I can find them And I must say the like of that passage of his p. 15. Priest There is nothing in man to be spoken to but man Answ How then ministred the Apostle to the spirit I cannot find where the Apostle is said to minister to the spirit 14. The next I will note is in p. 9. thus Priest The Quakers are deceived because they say Christ is within them kept down by something within them Ans Corrected by the Apostle who saith to the Saints Christ is in you the hope of glory and he was prest down as a Cart with sheaves It 's manifest that Christ is the Antecedent to He but where is that spoken of Christ The Prophet Amos not the Apostle saith in the name of the Lord Ch. 2. v. 13. Behold I am pressed under you as a cart is pressed that is full of sheaves But it is referred to the Lord or Jehovah that brought them out of the land of Egypt v. 10. and not to Christ But our Prophet George will not allow the Father and the Son to be distinct but all one See p. 99. therefore frequently referrs that to Christ which is spoken only of God the Father 15. So he doth with that Text 1 Cor. 15.28 which he doth us the favour to cite Chap. and verse and to put the words in Scripture Character too for thus he saith p. 343. The promise is to the seed the seed is Christ Christ all and in all 1 Cor. 15.28 He 's very unhappy both in reciting words and Texts for the Apostle saith thus And when all things shall be subdued unto him then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him that God not Christ may be all in all He could not have done a greater Injury to the Holy Spirit 's words than thus to put Christ for God for it mades them altogether absurd but whither will not the love of a false opinion drive men 16. Thus where the Scripture saith and the word was God G.F. saith p. 350. and 61. God is the word Jo. 1.1 I would gladly know of you my friends Whether the infallible spirit that leads G.F. into all truth doth not also bring things to his remembrance if it did at the time he wrote this then he sailed through wilful disobedience if it did not then G. F. is not infallible for here either his memory or his will fail'd him And this he is chargeable with though we should suppose there were no difference in the sence but I conceive there is a difference for though the Scripture saith And the word was made or was flesh yet no considerate man will say Flesh is the word neither is it in it self true 17. It seems to proceed from the same bitter root in him that he perverts the sence by so cutting short that Scripture Rom. 1.16 saying p. 160. And immortality not come to the light through the power of God which is the Gospel And p. 4. And the Apostle saith It the Gospel is the power of God whereas the Apostle saith indeed I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth c. which is far another thing than to say simply The Gospel is the power of God for what may not a man make of Scripture if he will take to himself this kind of license Then may we say of the like phrase 1 Cor. 1.18 The preaching of the cross is foolishness and foolishness is the power of God for the preaching of the cross is both 18. And if it had not been for the confounding of the person of the Son with the Father I see no reason why he should say p. 119. His father and he is greater then all For Christ saith Joh 10.29 My Father which gave them me speaking of the sheep is greater then all What would you say of your Adversary that should deal thus with your writings as G. Fox deals with Holy Scriptures 19. And he that dares thus to add and insert another person into the Text as he hath done in that now named what marvel is it that he adds the name of a person at all adventures whether it be right or wrong Thus doth he p. 134. and so deny Christ the Lord that bought them He had heard it's like formerly that Text 2 Pet. 2.1 so render'd by some or other and therefore it must be so though Peter saith only denying the Lord that bought them which may agree as well to God the Father as to Christ his Son 20. The two last Scriptures we noted we found addition in them here we have substraction which thought it might be pardon'd in another man that appears not to have any design in it or that condemneth not severely the like in others yet in him it cannot If he will quote Scripture why not as it lies plainly especially when brevity doth not constrain him to do otherwise Thus when he saith p. 165 Christ is come to whom every knee must how and tongue confess to the glory of God why doth he neither add the father to the term God nor insert that Jesus Christ is Lord as the Apostle doth both for he saith And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father But how the truth of this Scripture can consist with their Doctrine that say the Father and the Son are all one I cannot conceive 21. The 21 th Scripture which he hath notoriously and impudently added to is that in John Ch. 15. v. 25. which according to John runs thus But when the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from the Father even the spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father he shall testify of me But according to George thus Christ saith he is in the Father and the Father is in him and he will send them the spirit of truth the Comforter that