him Well! what 's his censure against me which lights upon G. F His carping there is like all the rest malicious and troublesom It seems G. F. is a malicious and troublesom Prophet Thus I might go through all the instances and present W. P. wounding and goring himself and Friend upon the Horns of my Argument but the Reader will easily excuse me from that travel and do it himself in his own mind And yet methinks I cannot but note one more of his mercurial watchings He 'l go near to charge me with palpable lying as he has done divers times in the like case for this common phrase because I say I cannot when I can It is in my p. 33. in his p. 126. where I fault G.F. for saying absolutely God said For did not sin with his mouth where the Scripture saith In all this did not Job sin with his lips Now my exception lies in those words In all this which W. P. according to his wonted honesty leaves out and gives out that my exception lies in the putting of mouth for lips and that I charge G. F. with imposture on that account when as he has found as great a change as that in Christ and his Apostles their quoting of Scripture Well! suppose what is not that my exception had been that Is it not as great a corrupting of Scripture to put mouth for lips as to put to for in where Mr. P. faith To and In may he the same or as destroy ye for destroy ye understood Thus all the foul play that W. P. can use will not excuse his good Friend but every blow that he strikes at me wounds G. F. mortally But the most deadly of all comes at last 't is this without change of his Argument If Christ and his Apostles have not observed such exactness as G. Fox so severely reproves his Adversaries for the want of It is to be hoped that be will either retract his unworthy abuse or else not think it hard in us to charge this blasphemous inference upon him namely that he makes Christ Jusus and his Apostles perverters of Scripture and what else be wickedly concludes against Professors This inference falls with all its weight upon G. F. as the Reader may readily perceive But for me it touches me not at all For First We will suppose G. F. but equal to Christ and his Apostles in changing words to the same sense yet there will be this difference between them 1. They testified the infallibility of their spirit by many Miracles c. but I never heard of any that G. F. did except the eating and making one or more meals of Spidars of which I hear not of any evidence but his own word 2. Christ never call'd the Scribes and Pharisees Perverters of Scripture for such change of words as G. F. hath done Professors 3. Christ did not at the same time challenge the World and call them forth to come and have their Doctrines tryed by that very Scripture that is that Version or that Copy then in use among them and which he corrects them for not following exactly in every point without their meanings as G. F. has done in his Mystery c. and Preface to the same Which things considered are enough to render him according to his own Judgment as Deluder and Blasphemer and W. P. no less in making the Parallel but our Lord and his Apostles innocent But secondly of fifty instances there are not above three or four that have not either addition or substration both of words and sense or an alteration of words either importing or countenancing a bad sense or at least varying from the sense of the place as I doubt not but will appear to any judicious Reader And W. P. himself in most of the Instances doth not deny the various sense onely he endeavours to make that sense consist with truth in general or some opinion of their own which others count error Lastly It 's more than Mr. P. knows for all his skill in the Hebrew which is very notorious among learned men whether out Lord and his Apostles in their Citations of Scripture did not keep to the very words of that Version which was then in use or allowed by those to whom he spake and they wrote So vast a difference is there between the Citations of Christ and his Apostles and those of G. F. that it 's a most shameful thing they should be brought into comparison Here I might transcrible much to the bitter condemnation of them out of their own mouths but I must hasten Notwithstanding after Mr. P. has writ a Book stuft with Invectives and opprobrious condemnations of G. F. his Doctrine and Person under my Person and Cause he comes at length in the end of it to say something to his purpose of Vindication if it were true and reasonable but it proves no Armour of proof but a meer Cobweb He argues thus Professors hold the Scripture to the such a sufficient infallible Rule as that God hath not given unto men any thing more clear and certain But G. F. and the Quakers hold That the eternal Spirit is by way of excellency the Rule and Guide of Christians Therefore he was not consined to the very express words and points thereof as his Rule Could he satisfie his Conscience in this Apology But I answer 1. This arguing clearly supposes that the Dictates of G. F.'s Spirit are more excellent than the Scriptures 2. It supposes that the Spirit of God or God himself can affirm that to be written which is not written that is can lie for in citing Scripture men have respect to the very express words and upon those they build the sense 3. It supposes that because G. F. has a less esteem of the Scriptures than other men have therefore he may honestly do that to the Scriptures which will render other men Pervertors and Corruptors of them 4. It supposes that which is false viz. That Professors hold the prosent English Transslation to be unalterable for G.F. chargeth them with perverting Scripture for altering it to the very same sense as both he and they must acknowledge 5. G. F. chargeth the Translators with corrupting Scripture for rendering it so as W. P. confesseth to be the same with the rendring that G. F. would have as I shew'd upon Col. 1.23 6. It seems by this arguing that when G. F. calls upon other Christians to come forth and be tryed by the Scriptures we must understand not the form of found words contained in the Scriptures but his interpretation of Scripture But they poor Men must be charged nay commanded to give him plain Scripture printed Scripture Chapter and Verse What though G. F. his words are to W. P. of equal yea greater authority than the Scriptures as proceeding fresh and new from the holy Spirit but these have pass'd through many foul hands must they therefore be so to other men that do not acknowledge him
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
