Spirit and so opposite to Infallibility is none of Christ's consequently no Christian. And he does but follow his own fallible Spirit being prompted on by the Father of Lies in what he writes against us consequently of no Credit therein so like one of those false Prophets that follow their own Spirits and see nothing But then severely to aggravate the Matter against us poor Madmen in his esteem he 'll needs have it That the height of our Self-advancement is to be equal even to God to be one Person Substance and Soul with God And he does not think that any Human Government can be secure of Men in whose Power it is to screw themselves up to such blasphemous heights of Enthusiasm p. 169 170. We Answer 'T is better to be mad Men and Fools than to be screwed up by the Father of Lies to such a height of Malice and Outrage as this insulting and railing Rabshekah appears to be puft up in When did ever the Quakers so advance themselves to be one Person Substance Soul with God and equal even to God We positively deny the Charge and the Words themselves but only as we are united or joined to the Lord we are one Spirit and give this Person leave to secure such Persons in Bedlam if he can find any among us that he can plainly prove to hold the same as he charges And therefore his insinuating such presumptuous Blasphemies against the Quakers in general to render them so highly obnoxious and the Government insecure of them this is highly and deadly malicious and he might as well have taken one Step further to have shewn his Teeth and have told the Government what he would have done with the Quakers how he would have them dealt with to be secure of them whether he would have them closely Confin'd Hang'd or Banish'd for take our Word his Charge is very high against them and implies no small Reflection upon the Civil Government for so kindly suffering and indulging such extreamly pernicious mad Folks as he has over and over rendred the Quakers which serves but to evince the Folly of his own Fury and Madness against a peaceable innocent People P. 153. Sect. 11. To his ridiculing Womens Preaching and Womens Meetings c. 1. We do not institute Womens Preachings as he saith but leave them free to the Gift and Call of God 2. Neither hath he proved that they are universally and perpetually forbidden to speak in the Church by that 1 Cor. 14. 34 35. The Apostle Paul did not intend to make void God's Promise of the pouring out of his Spirit upon Sons and Daughters to prophesie Joel 2. 28 29. Acts 2. 17 18. No he allowed Women to Pray or Prophesie when so divinely indued and inspired thereunto 1 Cor. 11. 5 13. 3. Our Scoffer tells us of the Prelacy of Womens Meetings which he calls an Invention never heard of in the World till G. F. cobled it out As for the Term Prelacy 't is his own given in his Scorn and Ignorance As for our Womens Meetings what has the Scorner against them or their Services more than his own Ignorance and Scorn We know Them and their Help and Service to be truly Christian and Charitable consequently to be of the Lord their Intent and Service being to be helpful in their Places for promoting true Christian Charity and Religion in Life and Practice and particularly with regard to Fatherless and Widows among us that they may not be neglected but Visited and Ministred unto in their Afflictions for their necessary Relief and Comfort And these Meetings are very expedient and convenient for Intelligence among them of such Objects of Charity and Compassion There were Deaconesses as well as Deacons in the Primitive Christian Churches 4. This Church-man has no reason to deride or contemn our Women's Meetings we charge not his Church with our Poor tho' we help to Relieve the Poor of his Church both Parish-poor and Beggars to his and their Shame be it spoken who blindly ridicules our Christian Care and Charitable Methods in this Matter In Sect. 12. concerning the Light within That the Light which lightneth every Man coming into the World being the divine Word the Son of God is not natural Reason or Conscience but above both and enlightneth both is true because divine and universally in every Man and therefore we do not by Virtue of this Light advance our selves above all Mankind nor damn all but our selves as is falsly suggested against us p. 171. But as we are turned and converted from Darkness unto this Light the Lord hath advanced us above what we our selves were in our natural and unconverted State and above all others who yet remain in that state To the Question Whether a Man can sin while he follows this Light p. 172. Answ. No nor in his truly following it And that he cannot leave the Light without knowing it or being followed with Judgment and Conviction thereof by the Light is true also Whence it does not follow that there can be no Sin of Ignorance as is wrongfully inferred p. 173. For there are Sins of Ignorance before Conviction and Conversion whilst Men walk in Darkness being ignorant of the Light that shines in it and their Minds estranged from it but after convicted or Conversion in measure if they backslide in Heart and leave the Light they cannot be left altogether ignorant of their backsliding because they shall be left without Excuse who either through their impenitent hard Hearts treasure up Wrath to themselves or backslide in Heart or wilfully sin until judicially hardned after they have received the knowledge of the Truth 1. Because of God's universal Call and Visitation by his Light and Free Grace in Christ to Sinners 2. Because of his swiftly pursuing the Wicked and all them that forsake him by his Spirit of Judgment For these and other Causes they are all inexcusable before him and the Light will pursue them even to Hell as it did the rich Man when in Hell he lift up his Eyes Luke 16. 