rendred my self very Ridiculous and Obnoxious to the general Censure of his Auditory he may rest satisfied that I am not ambitious of his Favour experimentally knowing that it is a discredit to be praised by some And as for the Censure of his Auditory some of his Associates that understood Philosophy were ashamed of his Definition of Substance c. as I have been informed But as to the Judgment of his ignorant Mobb he may depend on it that I never have nor will court their Applause Having said thus much of the Ambiguity of words in a formal Acceptation I shall pass on to his Page 92. I asked D. Phillips who was present 4th Narr p. 93. and sat near where I stood this is false for I stood amongst the Crowd when this Query was proposed to me and is one in Unity with the Quakers whether that Blood that was let out of Christ's Side by the Spear was in being c. but he gave no reply Obser I do not remember what Answer I gave to this Query because sometimes G. K. would ask me one Question at the same time one or two of his Ministers would ask me another and sometimes I answered one sometimes the other but if I dis-respected him so far then as not to oblige him with an Answer if he will not be Angry nor call Names I will do it now My Opinion is that the Blood which was let out of Christ's Side by the Soldier 's Spear after he was Dead is not now existing under the same form of Blood as then it was Nevertheless I do not conceive that any Particle of it is Annihilated tho' it may be wonderfully changed as to those parts the Schools term its Accidents Ibid. I asked him i. e. D. P. again Whether he believed that the Blood that was outwardly shed was Meritorius to Justification 4th Narr p. 92. and that True Believers were justified by it He said he knew not what I meant by the word Merit or Meritorious I told him It was a Shame for him to pretend to be so Ignorant of the Signification of the Word that an ordinary School-Boy did know seeing he was a Scholar and did not long ago Commence Doctor of Physick at Leiden and had there a Latin Oration Obser The Narrator here is guilty of two Untruths the First is in saying that I said That I did not know what he meant by Merit or Meritorious The Second is That I had a Latin Oration at Leiden As to the First I am satisfied he hath designedly alter'd my Words by what he hath since told me whether the Second is to be attributed solely to his Ignorance of the Method of that University I shall not determine Ibid. I asked again Were Believers justified by the Merit of the Blood that was outwardly Shed He answered It was a part of the Offering I do conceive that that Act of the Soldiers piercing our Saviour's Side and letting out his Blood by the Wound made by the Spear abstractly consider'd is not the Meritorious cause of our Salvation but that it is the whole Offering whereby Believers are justified Ibid. I farther asked him what he did mean by the Offering Observ By the Offering I mean what the Author to the Hebrews hath left on record Chap. 9.14 15. in these words How much more shall the Blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without Spot to God purge your Consciences from dead Works to serve the living God And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament that by means of Death for the Redemption of the Transgressions that were under the first Testament they which are called might receive the Promise of the eternal Inheritance * P. 93. And on this Head also I queried D. Phillips Whether Christ's Body was the same in Substance now in Heaven that it was on Earth And whether it was when on Earth a terrestrial Body He said he did not know what I meant by Substance Observ Here were some things by him said which I am apt to think some of his Friends have since acquainted him with and shewed him the Absurdity thereof which hath inclined him so notoriously to vary the state of the Query to undeceive the Reader I shall give him a more particular account thereof which was after this manner G. K. Daniel hath Christ now in Heaven the same Body that he had when here on Earth D. P. I do desire to know whether thou wouldest have me give my Opinion whether I do believe that Christ hath now in Heaven the same Flesh Blood and Bones that he had when here on Earth because here is a Minister of the Church of England that told me he did believe that Christ hath now in Heaven the same Flesh Blood and Bones Stomach and Guts that he had when here on Earth To this he gave no answer but Queried G. K. Is the Substance the same tho' its Accidents are changed D. P. I have no Notion or Idea of Substance without Accidents therefore prithee give me a Definition of such a Substance G. K. Substance is a Being or thing that doth depend on God Almighty and is the subject of Accidents c. As he was going on and making an Harangue concerning Substance I stop'd him by saying D. P. George this is little to the purpose I only desire a Definition of Substance G. K. Thou art a Fool. D. P. If I am a Fool few will admire thee for proposing thy Queries to me G. K. 