for you to Speak and Preach that which ye have not received from Heaven Whence I further Argue thus He that Speaks and Preaches that which he hath not received from Heaven is a Blasphemer But G. F. Speaks and Preaches that which he hath not received from Heaven therefore G. F. is a Blasphemer It remains now that I prove the Minor Proposition of the former Argument namely G. Fox is not infallible and that also I shall do out of G. F's words thus He that so quotes Scripture as that he expresses the Pronoun Ye where it is to be understood or renders the Greek Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by with or among or to or puts He for We or leaves one something that ought to be expressed or adds to Scripture words He that doth any one of these things or that which is manifestly equivalent such an one is a Perverter or Corruptor of Scripture and not infallible But G. F. doth some one of these things or that which is manifestly equivalent therefore G. F. is not infallible The same medium proves the Minor of the second Argument viz. G. F. Speaks and Preaches that which he hath not received from Heaven Thus he that perverts or corrupts the Scripture in any of the forementioned Instances or one that is manifestly equivalent Speaks and Preaches that which he hath not received from Heaven But G. F. doth so pervert the Scripture Therefore G. F. Speaks and Preaches that which he hath not received from Heaven The Minor of this and of the former Prosyllogism namely that G. F. doth so pervert the Scripture was proved in my Epistle by fifty Instances out of G. F's Book and I appeal to every unprejudiced Reader whether there be not as much weight in every one of them as in some of those for which G. F. chargeth his Adversaries with perverting of Scripture And whether there be not in many of them greater weight than in any of those And if it should prove that but two or three of those fifty Instances are full to my purpose it would be enough to prove what I have undertaken namely That G. F. is according to the true sense of his own words a Deluder and Blasphemer I have been forced to this way of syllogyzing that Mr. P's fallacious way of handling my Argument may more readily appear though I believe the common people did understand it as well if not better in that vulgar way wherein I propos'd it in my Epistle But to return The evidence of all the Premises is matter of Fact obvious to the eyes of every man that can but read English and discern one word or phrase from another or when he finds more or less in any Sentence for what can be lighter than the adding of a Pronoun to a Verb where it must be understood But I must not go too fast though my Argument proves G. F. to be a Deluder of People and a Blasphemer and so a Lyar yet it doth not prove him to be a false Prophet or Impostor therefore I added that large and indeed blasphemous Testimony of Solomon Eccles who saith Wo G. Fox is a Prophet indeed and hath been faithful in the Lords business from the beginning It was said of Christ That he was in the World and the World was made by him and the World knew him not So it may be said of this true Prophet whom John said he was not I added also the Quakers common Principle which doth not permit any one to be of the Ministry as they call it but Him or Her that hath an immediate Revelation or a Prophet Now if G. F. be a Prophet and a Prophet indeed not only of the Ministry but the most eminent therein and the Patriarch of the Quakers and if he be a Deluder and Blasphemer even when he Speaks Preaches then it follows roundly that G. F. is a false Prophet or an Impostor This is the substance of that Argument which Mr. P. undertook to overthrow Let us now see how he hath acquited himself in that warfare First He doth not charge me with one word of false quotation that I remember either out of Scripture of G. F's Writings so that I take it for granted that the quotations are all true and genuine 2. He grants that G. F. is a Prophet or sent of God by his eternal Spirit to turn people from Darkness to Light p. 67. 3. He doth not deny at least for the most part but that what I have ascribed to G. F. as Scripture words quoted by him is such and consequently distinguished from G. F's Paraphrases Explications or Inferences But he doth deny 1. That G. F. his affirming things to be true which are false and false which are true to be obvious to their eyes or senses That is He denies that G. F. his putting them for him Col. 3.10 thereby changing the Antecedent with for in Ephess 2.6 the corruption he blames in others Conscience for Thoughts Rom. 2.15 God for Lord Rom. 14.9 God for Christ Col. 3.16 and so of the rest He denies I say that these and the like falsities in G. F's quotations of Scripture are obvious to his senses and yet 1. they are words written and therefore proper objects of sense and 2. the change of the words which is the falsity in this case is in his answers not denyed but excused So that this his first Answer comes to this That W.P. doth deny that to be obvious to his sense which he reads and acknowledgeth by excusing And if this answer may serve his turn I must confess I am non-plust for when I have shewn an Object of sight to a mans eyes by noon-day light and when he perceives it and acknowledgeth it by manifest implication If he still persist to deny it expresly I cannot help it nor I think any man in the World I may well be said to fetch Arguments out of Bedlam as he sayes If I should prosecute such a man any further But for the sake of some that will believe their Sense and Reason I will proceed 2. He utterly denies that such falsity as I have spoken of renders G. F. either a false Prophet or Impostor Lyer he doth not deny Now 1. I must confess I have not so subtil a wit as to put a difference between a lying Prophet and a false Prophet and if my Argument will serve to prove G. F. a lying Prophet I will not contend whether the name of Impostor be proper for him but use it without scruple till I be better informed concerning it 2. Let it be considered what it is that W. P. denies and it will amount to as much as if he had confest it For he denies that such falsities or changes of Words and Phrases in citing Scripture as G. F. by his infallible Spirit calls perverting and corrupting of Scripture are such which is all one as to say that G. F. is not infallible and if he be
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
because that Rule was sufficiently know to G. F. by the means aforesaid and God is not wont to give that special Gift but to his humble Servants and Friends or to those whom he will imploy upon some special business in the World And if he had such a suggestion the more notoriously wicked was he to disobey so great a Light Now if any judicious Reader will take pains to consider the 25 Texts W. P. has quoted and he may add 25 more to them with their Contexts I am perswaded he will find them every one to intend some of the Cases I have mentioned Now let us see if we can understand what W. P. intends by the terms of his Position for we must understand him as he understands the Scriptures not Literally but Mystically 1. We are to know that by God's Holy and vnerring-Vnerring-Spirit he means if he means as the leading Quakers neither Hypostasis nor Person nor any thing else but God himself who is the Father 2. By Judge of Truth Rule of Faith Guide of Life he means That God doth immediately teach G. F. and every man to judge infallibly of all Truth what is to be believed and what to be practised For otherwise it is not intelligible That God should be the Judge of Truth c. among men And therefore 3. that the Scripture is as he saith pag. 38. much like the shadow of the true Rule which may give us some ground to guess what the Rule if self is In the next page he saith in effect That the Teachings of God are like the knowledge of the Princes Will and Secrets viva Voce or immediately which he that hath and every man ought to