proceeds from the Father and the Son Now that it may appear most evidently that he quotes this as Scripture and Christ's own words I will produce a passage out of the Epistle to G. Whitehead's Divinity of Christ subscrib'd by G.F. John Stubbs where he useth the words in the letter of Scripture saying also The Scripture saith and challengeth his adversaries to give him Scripture in plain words Thus it is read But we do charge Danson and his Brethren to make this good by Scripture in plain words For the Scripture saith The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father the holy Ghost proceeds from them I beseech you friends consider what spirit lead G. F. when he wrote these words What! Call and clamour upon his Antagonist for Scripture in plain words and then pretend to give Reader Scripture falsify it Can you produce an Author that ever wrote so inconsiderately If this be not a plain addition to the words of Christ I pray
have his wares try'd whether they be good or no for he hides the Touchstone by using some words of Scripture putting them in a different character saying The Scripture saith or Christ saith or the Apostle saith c. but he names seldom the Book or Chapter more seldom the verse though he clamour upon his Adversaries for Chapter and verse and so he imposeth upon his Reader for Scripture what is no where to be found These as I have in several particulars made it evident before your eyes and shall in many more 8. The next shall be that in Joh. 17.5 which he often useth and always abuseth as far as I remember Christ's words are these And now O Father glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was But G. F. thus p. 13. Christ who was glorifyed with the Father before the world began You will say perhaps his words and Christ's are the same in sence but doth God give G. Fox his infallible spirit to correct his son Christ's words Can he speak better than Christ or are these two manners of speaking so much the same that they cannot be taken in a diverse sence Nay Doth not G. Fox take his phrase in a diverse sence from what Christ intended by his For it 's manifest that Jesus prayed now to be glorified with the glory wherewith he was not at this time glorified when he spake these words for who will pray for that which he enjoys But God was glorious before the world was and could not possibly want it at this time so as to pray for it therefore Jesus intends by the glory which he had with the Father before the world was the glory which the Father had given him in his decree before the world was but he had it not yet in possession So Paul speaks of the grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began 2 Tim. 1.9 before they had any actual Being which should come unto them and be brought unto them at the revelation of Jesus Christ See 1 Pet. 1.10 13. And the Evangelist tells us expresly Joh. 7.39 Jesus was not yet glorified But it 's evident enough that G.F. means by his phrase to possess his Reader with an opinion that that which he calls Christ which is not Jesus the Son of man was actually glorified before the world began And this brings to my mind another phrase of his which he useth diverse times 8. at least as if it were Scripture but is so far from being Scripture that it will be very difficult for any man to make less than a gross absurdity of it And therefore I can scarce get leave of my self to refer it to any phrase of holy Writ 9. It runs thus p. 66. and so to the word Christ Jesus him by whom the world was made before it was made Strange that the world should be made before it was made I would fain know of him what that world was which was made before it was made but I despair of Information But what can you or any man that has not abandon'd both his understanding and sence say in vindication of this Prophet Can you match this saying in the most impertinent Author Papist or Protestant 10. A Tenth Scripture is that of Jude vers 10. and 19. But what they know naturally as brute beasts in those things they corrupt themselves The 19. v. thus These be they that separate themselves sensual having not the spirit But how doth our George read it p. 2. and 196. And the Apostle saith What they knew who are separate from the spirit they knew naturally as brute beasts Jud. 10.19 Judge now whether Jude say as he saith But what 's the difference in sence Jude speaks of notoriously ungodly men who corrupted themselves in natural things as Sodom and Gomorrah G.F. speaks of all men whatsoever besides those that are inspired Jude saith these men separate themselves sensual having not the Spirit and G. saith They are separate from the spirit and they that are such what they know they know naturally as bruit beasts But what may be the design in rendring it thus you may see he opposes this Text to his Adversary asserting that there is an infallible Judgment which may be made from the Scripture without the spirit and this Text would not serve his purpose without thus corrupting it Besides he cannot indure that men should be said to know by nature any thing that 's good therefore he takes this course to disparage all such knowledge But you may remember that I am not bound to give a reason why he perverts a Text I am only to show you that he doth so 11. Next I