'T is a Shame for a Doctor of Physick to be ignorant what Substance is Here he run into a Passion and shewed his Admirers what a Man of Temper he was Min. A Minister reproving him said Personal Reflections are not commendable Another Minister endeavouring to divert me from the Subject under debate said The Definition of Substance is little to the purpose D. P. How can any Person positively determine whether any Substance is the same when all its Accidents are changed unless he can have a distinct Idea of Substance separated from its Accidents Here G. K. having a little moderated his Passion replied G. K. Substance is a created Being D. P. So are Accidents created Beings G. K. They are produced Beings And presently desisted Querying and went on another Subject Observ Here are three things that I shall briefly consider First The Absurdity of this Clergy-man's Resurrection Secondly How G. K. treats his Opponents Thirdly The Learnedness of G. K's Definition of Substance As to the first Those that do assert that Christ hath now in Heaven the same Flesh Blood and Bones that he had when here on Earth do consequentially grant that every Man at the Resurrection shall have the same numerical Particles vitally re-united to his Soul that he had at the time of his Death If this is admitted then it necessarily follows that he that died an Infant shall rise in Stature like an Infant he that dyes
Eight Minister's Sermons I am subject to believe they will be found Wording their Matter differently when they would represent the same Notions to their Auditory I am far from Censuring them for it because in my Opinion 't is a qualification necessary for all Authors and Orators I doubt not tho' they reprehend this as an Error in the Quakers yet they esteem copiousness of Expressions commendable in others But why that which is a Vertue in some should be a Vice in others or that which is Laudable in a Church-man should be culpable in a Quaker is so absurd a Notion that I think it needless farther to consider it here But shall proceed to p. 63. Here a Quaker D. P. Objected That Disputants might differ about the Subject of the Dispute so as the Opponent might mean one thing and the Respondent another But I answer'd They might so when the Matter is intricate and obscure by ambiguities of Words But it could not be so here the Subject of the Dispute being so clearly proposed that none but a Sot or Cheat could or would mistake the Subject Obser These Words were not repeated here by G. K. as they were deliver'd by me nevertheless I shall not much blame him as long as he gives my meaning tho' not my Words I was then and am now of Opinion that Disputants might and often did differ more through the Equivocalness of Terms by them used than through any real difference in their Sentiments when the precise Signification of their Words was once settled and G. K. here grants That Disputants might differ about the Subject of the Dispute when the Matter is Intricate and Obscure by ambiguities of Words But saith It could not be so here For which Reason it will be necessary to consider the Subject of the Controversie between G. Fox and Magnus Bine and then the Unbiassed Reader may Determine whether there is any Obscurity in M. Bines Words and whether there is not a possibility they might be taken in several Senses which are There is a kind of Infiniteness in the Soul which is not Infiniteness it self If the Term Infiniteness is not Obscure and Ambiguous I know not what is who is there amongst the Sons of Men that can say he hath a clear and comprehensive Idea of Infiniteness or of the Soul of Man If any have let them Demonstrate it in intelligble Terms if they grant they have no determinate or clear Notion of either of them consequently they must acknowledge they are Obscure Terms and I doubt not but he that duly considers the various Subjects the Word Infiniteness may be predicated of will not deny that it is Ambiguous viz. of God his Eternal Power Wisdom Goodness and also of all his other Attributes besides these the Schools talk of the Infiniteness of space number duration divisibility of material Substances And M. Bine here speaks of another kind or species of Infiniteness viz. in the Soul but how properly I shall not now Determine If G. K. intends by saying Disputants might differ about the Subject of a Dispute when the Matter is Intricate and Obscure by Ambiguities of Words that there is no possibility for them to differ about the Subject of a Dispute but when there is a perceptable Intricacy Obscurity or Ambiguity in the Terms I shall take leave to dissent from him in this Matter for I am induced to believe that Opponents oftner disagree about the Subject of the Dispute when they use common Sounds whereof the Hearer it may be imagines it almost as an Affront to suppose that he hath not the same