that particular and for further satisfaction to all People I do hereby declare once more and affirm as in the presence of God That no Baptist or Anabaptist so called did see that my Epistle to W.P. till after â— had writ it nor had I any of their Advice or Counsel for the writing of it or in the writing of it as G. W. would maliciously falsly insiâ—â—ate to the abuse of them and me and the world besides I say if this be the Quakers-plainness it is neither Christian-plainness nor honesty But I being one of the Auditors at the Meeting and really observing as I told VV.P. in my apprehension a great deal of unfairness subtilty and Quibbling in the words and carriage of VV.P. G. VV. and G. K. it came into my heart to signifie as much in an Epistle to VV.P. not out of Pride Envy or Malice but in Sobriety and Love yet faithfully to admonish him and because I was plain and down-right with them in telling them of their unreasonableness in some particulars and my desire of being informed in Truth and plainness without Railing or Quibbling of their Doctrines in others Oh how they Censure my Epistle and me But I value it not for that I am assured from a better and higher Authority than theirs THAT THE CURSE CAUSELESS SHALL NOT COME SECT I. Wherein the Author clears himself of those self-Contradictions that G.W. charges him with and the Answerer charged with several self-Contradictions or Inconsistencies IN His First Section he is pleased to accuse me with these four things p. 9. 1. Partiality 2. Confusion 3. Hypocrisy 4. Envy But makes not good one of them now if alone to accuse would make a Man Guilty who shall nay who can be innocent As to the First G. VV. acquits me himself p. 14. where he says I have condemned the Baptists as well as them for wrangling and fighting in the Dark c. And yet if the Baptists promote the said Epistle as such an ingenious or excellent piece 't is more than I desire of them however thereby they shew more of Ingenuity in Commending a Piece or owning it may be Ingenious notwithstanding it reproves them than you are willing to shew because it reproves you who are hardly got so far as to be willing to own any thing for excellent that reproves or condemns you So here 's your own partiality demonstrated more than mine As to the Second of Confusion and self-contradictions He is so kind to nominate but four Particulars he might as well have pretended there had been forty-four for who could hinder him But since the number he finds is so small I thank him for easing me for if he had made ten times as many they might have been as impertinent and false and have put me to the more trouble to blow away the dust he would raise to hinder my Readers Eye-sight I have heard say That this man hath such a rare Art of making Men contradict themselves that if one should but say a Groat at one time four pence at another he would go nigh to make his silly Disciples believe that the Man had contradicted himself and much after the same rate it fares with me as I shall now clear to you 1. The first self-contradiction he charges me with p. 11 is Between my commending W.P. for an excellent Rhetorician and fluent Tongue and so was Cicero and yet telling them you give occasion to persons to think and judg you a perverse Generation without Order or Rule Rime or Reason says he was Cicero such an one then Reply Does it follow That if one says VV.P. be like Cicero in one thing that therefore he and all the Quakers are or that I said they are like Cicero in all things no surely let him shew me such a word Again in p. 6. I spake of a particular person viz. VV.P. and a particular Act and in p. 25. I spake of the Quakers carriage generally and then did but say you gave occasion to persons to think and judg you so I never had such high thoughts of the Quakers in general as to think them fit to be compared to Cicero in many things and where 's now the Contradiction Here nothing remains but one of the Quakers-Quibbles So this I note for the first Quibble of his New Edition 2. The second he Charges me with p. 11. is for saying If W.P. had this Gift of a fluent Tongue and good Voyce meerly by turning Quaker it would more convince me of the Truth of W. P ' s. Christianity than all the
Arguments I heard that day from him and my confessing that St. Paul saith Though I speak with the Tongues of Men and Angels and have not Charity I am become as sounding Brass or a tinkling Cymbal Reply If there be any contradiction here it must be in G. W's Brain and not in my Words For I do still say That the Gift of Tongues immediately inspired into those of the True Church upon their becoming Christians which was the Gift I spake of p. 7. in express words without acquiring it by Study was a certain Proof of Christianity yea and I do now say so discriminating that I do not know that ever we find in the whole Scripture any others but only Christians that were indued with that Gift by immediate Power and Inspiration of the Holy Spirit And accordingly the Apostle Peter took it for a sufficient and undeniable sign of their Belief and Christianity who had received this Gift upon his Preaching Christ Jesus to them and thereupon commanded them to be Baptized Acts 10.44 c. They which Believed were astonished as many as came with PETER because that on the GENTILES ALSO was poured out the GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST for they heard them SPEAK WITH TONGUES Then Answered Peter CAN ANY MAN FORBID WATER That these should not be Baptized which have received the HOLY GHOST AS WELL AS WE And he commanded them to be Baptized in the Name of the Lord. And do thou G. deny it against this plain Testimony of Scripture or make the Apostle Paul to Contradict the Apostle Peter here if thy Conscience can serve thee Therefore G. thou art so far from proving this a Contradiction that thou hast committed a great mistake in saying That the GIFT of Tongues is not a certain proof of Christianity wherefore consider what thou hast it's possible only rashly and hastily asserted and be not ashamed to confess thy Error But on the other hand though I owned SUCH A GIFT as before mentioned p. 7. of my Epistle would be a good Proof to me of W. P's Christianity Yet I do not nor never did own that Men speaking never so MANY nor so EXCELLENT Tongues by ACQUISITION AND STUDY much less that any of W. P's Plausible Orations or fine Harangues was a certain Proof of Christianity no nor any Proof at all and those were the fine words without Charity I spake of p. 9. and where 's then the Contradiction Surely in G. his own Fancy This being natural mediate and acquired by Study but the other Spiritual and a Gift immediate from God at an Instant And although it is not to be doubted but that the Apostle Paul had learned to speak lâ—ke an Orator and more Tongues than one by Study before his becoming a Christian he being brought up a Scholar yet suppose it be granted that he speaks 1 Cor. 13.1 of the Gift of Tongues he had immediately he doth not say any such thing as that it is no certain proof of Christianity to OTHERS nay so far from it that in Chap. 14. v. 22. he asserts Tongues are for a sign to them that Believe not that is chiefly to them and in the Quakers sence such are we who do not believe them But that Charity which he speaks of is a Proof of his or a mans SINCERITY BEFORE GOD that he did make use and imploy those GIFTS really in LOVE TO GOD AND HIS CHURCH for the Planting and edifying of it and not to any by and base ends which if he should it would profit him nothing v. 3. it would signifie nothing to his own Salvation though possibly it might to others much like to this you have it expressed again by the Apostle in Chap. 9. v. 27. But I keep under my Body and bring it into subjection lest that by any means when I have PREACHED to OTHERS I MY SELF should be a CAST AWAY So that TONGUES IMMEDIATELY