same they were from the Beginning and not Chang'd at all Do's it then seem Tolerable to our Clergy and Magistrates to Ly under the odious Names of Beast False-Prophet Dogs Witches Anti-Christs Devils Incarnate c Did the Quakers for their Vindication Indict Bugg at the Sessions in London and object to him their own Dayly Practice of Printing without License Did they Complain against him to the Secretary of State and upon a False Information That his Papers were Seditious and against the Government Procur'd them to be Seiz'd taken from the Book-sellers and Deliver'd into the Hands of the Quakers Did they Imprison William Bradford a Printer in Pensilvania seize his Letters or Types and Forc'd him out of the Dominions of the Quakers for Printing G. Keith's Defences against Them and Prosecuted likewise the Publishers and G. Keith himself for his Life Improving his Disputes against Them into a Design against the Government Are they so Watchful so Industrious so Impatient lest any Indignity shou'd be Past upon Them And must all orders of Men among us Ecclesiastical Civil and Military Bear their most Bitter Reproches without any Sign of Repentance And Court them and do them Favours for it or suffer them to Usurp Favors that were never Intended them It is Plain the Act of Toleration do's Except those who Deny in their Preaching or writing the Doctrin of the Blessed Trinity as it is Declar'd in the Articles of Religion That is in our 39 Articles These are the words of the Act. And it is as Plain that the Quakers have all along done it G. Fox says in his Great Mystery p. 246. The Scriptures do not tell the People of a Trinity nor Three Persons but the Common-Prayer-Mass-Book speaks of Three Persons brought in by the Father the Pope Here it is Plain that the Quakers do not Acknowledge that Trinity which is own'd in the Common-Prayer And the Common-Prayer-Book being every word an Act of Parliament it is Plain what Trinity is Intended in the Act of Toleration And the Opposers of That Trinity are the Persons Excepted out of the Act. To which the Quakers have no Pretence Unless they will Disown G. Fox herein They must likewise Disown Will. Penn who wrote a Book in the year 1668. to which he Gave this Title The Sandy Foundation shaken Or Those so Generally Believed and Applanded Doctrins of one God Subsisting in three Distinct and Separate Persons of the Impossibility of God's Pardoning Sinners without a Plenary Satisfaction Of the Justification of Impure Persons by an Imputative Righteousness are Refuted And p. 12. The Title of that Section is The Trinity of Distinct and seperate Persons in the Vnity of Essence Refuted from Scripture I know for a Pinch they will own the word Trinity as the Sabellians and Socinians meaning three Manifestations or Operations but not Three Persons But that is not the Trinity Intended in the Act. But the Trinity which is Profess'd in the Creed of St. Athanasius and more Briefly in our Litany viz. The Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity Three Persons and one God This is that Trinity Intended in the Act of Toleration And which whoever opposes are Excluded from Claiming any Benefit by that Act. And this is that Trinity which the Quakers have and still do Oppose And therefore they are altogether Excluded from any Benefit of that Act. But their Opposing is not so Intolerable as the Manner of it Their Cursing and Damning Horresco Referens The Holy and ever Blessed Trinity into the very Pit of Hell And making it nothing but Conjuration Ther is a Book wrote by George Whitehead and three other Quakers viz. Christopher Atkinson James Lancaster and Thomas Symons of whose Character see Sn. Sect. vi n. v. p. 43. c. Intituled Ishmael and his Mother cast out c. Against Mr. Townsend a Minister in Norwich Where p. 10. they tell him And here is the three Persons thou Dreams of which thou wouldst Divide out of One like a Conjurer And ibid. He Mr. Townsend is shut up with the three Persons in perpetual Darkness for the Lake and the Pit This is thus Quoted by Christoph Wade in his Quakery slain p. 9. To which G. Fox Replies in his Gr. Myst p. 246. who Denies not the Quotation but Re-Blasphemes against the H. Trinity in the words above-quoted and more which you will find in the same place Christoph Wade wrote an Answer to this Gr. Myst which bears this Title To all those called Quakers c. To which G. Whitehead Replies in his Truth defending the Quakers An. 1659. And denies not the above Quotations out of his own Book Ishmael c. But as the Quakers use when Pinch'd he slips it over and takes no notice of it Not that he was Converted from his Heresie for in several other Places of the same Book he continues to Blaspheme at his old Rate against the H. Trinity as in p. 40. 41. c. But finding that the Matter was not thus Forgot being Re-Objected against them about the year 1690 in An Epistle to the Friends c. at their next General Meeting in London Subscrib'd N. N. Ther was Publish'd an Answer to this and two other Books wrote against the Quakers by Some of Them Intituled The Christianity of the People commonly call'd Quakers Vindicated c. Printed An. 1690. There p. 28. coming to this Objection they go a New way to work and lay the Fault Partly upon the Printer And Looks on the words as wrong writ or wrong Printed Wrong Writ and wrong Printed are two things But they Jumble them here that the Reader might mistake and overlook the Author and so think it only an Error of the Press But what was this Error Why they say That instead of And the three Persons it shou'd have rather been About the three Persons which makes it non-sense but not less Blasphemy But however was this taken Notice of by the Quakers in all that time from the writing of that Answer to Townsend which the Quakers say in this last book ibid. was about the year 1654. till this Book of theirs An. 1690 that is for the space of 44 years No. That is not Alledg'd But they say ibid. that G. W. Corrected it long since where he has met with that Answer How do's this Appear O you must take his own word for it for is not He Infallible But was not so Fatal a Slip of Infallibility fit to be Corrected in Print to Remove that most Hideous and Blasphemous Scandal which cou'd not be done otherwise For to what end was G. W's Correcting it with a Pen upon a Book that came in his way if he did it How shou'd this Un-deceive the World Who had never heard of it if he had not now told them And it is at their Pleasure how far they will Believe him This is like another Error of the Press which they let slip 28 years together See Sat. Dis. Sect. ii N. iii. p.