precise determinate Idea in his Mind that the Speaker hath in his when he useth this or that familiar Term whereas did the Hearer observe any Intricacy Obscurity or Ambiguity in the Speaker's Words no doubt but the Respondent would have the precise meaning of such Terms as appeared to him Obscure and Ambiguous settled before he would proceed any further But after the Disputants had once agreed what determinate Notions this or that Articulate Sound did or should for the future represent it would be Morally impossible for them afterwards to differ about its Signification Should we nicely examine the Disputes now on Foot I am apt to think a great number of them would be found to be meerly Verbal amongst which I am satisfied several Objections that have been lately revived by G. K. and others against the Quakers may be enumerated For Example The Quakers say The Scriptures are not their Opponents say They are the Word of God Let us but once settle the precise Conceptions the Term Word excites in the Quaker's Minds and what Ideas it represents to their Adversary's Intellect when they read or hear it pronounced for the best way to determine this is for all to explain the determinate Sense they take it in because Word signifies any Sound that is formed by the Organs of Speech Account Command Doctrine Jesus Christ the Eternal Word of God c. This Monosyllable being liable to be taken in such various Significations it is no ways surprizing to me that Disputants should endlesly Jangle about it till they do actually explain the limited Sense they take it in when that is once determined 't is not doubted but the Difference will soon be adjusted For which Reason it will not be unnecessary for me to determine what the Quakers mean when they deny that the Scriptures are the Word of God being Conscientiously concern'd not to attribute that to the Scriptures which properly belongs only to Jesus Christ their Saviour whom they as the Scriptures do term the Word of God their Sentiments being That the Scriptures Collectively taken are no where in the Old or New Testament called the Word of God neither can that Term in their Opinion properly be Predicated of any substantial Being but of Christ Jesus Their Adversaries in Opposition to this Affirm That the Scriptures are the Word of God but when they are desired to demonstrate what they mean by the aforesaid Terms their Answer generally is That the Scriptures are the Words or Sayings of God delivered to us by Holy Men Livinely inspired By this what follows I hope it will be evident that we agree in Substance tho' differ in the form of Expressing it for we always have and now do own That the Scriptures are the Words of God viz. Great Mystery p. 18.68 75 2â—6 302. And in Robert Paâ—clay's Works p. 747. We also Sincerely believe that they are of Divine Authority that they are a Declaration of the Will of God and that they were Dictated by the Holy Ghost speaking through his Prophets Evangelists and Apostles this we attribute to them in a formal Sense i. e. as they contain the Doctrines of Truth yet in a material Acceptation i. e. as they are Composed of Ink and Paper we do not deny but they are subject to Corruption Before I proceed any farther I conceive it may not be impertinent for me
to consider here the Reasons G. K. advances to prove the Scriptures are the Word of God because in reading his Fourth Narrative I met with a Passage where he positively asserts p. 22. The Scriptures are the Word of God Fourth Narr p. 22. and the Word most frequently so called in Scripture To confirm his Reader in a belief that he had good Authority to prove so bold an Assertion he cites Three Texts of Scripture out of the New Testament viz. 1. Thes 1.5 John 15.25 Acts 1.1 May I presume to look into the 7th page of G. K. Presbyterian and Independent Visible Churches in New England printed Anno 1691. I doubt not but I shall find George there in Opposition to Parson Keith because in that Book he positively saith That Logos 1 Thes 1.5 Signifies word of talk or discourse Now by Logos there is meant Doctrine and that Logos Acts 1.1 Signified Treatise but now it signifies Word how to reconcile these seeming Contradictions of this Weather-Cock I profess I am in a Quandary On the other hand should I say as it appears to me that he is Guilty of a perfect Contradiction he might thereby imagine that I did Insinuate That he was stark Mad and Crazed in his Understanding because he lays it down as a Maxim in his Preface to his Exact Narrative That none but stark mad Men and Crazed in their Understanding will hold perfect Contradictions That things may be put into a true Light and that the Reader may be capable to judge for himself I shall here subject to his Consideration the original Texts and their Translations into Latin Dutch French and English whereby it may be the more facile for him to determine whether G. K. hath not to serve a turn given them a Sense different from all others nay from himself a few Years since is not this in effect to make a Nose of Wax a Lesbian Rule of the Scriptures by giving them this Year one signification the next a different one What advantages this may give to the Enemies of Christianity I shall not now Demonstrate The first of these Texts is 1 Thes 1.