inspired by the Holy Spirit are a SIGN and PROOF to others of Christianity wherever that Gift was or is found and CHARITY is a SIGN and PROOF of a man's sincerity before God and of his SINCERE LOVE TO GOD AND HIS BRETHREN in his Exercise of that GIFT OF TONGUES and other miraculous Gâ—fts which God hath given him for the planting and edifying of his Church But what 's all this to W.P. who alas is so far from having THAT CHARITY and SINCERITY in the Vse and Exercise of those spiritual Gifts of Tongues and Miracles for the love and benefit of the Church that HE hath NONE OF THOSE GIFTS TO USE OR EXERCISE AT ALL And where 's now the contradiction therefore I must note this for G. W's second Quibble The Apostles were to stay at Jerusalem till they were endued with power from on high viz. with thaâ— Spirit whereby they were enabled to speak with Tongues being to Preach the Gospel to all Nations and not only to those that understood only the vulgar Tongue of the Jewes But W.P. or several of the Quakers Prophets have been sent to Preach the Gospel as they pretend to Peoples and Countrys that did not understand their Language particularly G. Fox to America where he as I have heard sent for at once an Emperor and two Kings to Preach to the Indians in English which they understood noâ— Thus have these Prophets rendered themselves more Barbarous than those Barbarians to whom they Preached Had not men the Light within them in the Apostles time as much as now If the Light within is now a sufficient evidence of the Truth of the Gospel why not then also why should the Apostles Peter and Paul have need of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost then and the Apostles George and William in these days have no need of them at all 3. He charges this as a self-contradiction For saying thou madest thy self the Author of a Lye and shewedst thy self not only a Fool but unjust and yet that I hint for W.P. to say It is a Lye is neither Answer nor Argument and therefore in Love I should advise him to leave off such Billinsgate Rhetorick Reply Oh excellent Artist He leaves out part of my words and then tells me I have contradicted my self For these words TO EXPRESS IT IN THY OWN LANGUAGE he deceitfully leaves out which I did in my very writing the Epistle think of and put in on purpose to prevent any such mistake for thereby I gave W.P. plainly to understand that it was his Language and none of mine I did express it in his Language and not my own that so he might be the more sensible of it Now George call to mind thy own words p. 68. But if you take this kind of unfair Curtailing which destroys the sence is this your Care and Justice would you be thus served both to wrong me and abuse the World or your Reader And see how out of thine own mouth thou hast Condemned thy self both as a partial and self-contradictory Pen. In his 3d. Sect.
pa. 27 and 28. He is up with it again as if the man was so taken with talking about Lying Forgery c. as that then only he was in his natural Element and rather than he would not make me to contradict my self because in the Margent I quoted the Apostles words Titus 3.2 3. Speak evil of no Man be no Brawlers he will adventure to make the Apostle contradict or be inconsistext with himself on that ground for in the very same Epistle Cap. 1.12 the Apostle says of the Cretians That a Prophet of their own said the Cretians are always Lyars Evil Beasts Slow Bellies This wâ—tness is true And yet to go round again p. 29. in vindication of W.P. he can tell you the Scripture proves such Language and cites Psal 52.3 c. Reply what does the Scripture prove such Language for W.P. and not for others Or wilt thou blame others for what thou sayest the Scripture proves But where does the Scripture commend the so frequent use of it as you make of it And where does the Scripture prove the use of it at all on such Occasions as many times you use it on The Scripture commends Wine and Timothy is commanded to use a little with his Water but yet using too much of it may be vitious and that was it I condemned in W.P. viz. using such language so frequently and instead of Arguments or a better Answer to his Adversaries But that G.W. may take a liberty to say any thing though never so palpably false appears in p. 29. where he says That it seems it is the Language Lyer and Forger c. that I find faults with and not the Application thereof Reply That 's a mistake also for that was the very thing I found fault with viz. the so very frequent using or applying it to your Adversaries for thus are my words p. 25. I will crave leave to mention one thing more of my observing and that is thy so oft using the gross word of Lying and Forgery and Lyar and Forger especially in thy Books against T.H. that it will hardly stand with good manners such Language to be SO COMMON and FREQUENT methinks sutes not well c. Which words I should think still were civil and moderate enough if they were not prejudiced against all that is against them Wherefore this I note for G. W's third Quibble besides a double falshood first in leaving out part of my words and secondly saying I did not find fault with the Application of it which I did 4. In the last place he would make this a self-contradiction viz. my saying PERHAPS W.P. iâ— of a different mind from some of his friends as it iâ— reported c. And my speaking of W. P's being engaged with such a People and having received their Principles Reply Is it possible that ever any man that 's sober and in his Wits could have the Confidence to publish his own ignorance so as to call that a self-Contradiction when he himself acknowledges I say but PERHAPS and neither affirm nor deny any thing positively and how then can this be a contradiction and yet my words run more full if it can be p. 20. Or IF PERHAPS thou art of a different mind from some of thy friends in THIS PARTICULAR why would'st thou not honestly tell us so And besides if I had laid it down positively whereas you see I did it otherwise yet would it not have proved a Contradiction For W.P. might have received the Quakers Principles at one time and yet afterwards come to vary in some one particular though not in all and I believe I can prove if there be occasion that most of the Quakers themselves have changed or varyed in some of their Principles or Practices from what they at first Practised and gave forth Now I do admire with what face G.W. can Print such stuff as this and I do speak seriously I cannot imagine how he can satisfy his Conscience in dealing so deceitfully as he must needs know he does here with me if he knows any thing Is it possible that these words IF PERHAPS should be one Member of a Contradiction as I writ it How can I possibly think he can be a Man truly fearing God that makes no Conscience of dealing thus unfairly and representing things so falsly to his Reader by perverting the sence of my words which I leave every Reader to Judg of whether this be the Quakers-plainness detecting Fallacy and not rather The Quakers Fallacy perverting plainness and this therefore I note as his fourth Quibble And now I hope G.W. will not say it is Forgery or Slander if they are charged as he relates p. 77. That the Quakers endeavour to Render their Adversaries as Ridiculous as they can and to make their Friends believe they do nothing but contradict themselves But I have this further to say for my self That if I had indeed committed a mistake or contradicted my self I had that to plead for my excuse which G.W. commends me for p. 44. that my opinion is Hâ—manum est errare and that would have born me out I honestly and ingeniously telling him and the World That I pretended to no such infallibillity as the Quakers do And now having thus fully cleared my self I shall try G.W. if he be not more guilty of what he accuses me viz. self-contradictions or at least Inconsistences with