bring you to Rom. 2.15 which he is pleased to cite the passage is this in his Book p. II. Priest The Scripture plainly denies that conscience can justify though it may condemn Answ Which is contrary to plain Scripture where the Apostle saith Rom. 2.15 Their consciences either accusing or excusing Who would think that G. Fox should have either so little wit or conscience as to write in this manner for the Scripture words are these their conscience also bearing witness and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another The truth is G. Fox was willing to have this works of accusing and excusing attributed to the light and therefore he saith by and by And the light condemns which you call conscience but because it served his turn to attribute it to conscience he did Besides the Quakers used to say they were out of the thoughts and the imaginations and upon that account it was not fit for him to recite the Scripture right sure I am he doth it wrong 12. Let us see now what he saith of the Apostle James for it would be strange if he should scape without abuse p. 2. He makes the Priest say He that can bridle his tongue is not a perfect man Answ Which is contrary to the Apostle James who saith he is and so thou art out of James's Doctrine But where James saith so I am to seek if he cannot produce it he belies the Apostle He saith indeed Ch. 3.2 in many things we offend all If any man offend not in word the same is a perfect man and able also to bridle the whole body It may be questioned whether every man that can bridle his tongue doth also not offend in word The same Apostle saith Ch. 1.26 If any man among you seem to be religious and bridleth not his tongue but deceiveth his own heart this man's religion is vain But I dare not say that every one that offends in word his religion is vain 13. G. Fox answers his Adversary thus p. 9. Corrected by the Apostle who saith he works all in us and for us I do not remember where the Apostle hath those words I doubt G. Fox is fallible and herein mistaken I 'le count him so till
tell me what is It is now saith Daille of the right use of the Fathers the space of some Ages past since the Eastern Church accused the Western of having added Pilióque and the Son in the Article of the Nicene Creed touching the procession of the Holy Ghost But the Pope and his Council were never so impudent as to make that addition to the Scripture as G. Fox hath done See how upon occasion of an Inference not asserting it to be the words of Scripture G. Whitehead pronounceth the curse upon his Adversary John Newman Christ ascended c. p. 21 22. J. N. from Rev. 1.7 Those that pierced him in his body of flesh shall see that body visibly come again G. W.'s Answ These are not the words of Scripture but added although to add or diminish be forbidden under a penalty Rev. 22.18 19. Yet this mans presumption leads him to incur that What would G. W. have said to him if he had done a G. Fox has done Well! there is a righteous God that judgeth the heart and tryeth the reins and is no respecter of persons It 's true he doth not quote the Ch. and verse but more to blame he for if he had we could soon have seen his forgery whereas now perhaps not one of a Thousand that has read his Book has discovere it Or if he can tell us where those words of his are to be found in Scripture he shall escape the Curse for addition to it till then it lies upon him 22. The 22 th instance of his negligence and fallibility in quoting Scripture may be that place p. 71. of his Book where he saith and Paul declares himself take Paul's own words not of Man nor by man but by the will of God now this citation might have passed currant for Scripture though it 's no where found in this form for all I know but that he so confidently calls them Paul's own words which is false if they be not found together and not only apart 23. The 23 th this p. 68. speaking of the Churches or Temples wherein God is worshipped by some saith he Is God worshipped in Temples made with hands Is not be worshipped in the spirit and in the truth the different letter wherein he puts it intimates that he would have us take it for Scripture and there are some words like his in Joh. 4. and Acts 17. but in neither of those places are either the same words or the same sence but it 's sufficient against him that there are not the same words 24. The 24 th Scripture perverted is Joh. 7.38 He that believeth on me saith Christ as the Scripture hath said out of his belly shalt flow rivers of living water where his belly is plainly spoken of him that believeth but G. Fox applies it to the light Christ saying p. 130. and believing in the light Christ out of whose belly flowed rivers of living mater The light the light must be magnified by G. F. and the Scripture must be wrested to that purpose come on it what will 25. The 25 th instance of his fallibility or deceitfulness in the use of Scripture is taken from p. 27. where he makes the Priest say A true Church is guilty of Injury G. F. Answ Contrary to the Scriptures where the Apostle saith the Church is the pillar ground of truth without spot or wrinkle or blemish or any such thing The Apostle saith indeed Eph. 5.25 27 Christ also loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing He saith