have heeds not so much the same when he meets it in print that is in the Scriptures They are like a Gazette to a Privy Counsellor But he saith That the eternal Spirit that is these immediate Teachings to be superior to those Writings So that when G. F. saith How can they but delude People that are not infallible This is to be heeded more than any sentence in Scripture and is superior to those Writings 4. He means by his Position that men are to be guided into Truth and Faith and good Life immediately in opposition to their endeavours studying the Scriptures setting themselves to Prayer Reasoning Preaching and the like that is such of these as are performed by us which he calls p. 84. Running in our own Wills poring beating of our Brains and daily striving Now if this be his meaning as manifestly it is then let any man that has read any of those Authors Books tell me whether he thinks that any one of those he mentions was of his mind that is Tollet or Maldonate Beza or Dr. Hammond or Hutchinson Socinus Selichtingius or Crellius Did they not all abhor that Doctrine It comes to this That God has made men with faculties capable of believing and understanding what the Will of their earthly Superior is by the means of Ministers Messengers Proclamations Writings c. and of obeying his Will heartily without immediate assistance But if our Heavenly Superior will have us to know or do his Will he must tell us immediately himself he must go along with us and lead us step by step or else he must expect no Service Duty or Obedience from us at all The truth is This Doctrine of the necessity of God's immediate Teaching doth overthrow the Mediatorship of the Man Christ Jesus our Lord and quite subvert the Gospel for mediate and immediate are directly contradictory Besides still we have gain'd nothing by this doctrine for if men do not hearken to the Un-erring Judge or mistake him or resist him against knowledge refusing to be led by him they fail as much as if they had no such Immediate Guide but a Mediate Guide and Direction Let Mr. Pen be the Example who even in the beginning of his Book has notwithstanding his immediate and infallible Guide run into five or six such palpable Falsities and Calumnics as I am consident the Cobler of Glocester would never have been guilty of nor any man else that had not been transported with pride rashness and revenge What has he gain'd then by his immediate Guide which another man that knows by Nature or Tradition he ought to speak truth is not equally capable of But why doth this Apologist spend so many Pages upon this Point and take no notice of my arguing in the following Lines which he saith I had obliged my self against Must it be past over therefore I am perswaded to use his words he was confounded at it It was to this effect We by your own confession have the Light within or the infallible Guide as well as you why then is not our Doctrine as true as yours You answer That we are not obedient we are in the customs of the World c. and therefore not to be heeded Thus you prove your selves to be in the Truth and us to be in Error not by Divine Reason and Holy Scripture but by the high opinion you have of your selves and your low opinion of others And it indeed they acknowledge that there are vertuous Persons that are of a contrary perswasion to them and none but who are guided by an infallible Spirit then they are no more certain than other men and we need still an infallible Judge I add If every man hath the I have a measure of infallible Light the least measure whereof convinces of sin especially gross sins such as Malice Envy Lying Murdering-Spirit c. which W. P. imputes to me But I am so far from having any such convictions that on the contrary my Conscience hears me witness of a hearty love to Truth and their Persons in what I have done and am a doing Therefore if their Doctrine be true his Imputation is false if his Imputation be true their Doctrine is false But enough of this Having now in this Introduction given the Reader a proof of W. P's faculty in accusing meek language faithfulness in representing my words and sense modesty in praising himself and Party evading of that which is weighty confidence in denying what they are charged with and his sense of the Spirits guidance We are pretty well prepar'd to make a conjecture of what we are to expect from him in the handling of the main Argument which I think fit first to give a short account of And I must tell you that it is Argumentum ad Hominem an Argument against G. F. formed out of his own words and runs thus He that is not Infallible in a Deluder But G. Fox is not infallible Therefore G. F. is a Deluder The Major Proposition as they call it is expresly proved by that Quotation out of G. F's Book where he faith How can ye be Ministers of the Spirit if ye be not infallible And How can they but delude people that are not infallible And again G. F. faith Is is not Blasphemy
led by that Spirit When the truth of any matter in question is to be tryed by a written Testimony and that writing may be produced he that shall then instead of the determinate words of that Testimony produce other words to the prejudice of his Neighbours cause shall be counted forger and lyar And I nothing doubt but that G. F. if he had dealt so with other writings of civil concern as he has done with the holy Scriptures would by this time have lost his ears And it would not have excus'd him in such a change to have urged that his own knowledge and testimony were of greater cortainty and vilidity than the words of that written Testimony forasmuch as Party concern'd acknowledg'd no such matter 7. G. F. in accusing Professons of perverting Scripture in the Instances cited follows his own Judgment and Principle and not theirs for the makes it an Argument of the Quakers their being sent of God because they speak of Scripture right as it is but Professors the contrary and tells them they run into all absurdities that give their meanings to Scripture Lastly such is the unhappiness of W. P's undertaking in this matter that almost all his reasonings and scornings too against me in vindication of G. F. turn directly to his condemnation For because Prefessons do not acknowledge any other common Rule of Faith but the Scriptures it was necessary therefore for G. F. to confute them by express Scripture especially in that he had undertaken so to do and dar'd them to go to a tryal at than Tribunal See the Epistle to his Mystery I have been long in the answer of this Allegation because it seems to be the only thing of weight in his whole Book but you see how it disserves him Having now seen my Argument against G. F. confirm'd and improv'd with much bitterness by W. P. under pretence of vindicating him I might here fairly conclude but having added to my Argument in my Epistle that he had not only done to same or the like to that which he condemn'd in other but much more and that which was really conclemnable and urg'd my Instances to prove that also it may perhaps be sit for me to say something in vindiation of them or some of them from W. P.'s exceptions Though indeed if the Reader would but take the pains to compare my Epistle with his Answer and what I have here already written I might well spare