himself and whether this man that pretends to Infallibility be any more infallible than others viz. 1. What G.W. says p. 19. That they cannot deviate from Scripture-Language in their Creed and they must tell us that until we bring them plain Scripture that saith the Human Nature is the Christ they must rather patiently bear our censure c. Now this I humbly conceive to be inconsistent with what G.W. says but one page before viz. p. 18. Have we not plainly and often confest also That the Divine Nature or Word cloathed with the most Holy manhood was and is the Christ For I do not find these words cloathed with the most Holy Manhood to be Scripture-Language and yet G.W. p. 18. admits them in his Creed neither do they bring any plain Scripture that saith so and yet they believe it or confess it if G.W. says true 2. Where G.W. says p. 20. Whether Christs Humane Nature be a part of Christ as it was not a Question in Scripture-Phrase or Language so it was as abruptly and sillily obtruded And yet p. 22 23 and 25. he proposes several Questions which are not in Scripture-Phrase or Language viz. I ask you if ANY MORE of Christ PROPERLY dyed than the Body Do you hold that his Soul Spirit or Divinity dyed and p. 44. And if he was the Son of God and so Christ before his Incarnation or assuming Flesh And many more too long to transcribe 3. His blaming me p. 10. for comparing W.P. to a Jesuite and yet p. 31. He does the same by me in these words Our present
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
G. the Charge is not foolish nor silly for as I understand the Baptists hold that the living Body that was born of the Virgin Mary is Christ and that that dyed and so believe that Christ indeed dyed But you Quakers not Believing so if you Believe that indeed the Christ dyed you must Believe his Spirit or his Divinity Dyed for that only you hold is THE CHRIST and then are you like Reeve and Muggleton who have Blasphemously said that the Godhead dâ—â—d and thus is thy Charge turn'd upon thy own head and thy Quest proves foolish and silly For how canst thou ask if any more of Christ than the Body dyed when thou dost not Believe the Body to be Christ or any real or essential PART OF CHRIST Thus whilst you own the Body not to be the Christ nor a real part of the Christ you must own that not the Christ nor any real part of Christ dyed since you agree only the Body dyed and the Body of Jesus was not the Christ say you nor any essential real part of Christ that you will own 18. As to Jer. Ives Answer to their Distinction it seemed to me pertinent enough to manifest their fallacy and folly and so it doth still for ought G.W. hath told me as yet to the contrary and I cannot without offering violence to my understanding be so much taken with G's Reply which is on this wise p. 26. It 's not improbable that if we had made such a comparison you Baptists would have cryed out oh Blasphemy This is an improbable or an improper Reply indeed It 's more probable W.P. could have told G.W. if he did not know it that he had learnt in the Schools that may-bee's can be answered with may not bee's and so this might be sufficient for that But 1. What if the Baptists would not in such a case have Cryed out Oh Blasphemy where 's thy Answer then George 2. Or what if the Baptists should and the Quakers should not in such a Case Cry out oh Blasphemy as thou dost not affirm it is Blasphemy where 's thy Answer then George 3. Or what if there be no such comparison made as thou pretendest is implyed as sure I am there is not viz the name of Christ to be no more excellent than the name of George or William Where 's then thy Answer George And where 's now thy oh Ignorance in the Abstract one may well enough see it in the Concrete viz. in G.W. when thou settest down thy Reply thou immediately says oh Ignorance in the Abstract now if thou meanest as it may be so taken that the words of thy Reply is such I shall not trouble my self to say much against it But if thou speakest it of me or the Baptists by thy using that word Abstract thou shewest thy own Ignorance and want of Learning not well understanding the word Abstract which against the next time thou writest for W. P he may inform thee and teach thee so much Logick Ignorance in the Abstract Qualitatem notat nulli subjecto inhaerentem and so not in me Ask thy Brother P. else Besides how thou wilt Answer for this word Abstract before your Prophet G.F. I know not for in the Epistle before one of thy own Books Divin of Christ he condemns that word as well as others as coming from our old Logical and Philosophical Books and yet behold here a Quaker uses it oh what self-contradicting and dissembling Men are they And as for the excellency thou now pretendest to own in the name of Christ one may see it to be but Hypocrisy used for evasion-sake only by what your friend John Crook says of the name Christ and Jesus Principles of Truth p. 12. Without this Vertue viz. The Arm of God CHRIST and JESUS are but empty names We believe and know by his Grace in our hearts that as his name JESUS without Vertue and Power is but an empty word c p. 11. But the name which saves is the power and arm of God that brings Salvation from Sin c. Pray how much more excellent does the Quaker here make the name JESVS than the name GEORGE or WILLIAM Are they Can they be less excellent than empty words Oh the Hypocrisy of these Men to say no worse 19. I said the Quakers Quibbled as much about the word Body as the word Christ and G.W. instead of denying it hath confirmed it p. 29. For though it be Scripture Language That the Body is one and hath many Members and in another place That the Church of Christ is his Body yet it will not therefore follow nor is it according to Scripture Language That Christ had NO OTHER Body than his Church for had he not a Body that was born of the Virgin MARY or was the Church viz. all the Saints in the World born of the Virgin Mâ—ry Or had the Body of Christ that was born of the Virgin Mary the espoused Wife of Joseph no other members as Arms Hands Legs c. but only the Saints would not this be rare Divinity When Thomas put his finger into the Print of the nails in the hands of Jesus and put his hand into his side was that then the Church that Thomas put his hand and finger into Oh excellent Quakerism Pag. 30. G.W. would slily give the go-by to my discourse about Mr. Keith's distinction of making three Christs by taking no notice upon what I grounded the Objection viz. Now after this rate or by the same manner of Reasoning and Quibbling may not one say that G.K. makes three Christs in Scripture and that with as much Truth as for any of them to affirm Christ would be a Monster by saying he hath two Bodies But this he slides by not Answering a word to it Is this the Quâ—kers plainness Is it not indeed a Plain shuffle But come George come back again take notice what it is thou hast to Answer and then Answer it Shufflle me no Shufflles nor Quibble me no more such Quibbles neither doth G. tell me which I also prayed W.P. honestly and plainly to do whether G.K. meant That these three were three Christs in three distinct Persons Or that these three and not any thing less than these three were one Christ in one distinct Person Or whether these three are no Christ at all in no distinct Person Let G.W. Remember his own words in his Introduction to his Divinity of Christ We judg that such expressions and words as the Holy Ghost taught the true Apostles and holy men mentioned in Scripture are most meet to speak of God and Christ and not the words of man's wisdom or humane Inventions and devised Distinctions since the Apostles days nor in Philosophical terms and nice School Distinctions derived from heathenish Metaphisicks and now tell me G. whether this of thy Brother Keiths is not a devised Distinction since the Apostles And whether G. thou hast not condemned thy Brother K's Distinction Where is