23 28. To what our Opposer objects from these Scriptures Luke 23. 34. John 16. 2. 2 Thess. 2. 11. Mat. 6. 23. Acts 3. 17. 1 Cor. 2. 8. thence inferring against the Infallibility of the Light within and saying There can be no such Mistake as our Saviour supposes Mat. 6. 23. If the Light within be infallible and that every Man has it and that no Man can leave it without knowing of it p. 174. To all which we Answer That some Men's Ignorance of their Master's Will others wrong Thoughts others being given up to strong Delusion to believe a Lie others greatly mistaking Darkness for Light and then how great is that Darkness of theirs These can be no Proofs against the Infallibility of the Light it self nor of the Light within being fallible but of their own Transgression Disobedience and Rebellion against the Light Who know not the ways of the Light because they abide
the least Farthing with the aforesaid Discourse and then see how he 'll reconcile his Notion thereunto In Sect. 16. Concerning the Holy Trinity he saith The Quakers and Socinians acknowledge a Three but deny a Trinity which is to confess the same Thing in English and to deny it in Latin for Trinitas is only Latin for Three He mistakes the Quakers They do not deny the Three either in Latin or English but really own the holy divine Three in Heaven tho' their being rendred distinct and separate Persons by some of our former Adversaries we have conscientiously questioned as unscriptural Terms Our Adversary adds They cannot tell what Three they are if not Three Persons p. 219. This is a Mistake we can safely tell what to call them in Scripture Language That they are Three that bear Record or Three witnessing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Witnesses in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these Three are One John 1. 5. These are the Father Son and Holy Spirit which are essentially One or One in the Divine Being Our Adversary further saith The Quakers who own the Divinity of Christ are under greater Difficulties than the Socinians who deny the Divinity of Christ p. 219. 'T is well he now grants the Quakers own the Divinity of Christ But how well this agrees with much of his Book against us let the serious Reader judge And we know no Difficulties we are under herein The Man imagins and would obtrude Difficulties upon us from his own Terms which are none of ours as that there is but One Person in the Godhead which are none of our Words Much less his Muggletonian Consequence That God died and that Christ was his own Father to whom he pray'd upon the Cross. We know no real occasion given by the Quakers for him to draw such Absurdities upon them or to be afraid of such Distinctions and Salvo's at the bottom of the Quaker-pretences as impertinently he prates against them exposing his pretended Fears instead of Proofs And what if G. F. opposed Chr. Wade's calling The Holy Ghost a Person And if he said The Scriptures do not tell the People of Three Persons c And yet confessing the Father Son and Holy Spirit to be always One Does it follow That the Quakers do not acknowledge that there were Three in Heaven before Christ was born as he saith it seems p. 220. And then to aggravate the Matter against G. F. That he means One Person as Muggleton does p. 220. What if the Quakers think the Term Three Persons too low an Epithite or Character to put upon the most Glorious Blessed Three that bear Record in Heaven Can they be to blame herein When they aim at giving more Honour to them in a true Scripture sense than they think the Term Persons imports yet still owning the Holy Divine Three in Heaven and that they were before Christ was born contrary to what 's unduly suggested against us For the Father the Word and Holy Spirit were concerned both in Divine Wisdom Power and Goodness in forming preserving and governing both the Old Creation and the New By the Word of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the Host of them by the Spirit of his Mouth Psal. 33. 6. So here 's the Divine Holy Three forming and compleating the first Creation And the Gospel was commanded to be preached in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost that Men might truly believe and know the Work of God by his dear Son and Holy Spirit unto their everlasting Salvation Peace and Comfort For God so loved the World that he hath given his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting Life John 3. 16. And Jesus answered and said If any Man love me he will keep my Word and my Father will love him and we will come unto him and will dwell with him John 14. 23. And ver 26. The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my Name he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance which I have told you And Ch. 15. 26. But when the Comforter shall come whom I will send unto you from the Father even the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth of the Father he shall testifie of me And 1 Joh. 4. 