mine and his further labour in this Matter But because every Reader may not have opportunity so to do I will proceed The first instance I have spoken to already The second Instance is form John 1.7 where G. F. applies that to the Light which John speaks of the Baptist vis That all men through him might believe Which taken as it is spoken proves that the preaching of John Baptist was a means of bringing all men to believe and consequently that the true Light may light every man by the foolishness of preaching or outward means which is contrary to the Quakers Doctrine of the Light and is avoided by his perverting the Text. The third Inst in from 2. Cor. 4.6 For God who commanded the Light to shine out of darkness hath shined in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ G. F. hath it thus When as Paul said that the Light which shined in their hearts to give the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ 1. He puts the light insted of God 2. He leaves out Light immediately before of the knowledge 3. The whole Sentence is non-sense and notwithstanding all this W. P. has the face to tell his Reader He obtrudes an arrant lie upon our very senses and call me wretched Scribler How idle How frivolous c. The error that 's couch'd here is 1. That God and Christ the Light are not distinct but all one 2. That by Light here is not meant Knowledge 3. That this Light is not an effect of Creation 4. Inst from Col. 3.10 where G. F. reads them for him and so takes away from us a proof that the New Man there spoken of is created W. P. saith in his defence If he did put Them for Himit is not false but if we in common discourse say you for thou he 'l say it's false 5. Rom. 2.15 G. F. puts Conscience for Thoughts because Conscience was more easily drawn to signifie the uncreated Light in every man 6. John 7.38 There he puts Christ's helly for the Believers belly to countenance the foresaid Notion 7. 2 Cor. 2.16 G. F. applies that to the immediate Word which is plainly spoken of the Apostles And W. P. that he may be true to his way of abusing me falsly saith I undertake to prove him to be an Impostor for putting the before Death and Life which the Translation doth not Did ever man make less conscience of what he wrote 8. Col. 1.23 Putting was for is to prove inward preaching without outward I have spoken of it before 9. 2 Cor. 13.5 Within you for in you to countenance as he supposes their Doctrine of God's immediate Light 10. 2 Cor. 3.6 G.F. saith The Scripture said The Letter was dead and did not give Life W. P. blames me for referring these words to this Scripture which is the nearest I can find but he finds no Scripture nearer to which to resen it How captious he is Paul saith The Letter â—illeth speaking of the first Covenant as W. P. confesseth but G. F. intends that the outward dispensation of the New Covenant in the Scriptures is dead An Opinion that has done no small mischief in the World 11. I have charged G. F. that twenty times or more as I suppose he denies that the Scripture is called Word but saith it is called a Treatise Acts 1.1 And yet that word there rendred Treatise is the same which is rendred Word when applyed to Christ But W. P. to help at a dead lift saith G. F. intended The Word of God by way of excellency Which of G. F. his Adversaries did ever affirm it was 12. But W. P. can desend him in any thing even when he obtrudes upon his Reader the grossest absurdity instead of Scripture and will not have it to be any more than a trivial Objection against his infallible Prophet when he saith And so to the Word Christ Jesus Him by whom the World was made before is was made This G. F. puts in a Scripture Letter and this he repeats in his Book at least seven times without any variation the eighth time he has it thus By which the World was made before it was made It 's evident enough he has respect to John 1.3 Without him was not any thing made that was made What saith his Chamption now But is there no allowance to be had for curt Expressions eseapos of the Pen oversight in Compositors and Errors in the Press
What! eight times after the same manner Where was W. P.'s Conscience But can be not make sense of it Yes yes Suppose a Comma at the first made where and being understood explaineth the sense was maketh it more clear That 's one way Again Take the middle Clause and put in last interchanging the World and it thus And so to the Word Christ Jesus before the World was made him by whom it was made All this stir is to make it sense as for Scripturee 't is such as God's infallible Spirit in G. F. wirtes And may not a man at this rate excuse the groffest non-sense that ever was writ Go thy wayes for an admirable Advocate Once more let me ask the Reader what he thinks of the honesty of W. P. and whether he will excuse me hence-forward if I mingle any more Discourse with him It may benefit some or other therefore I will yet proceed a little further 13. Who can read Deut. 30.10 11 12 13 14. and not perceive that by the word very night unto them in their mouth and in their heart is meant the Word written And yet G. F. would have it to be the inward immediate Word and therefore in thy mouth must be left out as not well agreeing with that notion 14. It 's for the sake of that Notion that the Power of God is said by him to be the Gospel and the Gospel the Power of God as if they were convertible terms whereas the Apostle Paul sayes only That the Gospel is the Power of God not simply and absolutely but in a certain respect to Salvation to every one that believeth This I express't fully in my Epistle but W. P. would not see it but cries out Gross folly c. 15. Next you must know that the Quakers detest the thought of Christ's having the Essence of a man in any place remote from their own dear hearts and therefore when G. F. cites that Scripture Luk. 24.5 6. He must leave out of the very heart of the Text He is not here And W. P. will have it very aptly used to express the Mystical Resurrection but still he is not here must be out for that doth not quadrate with their fancy 16. And G. F. cites that Text Ephes 5.30 defectively to prove Christ not absent from his Church and W. P. avows it Indeed G. F. sayes He is deceiced who saith Christ is distinct from the Saints Myst p. 16. 17. But upon that Text Luk. 17.21 W. P. gives my chief exception a go-by takes no notice of G. F's changing The Kingdom of God into plain Heaven But if he had he abhors to think that Heaven is a visible place to be liv'd in bearing some resemblance to this visible World p. 12. 