another But however G. Whitehead and the other Quakers have sent to the Pit all the Church of England and all the Christian World who do Profess Faith in the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity And the Persons themselves not only the Word or Letters for these cannot be sent thither And shall those who not only Deny but Blaspheme Not only Blaspheme but send to the Pit of Hell O Horror to Repeat it the Persons of the Holy Trinity Shall these be Shrouded under an Indulgence which Expresly Spues out all such from Under its Protection who Oppose or Deny the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity Shall these be Included in this Toleration who will not Disown G. Whitehead for the Quotations above Cited but still think him a Teacher sent from God Let this Test be put upon the Quakers And see whether they will Part with G. Whitehead or the Toleration If they stick by George in this it is a Demonstration that they like this Doctrin he has Deliver'd But they have given us a Full and Authoritative Decision in this matter That they do still own and Adhere to not only these Doctrins before Quoted But All and Every Part of what has been Deliver'd by their Doctors ever since their Beginning In their Decretal Epistle from their yearly Meeting at London which is their Supreme and most General Councel for the year 1696. They do Re-Assert and Confirm All their Ancient Testimonies And that in All the Parts of it For say they Truth is one and Changes not And what it Convinced us of to be Evil in the Beginning it Reproves still This is to keep up their Infallibility And in this both Antidote and Appendix and in all their Late writings they strenuously Assert That they have not Changed at all at least in any Point of Doctrin And still stand by and Maintain All that they have Printed or Preach'd since they were Quakers And as if this had not been Enough they have Printed it in the Post-Man that none might be Ignorant of it I say not this That I wou'd have any Persecution as they call it Renewed against them I like not that Method for ther are Honest Well-Meaning Men among them and the Sincere tho' Deluded are most apt to put themselves into the way of Suffering which often Hardens seldom Converts them And they are worthy of a Gentler Method But the End for which I have mention'd this Act is first To do that Right to the Government as to Free them from the Scandal of Recognizing the Quakers as Protestants who Deny the Holy Trinity the Satisfaction of Christ and all outward both Sacraments and Priesthood therefore the Protestant Religion is not Answerable or Reproachable for Them Secondly I have Minded the Quakers of this That if neither Religion nor Good Manners can Restrain their Furie yet that out of Policie they wou'd learn a little more Decency towards the Clergy especially the Bishops who have it in their Hands to put the Penal Laws in Execution against them They not being Included within the Act of Toleration And since they Enjoy their Present Liberty meerly from the Grace at least the Good Nature of those whom of all Mankind they have Endeavour'd to Render most Abhorr'd I think it is but a Reasonable and very Favourable Composition That they shou'd Retract the Above Mention'd and other such like Base and most Scandalous Reflections which they have Cast upon the Church of England Her Priests and Bishops as well as All the Rest of Her Community For we say Leave is Light And that Favour is ill Bestow'd that is not worth Thanks at least Fair Vsage Now the Reparatation ought to be as Publick as the Injury Therfore the Easiest way I can Propose for the Quakers is That their Second-Days-Meeting which do sit every week in London shou'd Publish Under their Hands a Condemnation of the said Scandals and Abuses vented by Will. Penn G. Fox and others of their Writers against the Church of England Particularly These before Quoted and Suffer it to be Printed But most Especially what is above Quoted of most Hideous Blasphemy against the Holy and Tremendous Trinity of God But if they Remain Mute in this Matter as G. Whitehead says to the Ministers And Refuse to Right God and His Church from these Abuses cast upon Them which are in their own Nature Intolerable then may she justly say in Whitehead's words We do not intend to Ly under their Foul Calumnies Then Let The Cry Ascend Higher Then May they be further justly call'd in Question and Expos'd thereupon for their Neglect of Justice Then may the Bishops if they think fit send to their Second-Days-Meeting and Require such a Subscription and Submission from Them or otherwise That they shou'd Acknowledge the Doctrin of the Holy Trinity in the words of our Litany and Articles to Qualify themselves for the Benefit of the Act of Toleration At least to Disown what G. Fox G. Whitehead W. Penn and others of their Writers have said Blasphemously against it But if they will still Adhere to their Former Doctrin herein then have they totally Excluded themselves from the Act of Toleration And then if the Bishops do not let them know that it is in their Power to be Civil to them they will be Good-Natur'd indeed 2. But ther is nothing go's down so hardly with the Quakers as the Doctrin of Repentance because it Ruins their Pretence to Infallibility and Perfection And of all sort of Repentance they Hate that most which Requires them to make Restitution or Satisfaction for the Injuries that they have done Therefore they must stick to all the Calumnies and Outrage which they have vented against God and His Church and all others and to all their Beastly Nastiness and Loathsome stuff which Run out of their Clean Vessels They must by their Principles Return with the Dog to their own Vomit and the Sow to her Wallowing in the Mire This Notion of Perfection is such a sad Ingredient in the Principles of the Quakers as Eternity is in the Torments of Hell for it Confirms them in all their Sins and Hinders them from ever Returning G. Whitehead has Publish'd a little Book in December 1697 of which this is the Title A seasonable Account of the Christian Testimony and Heavenly Expressions of Tudor Brain upon his Death-Bed being a young man Aged about 17 years Published for Instruction and Caution to the Youth among Friends call'd Quakers where p. 2. you have this Passage At several times being Advis'd to Prepare for his latter End for if he Liv'd it wou'd be well and if he Died it wou'd be his Gain his Answer was He was not Conscious of any Action he had done that he shou'd be â—fraid of Appearing before God Almighty O Dreadful To see a Miserable Creature go to Death Harden'd against Repentance by this Pernicious Doctrine of the Quakers And to see this Recommended for the Instruction of other