13 14. Hereby know we that we dwell in him and he in us because he hath given us of his Spirit And we have seen and do testifie That the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the World All which may evince how scripturally we own a Trinity or Holy Three in the Deity Our Accuser tells of what unimaginable Excesses Enthusiasm may drive Men to and that all should beware of that desperate Shelve upon which both our Church and State have suffered miserable Shipwreck p. 221 222. Here he disparages his own Church whereby we may beware of embarking in such a â—raz'd wreck'd Vessel as here he represents her He excepts against the Words not distinct from which G. F. intends in a sort of common Acceptation That the Son is not divided or separate from the Father p. 222 223 224. Tho' 't is true in one Sense the Father Son and Holy Ghost are not essentially distinct as to their divine Being which is but One they are but One God but in respect to their Properties of Relation as Father Son and Holy Ghost as such they are distinct but not divided nor separate either in themselves or Work of the Old or New Creation yet not Three Gods nor Three distinct Creâ—tors but One God and One Creator Passing by divers Impertinencies and Absurdities under this Head to conclude We know no People professing a Deity in Christendom that more sincerely and livingly believe and confess a most glorious Scripture-Trinity or Holy Three the Father the Word or Son and Holy Ghost than we the People called Quakers do believe and confess to the Praise and Glory of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Our Accuser's 17th Sect. Concerning the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ is full of Falshoods Perversions and Misconstructions 1. He begins with this Falshood viz. The Quakers Heresie in this is taken from the Socinians They say Christ took Flesh but no otherwise as they explain it than as Angels assumed Bodies c. Which is notoriously false against the Quakers who confess and believe That Christ the Word took real Flesh a real Body and not a meer Apparition nor a Fantastical Body and so they have often declared both in Print and Preaching 2. That they allow not always that Christ did inspire the Person of that Man Jesus in an higher measure than other Men. False and perverse again God did inspire the Man Christ Jesus higher than all other Men he received the Spirit not by measure but in fulness he was anointed with the Oil of Gladness above all his Fellows All other Men even the best are inspired
reproachful Title Or The Quakers last Shift to cover their monstrous Heresies and being By the Author of the Snake in the Grass I did suppose it to be the Second Part to the same Tune or much of the same Nature with the former full of Bitterness and Scorn by the reviling Title and no fair Reply to T. Ellwood's Answer and so it appears and I expect will be made farther appear if T. Ellwood deems it worth the while to undertake it But that which appear'd most strange to me and some others was in the Title of the said Book it is thus declared Which also may serve for a Reply as to the main Points of Doctrin to Geo. Whitehead 's Answer to the Snake in the Grass to be published the end of the next Month if this prevent it not Which appeared very strange to me and the Man 's presumptive Falshood the greater I having a great part of the Copy of my Answer to The Snake in the Grass in my Hands when I first saw these Words in Print and the rest of my Copy then in the Printers Hands which we did not hear they lent him to make Reply to and when I lookt over his Book I neither found any repetition of my Answer nor Reply thereto However he 's so confident and boasting in his own Work that he takes it for granted That not only the Quakers are put to their last Shift but also that this pretended Reply to T. Ellwood's Answer to G. Keith's Narrative may also serve for a Reply to G. Whitehead's Answer to The Snake in the Grass Which would seem a cunning Piece of Divination indeed to Reply to a Book before he sees it or knows it But if he will still have his said Reply a sufficient Reply thereunto he may go on in 's own Conceit and save himself a further Labour of Replying lest he give himself the Lie by giving the World to understand that what he has said may serve for a Reply to Geo. Whitehead's Answer may not serve for a Reply However he seems to have taken upon himself a heavy Task in being an Advocate for George Keith and more heavy to reconcile the Contradictions charged upon him by Tho. Ellwood John Pennington and his Brother Edward and partly for Baptists and Presbyterians and all against the Quakers in his Reply but very partial in carping at our Words and Answers in many places without taking notice of the unwarrantable Expressions Absurdities and Contradictions of our Adversaries and yet in general Terms excuses them but in no small Contradiction to himself and the sad Account and ill Characters he has given in his Snake in the Grass 2nd Part Sect. 3. pag. 17. 18. both of Presbyter Anabaptist Independent Quaker c. as all under Enthusiasm of Rome's dressing in several Shapes and Forms and as a plentiful Harvest of Rome 's reaping c. But now he can advocate and take part with any of them against the Quakers like some mercinary Soldier of Fortune I do not intend to spend much time here to Answer his said Reply though 't is no great Difficulty to do but to take notice of a few Passages in it wherein I and some others are concerned and injurionsly dealt with therein 1. My excepting against that made Expression Co-creator as used by the Baptist telling of God being Co-creator with the Father I confess I am no more reconciled to the Expression now than I was when first I questioned it as unscriptural whereby I never intended not to allow the Word to be God or to the Son of God as I am most injuriously accused p. 2. For divers of my ancient and first Writings in Print shew the contrary that I own the Word to be God and Creator too But the Phrase God Co-creator with God I think still implies Two Creators and consequently Two Gods 'T is not the Particle co with in this Case will excuse the Matter for co or con is simul together as Co-workers Co-partners which are more distinct Agents than one But the Creator is but one God one Word one Spirit and so one Creator But this invented word Co-creator was brought by the Baptists for proof That the Light in Man wherewith the word God as Co-creator lighteth every Man is the Light of Reason the Light of Nature c. consequently but a created Light which I deny Seeing that it is the same Life that was in the Word that was the Light of Men John 1. 