That it might and should not that it is as our G. reperesents it 26. So he abuseth us with a defective quotation of the 30 th verse of the same Eph. 5. which he has both in the 11. and 12 th pages in the same manner as in divers other places The 11 p. thus Priest They are no Christians that doth not hold Christ absent from his Church but Antichrists By the way I believe he wrongs his Adversaries in making them speak bad English Answ Which is contrary to the Scriptures which say they are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone and they are as nigh together as husband and wife But the Apostle thus For we are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones If he had not left out the former clause we are members of his body the latter clause which he takes would not so well have served his purpose and also have been more easily understood for we know it 's ordinary for a member of a Body or for the head it self of a Body which is an assembly as the word Ecclesia here rendered Church signifies to be in one Countrey when the Body or Society is at a far distance in another But this was not so discoverable in the Allegory of flesh and bones alone 27. The 27 th place shall show that our Author's memofulness or negligence as fallible rather more fallible than that of other men which is a great reflection upon his infallible spirit Thus p. 152. he saith And the Apostle said the deep things of God was revealed by the spirit of God It 's a small matter with him to make the Apostle speak bad English But the Apostle speaketh neither so nor so but God hath revealed them unto us by his spirit for the spirit searcheth all things yea the deep things of God 1 Cor. 2.10 And v. 11. the Apostle saith But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God but G. Fox thus p. 39. The natural man receiveth not the things that be of God he leaves out spirit though for ought he knows there may be a vast difference between the things of God and the things of the spirit of God as there is a vast difference between blasphemy against God which may be forgiven and the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which shall not be forgiven unto men Mat. 12.31 28. And if G. F. were a man capable either of rendring or understanding reason I would aske him why in using those words of Paul Rom. 14.9 he puts in the term God in stead of Lord for thus he saith p. 99. who Christ both died rose again that he might be God both of the dead and the living But the Apostle saith For to this end Christ both died and rose and revived that he might be Lord both of the dead and living So p. 17. Let the word of God dwell in you richly The Apostle hath Christ Col. 3.16 But this savours of his willingness to have no distinction between God and Christ For he saith p. 142. Christ is not distinct from the Father 29. And p. 160. by the Character he writes in he gives us these words for Seripture and so who is in Christ is a new creature And old things pass away But the A postle saith 2 Cor. 5.17 Therefore if any
whole phrase Who needs ever want Scripture for any thing he has a mind to say if he may abuse the words of Christ after this manner But if he or any of you think you can produce a Text that favours him more than this I will recal what I have writ on this points if not pray take notice of the grossest forgery Here I might bring in his uncouth use of those words in Isai 8.20 as another Instance but because it is not very clear that be quotes them for the very words of Isaiah I will only propose it Isaiah saith To the law ardâ—â—â—ke testimony if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them But G.F. thus p. 75. For Isaiah bid them come to the law and the testimony and you that do not speak according to that rule it is because you hate the light in you Isaiah saith There is no light in them G. saith you hate the light in you One would have though he should have had so much respect to Scripture words as not to have said the quite contrary to them 36. The 36 th Instance of perverting Scripture shall be that in p. 280. where he hath this passage which Scriptures saith that the Holy Ghost moved in them that gave forth Scriptures which led them into all truth and did not say the Holy Ghost moved in the Scriptures but said The letter was dead and did not give life But I am to seek for that Scripture I find indeed the Apostle Paul speaking of Moses's ministration not of the writings of the new Covenant saith 2 Cor. 3.6 the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life but I think there is difference enough between The letter killeth and The letter is dead for who will fear to be killed by that which is dead for that which kills must have some activity life or power that which is dead hath none and the letter and spirit are not opposed as the one dead the other living but as the one killing the other enlivening This I say to show what a perverse sence and how contrary to the Scripture he has brought in by altering the words 37. And as if he scorned to quote Scripture right he saith p. 170. And I will slay you with the sword the words of my mouth saith the Lamb which words I cannot find in Scripture much less spoken by the Lamb I find these words Rev. 2.16 and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth Rev. 19.21 the sword-which proceeded out of his mouth but not the other Here is false quotation but I know not what bad sence therefore it is with him a small fault though it would be a great one in his Adversaries 38. But my 38 th Instance will discover both his forgery and vanity sufficiently For p. 98. he introduceth his Adversary charging the Quakers that they publickly deny the resurrection of the dead body to which among other things he answers Christ is the resurrection and the life both and thy dead body shall live with my dead body this is Scripture and they that said the resurrection was past in the days of the Apostles overthrew the faith of some In the first place I would know of any man what pertinency there is in this quotation of those words that seem to be taken out of Isai 26.19 Can any man be more certain by it than he was before of the Quakers acknowledging or denying the resurrection of the dead body or can any man tell by it what the Prophet Isaiah means by those words which are not neither the same with G. F's but thus Thy dead men shall live together with my dead body shall they arise So that besides the forgery there is the greatest vanity and lightness that I remember ever to have seen in citing of Scripture As if he would upbraid his adversaries with their respect to Scripture This is Scripture He might as well have quoted Abraham begot Isaac and have concluded This is Scripture 39. And whence it is except from his carelesness and heighth I know not that p. 279. he read thus in a Scripture letter Ans If Christ be not in you the body is dead in contradiction to the Scripture which saith Rom. 8.10 And if Christ be in you the body is dead But if it must be imputed to the Printer so he may be excused but till that appear not 40. And if he were not delighted with adding or detracting from Scripture at his pleasure why should he not quote Christ's words as they are Mat. 5.37 But let your communication be yea yea nay nay for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil But G.F. thus p. 178. He Christ says in all your communication let your yea be yea and your nay nay for whatsoever is contrary is evil Why not here as he has it afterward whatsoever is more is evil except it were that he would confound his Reader and so make him believe that the Quakers are very obedient to Christs command and perfect men though they in their communication call God to witness and assert things in the presence of God and the like phrases which other Christians take to be Oaths and dare not use them in that manner at least they are more than yea and nay which Christ saith cometh of evil but G. only whatsoever is contrary is evil as if all that is more must needs be contrary 41. And where to find that clause which he gives us for Scripture p. 250. I know not He brings in the Priest saying Sin is in the Saints for their humiliation His Ans Contrary to the Scripture which saith Christ is their humiliation And this he hath divers times as I remember but I take it for Scripture of his own making 42. There he makes Scripture here he marr's it most egregiously For p. 47. he saith And saith the Apostle God is in Christ reconciling the world unto himself where he puts is for was Sec 2 Cor. 5. the present for the past time For you must know that their opinion is as one of their great Authors expresseth it that God was in Christ reconciling men to himself ever since the fall in all ages both before and since Christ suffered in the outward and consequently the verb was doth not signify any thing past but what is also now present and ever will be as it always was By this means it may as truly be said that God is in G.F. reconciling the world to himself as that god was in Jesus reconciling c. forasmuch as Christ is so they would as truly and properly perhaps equally See p. 67. in G.F. as he was in Jesus But he has not yet done abusing this Scripture for p. 250. he saith God can do what he will who was in Christ reconciling himself to the world Is not this a large liberty that he takes to say the quite contrary to Scripture and to his own friends for
Abraham but not the word humane And Christ's nature is not humane which is earthly for that is the first Adam And he is so pleased with this Criticism that he has it over and over again again O learned Observation and yet we find the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anthropinos which all our Lexicons and Dictionaries tell us signifies in Latine humanus humane no less than Seven times in the Epistles of the New Testament and once James 3.7 it is joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nature humane nature and 1 Cor. 2.4 it is rendered man's which indeed is the plain English of it for humane is rather Latine What is then the humane nature of Christ but the man's nature of the man Christ Jesus And if Christ be indeed a man must he not of necessity have the nature of a man or a humane nature Behold This man never betrays his folly more than when he pretends most to learning Thus you may see that your difference from others is grounded much upon words and phrases misunderstood If G. F. had understood Greek as he highly pretends or Latine nay or good English he would never have run into