unno it a nuno sient tune praedestinatione sie nuno perfectione That it us then so also now as then in Predestination so also now in Perfection Secondly I shall declare the Opinion of the Leading Quakers concerning the Essence or Beeing of our Lord and Mediator Jesus Christ so far as the equivocation of their Writings will permit And it was as much as all the reputation of the Quakers is worth to be plain in this point therefore we must not expect it from them First Then for the God-head or Divinity of Christ in the confession whereof Mr. P. and G. W. do so much glory and boast Mr. P. in his Sandy Foundation hath brought many Texts of Scripture and five Arguments from right Reason to prove that God is the Holy ONE not it Holy THERE that ONE is God and God only is that Holy ONE He rejects there that impertinent distinction that he God is ONE in Substance but THREE in Persons or Subsistencies G. Whitehead defends this Position of W. P. in his Book called The Divinity of Christ where in the Name of the Quakers he confesseth That there are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and that these Three are One both in Divinity Divine Substance and Essence not three Gods nor seperate Beeings That they are called by several Names in Scripture as manifest to and in the Saints and are One infinite Wisdom One Power One Love one Light and Life c. I should have given G. F. the preheminence for I believe he is the Author of this Opinion among the Quakers he saith Myst. p. 142. Christ is not distinct from the Father and p. 199. they are not only One but all One. Hence it is manifest 1. that when they say Christ is God they mean nothing by Christ neither Substance nor Essence Person nor Subsistent especially in the sense of their Adversaries Wisdom or Power Light or Life or any thing else that is really distinct from that which the Jews mean by the God of Israel or the Mahometans by one God He that believes less must be an Atheist 2. That the Propositions Christ is God and the Father is God are of the very same import and signification even as to say W. P. is a Man or The Author of the Sandy Foundation is a Man So that respecting the time before Jesus was born the Father the Son or Christ did as much signifie one and the same intelligent and happy Person or Hypostasis as Paul and the Apostle of the Gentiles the same individual Man or Person And this is that Opinion which Ecclesiastical Writers attribute to Sabellius and they that maintain it are called by them Sabellians The consequence whereof is that the Son of God or Christ as God was at that time nothing but another Name of God or the Father and had no more Life Knowledge Power or Property distinct from the Life Knowledge Power or Properties of God or the Father than he that is not has from him that is And so all that the Quakers contend for when they seem so zealous for the Divinity of Christ is nothing in the World beside their own glory and the disparagement of their Adversaries save that God or the Father was or might be in those dayes called Christ or the Son of God or the Light c. Thus much touching the Divinity of Christ according to the Leading Quakers Now for his Humanity or his being a Man And we shall find that what-ever W. P. talks of Christ as Man and as God yet that he equivocates and deludes his Reader believing no such thing as Christ his being a Man or else he dissents from his Brethren which I suppose he will not own 1. G. F. for it 's fit he should lead doth in an insulting manner crow over his Antagonists for using the word Humane when they speak of the Nature of Christ see my Epistle p. 37. Where doth the Scripture saith he speak of Humane the word Humane In his Epistle before the Divinity of Christ Is God a Man No he is a Spirit Is the Holy Ghost a Man It is called the Holy Spirit and Christ was a Man the Man Christ Jesus If G. F. believed Christ to be now a man why did he not retain the Present Tense is but change it into was very roughly But that which we find in the Postscript of that Epistle will put the matter out of question where that Author out of Scripture defines a person to be a Man or Woman sometime the Body the Face or visible appearance of either He cites many Texts out of the Old Testament for that use of the word Person and saith that in the New it is mentioned with the same acceptation as before in the Old As for instance saith he Thou regardest not the Person of Men Mat. 22.16 Mark 12.14 Luk. 20.21 In the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. faciem hominum the face of men he cites Gal. 2.6 2 Cor. 1.11 Jud. 16. where the same word is rendred Person and concludes That the word Persons is attributed to men How now If Christ is a Man and a Man is a Person will not Christ be then a Person No such matter according to these mens Logick for immediately he goes about to vindicate the Greek Text 2 Cor. 2.10 from being translated Person of Christ and sayes it is translated face of Christ or sight of Christ and our Poly-glottist W. P. saith p. 11. Christs Person is strictly considered an unscriptural expression and will needs make me manifestly guilty of perverting Scripture for using it But what weight