which neither they nor others can give before you can be tryed by that because that is the question whether you have the SPIRIT and the POWER OF GOD or no MORE than others 7. And then let me tell George That if he could Demonstrate it this way it would not be nay it could not be any Imposing upon me if G.W. did visibly Evidence and demonstrate to me by Power and mighty Deeds that he had indeed that Power and Spirit that he says he hath Therefore thou talkest deceitfully as if that would be an Imposing But now yours is imposing when you condemn Men for not-believing that you have immediate Revelations or in that you assert and would have us believe you are MORE inspired than other Men or other Societies and Bodies of Christians And you tell us you have the Spirit and are in the Truth MORE than others whom you Condemn as false and yet you produce NOTHING except YOUR BARE SAY-SO MORE than others who SAY SO of themselves as you do of your selves Now here 's the IMPOSING you pretend you are Infallible and yet produce no more or other effects of your Infallibility than other Men can or do Nay on the contrary the same effects of Fallibility are evident among you as among others and yet if any deny it in you you Censure and Curse them for not believing you and this is your way of Imposing And you Quakers say you are immediately sent of God and commissioned from God to deliver such or such a Message or Curse and that this and that is given forth by the Holy Ghost in you or from the Spirit and yet you shew no more certainty to prove to us and for us infallibly to build our Faith on that you are so sent and SO Commissioned from God than Muggleton does or other Churches which yet your selves say ARE NOT SENT OF GOD nor Commissioned by him Now here 's imposing upon Mens beliefs and this I say you are guilty of yea and most eminently guilty of next to Muggleton or the Pope of any Person or People I know and this is the thing George thou shouldst have Answered if thou hadst Answered me to the purpose and main bent of my Epistle to W.P. But this thou pittifully evadest and slâ—ly wouldst slide from But now since you pretend to such high things if you had the visible Spiritual Gifts that were amongst the true Primitive Churches and Apostles to evidence and demonstrate the Truth of what now you ONLY SAY and pretend I should never nor I suppose any Man in his wits call or esteem it any imposing on my Faith But the other is so indeed as I have shew'd you and therefore G. I would take thee by the hand and lead thee back again praying thee not to shuffâ—e and Cut also but Answer this and not that which I never desired of thee nor W.P. That 's the very thing I found fault with you before viz. That you would Answer to that which was not askt you instead of returning Answer to that which was and yet still thus thou servest me but it will not do For my design is that I may know you better what Real Power Evidence and Authority you have BEYOND others that so I may have a good Foundation for my Faith and give Credit to it and you Or that for want of it you may be brought to a better fight of your selves and see your nakedness and Poverty though you say as the Church of Laodicâ—a that you are rich and so may learn to be humble and not Censure others except you can better evidence your own 9. And yet why wilt thou say you have not imposed thus your Faith on others Was not and hath not your Language been such as this viz. It 's true that Timothy Titus and others WHO HAD GIFTS IN THEM for the Ministry were approved by Paul and others of the Primitive Elders for the work but this is no Proof that these opposers Ministers are either so gifted or approved G.W. Enthusiasm above Atheism p. 5. And so say I neither is it any Proof that the QUAKERS MINISTERS are SO GIFTED or APPROVED and the Words before-cited of G.F. before thy own Book Have you the SAME POWER and SPIRIT that gavâ— forth the Scriptures G.W. Wilt thou believe thy own words Then see thy Answer to Mr. Richard Baxters two sheets for the Ministry p. 16. We never understood that they that set up these Priestâ— were called as Peter or Paul or the Elders who had Power to lay on the hands that the HOLY GHOST FELL ON THE PARTY ON WHOM THEY LAID ON THEâ—R HANDS and shew me any ONE of thy MINISTERS CALLED SO George G. F. To all People in all Câ—ristendom says thus p. 2. All Sects have the words of the Apostles but out of the Power and Life A Paper sent forth into the World from the Quakers p. 5. We are against the Pastors that NOW STEAL the words of the Prophets of Christ and his Apostles W.P. Reason against Railing p. 115. Many may run into the Practice of several outward things mentioned in the Scriptures to have been the practice of Saints in former Ages and yet not be led into the Truth for all that is but will-worship Imitation and unwarrantable And all this I may say against you which you have said against others and if they were good then why not still For you have but the Names and Images of things you have got the words used in Scripture the Power and the Spirit the Gifts of the Spirit the Demonstration of the Spirit and Power But alas where is the thing it self viz. the visible Power and Gifts of the Spirit the Demonstration of the Spirit that the true Apostles had and the Scripture speaks of To this George can poorly say what if God will not bestow such Gifts now why then George I say thou hast them not only hast stolen the words out of the Scriptures thou hast got the Name the Image and words as thou sayest the Baptists and others have done but alas art as barren of the Gifts themselves as they are only art got into a Form but denyest the True power of God and Demonstration of the Spirit in Signs and mighty Deeds 10. Pa. 33. G.W. hath this further to say That he doubts not but where the Spirit of God lives and Rules it will manifest it self by its Fruits for it is self-evidencing and that they have a record in Heaven and also in many Consciences of the blessed Power of God with them and in them Reply And cannot the Baptists say all this nay and do not they many times They can say thâ—y have a Record in Heaven and in many Consciences also who believe them and pray tell me G. how thou wilt get up to Heaven to search the Record there and disprove them Did one ever hear such silly stuff as this man writes did he indeed think to shufflle it off with such
of yours was given forth more by the Spirit of the Lord than the Holy Scriptures are If thou sayest yes it is Blasphemy then thou provest thy self a Blasphemer by Intitling that as given forth by the Spirit of the Lord in you which he did not say and give forth 4. Wouldst thou not think it very hard and unjust if one should accuse the Quakers of Blasphemy for saying That the Church of Christ is his Body and that there is but one Spirit and one Body which is the Church and so deny that Christ hath any other Body than that whereof the Saints are Members and united to him as thou talkest to this purpose p. 29. Now some look upon this as Blasphemous wouldst thou not say it is very hard and uncharitable and why because this is according to Scripture-Language sayest thou And yet thou hast accused Muggleton p. 37. as a Blasphemer and Impostor for holding this Blasphemous Doctrine That the Soul of Man dies or is Mortal Now may not Muggleton tell thee â—â—at the Scripture saith in express words The Soul that sinneth it shall die Ezek. 18.20 God shall deliver my Soul from the Power of the Grave Psal 49.15 Thou hast delivered my Soul from Death Psal 56.13 Thou hast delivered my Soul from the lowest Grave Psal 86.13 Keep back his Soul from the Pit his Soul draweth nigh to the Grave Job 33.18 22 28 30. Then saith he unto them My Soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto Death Matth. 