Bason he pretended his Blood was shed and said that he Gave up the Ghost as Christ did Thus C. Wade And hence he Charges Milner with Luciferian Pride to Save Souls as Christ did To this G. Fox Answers in his Gr. Myst p. 246. And Repeats no more of the Charge but these words He Crys says Fox Oh Luciferian Pride to save Souls And thence falls upon Wade as if he were an Enemy to the Saving of Souls and asks him What good then doth all your Preaching do And Quotes the Apostles who watched to save Souls by turning People from their Sins Now wou'd not any one have suppos'd upon G. F.'s Quotation of C. W.'s words That C. W. had been against all Methods or Means to Save Mens Souls and that he had call'd it no less than a Luciferian Pride for any one to Attempt it either to Preach or Pray or do any other Office of Religion Who cou'd have Imagin'd from this Quotation as G. F. gives it That C. W. only spoke of Attempting to Save Souls as Christ did that is by Shedding of our Blood and Giving up the Ghost as an Atonement or Propitiation for the Sins of others I will spare my Pains to Exemplifie the Truth and Faithfulness of this Quotation And when Will. Penn can make a 〈◊〉 of G. F. for this by his own Rule I will Promise Twenty and Twenty more of the â—ike if need be out of that one Book the Gr. Mystery In which p. 298. And in his Saul's Errand p. 9. G. F. Justifies this Wretch Milner And notwithstanding that he cou'd not nor did Deny this Matter of Fact and much more of the Like Blasphemy as Giving forth Twelve several Prophesies in the Name of the Lord all of which prov'd False Pretending to Fast Forty Days as Christ did and other Madnesses of High Enthusiasm yet G. Fox Justifies Milner says Ther was a Pure seed in Him And that The Lord did open True Prophesies and Mighty things to Him And calls those Persecutors and Wicked Men who wou'd go tell the Nation as he words it of the Above mention'd and such like Infirmities of that Precious Quaker Prophet And now that I have given the Reader a Taste of Rich. Hubberthorn's G. Whitehead's and G. Fox's sincerity in Reciting the Answers of other Men out of the Fountain that is behind of the like Instances in their Works and those of the other Quakers Approved and Recommended by W. Penn And by his standing Rule before Mention'd He himself and all the Rest of that Herd turn'd out of the Pale of Christianity together to Graze in the Common with Deists Jews and Pagans Themselves the worst of the Company Let me for a Concluding stroke upon this Head Divert my self a little with Witty Ap-Pen from whom I have thus far Digress'd to his more Considerable Brethren Now then you shall see Ap-Pen shew his Parts in behalf of Himself and Partners at the End of the Preface he gives their Authority for their so Frequent calling the Author of the Sn. a Serpent a Viper a Snake Will. Penn has lately Improv'd it to a Rattle-Snake and they say it is A Title of his own Choosing As I said before it is not very Material what they call him He is neither the Better nor the Worse for that They have call'd others by the same and worse Names where they had not the Pretence for such a witty Pun as this But that which I take notice of this for is to shew them the Consequences which Themselves have laid down of Mistaking or Mis-Representing the words of other Men. Did the Author of the Sn. then mean that Title for Himself or for the Quakers How you can Turn it upon him is not the Point free Leave you have But to say That you wou'd not Abridge him a Title of his own Choosing and to give this as a Reason of your calling him so is Expresly to Mistake and that Wilfully his words And then out of Christianity with you according to Will. Penn. If you may call him a Snake by this Argument you may as well call Him the Devil and say that too his A Title of his own Choosing for another of is Books is Intitul'd Satan Dis-Rob'd Therefore both Will. and Ap-Pen cum Sociis must either Renounce their Christianity and then they will be just where they were or else Correct the above Mention'd Rule which W. P. has Infallibly laid down to Thrust others from thence Thus Justly in the same Trap which they set for others is their own Foot taken SECT III. The Quakers Clear'd from Contradiction in those Seeming Contrary Testimonies which are Produc'd in this Appendix to Defend them from the Heresies Charg'd upon them WHAT I have already said may be thought sufficient in Answer to this Appen wherein ther is nothing like an Argument but the Contrary Testimonies which are Produc'd against the Charges Exhibited And these are Reply'd to without Considering of them in Particular in Sect. ii N. 3.4 Whereby it appears First That tho' these Testimonies produc'd were Contrary to what is Charg'd from other Testimonies of the Quakers yet that this is no Justification but rather a further Argument of Contradictions against them Secondly That by the Contrary Meanings which they have these Testimonies tho' seemingly Contrary yet are not so and do not Contradict the Charges laid against the Quakers To make the which more fully Appear I will go over the Contrary Testimonies Produc'd And shew the Deep Deceit of these Quakers 1. These Testimonies begin Appen Sect. 2. p. 12. with this Title Some Testimonies to Christ Jesus as the Son of God and Come in the Flesh The first is of Rich. Farnsworth An. 1651. in his Confession and Profession of Faith where he Confesses to the Father Son and Holy Spirit but he calls them not 3 Persons so that this is no Contrary Testimony to the Quaker-Heresie concerning the Blessed Trinity which makes them to be only three Manifestations or Operations of the same Person as the Sabellians Socinians c. But then how is this a Testimony to the Son of God as Come in the Flesh if the Son be not Distinct from the Father as G. Fox affirms in so many words Great Mystery p. 142. and 293. c. if so then it was God the Father who took Flesh as Muggleton said Ay and Fox too Gr. Myst p. 246. where he falls upon Chr. Wade for offering to say That not God the Father but the Son said Wade took upon him Human Nature This Fox opposes and brings as an Argument against it that Christ is call'd The Everlasting Father Isa ix 6. The truth is these Quakers make no Distinction at all betwixt God and Christ they mean the same thing by Father Son Spirit Christ Light or Light within which they make to be God If otherwise let them tell us how the Son took Flesh and not the Father if the Son be only a Manifestation of the