18. Amos 3.13 There G. F's applying that to Christ which is spoken of the Lord God favours their Doctrine of no distinction between God and Jesus Christ the Mediator and W. P. defends it on that account 19. The like may be said of 1 Cor. 15.28 where W. P. according to his usual candour tells me of Col. 3.11 but takes no notice of G. F. his citing Chapter and Verse which he is not wont to do 20. Joh. 1.1 God is the Word is defended by the same perverse Doctrine 21. So is his adding He or Christ to the Father Joh. 10.29 22. His palpable diminishing from Phil. 2.11 hath the same tendency and W. P. owns it G. F. in his own Cause would have exclaimed here as he doth upon the Ministers of Newcastle 23. W. P. talks of Brazen but I wonder with what face he could give such answer to John 15.25 which if it be not as G. F. cites it an addition to Scripture I never saw one nor ever shall What call for plain Scripture from another and at the same instant urge Scripture with addition himself He thinks if he can but make G. F. speak sense and truth in his Opinion he has done enough He may as well say all G. F.'s Book is Scripture for he believes it all as infallible as Scripture as if there were no difference between a Quotation and a Comment or Exposition But G. F. has said it Christ is not distinct from the Father That 's enough for W. P. though it subvert the Gospel 24. The like ground there is for inserting Christ into the Text 2 Pet. 2.1 which I have mentioned 25. And for putting God for Lord Rom. 14.9 26. And so he would confound God and the Holy Spirit by putting the one for the other 1 Cor. 2.10 14. And why did not W. P. answer what I urg'd rather then pass it by and call me Busy-body which is very easie 27. Add to these Col. 3.16 and John 17.5 which I am about to speak and we have 11 Texts abused to serve that goodly Doctrine of the Father Son and Spirit their not being distinct but all one A very trivial Matter that doth but subvert the Faith of Christ and introduce another Gospel 28. When G. F. sayes This is Scripture If we find it not there we must say He is mistaken and then he is fallible If he give us the sense of Scripture in other words and obtrude them for Scripture he corrects the Scripture instead of citing it Christ saith John 17.5 And now O Father glorifie thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the World was But G. F. Christ who was glorified with the Father before the World began W. P. cries out Sottish Ignorance and Enmity with a witness Did ever Christ of his Apostles or any sober man living chide or reprove a person if he did leave out or put in or change a word not in the least perverting the sense Yes G. F. doth it for expressing ye where it must be understood It seems then G. F. is no sober man in W. P's account and if so I know not how he should be a true Prophet But I have shew'd in my Epistle that he perverts the sense and that the Phrase is to be understood of the glory which Jesus had not in possession but in decree with the Father before the World was Here Mr. P. cries out lamentably That ever any man should undertake to correct others in that which doth not deserve it whilst the beam is in his own eye and is himself most guilty This is like the rest sutable to the honesty of Mr. P. that he should compare an Exposition of Scripture with a quotation of it And because the chief artifice of his Book is to render me odious and detestable under the name of Socinian mongrel-Socinian Bidlean and the like and for that takes no small occasion from my exposition of this Text I shall shew 1. that two great Authors no Socinians are of the same mind Grotius upon those words The glory which I had adds Destinatione tua in thy Decree Augstinus Et nuno clarifica me And now glorifie me Hoe est sient
late Muggletonians art relling of a visible God and Christ remote not in any Behold here what an abominable thought it is to this man and the Family of Light called Quakers that 's his phrase that Jesus Christ should be like a Man visible or in any place remote from Men and Women that live here upon Earth and if he be not then it 's certain he is not a Man for a Man being in his Substance Body as well as Spirit and finite cannot be in moe than one place at the same time And Mr. P. talks at the same rate with G. W. P. 12. Sect. 6. where he argues thus If Gods presence make the Heaven as we have been alwayes taught and all have believed and confest let every Reader judge whether he say true or false Do not all Christians in the World except a few believe and confess that Heaven is a certain place distinct from Earth into which Christ ascended when a Cloud received him out of their the Apostles sight Acts 1.9 Then saith he since God vouchsafes to Temple and Tabernacle in men it follows that his Heaven is there also And so the Man Christ Jesus sits at Gods right hand in Heaven when W. P. sits at G. F's right hand for God Tabernacles in G. F. and hath his Heaven there and Christ is in W. P. or else there 's no such thing as Christ's being a Man Here W. P. derides and abominates their Faith who believe That Heaven is a visible place to be liv'd in c. But we will return again to G. W's Christ Ascended p. 18. Except you eat my Flesh and drink my Blood you have no Life in you saith Christ So neither is Christ our Gods right hand so limited 20 a remoteness from them the Saints Is seems that Jesus Christ is no otherwise in Heaven then he is in the Saints when they eat his Flesh and drink his Blood And indeed J. Newman's design was from what appears in G. W's Book to assert That the Man Jesus our Lord although he is the Eternal God has in Heaven a place remote from Earth an Humane Body which is not substantially in any Man nor in any place but in that which all men call Heaven To this G. W. opposeth himself and saith p. 21. Doth not this oppose the Infiniteness and Omnipresence of God and Jesus Christ and bring them under the limitation of finite Creatures So that Jesus Christ according to him has no other Body of a Man than what is as Infinite and Omnipresent as God himself Next we will see what Isaac Pennigton another famous man saith to this Point in his Book intituled A Question c. p. 33. The Scriptures do expresly distinguish between Christ and the Garment which he wore between him that came and the Body in which he came So then Christ's Body by which he means the whole Manhood was but Christ's Garment A little farther he saith This we certainly know and can never call the bodily Garment Christ but that which appeared and dwelt in the body To this agrees our Author W. P. p. 11. We dare not say That the intire Christ was that visible Body that was crucified at Jerusalem What was then J. Pennington will tell us in his next words Now if ye Professors indeed know the Christ of God tell us plainly what that is which appeared in the Body whether that was not the Christ before it took up the Body after it took up the Body and for ever Here it 's manifest that by Christ he understands nothing of Manhood Body nor Soul but only that which was before Jesus was born and the same is still the Christ his Body or Manhood was only his Garment which he took up and laid down And G. W. useth the word Manhood p. 14. He took upon him the Manhood in time Now I may appeal to my Reader whether I have not clearly prov'd as far as the nature of the thing will bear that the Leading Quakers do not believe that Jesus Christ is a man I say as the nature of the thing will bear because if they should in so many Syllables deny it though I have had it so from some of their mouths they must contradict express Scripture whcih often calls Christ a Man even since his Resurrection and that would destroy their reputation among those that reverence the Holy Scriptures But how they can by an unparallel'd equivecation both confess him in Scripture to be a Man and at the same time in Heart and in their Books deny him I shall now shew you out of the Books of