26.38 spake of the Resurrection of CHRIST that his Soul was not left in Hell or the Grave Acts 2.31 Is not this Scripture Is not this according to Scripture-Language Thus then thou condemnest something as Blasphemy which is according to Scripture-Language and so it seems it is all one to thee be it according to Scripture-Language or not thou joynest them all together as alike false and Blasphemous Besides there is no Protestant Church in Europe that I know of but what can approve the third Doctrine in thy 37. pag. which thou callest Blasphemous for True in the indefinite Terms thou hast expressed it viz. That the Soul of Man is Mortal i. e. Subject to the second Death if not Redeemed And because G.W. hath a Multiplying-Glass when he writes against his opposers he hath made here to lengthen them out eight several Doctrines which indeed can be reckoned but one or two in effect or much the same and as for those other Blasphemous Doctrines of Muggleton respecting the Godhead Life and that the Godhead died thou G. according to thy Principles must hold so too or else thou must run into another Blasphemy by holding that THE CHRIST INDEED did NOT DIE only put off HIS GARMENT with which thou sayest he was Cloathed but was not THE CHRIST nor no Real part of HIM And therefore upon this account your Predecessors who held much the same Doctrine with you concerning the TRINITY of PERSONS found a necessity on them to hold that the FATHER Died as Muggleton does and therefore were called PATROPASSIANS for without that they found they could not Really believe that THE CHRIST HIMSELF DIED and this Dilemma if not Blasphemy the Quakers are got into and if the Quakers did not come very near this Blasphemous Doctrine of Muggleton What is the meaning of Isaac Pennington's words Quest p. 20. But he CHRIST is of an Eternal Nature and his Flesh and Blood and Bones are of his Nature that is then his Flesh Blood and Bones are Eternal and so must be GOD for nothing is of an Eternal Nature but GOD and now let the Reader Judg how far this falls short of Muggleton's Blasphemy and let them clear themselves of it if they can so that it appears this is only a Pitiful begging the Question still betwixt the Impostor Muggleton and you which cannot be granted you by Muggleton nor yet by others without your producing better evidence for you see he can speak according to Scripture-Language as well as you when he hath a mind to it 5. Whereas thou sayest the comparison is unjust and wicked Thou dost not so much as Instance any one particular of the ten that is unjust or false But thou wilfully mistakes me when thou insinuates as if I did basely design by the Comparison to make others believe that the Quakers were Muggletonians or the Muggletonians Quakers No that was never my intent but thy own perversion on purpose to Evade and shuffle it off where thou foundst it lay too heaviâ— upon thy Shoulders neither canst thou find any such word in all my Epistle but well to the contrary as the tenth particular witnesseth That the Quakers Condemn Muggleton and Muggleton damn's the Quakers therefore any Man might see except G. who is wilfully blind that I never thought them all one or alike in all things and G. might have spared all his needless labour to set down wherein the Quakers differ from Muggleton in other Doctrines but that the poor Man could easier do that than Answer what I demanded of W.P. But this is the old Shift that I have formerly told them of they used in the Dispute Answer that which was never askt them to give the go-by and evade Answering what is askt and thus he serves me here The thing that I demanded of W.P. was this in my Epist p. 32 33. Why shouldst thou or thy Friends be believed MORE than Muggleton or an Impostor Since Muggleton says he hath received a Commission from Heaven that he had it by Divine Revelation to go forth as a Prophet c. That he is inspired by the Spirit of God and is infallible c. and so say the Quakers that they have And again in my p. 35. Is it not highly necessary one should know which of these are the Impostors Or whether since they both are such confident Pretenders they may not both be Impostors What canst or dost thou produce or pretend to more than Muggleton does Surely it will be a strange piece of Confidence for you to claim Credence from People if you cannot produce something considerable beyond such as your selves own to be a GRAND IMPOSTOR and a DECEIVER But very deceitfully G. gives the go-by to all this which was the only thing in Question and yet calls his Treatise an Answer to my Epistle Is it possible that the Quakers that prâ—tend so much should be Men of no better Conscience How can any look upon such to be tender and Men fearing God and hating deceit and falshood Is this think you for the Credit or Commendation of your way will such unfair dealing shifting and shuffling of Answers convince the Baptists or me or any other sober and discreet Men that you are immediately sent and Commissioned for to go forth as Apostles and Prophets from the most Holy God No surely Dost thou call this the Quakers-plainness detecting Fallacy It is the Quakers own Fallacy it then detects Let thy own Conscience if thou hast any that is not
in other Matters which by the Quakers were at first made very weighty also however now they are Declined from what they once Pretended And if that be admitted neither themselves nor others can have any Certainty in them or of them for they may pretend the Spirit leads them to this to Day and that to Morrow and to a third thing quite different the next Day and they may say as some of them have done that they had not a clear Discerning of the Lord's Voyce in this thing then nor in that thing now and so they may as well pretend seven and seventeen Years hence for it depends onely upon their bare Word to others and thus they make their Religion as unconstant as the Moon and as wavering as the Wind. But how all this should be and yet the Quakers all this while pretend to INFALLIBILITY and That such their Writings and Doctrines were given forth by the Spirit of the Lord in them though thus Contradictory is such a Quibble and Riddle as would puzzle Oedipus himself were he here to un-riddle I should not delight in this threatning day to be uncovering their Nakedness did I not judge it a Duty to warn you and endeavour to lead them out of all False Coverings which in vain they would hide themselves under in their Defiled State rendring themselves by so doing but the more Naked in the sight of God and good men and giving the Enemy greater Occasion against them I have mentioned but some of those many that might be Collected by any that does but seriously Observe them and their Writings I had a large Field to walk in For who is it that knew them formerly and doth not see their palpable and grand Alteration now in their Gestures their Words their Salutations for now they 'l greet one in the Market-place which they use to tell us the Pharisees did asking in the Market How doest thou do In their Freedom in Eating and Drinking the Furniture of their Houses their Cloaths both for Fashion and Fineness of the Stuff minding the World and the things of the World their heaping up Riches and particularly in their now going to Law and having one or more Lawyers or Attorneys of them besides their Swearing in our Courts or if not doing therein something that is worse and almost in their whole Practice and Conversation as well as in many of their Doctrines and Principles Which if some abler Pen should undertake to set forth it might be the better and not unnecessary as it is possible hereafter some one may be moved to do Neither I think should I have done thus much but that I find they are grown of late Years so excessive High Proud Imperious Scornful and Hardened in a strange kind of Confidence and Quibbling Equivocations beyond the bounds of Modesty and Reason