more than the Blood of those Bulls and Goats which were Sacrific'd under the Law for the Quakers make the outward Blood of Christ to be but a Type as these tho a nearer Type than these But All is to be Referr'd into the Archi-Type which they make to be the Light within When the Archi-Type comes All Types of it do vanish and become of no more Effect at all Nay it is a Sin to use them any more for that is an Implicit Denying of the Archi-Types being come And hence it is that the Quakers are so Enrag'd against laying any stress upon the outward Christ His Death or Sufferings without us which they say as before Quoted need not now be Preach'd because they are not to be again i. e. They are Past but the Archi-Type the Light within Remains which is Sufficient of it self and without any thing else i. e. without the outward Death of a Christ without Vs For this Inward Christ the Light within was always before the Incarnation of the outward Christ And before that say the Quakers did shed its Spiritual Blood c. which was Sufficient to Save us And that therefore ther was no need of the outward Christ's coming at all as now the stress is not to be laid upon it but upon the Light within which is Sufficient without It. This is the true Quaker Doctrin But how the outward Christ cou'd be a Type of the Inward Christ or Light within which was Before Him the Quakers are left to Explain for a Type must be Before that of which it is the Type else it were not a Type which is a Fore-runner of it But Contradictions are no Novelties with them G. W. falls again upon this Topick p. 39. And takes a new way thus says he We know not what Author he has for this Charge as if none of their Authors had been Quoted in the Sn. where Sect. x. the Reader will find Quotations sufficient all of which G. W. passes over in this Confident manner of which I have taken notice already But in this same place where he makes this Excuse he do's himself Confess what is Charg'd upon them for he says Expresly That Christ's outward Blood and Water which flow'd out of His Side had an Allegorical Signification even says he of the Spiritual Blood and Water of Life c. Now as before is said having an Allegorical signification is all that makes any thing to be an Allegorie And making the outward Body and Blood of Christ to be an Allegorie that makes it but a Type or Figure and Plainly gives the Preference to whatever they Fancie by Inward Body and Blood The Question being put to George Fox in these words Whether Christ in the Flesh be a Figure or not He Answers in his Saul's Errand p. 14. His Flesh is a Figure And p. 8. It being objected against Richard Hubberthorn that he had wrote in these words That Christ's coming in the Flesh was But a Figure G. Fox Defends that saying thus Christ in his People is the Substance of all Figures-but as He is held forth in the Scripture-Letter without them and in the Flesh without them He is their Example or Figure which is both one that the same things might be fullfill'd in Them that was in Christ Jesus Here he says that Example and Figure are both one For he Understood not Words or the Sense of them therefore you must take his Meaning as he Expresses it and by Example mean Figure And here you see he makes a Distinction betwixt Christ in His People and as in the Flesh without them The first is that Spiritual Flesh before spoke of or their Light within the Second is the outward Christ Jesus The first he makes the Substance and no Figure but the Second he Expresly calls a Figure And of what is it the Figure He tells of the same things to be fulfill'd in Them that was in Christ Jesus That is the Atonement and Satisfaction which Christ made for Sin was not the outward shedding of His Blood but the shedding of the Spiritual Blood Inwardly And that this is Perform'd in Them as it was in Christ And that the Atonement and Satisfaction is made in Them and The same in Them that was in Christ This Inward Atonement they make the Great Mystery of which Christ's outward Sufferings were but the History as Mr. Penn expresses it in his Rejoinder to John Faldo p. 336. That these Transactions i. e. of Christ's outward Sufferings were as so many Facile Representations of what is to be Accomplish'd In Man See Sat. Dis. Sect. i. N. xii p. 15 16. Now Reader these Quotations out of G. Fox's Sauls Errand are Produc'd among many others in the Sn. yet G. Whitehead crys We know not what Author he has for this Charge Ther is another Little Author which G. W. has Forgot it were well for him if he cou'd who Answers to the same Objection that was put to G. Fox six years after the Answer before Quoted given to it by G. F. in his Saul's Errand which was Printed An. 1653. But G. Whitehead's Truth defending the Quakers was Printed An. 1659. where p. 20. he Answers to the same objection which he sets down in these words Did Richard Hubberthorn well in writing That Christ's Coming in the Flesh was but a Figure And his Answer is Delicious which therefore I will set down every word of it and is as follows Ans Cou'd Christ have been said to have been Transfigured if his Coming in the Flesh had not been a Figure or Example till his Glory was Revealed And hast thou not read that he was the Express Figure of his Fathers Substance instead of whih its translated Image c. This c. is not but here as if ther were any More in his Answer of which this is every word and ends with an c. as I have set it down lest G. W. might have a Secret-Reserve in that who never writes without one and Accuse me of False-Quotation in leaving any thing out after the Manner of his Appendix as you will see hereafter in the Second Part. Sect. ii N. 6. But now as to this Answer Here G. W. do's not Deny that his Friend Hubberthorn had wrote thus Or that this was the Current Doctrin of the Quakers and Justify'd by them No he owns all that and go's on to Justify it as Fox had done before him and he had Six Years time after Fox had Answer'd to have Consider'd of it But the Quakers Doctrin is the same it was from the Beginning for Truth is one and Changes not But the Wit sometimes may Of which G. W. here gives a noble Turn He proves That Christ was but a Figure because He was Transfigured This Punn looks as if it had been stolen out of Cambridge Jests And I cou'd forgive George to Exert this Size of his Wit were it not in Serious Matters But to Pretend That this was Written from the