there is in his friends answer to that Text I see not for if a Person be a Man or the face of a Man as he defines it then if Christ be a Man he will be a Person and his face will be the face of a Person And if Christ be not a Person then he is not a Man for the definition of a thing and the thing defined are convertible But that they do absolutely deny Christ to be a Person or Man I prove further out of G. W's Book Christ Ascended p. 24. This manner saith he of excluding God's right hand and Christ to a limitation out of his People in a personal Beeing which are no Scripture terms still implies him to be a personal God or Christ like the Anthropomorphites and Muggletonians conceits of his Where note that he doth with equal contempt reject a personal Christ as a personal God and so Christ is no more a Person that God and consequently no more a Man for they deny God to be a Person Again p. 31. Is the Essence or Beeing of the Son of God personal And p. 37. He challengeth his Adversaries saying What rule in Scripture hast thou for these words visible God visible Christ c. And a little below Thou like the old heretical Egyptian Monks the Anthropomorphites and
Controversy Ended OR The Sentence given by George Fox himself against himself and Party in the persons of his Adversaries ratified and aggravated by W. Penn their ablest Advocate even in his Huffing Book of the Vindication of G. F. c. BEING A Defence of that little Book Intituled The Spirit of the Quakers Tryed HERE It is manifested out of their Writings that the Leading Quakers do but equivocally confess the Divinity and plainly deny the Humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ the Mediator between God and Men. Also from eye and ear-witnesses is related the Divine Honour some give to others of them And no marvel for Satan himself is transformed into an Angel of Light 2 Cor. 11.13 14. Who is a Liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son 1 Joh. 2.22 London Printed for Francis Smith at the Elephant and Castle near the Royal Exchange in Corahil and at the same sign first Shop without Temple-Bar 1673. Controversie Ended OR The Sentence given by George Fox himself against himself and Party in the persons of his Adversaries ratified and aggravated by W. Penn their ablest Advocate even in his Huffing Book of the Vindication of G. F. c. IT cannot seem strange to any judicious Man that considers the nature of the Argument I undertook against the Spirit of the Quakers in G. F. that I should doubt of Mr. Penn's being able to satisfie his Conscience in its Vindication becaus I look'd upon him as a Man of some Learning and Judgment more than others of that Party and as consciencious as many But behold a Book is at length come forth under his Name and bearing the Title of A Vindication c. Which having considered I must confess I find my self mistaken in the opinion I had of him both in reference to his Judgment and Conscience My reasons for such change of my mind I shall in these Papers produce And first His address to his Reader challengeth some short remarks 1. He will have me to be the most unjust of any that ever yet wrote against them because saith he he draws a general charge from a particular failing I answer He should first have answered the Reasons I gave why I did so But do they not generally account G. F. most eminently filled with that Spirit wherein they boast Did he not write this Book in the Name of the Quakers Have they not defended it And doth not W. P. here in their Names undertake the defence of it And in such a case I am justied by W. P. himself see pag. 136. 2. He faults my generosity because I wrote against G. F. at a juncture saith he when he might understand him to be at America Answ Methinks it savours of arrogancy as if the Voyages of their great Prophet must be as generally taken notice of as if he were some Prince or Cardinal 3. He suggests the unseasonableness of the opposition just when they should make the best of an unexpected toleration Answ And would they not have cryed out with more colour of reason if it had been done at a time when they were under sufferings And if he tells us saith W. P. that he had no mind to add to our troubles he deals deceitfully for his self-safety and not charity to us was hinderance Answ It 's no marvel that Mr. P. errs in judging mens hearts when he fails so grosly in things before his eyes as I shall soon shew But the Bookseller can tell him the little Book was so well approved of by Men of Learning and Authority persons I know not that it might have been printed in the most dangerous times 4. But it 's a very grievous thing to them to want my Name and no simall enquiry have they made after it which ingenuous Persons would have scorn'd to have done But I perswade my self I gave satisfying Reasons to all unprejudiced Readers why I concealed it and W. P's Book hath justified them for he hath at a venture given me a new Name and ascribed to me what may seem odious under it If they set their Names to their Books to have praise of men I seek it not Next he is much offended at a quondam Friend of his who was so kind as to give away some six-penny Books to those he knew