Isaac Pennington and G. Fox a forenamed I. P. p. 20. For that which he Christ took upon him was our Garment even the Flesh and Blood of our Nature which is of an carthly perishing Nature but he is of an eternal Nature and his Flesh and Blood and Bones are of his Nature Here observe that the Flesh and Blood of our Nature that is the Manhood which he took upon him was a Garment and so no part of his Nature but he had Flesh and Blood and Bones too before that time which Flesh Blood and Bones were of an Eternal Nature that is to say God for I know nothing else that was of an Eternal Nature Here Christ is denyed to be by Nature a Man and yet by his Eternal Nature to have Flesh Blood and Bones Now if any man in the World can shew me a grosser piece of equivocation than this I will acknowledge my self a very ignorant Person To speak of the Flesh Blood and Bones of a Man and to intend nothing of the Nature of Man but only of God Has Muggleton or the Anthropomorphites of Egypt whom they so often call upon said any thing of so gross a nature as this if it be taken properly and if it must be taken improperly what horrid deceit and equivocation But it were a disparagement to G. F. that I. P. should have a Notion that was not first revealed to G. F. Therefore we find that long before G. F. had said in his Mystery p. 68. And is not Christ in Man And doth not Christ say they must eat his Flesh And so if they must eat his Flesh Is not his Flesh in them And how can ye call him Christ in Man without the Man he there I. P's words may be the exposition of these and tell us that by Man G. F. means the Eternal God and by the Flesh which men eat and whcih is in them he means the Flesh Blood and Bones of the Eternal God Who can read these things without horror Now let me put two or three Queries to my Reader which he may resolve from these Premises Q. First Of what use is or can the Scripture be to these men who do thus confound Heaven and Earth God and Man Flesh and Spirit Man's Nature and God's Nature Eternity and Time that they will understand the one when the other is named and plainly
mean time he sits at God's right hand that is he has all power in Heaven and Earth committed to him and reigns over Men and Angels as will appear by comparing 1 Cor. 15.25 with Psal 110.1 They believe that the Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father Joh. 5.23 Therefore they worship Christ and call upon him as their Lord their King their great High-Priest their God that searcheth their hearts and is perfectly able to save them that come unto God by him And they say it 's no wonder that they honour Christ as God whilst they acknowledge God his Father to be above him forasmuch as the Author to the Hebrews doth the same Heb. 1.8 9. saying But unto the Son he saith Thy Throne O God is forever and ever Thou hast loved Righteousness and hated Iniquity Therefore God even thy God hath anointed thee with the Oyl of Gladness above thy Fellaws Finally When all things shall be subdued under him this Man Jesus then shall the Son also himself be subject to him that put all things under him that God may be all in all 1 Cor. 15.28 Now I know not any thing of all that I have said concerning the Manhood Resurrection and Exaltation of Jesus wherein the Trinitarians and Vnitarians do not agree The only Point in difference between them is this Whether this Dominion Power and Glory which are conferred upon the Man Jesus be conferred upon him by assuming him into a personal Union with God so that the Man and a Person of God make one individual Person or whether they be conferred upon him by God's communicating to him such a Supernatural and Divine Power as he never communicated nor ever will to any Man or Angel and greater than which God himself cannot bestow The first the Trinitarians hold the latter the Vnitarians Herein they both agree That the Man Jesus is really invested with this Power But for the Quakers I have shew'd that they really deny this Person this Man Jesus and consequently all that power and glory which he is invested with So that all that they talk of him and all their contention for him is meer equivocation The Man Jesus the Mediator between God and Men is according to them so far from being our King our Lord and God our High-Priest and Intercessor and from being in himself immortal most happy and glorious that he has not so much Being as a Bat I mean a proper Bat not one of Mr. Pen's Bats So that he that shall call Jesus accursed O horribled meaning by Jesus that personal Beeing or Man that was dead and is now alive in Heaven a place remote from men on Earth he commits really no greater offence than he that shall call the man i' th Moon accursed for the one as they hold hath as much Beeing as the other And now let the World judge whether I did not use a soft expresson when I said that some Doctrines of the Quakers did render them very dishonourable and dangerous to Christian Religion If the Deists in France should once get the Quakers knack of equivocating and meaning by Jesus Christ when they speak of him nothing but God then what havock might they make of Christian Religion I would not be mistaken when I charge these things upon the Quakers I mean the Leading Men for I am still perswaded there are some honest-hearted among them that neither know this that I have said to be their Doctrine nor believe it And perhaps there may be some that own it and profess it that are so silly they neither know what they say nor whereof they astirm Moreover I prosess solemnly that it is not from any malice envy or revenge that I impute these things to them for I do heartily believe their Doctrine is such as I have said and I hope the Proofs I have quoted out of their Writings will sufficiently vindicate me in the eyes of all impartial Readers and I can easily produce more of the same kind See the Dialogue between a Christian and a Quaker Now as I have shew'd that they do not believe the Beeing of Jesus the Mediator and consequently none of those Articles of Christian Faith which depend upon his Beeing so it were not very difficult to demonstrate that they cannot upon their Principles believe any of them I will try a little and for Example let the Proposition to be believed be God raised up the Lord Jesus from the dead It you bring them Scripture and universal Tradition to get credit with them it 's all nothing G. Keith saith in his Immediate Revelation p. 35. The best words uttered from Christ in the dayes of his flesh or from any of the Apostles or Prophets and yet recorded in the Scriptures cannot reveal the Father nor the Son either Again p. 37. Outward Revelation or Discovery by words spoken from without of Chirst or any of his Disciples or Apostles cannot reveal the Father nor the Son It seems then that if Christ himself as after his Resurrection with his Apostles should converse with us and preach to us that God had raised him from the dead and if the whole Colledge of the Apostles should bear witness to what he said all this could not work in us any true saving-Faith of the Proposition aforesaid without an immediate Revelation within for that 's the purport of his Book the Title whereof is Immediate Revelations not â—â—â—siâ—â— but remaining of indispausable