Father A Manifestation can not take Flesh be Born Suffer or Dye then it must be the Father Himself and none other who was Born Dy'd c. then it was the Father who sent Himself and Return'd back to Himself and was Received of Himself who upon the Cross Pray'd to Himself and Complain'd to Himself that He had Forsaken Himself And when He Dy'd Recommended His Spirit into the Hands of Himself c. This the Quakers are Desir'd to Answer and it will soon Discover their sensless Sabelliamsm And Farnsworth's Testimony says nothing at all against this 2. They Leap now Ten years forward for the next Testimony p. 13. which is of Rich. Hodden An. 1661. in his Book call'd The one Good way of God Where he tells of the Great Mystery of Jesus Christ come in the Flesh which he says no Man can Understand by Hearing Reading Telling or Talking of Him or Concerning what He Did Said or Suffer'd How he is Formed In his Servants How they take up the Cross or what that Cross is How they are Members of his Body of his Flesh and of his Bones What the Church is or how his Body or what it is to Eat his Flesh and Drink his Blood c. This as before told is the Body Flesh and Bones of God which they suppose He had from Eternity and which now Dwells in the Quakers not the Flesh of our Nature which Jesus assum'd in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin That is not the Flesh which we Eat c. And they that think so he tells know nothing of the Mystery of Christ which they say cannot be learn'd by Hearing contrary to what the Apostle thought Rom. x. 17. of what Christ Did Said or Suffer'd Which shews that they meant not the outward Christ but Their Christ the Light within otherwise how is it that as he says none but the Quakers understand what the Church is how it is the Body of Christ or what it is to Eat his Flesh or what his Cross is c This shews plainly That they have another Meaning for All these things than we have And Consequently this is so far from being a Contrary Testimony to the Charges produc'd upon this Head that it speaks the same and might well have been put among the Charges instead of the Contrary Testimonies 3. The third Testimony is p. 14 from Geo. Bishop that Loyal good Subject See Sn. p. 227. to 232. in his Vindication of the Principles and Practices of the People called Quakers An. 1665. where he speaks too of Christ made Flesh c. But then tells us what Christ he means Christ In you says he that is their Light within which they call Christ. He says p. 15. as here Quoted That where this Christ is there is not the Body that Suffer'd at Jerusalem that was Flesh that Proceeded from the Virgin Mary c. that is not within Men. No. who ever said it was tho' Christ may be there by the Blessed Influences of His Holy Spirit But then what Body of Christ is it which the Quakers say is within them For G. Fox will not allow Christ to be Absent from His Saints as touching His Flesh Gr. Mystery p. 210. And Edw. Burrough p. 146. of his Works says in Answer to this Question which he there puts Is that very Man with that very Body within you yea or Nay And this he do's not Deny but Answers in the Affirmative The very Christ of God is within Vs we Dare not Deny it He do's not mean as Bishop says well the Body of our Nature which Suffer'd at Jerusalem for that is not so much as in any one says Will Penn in his Christian Quaker p. 97. But they mean as before has been shewn The Heavenly Body of the Human Nature of God which He had from Eternity And this Vile and most Absurd Heresie is that Deep Knowlege which the Quakers Boast they have in the things of God beyond all other Men. This is the Great Mystery of Quakerism And this Testimony of G. Bishop's do's rather Confirm than Contradict it 4. The fourth Testimony is p. 15. from Isaac Penington Concerning the Sum or Substance c. This is he who in his Question to the Professors before Quoted in every Page almost tramples under foot the outward Humanity of Christ or that which He took of our Nature And sets in opposition to it as the Foundation of the Quaker-Faith that which he calls Christ's own Humanity or their Sensless Notion of the Humanity of the Heavenly Nature Now let Us hear what this Man will say to the Contrary How much he Attributes to the outward Humanity and Sufferings of Christ. First he puts the Objection That the Quakers look not to be sav'd by the outward Christ but by a Christ in us says he And to this he Answers We do indeed Expect to be Saved yea and not only so but do already in our several Measures Witness Salvation by the Revelation and Operation of the Life of Christ within Vs So that their Salvation is from the Attonement c. which is wrought Within them And what Salvation do they mean That of Heaven No not of any outward Heaven but the Heaven within Themselves See Sn. at the end of Sect. xii and consequently it is that Salvation which they have Attain'd Already in their several Measures for ther are Degrees of Glory even in Heaven But now that All is given to the Inward Christ what do's he ascribe to the Outward Truly as little as may be only to take Notice of Him he says That the Salvation wrought by Christ within is yet not withont Relation to what he did without us and had its Place and Service in the will and according to the Counsel of the Father What Place and Service was this For that he leaves you to Guess he will come no Near. Every Good Action nay every Good word of any Good Man has its Place and Service This is the Noble Testimony of Isaac Penington which is brought as a Vindication of the Quakers from throwing the Least Slight upon the outward Humanity Death and Passion of our Blessed Lord Jesus and the Satisfaction and Full Propitiation thereby Made for the Sins of the whole World And to Clear them from Transferring of this to the Propitiation which they suppose made within them by the Heavenly Flesh and Blood of their Light within 5. The fifth Testimony is p. 16. from G. Keith's Immediate Revelation where he do's sufficiently Express what Manhood of Christ he meant for he speaks of The Man Jesus whom Simeon Imbraced with his Arms according to the Flesh And the Quakers will not say That it was the Light within which Simeon had in his Arms or the Manhood of the Heavenly Nature which cou'd not be Seen or Felt. And then as to the Inward Presence of Christ in the Soul G. K. do's not speak of the Body of Christ there as the other Quakers but says