4. What good Doctrin or good Sense were it then to say That the word God was Co-creator with the Father of his own Life Light and Power And no better Sense can I make of the Baptist's Notion of the Light in this Case nor of this Man 's excusing him Besides a learn'd and more moderate and ingenuous Person has lately made the like Exception against the word Co-creator in a printed Paper called Reflections upon some Passages in G. Keith 's Narrative where he saith It seems to me that the word Co-creator might justly be rejected by G. Whitehead being a word neither us'd in the Holy Scriptures nor by any of the ancient Councils and it seems to import a Conceit that there are Two Efficients of the Creation one having a creative Power distinct from the other Yet withal he is pleased to give this gentle Reflection on me by the way Tho' G. W. has not spoken with that Caution and Accuracy which he should have us'd in a Matter of so grand Importance which I do the more easily bear from him because of his Moderation Suppose that in some Passages in some of my former Writings as to the Circumstance of Words or Expressions there may be some Deficiency or want some Explication or Distinction or something dubious and the Particulars thereof were shewn me I hope I should not be wanting to give my Explication to the Satisfaction of the Moderate and Ingenuous As to the Matters intended by me I know the Lord gave me a true Sense and Sight by his Power in my young and early Years he having inclined my Heart after him from my Youth I bless his Holy Name The same Person whom I cited before goes on viz. I do not conceive that he i. e. G. W. denies either the Divinity or Humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ The Father is Creator the Son Creator the Holy Ghost Creator and yet they are not Three Creators but One Creator Thus he Consequently not properly called Co-creators for that would imply Three Creators And I think I might more warrrantably oppose the same than my Adversary imply Three intelligent Beings in the Godhead by his definition of a Person that every intelligent BEING is a Person that is the meaning of the word Person saith he p. 5. Whence it follows That if there be Three distinct Persons in the Deity they are Three distinct intelligent Beings unless he 'll argue as one of his Brethren did They are not Three Substances
therefore Three Persons Another having given Aquinas his definition of a Person as being an individual Substance of a rational Nature which is neither the part of another nor upheld by another But now if they be not Three Beings nor Three Substences how well have these Men defended a principal Article of their Faith Seeing the Father the Word and Holy Ghost are owned by Christians to be One Being One Substance therefore not Three Beings nor Three Substances My speaking of Christ as the only begotten of the Father and for his Divinity as he was the Brightness of the Father's Glory and express Image of his divine Substance and thereupon questioning T. Danson where doth the Scripture say That his Soul was created This Question is no Determination that it was or was not Christ as God his Soul was increated As Man his Soul or Spirit was not the Deity but formed and assumed by the Word The Word or Son of God who made the Worlds was not a Creature because he made all Creatures Though he took upon him a most pure and perfect Soul and Body he took upon him the Seed of Abraham that he might in both Soul and Body suffer for Mankind and sympathize with us in bearing our Sorrows and carrying our Griefs and that his Soul might be in Travel for us and made an Offering for Sin and poured out unto Death Isa. 53. By my said Question I chiefly eyed his Divinity considering him as he proceeded and came out from God and as he was glorified with the Father before the World began Upon the whole my Adversary's Charge of Heresie upon me and the Quakers against the Incarnation of Christ p. 2. as also his Author G. Keith's publick Aspersions That G. W. disowns Christ to be God and denied him to be Man Narr p. 16. These are to tell the World That we own no Christ at all Wherein as they have both grosly wrong'd my Intention Principle and publick Testimony I am persuaded G. K. has wronged his own Conscience and that he must needs know the contrary of me in this and some other things for which he is accountable to the just God For by questioning the Words created or human Soul I did not thereby intend to deny Christ to be truly Man as is unduly insinuated against me p. 2. but rather to own That tho' Christ was truly Man in Soul and Body yet that his Soul was more divine than any other Mans or Mens and therefore he may be said to be a most divine Man and more of the divine and increated Life in his Soul than in any other Man's whatsoever and that therefore the word human as it relates to the Ground or Earth from which the Body of Man was taken I might suppose was too low or mean a Character or Epithite to give to the Soul of Christ or to his spiritual glorious Body either and I hope I deserve not blame in this while I was careful not to lessen the Glory or Dignity of the Son of God as he is the Lord from Heaven by not allowing him to be from beneath or Earthly either in Soul or Body in his glorified State and I am perswaded that some so much insisting upon the word Human Soul and Body of Christ gives the Socinians more advantage than my pleading for his Divinity and Heavenly