necessity as to the whole Body in general so to every Member thereof every true Believer in particular And by immediate Revelation he tells us p. 16. They understand not onely immediate supernatural influences of the Spirit of God to assist and enable or elevate the mind to know and understand savingly but also such inward influences as are the very immediate Objects of our mind Hence he saith p. 40. The Lord knoweth the thoughts of Man to be but vanity and his wisdom foolishness and enmity against God even all that wisdom which the carnal mind can gather into it self whether from the Words of Scripture or from the Works of Creation and Providence Here by mans wisdom and carnal mind mind you must understand him of all wisdom whatsoever which comes not by immediate inward Revelation So p. 59. All your Scripture literal traditional Knowledge and Wisdom is a burthen unto this something in you And G. White head saith Christ Ascend p. 28. That Faith that is without the divine and immediate illumination of the Spirit within which is no Divine Faith but mens Knowledge Faith and Religion are but Traditional Literal and Lifeless So that if W. P. would have told candidly and plainly with us he should have told us that the infallible Spirit is the immediate Judge Rule and Guide to men and so that no man can have any true Faith or Religion without its immediate proposing by way of Object unto him as
was done to the Prophets and Apostles Therefore G. F. in the very beginning of his Mystery as I hinted before showing the ground of difference between the Priests and Professors and all Sects in these Nations and the Quakers saith That the controversie on their part is just and equal against them all and that they have sufficient cause to cry against them and to deny their Ministry their Church their Worship and their whole Religion as being not in the Power and by the Spirit of the living God Compare this with what I have cited before and then it plainly appears that all right Quakers in G. Fox's sense have renounced or denyed their Faith Worship and whole Christian Religion which they had before they were Quakers as being grounded as ours is upon Reason Scriptures the Preaching of Jesus and his Apostles and Prophets and Tradition with an assistance of the Holy Spirit elevating the mind but not upon immediate objective Revelation such as the Apostles and Prophets had and such as the Quakers now pretend to have For we and those that differ from them profess those things before mentioned to be the ground of our Faith they profess the last of Immediate Revelation to be the ground of their Faith and Religion and deny ours to be Divine Faith or true Religion Nay they cry out against it as foolishness and darkness literal and lifeless So then W. P. doth but make a fair flourish when he faith p. 39. The Scriptures we own and the Divine Truth therein contained we reverence and esteem as the Mind and Will of God to men For they cannot according to their Principles esteem any saying of Scripture be it that God raised up the Lord Jesus from the dead or any other word of any Apostle or of Christ himself I say they cannot esteem it as the Mind and Will of God except they have an immediate Revelation dictating the same unto them Which if they have then the Scripture is superfluous to them and they do no more esteem it the Mind and Will of God because it is written in the Bible than if it had been written in any other Book among Fables and Lies These things considered I argue thus If among the Professors of Religion in these Nations there be those that sincerely confess the Lord Jesus and heartily believe that God raised him from the dead upon the grounds forementioned and not upon the ground of immediate objective Revelation of God's Holy Spirit then G. Fox and the Quakers deny and cry out against true Christian Faith and Religion and consequently cannot have them Again If men in general cannot savingly believe without hearing a sent Preacher then men cannot believe by immediate inward Revelation and then they that assert they can and do and deny the Antecedent cannot have saving Faith The Antecedent is true from Rom. 10.13 14 15. The Consequent from the opposition between mediate and immediate 1 Cor. 1.18 They to whom the preaching of the Cross is foolishness and not the Power of God cannot have Gospel-Faith But to G. F. and some Quakers the preaching of the Cross without immediate Revelation is foolishness and not the Power of God Therefore G. F. c. cannot have Gospel-Faith Let us proceed now to the other Instances of Scripture abus'd and show the tendency of it to false Doctrine Inst 29. Next he would vindicate G. F. in correcting the Translators for rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I protest by 1 Cor. 15.31 saying there is nothing in the Greek for I protest and yet Mr. P. cannot but grant that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is commonly at least a particle of Swearing and if but so it follows that there is something in the Greek that answers I protest by for supposing that not to be the sense of the place which the current of Interpretors say is yet there is that word there which will bear such a Translation there is something in the Greek for I protest which G. F. denies and therein imposes upon his Reader which is enough for my purpose Here W. P. p. 91 that he may be true to his presumptuous way of arguing though he venture the abusing God and Men tells us That an Oath having been made from the distrust of honesty in him that was to take it where the cause Lyes Equivocations c. is removed the effect Swearing should cease As if Christ or rather God himself had distrusted his own honesty when he sware unto Christ Thou art a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedec or the Patriarch Abraham the Father of the Faithful had distrusted God's honesty and therefore God sware to him to free him from his dissidence and not because as the Scripture speaks God was willing more abundantly to shew unto the Heirs of Promise the immutability of his Counsel Heb. 6.17 30. Next we come to that Text in Matth. 23. Neither be ye called Masters c. Here as his manner is he abuses my words as if he came out of Bedlam and then my Argument must be a Bedlam one Read both and compare for I may not now repeat If the Quakers restrain the Text where they have reason why may not others restrain it where they have as good reason and that without blaming the Text or strange irreverence to Holy Writ If my Neighbour be a Master of Servants why may I not treat him in compellation as such and not as if he had no Servant and were himself a Servant And by Mr. P's favour I count it no sin to call another Man's Wife Good Wife or another Man's She-Servant Maid Mr. P. doth but no sin to tell me I have told a plain lye when himself has made my words so by detracting from them And therefore the Reader has no reason to believe him when he saith Civil honour namely of calling Master is repugnant to common Truth and Christian Religion But I wonder W. P. should take so much pains to vindicate Stephen in calling the Counsel of the Jews Men Brethren and Fathers who yet were not his proper Fathers for he might with more ease have done it by saying He had a special impulse for it as the Quaker that came many score of miles as they said to perform his obeysance to Margaret Fell at her own House where at a solemn Meeting the Man rose up from his Seat and went and fell down upon his knees with his Hat in his hand directly before Margaret Fell and made his humble address to her by the compellation of my dear Mother and beseech'd her to pray for him In like manner on the third or fourth day after John Stubs at another Meeting requested the like favour of her with his Hat under his Arm standing and calling her My dear everlasting Mother The truth of these things can be prov'd by eye and ear-witnesses and I suppose there are some Quakers that will attest them This is that Margaret Fell who was formerly Judge Fell's