the Quakers Sinless Perfection For they make Every Sin to be a Denying of the Lord that bought them And consequently to be not only Heresie but Apostacy and Renouncing of Christianity Whereby they have by their own Confession Vn-Christian'd All of Themselves in whom we can find the least Sin or Flaw And that has been done to Purpose in many other Instances besides this of the Hat But besides the Heresie and Great Mischief of this It is Gross Hypocrisie in you Quakers for at the same time that you will not shew that Respect to other men as to take off your Hats because Forsooth you wou'd not be the Servants of Men we Believe you you Exact that same Respect from your own Servants and make them take off their Hats to You. Nay not only your Menial Servants but your Apprentices as seen every Day in London Now do you think these to be more Servants to you and to owe you more Duty than you owe to the King or any Human Governor Yes You do think so and as Judas of Galilee and his Galileans that you ought not to be Subject to any King or Government but your own Jesus in whose Right you think that you have the Heirship of the whole Earth and Just Power to Fight for it too as you have set forth in your Printed Declaration which you have been so often told of but will Give no Answer to it This is the Secret of your Stiffness in not taking off your Hats to any Governors who are Children of the World as you call all but your selves that is the Children of Darkness as Appen do's Explain it and yet Requiring the same Respect to be Paid to your Selves by your own Servants I say not That all the Simpletons among you Understand this Ther are many that Follow your Leaders as some did Absalom in the Simplicity of their Hearts not knowing any thing It is not fit that the Great Secret of your Empire which you Hope for one Day shou'd be Expos'd to Every Body But may be you do not think that the taking off a Hat is any Token of Honour only a Foolish Fancy some People have got and you wou'd not Comply with the Folly of the World But you wou'd not Deny any True Respect to Governors No this will not do You Refuse it because it is a Token of Respect and for no other Reason As Francis Howgil a Quaker Pillar said to Mr. Burton a Magistrate before whom he was brought who told him he did not value his taking off his Hat to him but ther was a Respect due to Magistracy Howgil Reply'd That God had not Commanded him to take off his Hat and that he did not owe him that Respect nor wou'd he give it him Whereupon one that stood by took off his Hat and laid it upon the Table by him But Howgil took it up again and put it on Another took it off again and laid it on the Fire but within his Reach Yet Howgil wou'd not stoop to take it off the Fire for if it had been Burn'd ther had been Persecution and this Hat wou'd have been put into the Register of the Sufferings of Friends with the Childrens Clouts and Hundreds of Pins c. which are there carefully Inserted But Howgil had not that Pleasure for some body took his Hat off the Fire before any Harm came to it and gave it him which on he clapt again and wou'd not be Controul'd This and other Passages you will find in the Irreligion of the Northern Quakers Printed 1653. p. 67.68 But Instances of this kind are so Frequent that we need not make Quotations But to shew further how much they think the taking off of the Hat to be a Token of Respect ther was a Civil-War among them and several Books wrote upon it of taking off the Hat at Prayer Upon occasion of which Will. Penn wrote his Judas and the Jews against another Quaker Book call'd The Spirit of the Hat They may say that this is an Honour Pay'd to God True But still it shews what they think of taking off the Hat that it is a Token of Respect And this is the Reason why they will not Give it to any of the Worlds Magistrates But says Appen we Expected some Ancient Father to Condemn us pursuant to the Title of Prim. Heres And ther are none Nam'd in p. 17. But you were told p. 14. of the Repeated Exbortations in the Epistles especially of St. Paul of Obedience and Respect to Magistrates And that the Occasion of this was the Principle of the Gaulonits followers of Judas who like You threw off the Obedience and Respect due to their Magistrates who were not of their Religion And what needed this be Repeated over again in the next Leaf while he was treating upon the same Subject That is the manner of the Quaker Writers who Like so well what they do Themselves that they are never weary of Licking their Bears but never into Good shape But how did the Title of Prim. Heres Oblige the Author to bring any more of the Primitive Fathers in this Point besides the Apostles were not they Fathers of the Church and Primitive too And what the Title Engages is to shew that these Quaker-Heresics were Broach'd Condemn'd in the Days of the Apostles the first 150 years after Christ These are the words of the Title And is not this Answer'd by shewing the Authority of the Apostles in the Case But we see what it is to have to do with Angry Men who are Resolv'd not to be Satisfy'd and to find Exceptions whether they can or not It were Easie to Multiply Quotations out of the Fathers upon this Head But that wou'd be only to Over-Prove and Tire the Reader Especially considering what an Ample Testimony Appen has Produc'd p. 44. out of one of the Quaker-Worthys Will. Gibson in these words And those Rulers Governors or Magistrates who are a Terror to Evil Doers and a Praise to them that do well are worthy of Honour yea of Double Honour and all such are duly Honour'd by us with the Honour which belongs to them and we Really and with Pleasure Honour and Obey all such not only for fear of wrath but for Good Conscience-sake as the Apostles and Frimitive Fathers did Here are the Primitive Fathers Quoted and own'd by the Friends in this Case But Falsly and to very Ill Purpose For the Import of this Testimony of Gibson's is to Limit our Duty and Honour only to Good Governors But so did not the Apostles and Primitive Fathers for they both Pay'd and Preach'd Obedience and Honour to Wicked and Persecuting Governors Now we know whom the Quakers think Good Governors They shew it themselves they have Given us here a Test Those to whom they will take off their Hats and Pay them but that Single instead of their Double Honour these are they whom they Reckon Good Governors And all those to whom they