glory both as God and Man To my Question to Robert Gordon I think there 's no real Cause for Offence to be taken at it if the Occasions ministred by him were Impartially taken notice of which they are not by this partial Adversary As R. G.'s great Ignorance both of the Light and Saving-work of Christ in Man excluding Christ's work of Salvation and Justification c. as all done and finished without Man even when no good is wrought in Man and pleading for Imperfection and Sin in Man in so much that Geo. Keith charged the said Gordon with 18 corrupt Doctrins and above 20 Lyes and false Accusations in the conclusion of my Book Entituled The Nature of Christianity in the true Light asserted Printed Anno 1671. And yet this officious Adversary takes his part excusing him in defence of G. Keith against us as he has done also in his Snake in the Grass which is such a piece of confused Mixture and Medley as I have seldom ever met withal My Question to R. Gordon as Cited Dost thou look for Christ as the Son of Mary to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence to save thee If thou dost thou mayest look until thy Eyes drop out before thou wilt see such an appearance of him And what proof is made of this against me But that I do not acknowledge that Christ has now the Body of a Man or will come in that Body to Judge the World Answ. Neither do I deny it If I do not acknowledge it in this Passage I do in many others namely that Christ as the Heavenly Man has his own proper glorious Body wherein he will come to Judge the World at the last day And therefore do not hold that Christ has no bodily Existence or being without us as G. K. accuseth me Narr p. 16. He wrongs me in this as in divers other things But upon R. Gordon 's pretending a perfect Justification and Redemption of Sinners without them when no good is wrought in them and yet granting that Christ's appearing the second time is without Sin to Salvation But then his deferring this till the Resurrection of the Body this I confess was so offensive to me that I put the said Question the reason whereof appears more at large in my said Answer Nature of Christianity p. 29. It being always my Judgment with many others that Salvation from Sin should be expected in this Life and Christ's second appearance for that end also mentioned Heb. 9. 28. That this ought not to be put off till the last day but expected even in this Life as in the Apostles days There were those then that looked for him to whom his appearance the second time without Sin unto Salvation was promised and the true Believers were not disappointed of their expectations in that weighty matter As many have been who have expected to see Christ's outward coming in Person with their carnal Eyes to save them Besides 't is true in Fact that those carnal Eyes of many fail them drop out or rot before they can see Christ's outward appearance or coming in the last day to Judgment And G. Keith himself as well as I have charged false and corrupt Doctrin upon Robert Gordon particularly in his asserting That Redemption Justification and Reconciliation is finished and compleated by what Christ did and suffered outwardly and not in our Persons and without the help of any thing to be wrought in us Artic. 6 8 12 of his Charge against Gordon Nature of Christianity p. 70 71 72. And why now I should be accused by G. Keith or his Advocate for the words before to
with Gross Error but Hypocrisie too The first intends those Books of ours quoted by him in all which there 's Matter sufficient to clear us from his Aspersions as Thomas Ellwood and John Pennington also have well observed in divers Answers to him together with G. Keith's own former Vindications of us as a People and our Principles The latter i. e. Hypocrisie we may suppose must intend our Answer given to the said 7 Queries wherein as in divers other things G. K. hath foully belied us contrary to our own Consciences which are clear in the sight â—f God from Hypocrisie in this Matter as well as in other things And seeing G. K.'s Authority seems to be of some value with the obscure Author of The Snake in the Grass he and his Brethren of the Church of England may take G. K. for their Champion and see what they can make of him for he shews himself now no Quaker but more near to them and where he 'll yet center or settle in what Society or Communion is a great Question Or rather whether he does not aim at setting up for himself as Sect-master if he can draw some sort of People to admire him in his Notions and reproaching the Quakers contrary to his former manifold Vindications of them and their Principles after above 30 Years Conversation and kind Treatment among them The Second Part. Here follows a Catalogue of some of the great Mistakes notorious Abuses and Calumnies in the Second Part of the said Book stiled The Snake in the Grass after the Preface which is bigger than the Book it self THE Controversie with the Quaker-Dissenters has not been pursued by the Church of England with the like Zeal and Pains as those against the Presbyterians Independents and other Dissenters because the Quakers were not so considerable either for their Learning or for their Influence upon the publick Revolutions which the others caused both in Church and State But their numbers whether increased by their being so neglected are now really formidable I mean for the many Souls seduced by them they not only swarm over these Nations but they stock our Plantations abroad Re. Tho' the first part of this Complaint carries no small Reflection upon the Presbyterians and Independents c. rendring them greatly obnoxious in the Eye of the Government as not only formidable but dangerous which is most proper for them to