many of those absurdities he is guilty of Now I should conclude and leave what I have written to your serious consideration and I doubt not but it will have a divers reception among you For there are some among you as I hear that are already griev'd at G. F. and thinks he takes too much upon him There are others I perswade my self that have so high an opinion of the Doctrine of the Light your great Fundamental and conceive they are so certain of that and have found so much benefit thereby that they are ready to say Though an Angel from heaven should preach any other Doctrine than that which G. F. has preached and they received they could not give ear to it To such I say First that the evidence I have brought of G. F. his failing and falsity is as clear and full as if I had brought miracles to confirm it for the evidence of miracles depends upon the certainty of our faculties and senses and such certainty we have in this case 2 ndly I appeal to the light in every one of you whether he is not guilty himself in a much higher degree of such things as he condemnes in others 3 dly I desire you to consider that this principle of the light in every man which you so much boast in is the principle of all Protestants however you have entertain'd it under new names as that which you were not aware of before and have extended it farther than it will reach 1. That it is the principle of all Protestants is evident from the dissent from the Church of Rome the Church of R. pretended to be the infallible guide of all men in matters of Religion No says the Protestant Every man is to judge for himself to be satisfied in his own mind to try the spirits whether they be of God to prove all things and hold fast that which is good and not to pin his faith upon any man or Church's sleeve And that they may so do God has say they endued every man with such a light of common and certain principles written in every mans heart that if a prophet should come and give them a sign or a wonder to draw them away from the observance of that light and those principles they ought not to hearken to the words of that prophet See Deut. 13.1 2 3. Moreover they say that God has promised his holy spirit to them that humbly implore it in the obedience of that light which God has already afforded To this purpose they quote those words of Christ If any man will do his will he shall know of the Doctrine whether it be of God c. Joh. 7.17 2 ly That you have entertained it under new names appears from the contention between you and others whether God have given this light to men by nature consequently whether it is a natural light or a divine light c. to which purpose your adversaries quote Rom. 2.14 15. For when the Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things contained in the law these having not the law are a law unto themselves which shew the work of the law written in their hearts their conscience also bearing witness and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another You urgo Joh. 1.9 to prove it is a divine light which Christ the true light lighteth every man withall that cometh into the world Is not the difference now between you and others about words and names for whether God hath given it unto men by nature or not it is of God in respect of it's proceeding from God and tending to him for God is as truly the Author of the good gifts that come unto men by nature as of other gifts and what reason can there be why that should not be said to be natural which agrees to every Individual of the same kind as you say the light doth for G. F. saith p. 20. a blind man and an Infant is inlightned with the light of Christ and where there is life in an Infant there is light And the Apostel saith The Gentiles do by nature c. and are a law to themselves Thus and eminent preacher in a great Assembly of late upon that Text. And so far the Quakers are in the right if they understand themselves and mean no more by it when they say that every man hath light within him than this That every man hath naturally the notions of good and evil within him which in plain cases of good and evil right and wrong will tell him what he ought to do and what he ought to avoid by which he ought to be directed and that his conscience will acquit and excuse him if he do the one and accuse and condemn him if he do the other Thus far he And this helps me to show in the 3 rd place that you extend the Doctrine of the light in every man farthor than you ought for it is not to be extended to all cased whatsoever as if every man that attends to the light in him did certainly know what is good what is evill right or wrong in every case for many cases are every difficult and even good men do commontly differ in their Judgment concerning their So we see that among the Saints at Rome to whom Paul wrote One faith he believeth that he may eat all things another who is weak eateth herbs One man esteemeth one dya above another another esteemeth every day alike Rom. 14.2 5. And the Apostle doth not condemn them for judging thus diversly but teacheth them how to behave themselves under this diversity And I appeal to the Conscience of very one of you who has not enslaved his Judgement to the Judgment of your Ministers and Elders whether in divers cases which