And they Bow after the same Fashion Who wou'd speak Three words to Purchace their Ungainly Conges as Stiff and Grave as an Elephant's or to see them thrust out a Limb for a Salute as if they were going to make a Pass at you But ther is a Mystery at the Bottom of Iniquity and Rebellion All that was Couch'd under the Parallel that is made to them of Judas and his Gaulonites And we may the Rather Believe this because the Quakers in this Appen do in plain Terms Justifie Judas for having Repeated his Principle as given in Prim. Heres out of Josephus That he and his Followers wou'd Expose themselves to all Torments rather than call any Mortal Man Lord or Master Appen Answers p. 49. Now Believe me Friends I cannot See the Heresie of this Doctrin Here then the Charge is Confess'd And the Parallel Acknowleg'd to be Just betwixt Judas and the Quakers who own That they Maintain the same Principle with Him And who can Doubt but that it is to the same End They Quarrel Prim. Heres for bringing the Testimony of Josephus as they wou'd make the Reader believe instead of one of the Primitive Fathers which Appen p. 48. calls Canonizing this Jew Whereas Josephus is only Quoted to shew the Principles and Sect of Judas Galilaeus not for the Condemning of them That is shewn from the Apostles And what Canonizing is hear of Josephus Can the Reader bear with this Trifling But these men will Complain nay Boast if they are not Answer'd But whether is this so much a Canonizing of Josephus as Appen do's of Judas who Justifies his wicked Heresie And Consequently must Rank his Sufferings for it upon the score of Martyrdom as of the Quakers for the same Cause And is Every Primitive Father that is Quoted therefore Canoniz'd But what Patience can hold out to see these Quakers make objections for want of Primitive Fathers And to Quote them too as Gibson before and others Do they lay any stress upon the Primitive Fathers or Pretend to Follow Them O yes by all means They wou'd fain be in Good Company And they call Quakerism now of Late Primitive Christianity in which Book ther is not one Syllable of what the Primitive Fathers held not one Quotation from one of them nor any of them so much as Nam'd How then do's their Christianity appear to be Primitive No matter for that Primitive is a Good word especially to stand upon a Title-Page which 100 Read for one that Reads the Book This shews They wou'd be Primitive or have the Reputation of it And so they have As Primitive as Judas whose Doctrine they Espouse and the Apostles Oppos'd But if they are so much for Primitive what say they to those Quotations which are brought in Prim. Heres out of the most Ancient and Vn-doubted of the Fathers And which Confront their Tenets very Expresly For them They care not two pence for as many more of them Appen p. 10. 11. calls them Stale Tracts of Vncertain Persons Do's he shew how they are Vncertain No not he Let them look to that or have the Quakers any Better Editions or other Works of those Fathers than those which are come to our Hands No no no They have None of them they Hate and Abhor them they were a Company of Bishops and Doctors But ne'r a one among them like George Fox or Edw. Burrough or G. Whitehead or Little Appen No not one of them Therefore says Appen p. 10. We shall not need to be at all Afrighted if we do find our selves to Differ from what is to be found under the specious Names of Ignatius Polycarp c. tho' Living within 150 years after Christ nor under the Great Names of them call'd Fathers in the Succeeding Ages And p. 5. It will not Avail tho' he bring many Clouds of such Witnesses And notwithstanding he calls this a Cavil we learn'd from Elder Dissenters we are not Afraid to stand by it and therefore Pay little Reverence to those nor any thing not Purely Apostolical But Ignatius and Polycarp liv'd in the Apostles Days and were Disciples to the Apostles What is that to Us Quakers It is no matter what they were or where they were We will have None of them So set your heart at Rest We have Better at Home We never Lik'd G. Keith since he was so Insolent to Compare the Books of our Friends to them call'd the Greek and Latin Fathers as supposing Friends Books to have been written by no Better Guidance See Sat. Dis Sect. iv n. v. p. 47. nor Clearer Light than theirs who Lived and wrote in those Dark times For which Thom. Ellwood has Pay'd him to Purpose And it is no wonder that he has left Us. For when any once get Fathers and Councils and Antiquity and such stuff into their Heads they can never Endure Us afterwards Therefore we Hate all Schools and Colleges and Learning and Human Reason for all these things make against Us. And now that we are Setting up Schools c. of our own I 'm afraid we shall not be Long-Liv'd That by the bye Therefore Appen wisely throws off all your Fathers and Primitives which serve us only for Title-Pages But says p. 5. Indeed if he can Absolutely Determin the Question by the Scriptures the work is done Yet in the Last Case against Judas and the Quakers the Proof was brought from Scripture and from nothing else And yet the work is not done For then you call'd for the Fathers then he has not Perform'd his Promise of Giving us Quotations out of the Fathers but puts Josephus upon us and Canonizes him for a Father But will the Scriptures do Then indeed the work wou'd soon be done Will you let the Scriptures be the Rule we will Ask no more Appen Denies it as shewn before Yet they will stand to what the Scripture Commands Provided the same thing be Requir'd by Their Own Spirit Anew See Sn. Sect. vii p. 92 93. that is if they Like it They cannot Deny but that the Scripture Requires Honour to be Pay'd to Magistrates Or that Taking off the Hat is not a Paying of Honour as Prov'd above And therefore Except the Reason I have Given which they will not Give I cannot Conjecture the shadow of a Reason for their Refusing it They say as Howgil before That God has not Commanded it Not Particularly as to the Hat Neither has He Commanded to take off our Hats at Prayer Why then did they Contend so zealously for that They Render themselves Self-Condemn'd They will as Judas call no man Lord or Master Why then do they call any Man Father for both are Forbidden in the same Place Matth. xxiii 9. And in whatever Sense they take the one they may take the other But their Practice shews their meaning They do call their Quaker Masters by the Name of Masters And they do now use the word Lord Speaking of or to Noble-Men but