answer 't is not truly stated as to the Quakers For the Church of England in the two late King's Reigns has pursued them with more Zeal and Pains than any other Dissenters both to stop their Growth and to root them out also tho' not by rationally controverting Matters in difference but by such extream and severe Persecutions as hard Imprisonments Banishments Spoil of Goods c. as no other People of Dissenters have so generally suffered nor to such a degree because they did not stand in a publick Testimony in the Heat of the Day as the People called Quakers have So that 't is not through the said Churches neglect or want of taking Pains to pursue the Quakers that they are so multiplied and increased but rather as the first and chief cause of their Increase was God's Power and divine Providence A secondary Cause was their great Oppressions and Persecutions of which Israel's Oppression and Increase when in Egypt in some sense and degree was figurative or resembling even of the true Churches Sufferings when the more they were oppressed the more they multiplied and grew Sn. p. 4. I find them scoffingly telling of the Rabbies of the Quakers to inherit the Subtilty as well as Heresie of the Arians and Socinians who were the most subtil and hardest to be detected of any of the Christian Hereticks and the Quakers do defend themselves with the same distinctions and even add to their Arts. Re. This Adversary is very much out and maliciously calumnious in this his charging the Heresie of the Arians as well as Socinians upon the Ministers among the Quakers For what was the Heresie of Arius Was it not that he held That the Son of God had his beginning of nothing That there was a time when he was not That he had a beginning of Essence That he had this Essence of nothing That the Son of God was of free Will inclined to Virtue and Vice That he was a Creature and made neither like unto the Father in Substance neither the true Word of the Father by Nature neither his true Wisdom and that the Word of God was not from Everlasting c. These Heresies were charg'd upon Arius and his Complices in the Syâ—odical Epistle of the Council of Nice and Bishop of Alexandria lib. 1. cap. 3. Socr. Scol p. 215 216. p. 225. ch 6. Now we challenge this obscure Adversary to prove where ever the Quakers or their Ministers held these blasphemous and atheistical Notions Nay 't is manifest they hold the quite contrary both to Arius and Socinus for the Divinity of the Son of God the Eternal Word as many of their Writings testifie and therefore he is a gross Lyar who charges us with them and highly guilty of Folly and Self-contradiction also in rendring such mad Folks as he deems us so very subtil in Distinctions and Arts. Sn. p. 5. Many of them have really gone off from the height of Blasphemy and Madness which was professed among them at their first setting up in the Year 1650. and so continued till after the Year of the Restoration Anno 1660. Re. We utterly deny this Charge again as a foul Scandal That many of us professed the height of Blasphemy and Madness or that any in Society with us have so done The Man shamefully abuseth the Readers by imposing such lying defaming Stories upon them Sn. p. 10 11. Divers Comparisons made between L. Muggleton and the Quakers as denying all Church-Authority making a dead Letter of the Holy Scriptures and resolving all into their own private Spirit c. That these are Twin-Enthusiasts both born in the Year 1650. Re. His Comparisons herein are unjust and Accusations false 1. We never owned nor had Society with Muggleton but always bore our Testimony against his dark blasphemous Conceits 2. The spiritual Authority of the true Church we always own and esteem 3. The Holy Scriptures i. e. the Holy Doctrin of the Gospel we do not make nor call a dead Letter We distinguish between the dead Letter and the living Doctrin and follow not our private Spirits for the understanding thereof but the Spirit of God the Inspiration of the Almighty which giveth the true understanding Sn. p. 12. I desire before I go farther to obviate a Prejudice which some Readers may take as a little Railery I am forced to use now and then which they may think not becoming the Subject in Hand Re. His said Book of Four Shillings Price has more than a little Railery in 't for 't is stuft with abundance of as shameful Railery
Lies and Slanders as ever we met withal But who or what has forced him to be such a Railer Not the Spirit of Christ not a Christian Spirit to be sure If he had apprehended us such mad Men and silly ridiculous Fools as he has represented us he should rather pity us than bend his Wits to rail and scoff at us Sn. p. 13. Intending chiefly to insist upon some of their more material and monstrous Heresies thus against the Quakers Re. This Charge looks big and seems to make a great Noise but as 't is levelled against us in general 't is as false as the rest As concerning the Government his Authority is as invalid which is he only refers us to the Quakers Vnmask'd printed 1691. What great Authority is this but one of F. Bugg's abusive Pamphlets which is fully answer'd and his Abuses detected over and over which this partial Adversary takes no notice of That some of these called Quakers were at first Common-wealth's Men or for a Common-wealth and afterward for a Monarchy when it pleased God by his over-ruling Power and Providence to cause such alterations We see no monstrous Heresie herein any more than was in Samuel See 1 Sam. 8. 5 6. ch 10. 