would not buy them and yet were concern'd to read them A notable Crime in another Man but a virtue in a Quaker I wish they would practise it in reference to their Vindication But he bestows some foul Epithites upon G. F. as Knave Puppy c. Answ O the blindness of Self-love that Mr. P. should thus expose a man's name for words spoken in a free manner and privately to his Acquaintance and that after he had recall'd those terms and promis'd to forbear them for the future and in the mean time himself to be such a proficient in abusive Terms and Phrases as if he were Doctor of the Chair among the Satyrists save that he mixeth some Billingsgate language withal I shall here present the Reader with some of his sweet language if I should transcribe it all I dare say it would take up more Paper then I intend to write in the whole Measure his Book by the Title The Spirit of Truth Vindicated against that of Error and Envy unseasonably manifested as if there were a season for the manifestation of Error and Envy in a late malicious Libel He designs to mischief owl-light way of stabbing men or deceiving people great injustice and deceit Mongrel-Socinian stupid or malicious more Mahometan than Christian Serpentine Associates a lie plain lie arrant lie palpably belie idle Boaster indeed a very Dreamer his vulterous Eye malicious Comments his own vexed base murdering Spirit meer novice wickedly sayes him weakness folly malice and untruth Saturnal Dreams so over-run with the lazie c. left his Wits behind in exchange Pseudo-Linguist brawling Associate to will mischief was present c. This miserable Man smaller degree of distraction O stupendious folly such creeping Spirits how dark and vile the man is the poor man has an irksom way of telling his Tale c. wonted folly so absurd better Argument out of Bedlam Sacriledge and Ingratitude I almost tremble to think on brazon'd language of brutish malice such Bats as himself fools himself frothy spirit peevish Antichristian c. If he say that I have applyed the like opprobious tenns to G. F. as False Prophet Lyar Impostor Falsity Forgery I must tell him 1. That the nature of my Argument required those terms I could not express that which was necessary to be said without them or such like If G. F. be a Prophet he must be either a true one or a false one 2. G. F. supplyed me with them bestowing those or the like upon his Adversaries upon unjust accounts But I appeal to any prudent man whether W. P. might not with greater advantage to his Apology have
omitted his many reproachful and virulent expressions Besides I doubt not but to make it as evident as the Sun at noon that W. P. is himself guilty of those very Crimes which he falsly charges upon me and in those very Instances Before I came to the main Argument of my Epistle to the Quakers I addressed my self to them by way of Introduction wherein I gave some reasons of that manner of Argument which I intended This Mr. P. first falls foul upon and by the honesty and discretion he useth here we may judge of his performance in the whole Treatise In his first and second Sections the Reader may take notice how greedily he catches at the commendations I give of some of them I said there were honest-hearted amongst them and he saith He is pleased to allow us at least a great many among us to be honest-hearted It may as well be understood of some few Is he not a modest man If his Neighbour say Honest-hearted he will have it at least a great many honest-hearted I said Whilst some of you excel in many things c. But W. P. like a man that will rob his Neighbour for praise rather than go without it saith thus Sect. 2. If we excel in all things as he confesseth Here W. P. has committed a double falsity 1. He puts all for many and 2. the Quakers indefinitely for some of them I have look't among the Printers Errata's whether he had not corrected all by many but find no such thing And if I should grant him that error without good reason yet the other piece of falsity viz. putting we the Quakers in general for some of them will abide by him to the gross injury of me and the shame of himself Doth he call me idle Boaster and at the same time vainly boast of the praise I never gave them In his third Sect. He calls those praises which by falsifying my words he wrings out paying them their due In his fourth Sect. he saith of me Nor doth he less then palpably belie us in telling the World we condemn all virtuous Persons whatsoever if not of our own Perswasion And yet I cannot understand his Answer to be less than an implicite concession of the Charge Sure I am G. F. denies the Worship and whole Religion of all Sects that differ from the Quakers It seems I belie them with a matter of truth which because it is not plausible W. P. would palliate You may see what he 's resolv'd on He saith Sect. 5. Christ's Person which he meaning me prejudicially sayes we deny is c. My words are these But you seem at least to deny his Person Is there no difference between denying and seeming to deny But I shall have occasion to speak further of this matter Only the Reader may take notice all along of his great honesty in quoting my words But this is a trivial fault in