that they have need of something to make them sensible if it may be and better to know themselves that they may not thus proudly Despise Curse and Condemn everlastingly others that are not of their Body Church and Way Certainly the Old Serpent was the first Equivocator Evasive Quibbler and so the grandest Hypocrite that ever was when he deceived our great Grand-Mother Eve and it is as certain by what we see with our Eyes and hear with our Ears that he hath not yet forgot that Old Trade no small instances whereof the Quakers late Practices and many of their Pamphlets which you will find here cited most evidently appear to be I beseech you therefore give me leave in the Bowels of Love and Compassion seriously to warn and admonish you and such of them as will hear to look well to your goings and consider upon what it is you stand whether it be not very much upon Mens bare words or your own Fancies or at best in Naked likenesses and meer Imitations after you have been so long crying out against all Humane Traditions Literal Imitations making of Likenesses and Figures to your selves of what you find was once the Condition of others and beware of such uncertain variable changeable Lights and Doctrines as have no certainer basis than Geo. Foxes Light or Mr. Penn's Sandy Foundation Be not High-minded but Fear and let the Royal Law of CHARITY continue above all amongst all and I shall subscribe my self An Vnfeigned desirer of thy Souls Welfare THOMAS THOMPSON THE CONTENTS SECT I. THE Quakers Quibbles about their Quaking and Trembling and discerning the Lords voice SECT II. Their Quibbles about Set-days and Set places SECT III. Their Quibbles about their Body alias the Church and Forms as the Hat and Hand SECT IV. Their Quibbles about Flesh being Silent SECT V. Their Quibbles about the Annointing SECT VI. Their Quibbles about the Spirit SECT VII Their Quibbles and Hypocrisie about Scholarship and Languages SECT VIII Their Quibbles and Hypocrisie about punching People and thrusting and haling them out of Meetings SECT IX Their Quibbles and Hypocrisie in their former Practice of Disturbing of Ministers in Parish Assemblies with Reference to their Practice now SECT X. Their Grand Quibbles about and gross abuse of the Holy Scriptures Collected out of their Own Books The Conclusion Sam. Fisher Transpos'd on the Precedent Occasion Remarks on G. W's slight Sheet containing SECT I. Of G. W's Title and his false Suggestion 2. Of the Authors Name and Letter 3. Of Socinianism and the Divinity of Christ which the Quakers own 4. Of Scornful Reflections 5. Of the Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit and Prophesie 6. Of the Manifestation of the Spirit 7. Of the Discerning of Spirits 8. Of Vnbelievers and Muggleton c. 9. Of the Quakers Jesuitical Art of Directing the Intention G. W's Letter to the Author and the Author's Answer The Third Part OF THE QUAKERS QUIBBLES Being a Continuation of their Quibbles Equivocations Contradictions Riddles Rounds and Confusions in several particulars THAT Flood of Follies and Absurdities that Cloud of Confusions and Self contradictions which shatters it self up and down by Plats in sundry Showres throughout the sundry Pages of those Mens Books every Eye that Reads them as they there lye at a distance 't is possible may not so easily set sight on them Therefore I shall cull some few of them only out for the whole Number passes my skill to cast Account of and clap them a little closer together not so much to shame them as to honour the Truth which they would shame That they may be the more Ready to be Read and apparent to the view of every Ordinary Reader That any save such as seeing will not see may see the Sword of the Lord already laid on the Arm and Right-eye of the Idol-Prophets to the drying up of the one and the darkening of the other for perverting the right way of the Lord so that they see not the Sun of Righteousness nor yet the Moon of so much as Common sense and Reason but grope about in the mist of their own muddy minds so as to need
they themselves now confess that notwithstanding all that and all their Preaching up and confidence of the Light Spirit and Voice of the Lord WITHIN them they yet had not a distinct discerning of the Lord's Voyce not their minds brought into so much as a CAPACITY to discern it how can they be MORE confident and Infallibly evidence they are MORE certain of it now Or why may they not be mistaken and mistake the Lords Voyce now as well as fifteen or sixteen Years ago or not well discern which or what is the Lords Voyce And why may they not change again and again fifteen or sixteen Years hence and say then they had not before a distinct discerning of the Lords Voyce If the Quakers say but they know now they have it so the Quakers formerly said they knew it they felt it they handled it they witnessed it IN themselves and yet the Quakers now say they were so far out then as not to have a distinct discerning of the Lords Voyce And so then may the Quakers now for all their pretences and confident talk Let my Reader take Notice and they Consider what 's become of their Quaking and Shaking their mighty Motions and pretended Voyce of the Lord within And I think this may be enough for Quaking to shew that the present Quakers I deal withall have little more than the Name now in this particular Sic mutantur SECT II. The Quakers Quibbles about Set-days and Set-places Sect. 1. PRinciples of Truth p. 42. per E. Burroughs We believe his True Worship required and accepted of him is not by the Tradition of Men in outward Observances or Set-days or Places but he is Worshipped onely in Spirit and Truth without respect of Times Places or Things And this was one while the Quakâ—rs general Doctrine that they should not run nor be enjoyned by others to come to Meetings but as they â—re moved of the Lord thereto and that without that it was but Will-Worship See Principles of Truth p. 24. 51. Every Man ought to be left FREE as the Lord shall perswade his own mind in doing or leaving undone this or th' other practice in Religion Sect. 2. But to whirle about and run round again at other times P. Livingstone can tell you Idem p. 5. It is a dark Spirit clearness and FREEDOM is not in it but it hath and doth lead into Bondage And here Satan by Transforming himself hath obtained his End and purpose in such for which cause he first Transformed himself in the matter of the Hat and the Hand and not coming to Meetings until they should be moved of the Lord untill at last he obtained his end to get them not to come at all and not to let them rest therewith but also made and makes them believe lyes as namely that they be moved of the Lord to cry against Meetings c. And we are certain enough what that Spirit leads to in the end for all its fair appearance if it be followed to the end c. And who now Observes more their set-days and hours too their first and fourth days meeting and set places Built on purpose aâ— the Bull and Mouth and Grace-Church-street c. than the Quakers And thus are they run into Forms as those whom they once condemned and now deny that FREEDOM they once allowed and cry'd for which is all but a Quibble SECT III. The Quakers Quibbles about Forms and the Church Sect. 1. THat the Quakers at first did cry out against Forms and several external Ordinances and all Formality in Divine Worship and the Church of God is so generally known that I think I need not trouble the Reader with Instances yet if any should doubt it see G. Fox Mystery p. 65. Paul brought the Saints off from things that aâ—â— seen and water is seen and it's Baptism Here is a few words will serve for all Sect. 2. But then to go round again when others of the Quakers Object against them That taking off the Hat in prayer and taking by the Hand are but Formal and that by setting up this Friends were setters up of Forms now hear the