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quoniam Evangelium nostrum constitit apud vos non locutione duntâ—â—â—â— sed etiam Virtute Spiritu Sancto Want on s Evangelium en is onder uniet alleen in Woorden gheweest maer oock in Kracht ende in den Heyligen Grest Car nostre Predication de l'Evangile n'a point este en vostre endroit seulement en Parole mais ausi en vertu en Saint Esprit For our Gospel came or more properly was not unto you in Word only but also in Power and in the Holy Ghost It may be observed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not Translated came in the Latin Dutch or French Versions neither in the Bible that was Printed in Queen Elizabeth's Time Anno 1578. Should I confine my self solely to the Modern English Translation I do not perceive any advantage that G. K. will get thereby seeing the Apostle Paul's Sense of this Verse is obvious to any unprejudiced Person that the Gospel which he Preached to the Thessalonians was not only to be believed because of the perswasiveness of the Word Talk or Discourse he made use of when he Preached the Gospel to them but principally because the Power and Efficacy of the Holy Ghost accompanied it that this is the literal Sense of this Text I conceive none will deny By what figure then this 1 Thes 1.5 proves that all the Books of the Old and New Testament are the Word of God I confess my self Ignorant and am likely so to remain unless G. K. or some of his Disciples can inform me better The Second Text of Scripture that I shall consider is John 15.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sed oportet ut impleatur Sermo qui in lege ipsorum Scriptus est Maer dit gescheit op dat het woort vervult worde dat in hare wet geschreven is Mais c ' est a fin-que soit accomplie la parole qui est ecrite en leur Loi But this cometh to pass that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their Law It is evident from all these Translations of the Greek Text that G. K. hath seen cause otherwise to word the Matter here than either the Latin Dutch French or English Translators have but whether his Intentions are the same I shall leave that to the uninterested to determine As G. K. in his former Proof gave us only the English version of the Text so here he omitteth that being little for his purpose and favours us only with a scrap of the Original viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and translateth it Written Word should it be admitted for a Genuine interpretation though different from all others of the Original it would only prove that Sentence in their i. e. the Jews Law was called the written Word yet it is altogether insufficient to prove the Bible collectively i. e. as it contains all the Books of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God because the Evangelist restricts it here to Four Words which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they hated me without a Cause The Controversie between G. K. c. hath not been whether one particular Sentence in the Bible but whether all the Books therein contained are the Word of God all Citations of the Scriptures that do not prove that are in my Opinion far remote from the subject of this Dispute and till this is proved in express Scripture Terms by him or some other I hope he will be so favourable to us as not to Stigmatize us with the Name of Hereticks especially if he hath not forgot what he lately said viz. * Retract p. 34. I still adhere to my former Advice that nothing be required by one sort from another as an Article of Faith or Doctrine in common to be believed but what is expresly delivered in the Scriptures in plain express Scripture Terms The Term Logos is variously used and translated in the New Testament G. K. recites * Presb. and Inde Vis Chur. p. 7. Ten different Significations it hath Had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 been translated in John 15.25 as it in 1 Cor. 15.54 the saying that is written there would be scarce any shadow of an Argument to be deduced from that Citation to have proved that the Scriptures are the written Word of God unless wheresoever the Term Written is to be found in the Scriptures he will say Word is there meant tho' not expressed Perchance G. K. may have so much Effrontery as to deny that Logos signifies Saying because he hath not given that Sense of it in the Book and Page above-cited If he will but please to Read Bishop Kidder's Demonstration of the Messias p. 11. p. 251. there he may see the Bishop affirming that Legos signifies Saying or Thing and translating the very Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Saying