comparison with that which follows W. Penn Sect. 8. But saith he he promiseth for the future to decline this way of proceeding and withal to avoid the use of both Scripture and Reason c. I will not saith he give him the lie but I hope he will not say I am uncivil if I tell him He has already â—â—ntradicted himself and broke his word with us for within eight lines he that promised to relinquish all personal reflection layes to our charge c. And in p. 92. he has it up again and gives me the lie in plain English which he saith here he will not give me He words it thus First Then he has broke his word with us which in plainer English is he has told us a lie in assuring us at the beginning he would deal with us neither from Scripture nor Reason and yet undertakes both Now Reader have patience to hear my words which run thus But it is not my design at this time to take a full view of you And indeed I have found it very fruitless to deal with you by way of Reason and Scripture for your leading men c. It follows in my next page I will not therefore now deal with you so much by Arguments drawn from Reason and Scripture and depending purely upon the understanding and mind but by such Arguments whose evidence depends mostly upon the outward Senses Now let the sober Reader judge on whom the lie is to be fixed and whether I have not sufficient reason to tell him He is both uncivil and unchristian Behold here the infallible Minister the Censor of the World and of other mens foul language Behold the Spirit of Truth vindicated Let me beg of thee Reader to read his Book See how he treats me and what himself deserves Acknowledge the special hand of our Lord Jesus in giving up this man to these shameful failings in the very entrance of his work Pag. 15. Upon occasion of my savine they look upon themselves as led by an infallible Spirit this plain English-man takes up his Post and will defend this That God's Holy anâ—Vn-erring Spirit is or should be the proper Judge of Truth Rule of Faith and Guide of Life among men I commend him for his wit I have charg'd G. F. with about fifty such failures as for which he condemns his Adversaries to be perverters of Scripture and consequently Deluders and Blasphemers W. P. here in vindication of him enters into a long discourse of two and thirty pages to prove from Scripture Reason and humane Authority That G. F. is or if he is not should be led by an infallible Spirit for his Hypothesis is no other way to his purpose 1. I do not only willingly grant but contend for it That there was in G. F. at that time when he wrote his Mystery c. a Conscience which had he hearkened to he should thereby have been a Law to himself and it would not have suffered him to be guilty of such things as he condemns in others 2. I grant also that this Rule is infallible viz. That he that judgeth another for any thing is inexcusable if he do the same thing himself I grant 3. that God is the Author of this Conscience Light or Knowledge 4. That G. F. might have known the Rule aforesaid by a good use and improvement of his own understanding but I suppose he came to the knowledge of it by some outward Teaching or Tradition especially by the Scriptures And so 5. the Spirit of God may in a true and good sense be said to have taught G. F. that Rule because it inspired those that preached and wrote that Rule in the Scriptures 6. That the Spirit of God was ready to have assisted him in walking according to that Rule 7. That it may be God did by his Power and Providence work upon him toward obedience Lastly Perhaps the Spirit of God did at that time when he was about to disobey suggest to him his Duty and Rule But there is little reason to think so
not infallible he is judg'd by himself to be a Deluder and Blasphemer Now hath not W. P. vindicated G. F. to purpose Or has he not under colour of vindicating him condemn'd him and that with the most opprobious terms he could devise This that I say is very manifest so that if I would spend my time or the Readers so unprofitably I might here transcribe almost all that he saith as any way pertinent to the Argument and all his vilifying Speeches on that account and retort them upon G. F. to whom they do in truth belong and not to me For though I have in some instances imputed faultiness to him for small variations from Scripture words because I saw that those variations countenanced some error yet I am confident it would never have entered into my head so to do unless I had first found him blaming his Adversaries for perverting Scripture upon far slighter yea and ridiculous accounts Might I not here tell G. F. as W. P. tells me p. 50. Had he not been void of all sense himself and reason too he would never have suffered so much weakness and untruth to pass the Press without correction And p. 21. That no man in that compass could have manifested more weakness folly malice and untruth as well in defending of his own as in opposing our Principles then G. F. hath done in his Mystery of the Whore Witness the quotations before mentioned and W. P. Again p. 52. with a little variation But that a man should make 22 corrections of so many Texts of Scripture corrupted by the Translators