Quakers Quibble P. Livingstone Idem p. 12. in Answer to that Objection The Form of Truth we own that which Truth appears in that is the Form of Truth Friends do not chuse a Form for the Truth but Truth chuseth its own Form and moveth in it at its pleasure Oh Excellent then it seems taking off the Hat or taking by the Hand is the Form among the Quakers that Truth appears in and this is the Form that the Truth chuseth for its own Oh rare Formalists Sect. 3. Then P. Livingstone goes on p. 13. And we know those that do the contrary pretend what they will it is by and in that Spirit which is opposite and opposes the Truth of God and its Children and we know if they were lead by the Spirit of the Body id est the Church they would be led to the same things it leads the Body and acts the Body in for the Body is one though many Members it being guided by one Life and they agree in these things and one stands not with the Hat on and another with it off nor one doth not give the Hand and another refuseth which is a contradiction but we see further into the thing than the Hat and Hand We see and know the Spirit of Enmity in the ground and it is truly testified against to be that Spirit of ANTI-CHRIST against CHRIST and the Spirit of Truth in the Body i.e. the Church beareth this Testimony against that Spirit and them Acted by it Oh what Rents and Divisions this evil Spirit hath made How many poor simple Hearts have been drawn aside by it So far he Now is not this exactly like the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome Nay the Quakers are got so far as to say Friends that stand in the Life and are the Body know that there is not NOR CANNOT BE preservation out of the Body meaning the Body of Quakers For they that are out of the Body are out of the Faith â—â—d are not of the Body Pat. Livingstone p. 20. Just as the Papists say there 's no Salvation out of the Church Yea and more that they must believe as the True Church meaning the Quakers Church Believes or else positively they cannot be saved For these are his express words viz. I bear my testimony for that People in scorn called Quakers that the Lord hath chosen them a peculiar People above all People upon the Earth and we are to turn to no other People c. And they that believe not as the true Church-Believes CANNOT BE SAVED But this we know of an INFALLIBLE certainty that WE being faithful in the Truth those that are gone from us are of another Spirit and not of the Faith of the True Church P. Livingstone p. 22 23. this is like the very top-stone of Popery and
SCRIPTVRES and is not to be Questioned by others though the Holy Scriptures may be Questioned by the Quakers or Papists you will find it in Sam. Fishers Addit Appendix p. 21. an Eminent approved Quaker whence I take it mutatis mutandis viz. Tell us then how may it be known assuredly uncontroulably infallibly that the Scriptures says Fisher but say I that that which the Quakers call the Word Anointing Voyce of the Lord WITHIN THEM is at all of GOD and not a cunning devised FABLE or their own Invention and Phantasie If they tell us by the Testimony of the Spirit WITHIN which say they is onely All-sufficient to that purpose and they have the Witness in themselves the Spirit bearing Witness with their Spirits Then we ask them But by what shall we Try and find assuredly and infallibly that that Testimony and Spirit is of GOD and not a false one that tells us that the Scripture is of God boldly says Fisher but say I that that Light Word anoynting or Voyce WITHIN is of GOD Sect. 4. I request and desire Geo. Whitehead Wâ— Pen either or both or any Quaker in England to give a Visible manifestation or a Direct and demonstrative Answer to this without going round in a Circle or basely begging the Question If not for shame let them be silent and Learn to be humble and not arrogantly Contradict and Condemn OTHERS if they cannot say and evidently produce MORE for themselves in their Pretensions and Motions than OTHERS do or can that make no such pretensions For it is not enough to say that John Witnessed the Anoynting or the Church then enjoyed it or the Apostles had it for that John and the Apostles and Churches then had such an Vnction as impowered them with many and several Excellent SPIRITVAL Gifts as the Gifts of Healing the Gift of Tongues the Gift of Prophecy by Imposition of Hands of the Presbytery c. which they have not now for all their High pretences nor never had that I have heard and besides to say that John and the Saints and Churches of Old witnessed it does no more prove that the Quakers now have it than that the Baptists or some other Churches which they disown now have it This then is so far from a Proof that it is but a silly Quibble Sect. 5. But the Anoynting that the Lord JESVS and the True Apostles had was with â—he Holy Ghost indeed and with Power and not the Word or Name onely of it which is all that yet appears the Quakers have enabling them to go about doing good and HEALING ALL that were oppressed of the Devil and curing their BODILY Distempers Acts 10.38 How God Annoynted JESVS of NAZARETH with the Holy Ghost and with Power who went â—â—out doing good HEALING all that were Oppressed of the Devil for God was with him and WE are Winesses c. But the Quakers and the Christ within them doe onely for ought yet appears to others go about with words and talking but demonstrate no more Power than the Papists when they Convince and bring over some Persons to them by their Words and Doctrine as sometimes the Jesuites and sometimes the Quakers both do according to the Ignorance or weak Brains or the private Ends and Interest that the Persons they meet withal may happen to have Simplicibus facilè Imponitur SECT VI. The Quakers Quibbles about the Spirit Sect. 1. THat no Persons in England have talked more of the Spirit and pretended more to the Spirit nor cryed out the Spirit the Spirit so much as the Quakers did at first I suppose none that knew them will or can deny and that they blamed others for calling it a private Spirit or whining Spirit and for saying that it lead them into private places and to creep into Houses Sect. 2. And yet behold the very same Accusation have some of the Quakers took up now against others of them See P. Livingstone Idem p. 19. Now you that are led by that private Spirit though you pretend it to be Vniversal you draw into secret places for you absent the Meetings of Gods People Mark says he here is a deceitful whining Spirit that would be counted a Sufferer and would be counted Innocent and meek but this is truly seen not to be the Spirit of Sion's Children And what was all this for think you but because one that was of the Quakers writ thus Tell the Daughter of Zion behold thy King cometh unto thee meek and sitting upon an Ass though it be smitten on all hands yet it bears it all and suffers it although it be smitten in the House of its Friends yet grudgeth not nor repineth And this is the Language that P. Livingstone crys out mark here is a deceitful-whining-Spirit Sect. 3. So that it appears they have Learnt of their Adversaries the word Whyning and Whinâ—ing-Spirit and thus now the Quakers cry out as their Adversaries did formerly against them a-private-whyning-Spirit instead of the pure-living-powerful-Spirit of the Lord. Here you may Observe That if others though Quakers that own the same Principle with themselves of the Light within pretend to the Spirit or talk of the Spirit Oh then it is a dark-Spirit a whining-Spirit private-Spirit the Spirit of Antichrist and the Spirit of the Body onely is the Spirit of Christ See more of this in the third and fifth particular before and thus still stat pro ratione voluntas ipse dixit is all and must be sufficient to others or nothing for ought yet appears SECT VII The Quakers Quibbles and Hypocrisie in their Doctrine about Scholar-ship and Languages