1. That the Quakers are against their being concerned in Fighting and destroying Men's Lives as believing that 't is not in Christ's mediatory Kingdoms and yet grant that Wars and Fighting are a Judgment from God in the Kingdom of this World What Heresie or Fallibility is in this pray This is the true state of the Difference however aggravated and perverted by this Adversary and his Author Sn. Sect. 3. p. 17 18. Anno 1650 and 1654. Then it was that Rome was reaping a plentiful Harvest which they had long been sowing by setting up in that universal Toleration multitudes of various Sects on purpose to divide and so confound their only substantial Adversary the Church of England They dressed Enthusiasm in several Shapes and Forms of Presbyter Anabaptist Independent Quaker Muggleton and along c. which differ only in degrees Re. Here the Snake puts his Sting out against all Protestant-Dissenters and as greatly envying their Liberties makes a very ill Construction of their former Toleration And no doubt their present Liberty does as ill please him Ishmael like his Hand is against every Man and no sort of Dissenters how conscientious soever can escape his Blow or Push He makes Rome the Author Patron and Planter of them all both Presbyter Anabaptist Independent Quakers c. how plainly soever they have approved themselves Protestants averse to Popery and as Dissenting-Protestants are tolerated it appears how greatly he envies their Liberties and is displeased with the Government for granting the same Oh rare Son of the Church Will nothing satisfie this Incendiary but Persecution and Ruin to Dissenting-Protestants May not such his Work be very grateful to the Popish Interest What a cordial Friend then does he shew himself to the Protestants Sn. p. 19. This Doctrin of Enthusiasm came chiefly from the Church of Rome Labadee a Jesuit set it up in Holland and Robert Barclay the Quaker was tinctured in his younger Years in the Scotch Convent at Paris and John Vaughton was a Roman Catholick who is now a great Preacher among the Quakers in London and he adds in his Errata William Southby a Preacher now among them in Pensilvania Re. These this obscure Accuser brings as Instances to make good the Title of this Third Section which is That the Popish Emissaries first set up Quakerism in England which is an old lying Story and his Instances as impertinent And 1st We deny that any Jesuit set it up in Holland and are persuaded many of our Friends there can testifie the contrary 2. Whatever the Educations of the said R. B. and J. V. were in their Youth as to Religion they were none of the first Promoters of Quakerism as he calls it in England by many Years 3. And suppose the One was tinctured and the other was a Roman Catholick this makes for us that was not since they were Quakers but before they turned Quakers and then when they did they turned from Papists and Popery in Testimony against it and against human Traditions and Superstitions and for the Holy Spirit 's Teaching and Worship of God in Spirit and Truth Sn. p. 20. The Quaker-Infallibility was contrived on purpose to bring Men back to the Infallibility of the Church of Rome by these Steps First the Infallibility was placed by G. Fox and all the Primitive Quakers in every single Quaker Re. These are envious and false Aspersions to render us infamous obnoxious and offensive 1. We positively deny any such Contrivance Design or Purpose 2. We deny that G. F. and all the Primitive Quakers place Infallibility in a single Person like Papists or in every single Quaker without distinction but in the Spirit of Truth which assures us in Matters of Faith and Salvation The Man often sillily scoffs at the Quaker's Infallibility but does not truly state their Principle in that Case Sn. p. 38. in Sect 5. They i. e. the Quakers damn all the World to Hell all since the days of the Apostles but themselves Re. This is a great Untruth We damn none to Hell 't is Men's own Wickedness in hating the Light which carries them to Hell We believe there were many good Men and saved since the Apostles days Sn. p. 40. They pretend to a Perfection even equal with God Re. We pretend so of Christ not of our selves We desire we may always be kept truly Humble and in true Fear out of all Boasting and high Thoughts of our selves that Christ may be magnified in us Sn. p. 41 42. in Sect. 5. They give to themselves and to one another the most peculiar Titles of Christ as that of The Branch and the Star and the Son of God which are attributed to George Fox and which he takes to himself quoting New Rome Arraigned p. 33 34. and The Quakers Vnmask'd and New Rome Vnmask'd referring the Reader to those Books of F. Bugg 's which he has quoted upon the Margin as he saith p. 48. Re. These are F. Bugg's notorious refuted Lies which this Adversary is so shamefully credulous of We positively deny giving those peculiar Titles of Christ to our selves or to one another and Bugg has been charged therewith and cannot prove them G. Fox is not so much as mentioned in that Epistle of E. Burroughs out of which F. Bugg takes these Titles the Branch the Star c. which are peculiar to Christ. Sn. p. 51 53. Sect 6. That G. F.'s Great Mystery p. 282. endeavours to prove That the Quakers are perfect as God not only in quality but in equality from Christ's words Be ye perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect Re. These are not G. F.'s Words of the Quakers that they are so his Words are here perverted He refers to Christ's Words and the Apostles and