and twelve or thirteen of them to depend upon the rendring of the Greek Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in and not otherwise befits no man that loves to be profitably imploy'd but it therefore suits G. F. which is so over-run with c. That on Ship-board a kind of publick place or else I should not mention it he suffers as the Passengers inform elder men than himself and Prophets too to minister to him in the lowest Offices such as untying and pulling off his Shooes c. But how should Mr. Pen know that I am so over-run with the lazy Did his infallible Spirit reveal it to him for otherwise he doth but guess who I am Here he scorns me with saturnal Dreams See the tender Conscience of this Quaker He dare not use the word Saturn when it is a meer signification of a certain day in the week as John or Thomas is of a man but when if serves to abuse his Neighbour he can use it without scruple Again p. 53. I look upon it saith W. P. as conceited and presumptuous for any man to undertake what he cannot prove and not less base to affirm a man miscites perverts and corrupts Scripture when he renders the genuine sense of it Had Mr. P. so soon forgotten what he had read in the Page immediately foregoing Epist p. 6. Or Doth he think that Destroy ye this Temple is not the genuine sense of Destroy this Temple is this to vindicate G. F. to render him base And may not Mr. Pen p. 62. confess himself troubled as well for G. F. as for me not at his great skill but folly When he finds him asking his Adversaries so like a Critick Where doth the Scripture speak of humane the word Humane And will not W. P's words p. 6 †serve pertinently against G. F. viz Certainly then this word Humane is not of such dangerous consequence nor inconsonant to Scripture-language as this idle and ignorant person would render it But I must hasten And yet give me leave a little to borrow Mr. P's pathetick figure of speaking p. 80. thus And that which is more to be wondered at this miserable man even while he denies G. F. to be a false Prophet or Impostor doth manifestly assert him to be a Deluder and Blasphemer I heartily pity the man and am really affraid he has overcharged the strength of his brain for with me such manifest contradiction is but a smaller degree of distraction O stupendious folly Thus doth Mr. P. treat his Adversary These passages out of many more of the same complexion I have taken out of W. P's vindication of G. F. from the first instance of Scripture mis-recited in his language corrupted taken from John 1.9 which may be by me applyed to them according to truth but are by W. P. to me by abuse of my Words and Person as may casily be perceived by any intellgent Reader But that which is matter of wonder if any thing be so in this Author is That he spends near two and thirty pages upon this Head and concerning the Light and not one word that I can perceive whereby G. F. is any way vindicated from my chief exception which lay in this That every man whom the Light lighteth is not of necessity or effectually enlightned But G. F. reads it Every man that cometh into the World is enlightned I added for explanation of my sense Rom. 2.4 That the goodness of God leadeth to repentance those that are impenitent and not led to repentance I added moreover Mat. 5.15 and Luk. 11.33 36. but of this Mr. P. hath deep silence He spends near 16 pages about the translation and reference of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming whether to Man or to the Light and about the translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lighteth or enlightneth which were transiently mentioned by me in less than three lines and not insisted on and may be determin'd either way without prejudice to my chief Exception He joyns Greece and Italy together calling me Pseudo-linguist to abuse me for my use of the Greek-Tongue yet has not charged me with any error therein which himself or his Authors have not recanted I said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming might refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Light as well as to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Man He wonders that a man so mean in that Tongue should undertake to thwart the current of all indifferent Translators He ostentates his skill in the Oriental Tongues out of the Latin Translations of them which Tongue by the way cannot render the Greek of this Text so well as our English can The question is concerning the Greek The Arabick and Aethiopick as he cites them are on my side The three French and the Low-Dutch Translations as he renders them are for me Erasmus grants that the sense is ambiguous which is as much in effect as I say Mr. P. in translating Erasmus's words saith too ambiguous wherein he wrongs Erasmus Doth he learn that of the New Academy at Paris His Maldonate saith My sense is neither false nor absurd Grotius saith I do much approve of the Exposition which is extant in Cyril and Augustine that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 COMING be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE LIGHT Dr. Hamond reads it so And are not these four indifferent Translators and Expositors