ye Vpwards ye Earthly-Minded and behold His Star in the East the Wise Men whose Eyes are in their Head have Seen it and been Led by it till the Babe was found Lying in a Manger for in the Inn ther was no Room for him He that hath an Ear to Hear let him Hear Thus they Commonly Conclude when they Speak Mystically This is to shew that they Mean not according to the Letter Therefore they Cry He that hath Ears c. For it is not given to Every One to Understand these Quaker Mysteries Therefore they speak to Us in Parables that Seeing we might not See nor Vnderstand them for they think Us not Worthy as having Harden'd our Hearts against them Let me here set down a Quotation more at Large out of the fore-cited place of Will Bayly's Works p. 291 292. It will give the Reader a Plainer View of this their Principle And they Complain often that their Words are given too Short and the whole Sentences not Produc'd at Large Thus then says that Renowned Quaker So now this Christ was before the World that now is began and was a Seed before any Name was given to it which in process of time being Begotten of God was Born of a Virgin had a Body Prepared to do the will of his Father as it is at this Day But none knows him or ever shall Born but of a Virgin he that hath Ears let him hear Whose Eye is Single Mind stayed on God Forsakes all takes up the dayly Cross denies Self These only know him Born tho' once like Mary said How can this be Seeing I know not a Man Seeing I have no Strength Wisdom Parts or Abilities of my Own But the Answer is at it was Be thou but the Virgin The Power of the Most High shall Over-Shadow thee And that Holy thing which shall be Born of thee shall be Called the Son of God This was Christ's Name in the Womb a Holy thing Read within This is the I AM which was before Abraham the Virgin is Subject to the Power of the Most High Where Christ is known to be first a Holy thing then a Child given c. as before Quoted That which may be known of God or Christ which is One is Manifest IN People there He is and is ONLY to be found This is that God which Paul Preached to the Athenians that Made the World c. Thus Will. Bayly And by this you see That they make God and Christ to be all One. That this God was a Seed before any Name was givin to it i. e. from Eternity That this God do's in process of time even at this Day Beget God IN Us. That this God do's Grow and Encrease IN Us from a Seed to a Child then to a Son lastly to be the MIGHTY GOD the EVERLASTING FATHER Again you see how they Allegorize the Virgin of Whom CHRIST was Born to a Pure or Virgin HEART That when Mary said she knew not a Man by Man here was only Meant Our own Wisdom Strength Parts or Abilities out of which Christ cou'd not be Born That they know Him Born of them at this Day as Mary knew Him Born of Her And indeed it do's not Appear That they think Him to have been Born any otherwise of Her than He is of Them that is Not of her Body in a Literal Sense but only in the Womb of her Heart as in Theirs They say that Christ or the Light is Begotten of God But they say not this of that Prepared Body as they call it of Jesus of Nazareth in which Christ or the Light Dwelt which was Literally Born of the Virgin MARY Whom they do not that I can find own to have been a Virgin in the Common Acceptation of the Word that is who had no Carnal Knowlege of a Man but only that she had a Pure that is a Virgin HEART Therefore they are Desir'd to tell us who they think was the Immediate Father not of Christ or the Light but of that Prepared Body of Jesus of Nazareth Whether they think as some Socinians have done that it was Begot by Joseph in the Ordinary way of Generation If they Wave giving any Answer to this It is Owning that they do think so For if they Believe as all other Christians do they can have no Scruple in Owning of it Especially Now when they are upon Smoothing of their Principles and Endeavouring to make them Appear the same with other Christians particularly with the Doctrin of the 39 Articles of the Church of England And in their Answer to this I here give them Caution to Avoid Ambiguity of Terms That they Word it not Who was the Father of Christ or of Jesus for they can call their Light within sometimes by the Name of Jesus that is a Saviour as well as by the Name of Christ that is Anointed But that they Answer Directly Who was the Father of that Outward Body of Jesus of Nazareth the Son of Mary And that they say not only Who was his Father for they may say it was God which is true in a Large Sense as He is the Father of All Living But that they tell Who was his IMMEDIATE Father And whether He was Begotten of Any Mere Mortal Man I Desire them to keep in the word Mortal because they have a Notion of an Eternal Manhood of God as shewn in the beginning of the First Part Therefore I Desire they may say whether our Jesus was Begotten of any MORTAL Man And because they have a Sense too in which they think that God or the Light may Dye in Our Hearts Therefore that they add the word Mere to Mortal and say Whether the Outward Body of Jesus of Nazareth which was Born of Mary the Wife of Joseph was Begotten by any Mere Mortal Man Ther is Need of all this Caution with these Quakers as sufficiently shewn before It is Impossible otherwise to Hold them Ther are None who have such Starting-Holes and Evasions as they have With all their Pretences to Flainness and Sincerity Now if they shall Answer in the Terms before set down That Jesus was IMMEDIATLY Begotten by God in the Womb of the B. Virgin Then that they give a Good Reason Why He was not Properly the Son of God Or otherwise That they Disown that Representation of their Belief which Will. Penn has Given and says it in their Name viz. That the outward Person which Suffer'd was Properly the Son of God We Vtterly Deny As has been before Quoted from p. 146. of his Serious Apology Then let them Own That Christ was otherwise Begotten and Born of the Blessed Virgin than He is in their Hearts or Ever was or will be in any other Person That only at that Time in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin and Never Before He did Assume our Flesh into an Hypostatical or Personal Vnion with His Divine Nature And that He is now Truly and Properly a Man in Compleat