with reference to their own Practices Sect. 1. ONE while this is the Quakers Doctrine that is when they Cry out against Learning in others because they would have all People come to be so silly and Ignorant as to believe them or not to have Learning enough to Confute them then thus The Word which is the Original which the Apostles Preached amongst the Hebrews and Greeks which was before Tongues were and your Original which will break all your Tongues and Original to pieces Pilate had your Original of Hebrew Greek and Latine who Crucified Christ He that draws back into many Languages as into Hebrew and Greekâ— draws back into the Naturals and so draws into Confusion But the Ministers of God who Preach the Everlasting Gospel which endures for ever draw up into one Language and so the Priests and all that Trade into Natural Languages we VTTERLY deny A Paper sent forth into the World p. 3. and much to this effect we had formerly from them That the Light within is able ALONE to reveal to them the Truth and maintain it against all others and that they receive their Doctrine by Inward Revelations and not by any outward means c. Sect. 2. Another while that is when the Quakers are either to maintain their own Principles or confute others then to go round again It is Lawful and good to
from a Quaker till they change their Morals as well as their Religion as much as Mr. Pen could which seems to be onely out of a fawning design pretend to speak in the behalf of poor morality when as it is his pretended Light and Inspiration within that indeed he so much adores No small Evidence whereof this Quakers pitiful sheet demonstrates it self to be notwithstanding the pretended Civility and Condescention in his private Letter to me yet his sheet which he since set forth publickly being made up chiefly with so many false suspicions and Railings now manifests that that was onely Hypocritical or out of Design by fair words to deceive the Author But alas the Quaker was mistaken and Geo. was too Young the Author had a better discerning without the Quakers Gift and understanding of them than so by his many Years Observation and Experience He told me in his Letter privately He took it well from me that I Ordered him one of my books and in his sheet he tells me and the World that the same Book was made up much with Scoffs Quibbles gross perversions and abuses short of all seriousness and sobriety yea manifest perversions lyes and slanders VVhat then did he take it well from me that I ordered him such a Book with so many perversions lyes and slanders scoffs Quibbles and gross abuses But as the Perversions Scoffs Quibbles and Abuses were the Quakers that my Book set forth and so was made up much of it may be true enough for I know of no such Perversions Quibbles c. there but onely the Quaker's and there was good store of Them Truly Reader some think the like Letter was hardly ever before seen to come from a Quaker one of their Chieftains too He assured me therein he was as willing to receive INFORMATION as to give it in any thing wherein any thing seemed doubtful or any mistake is or may be suppos'd about the Controversies depending between us Hereby then he acknowledges he thought the Author was able to give him Information at least in some of those matters in Controversie otherwise it was silly for him to desire that he might Discourse with the Author to that purpose viz. for mutual information as he writ he did And did not the Quaker herein finely vail his Bonnet that had been talking of or pretending to INFALLIBILITY nigh these Twenty Years if not above and yet now in 1674 5. assures the Author who yet had told him I pretended no such Infallibility he was as willing to Receive Information by discoursing with him as to Give it in any thing seeming doubtful about the Controversies depending between us And therefore for his better Information in those very matters I send him this Discourse and Remarks of mine further to try him and his reality herein and for your better satisfaction you shall have here verbatim as I think his said Letter and my Reply to it T.T. For the Author of the Book Entituled The Second Part of the Quakers Quibles To be left with Francis Smith the Book-seller to be Conveyed as above-said Friend I Lately Received thy Book Entituled The Second Part of the Quakers Quibles and take it well from thee that thou Ordered me one of them and this is to desire so much Civility from thee as that I may have an hours Discourse with thee if thou Livest in or near London which perhaps may save us several hours writing and prevent others of some charge and trouble in such Books of Controversie and possibly may afford so much mutual Information as may tend to Peace or at least to a more moderate and serious method in managing the Controversies between us than the tenour of thy said Book seems to bespeak which for Truths sake and not for any popularity or Mastery I could and do desire And if thou wilt be pleased to let me know where thou Dwellest or where I may conveniently meet with thee I am willing with a Friend or two to come to thee and two or three of thy Friends as I may have an Opportunity for I apprehend both my self the Truth and Friends wrong'd in divers passages of the said Book and not onely so but many serious and unprejudiced Readers are much disgusted and wearied and their Patience too much grated upon by such kind of Method as thou hast chosen against me Yet I 'le assure thee I am as willing to Receive Information as to Give it in any thing wherein any thing seems doubtful or any mistake is or may be suppos'd about the Controversies depending between us So desiring thy Answer if thou please and as soon as may be to what is hereby desired I Remain A Friend to thee and all Men as bearing no ill will towards any George Whitehead London 13 th 12 mo 1674 5. To Mr. George Whitehead These To be left for him at Mr. Francis Smith's Book-seller at the Elephant and Castle near the Exchange in Cornhil London Mr. Whitehead THY Letter Dated the 13 th came well to my Hands which I find to be so Civil and Moderate that I Accept of it very kindly from thee and should I not return thee the like Answer I must to save thee the labour judge my self ungrateful which is an Humour I Naturally abhor and as this Courteous temper best becomes a Christian Spirit so I assure thee I have always found it more prevalent upon my Soul than any Arrogant self-conceited huffing and censorious damning As to thy desire for thee and two or three of thy Friends to Meet and Discourse with me 't is a thing that possibly I should willingly comply with if some Circumstances of my Occasions would conveniently admit and that by your late Practice as I have heard you had not already given others to see and Experimentally know how FRUITLESS such Meetings with you have and do commonly prove For if my Information fail me not which I have not as yet any ground to suspect I receiving it from a very serious and Sober Person When you had accused one Mr. Hedworth a Person I do hereby assure thee who is no more acquainted with me than thou art and not being able or at least willing to prove it your selves you would IMPOSE upon the Gentleman to accuse himself or otherwise you would not Discourse the Matter with him when yet you had appointed him a Meeting to that purpose which surely Friend thou must know is not onely against the good Law of our Nation but against the Law of Nature and is no less than for you to set up an HIGH COMMISSION COURT which our Prudent Governors have long since abolished seeing the unreasonableness thereof and how any of thy Friends can rationally IMPOSE such Terms and Conditions on others against their consents or else refuse to Discourse with them I must confess I do not nor can understand and therefore should much call my own Senses and Judgment into Question if I should