Wife and is now G. Fox's concerning whom he gave forth a Paper that his marriage with her was a sigure of the Marriage between Chirst and the Church Likewise that his Marriage was above the state of Adam in his Innocency in the state of the second Adam who never fell Thus I find it reported by a certain Quaker in a Letter a notable piece to his Friend The same person faith That upon two occasions persons kneel before G. Fox though 't is done in a very private manner and but by a few the one is when he sends them forth to Administer the other is upon some misdemeanour committed by a Minister who acknowledging his fault upon his bended knees George absolves him My next Argument was thus Christ saith Be ye not called Kathegetai but he doth not forbid them to be called Kyrioi and we find in Scripture Philip called by Strangers Kyrie and Paul and Silas Kyrioi and Chirst himself mistaken for a Gardener by a notable Disciple called Kyrie and all without rebuke therefore the compellation of Kyrie is not forbid in Kathegetes If it be our Lord Jesus himself as well as the Apostles will be brought under suspicion of conniving at sin in a place where he had opportunity to correct it And besides the inspired Writers giving us no notice of any failure in any of these cases the Scripture and practice of Christ and the Apostles and Primitive Believers will be so far from being of Example and Teaching to us that they will be a temptation to us unto evil and as Mr. P. sayes like the shadow of the true Rule that is an evening shadow which is five times as long as the substance it self Let the Reader see now if he can pick any thing out of W. P's answer but evasion and shuffle He saith indeed in excuse of our Lord's silence in the case that he never particularly check't Peter for denying him which how parallel to this case let the sober Reader judge and how boldly our Lords innocence is called into question and how lamely defended And whether G. F. would have incurred that suspicion of guilt in the like Circumstances or the only Scripture of his Life and Doctrine wrote by the Quakers left him under it 31. As for his defence of Women speaking in the Church it 's like the rest meer shuffle Judge what a pliant Conscience this man has who can accuse some that he had nothing to do with of making John speak equivocatingly because they do not expound Scripture to his sense and me a little before of strange irreverence to Holy Writ for restranining the Text which himself also restrains and here behold what a sense he puts upon 1 Cor. 14.34 35. as if he were expounding one of the old Poetical Fables But at length he comes to this I permit not an unlearned or ignorant Woman to speak in the Church And Did the Apostle permit or Do the Quakers permit unlearned or ignorant men to speak in the Church I said The Apostle forbids Women by Sex in those cases wherein he allows men by Sex to speak in the Church Where 's his Answer Find it that can He tells us of Women's labouring in the Lord Helpers in Christ Jesus Servants of the Church as if they might not do all that without speaking in the Church where there were men enough qualified for that work He tells us of Women prophesying for among them the Quakers any profound vehement prattle may serve for that but I never yet heard of a Quaker that spake an unknown Tongue And yet one would think they needed it enough when they are sent to the Indians or to the Great Turk 32 33 34 35 36. These five Instances Jam. 3.2 Ephes 5.25 Heb. 10.27 Joh 2.10 2 Pet. 1.4 the change of the Phrase in the two first and last and the defect in the third and fourth do all favour their doctrine of Perfection which is indeed a Doctrine of Sin and Imperfection for he is a persect Man according to them who sins not against his immediate Light or Conscience and so their Persection is consistent with all manner of sins of Ignorance of Error proceeding from any passion as is most manifest in these two G. F. and W. P. who must be accounted perfect men notwithstanding all their blasphemics against God and Christ and conrumelies against men which I have evidently demonstrated And then it 's consistent with sins of Omission in great plenty for whil'st they deny the Worship and whole Religson of all but themselves they must of necessity want that love toward them which is due to Christian Brethren Behold here a sort of Christians without either Faith in the true Christ or love to his faithful Servants 37. And it 's not a little mischief that has been wrought by that Notion of God's working all in us and for us which G. F. will have the Apostle to say and W. P. beings three Texts from whence he infers it as if I had charged G. F. with a false Infexence and not false Scripture 38. Our Translation hath Isa 8.20 If they speak not according to this Word it is because there is no Light in them But G. F. You that speak not according to that Rule it is because you hate the Light in you And W. P. instead of vindicating him rails at me Who knows not what that change meant 39. That G. F. may disparage the places wherein other Christians worship God saith Is God worshipped in Temples made with hands And would have his Reader take that for Scripture W. P. saith nothing to it 40. I shew'd in my Epistle p. 27. what Error of the Quakers is countenanced by G. F.'s putting is for was 2 Cor. 5.19 as if there were no work done by Christ for reconciling men which he was not and is not alwayes a doing I shew'd also that G. F. said God was in Christ reconciling himself to the World But W. P. takes no notice of it He seems to have wrote his Book only for the Quakers or those that either never read my Epistle or else have forgot it Upon the whole Matter for I have exceeded my intended brevity let the impartial Reader judge of W. P's and my performance in tals Argument And whether I have not prov'd by evidence of sense what I undertook viz. That G. F. is a false Prophet a Lyar or Impostor Yea whether W. P. himself hath not confirm'd unawares this Sentence concerning him Whether it is not horrid impiety for these men to pretend the guidance of God's infallible Spirit in what they write and to run in to such Absurdities Falsities and pernicious Errors as I have prov'd them guilty of Whether it will not be great folly in me or any man henceforward to write or indeed to speak to these men concerning Matters of Religion except perhaps further to discover their deceit whilst they practise such unheard-of Equivocation in their words as