Man's Redemption both outwardly and inwardly outwardly by the Ransom given by Christ's Sufferings and Sacrifice and inwardly by the operation of his Life Power and Spirit which Mystically is that precious Blood that is opposed to all corruptible things which redeems from the vain Conversation from all Iniquity and effectually washeth and clcanseth us from our Sins purgeth and sprinkles our Consciences c. And farther to Answer to Types and Shadows under the Law of shedding Blood and sprinkling c. That God according to his Mercy saved us by the washing of Regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour Titus 3. 5 6. And I 'le sprinkle clean water upon them and wash them from all their filthiness saith the Lord. And the Blood of sprinkling which the spiritual believers were come unto has the same effect And if the name of Water be attributed to the Spirit as it is Jo. 7. 38 39. Light and Life The name of Blood may also which is not to Allegorize away or invalidate the outward Blood or Sacrifice of Christ or any part thereof yet the Mystery thereof we may not deny but confess And according to the answers I have given for the Blood of Christ and the Mystery thereof our deceased Friend and Brother Robert Bercley expresly agrees whose Testimony therefore I am the more willing to cite because G. Keith has approved of his Works p. 60. R. B's Testimony in his Works p. 10. follows in these words viz. This Blood speaking of the Blood of Christ that is healing c. is known and felt within to wash and purge the Conscience for Christ as he is within is not without his Blood which is Spiritual even the pure Blood of the Vine and is that Wine of the Kingdom which is inwardly felt to wash and to refresh which he gives to them who know not distinctly the outward shedding of his Blood as it was many hundred years ago and which many are ignorant of who have heard much of the outward shedding of his Blood but know not the Blood as shed and poured forth in them to sprinkle their Consciences from dead Works for it is a Mystery sealed up from all who stand in opposition to his Light within But there mark thy own Words saith he to his Opponent The Plaster must be applyed er'e the Sore be healed Must not then saving Grace be applyed er'e the Soul be Converted or Healed And R. B. treats much more largely concerning the Flesh and Blood of Christ to the same purpose as before cited for the Blood of Christ as 't is Spiritual and Mysterious c. p. 494. 495 496 497 498. upon his thirteenth Proposition of his Apology and in page 494. He has recourse to Agustin viz. § II. The Body then of Christ which Believers partake of is Spiritual and not Carnal and his Blood which they Drink of is Pure and Heavenly and not Humane or Elementary as Augustin also affirms Ps. 98. Except a Man Eat my Flesh he hath not in him Life Eternal And he saith The Words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life understand spiritually what I have spoken Ye shall not Eat of this Body which ye see and Drink this Blood which they shall spill that Crucifie me I am the living Bread which have dscended from Heaven He called himself the Bread who descended from Heaven exhorting that we should believe in him c. Unto which I further add for Illustration That the pure Blood of Grapes promised to Judah and Israel Gen. 49. 11. Deut 32. 14. was Typical of this spiritual Blood and Fruit of the Heavenly Vine Christ Jesus which truly relieves and comforts the afflicted and sorrowful Soul that comes unto him And also the Milk and Honey the Butter Oyl and Wheat and other Temporal Blessings which were in the promised Land were all Types of Christ and the spiritual Blessings received in him in his Kingdom and Heavenly Canaan And the Oyl and Wine which the Compassionate Samaritan poured into the Wounds of the Man that was wounded by Thieves and left half Dead Luke 10. 34 were also Typical of the healing Vertue Life and spiritual Blood of Christ Jesus which he graciously poureth into many wounded Souls As concerning the word Personality and Personal Existence as applyed to God and Christ I have sometimes questioned as also the word Humane as ascribed to the glorified Body of Christ which is spiritual and also to his Soul or Spirit for these reasons 1. Because imposed on us by some Adversaries without Scripture proof of those terms and not to Question Christ's glorious Manhood for in that sense I admit of and sometime may use the word Humanity either for Man or for the Good Nature and disposition of Man as of the word Trinity for Three being not willing to maintain contest about Words but to mind the thing intended thereby 2. Because false Arguments have been drawn thence against Christ and his Light in Man 3. Because of the carnal Imaginations of too many thereof who under pretence of expecting Christ to come again in the Flesh in the same manner as he was on Earth and to be seen with their carnal Eyes neglect the introversion of their Minds to Christ's inward appearance in Spirit 4. Because whilst Men feed upon such Notions and Imaginations of Christ excluding him out of their Hearts they exclude the living and Heart-purifying Faith of Christ so that their Faith is but Dead and Fruitless whilst such seem to adore Christ as only an outward Christ or as wholly without them and not in them instead of opening the Door of their Hearts unto him to let him in they harbour and indulge their own Corruptions Pride Scorn Envy and Covetousness c. in their Hearts out of which proceed all these bitter Reproches Revilings and Calumnies which we meet with this Day as heretofore In all my former questioning their unscriptural terms who profess the Scriptures to be their only Rule ascribed to God and Christ I never designed to deny his being our Mediator as Man nor to oppose his coming in Power and great Glory in his gloryfied spiritual Body to Judge the Quick and the Dead in the last Day tho I have sometimes shunned controversy on that Point and about the Resurrection and last Day of Judgment Urging not to put the day of the Lord afar off nor to neglect the present day of their Visitation and Judgment of Christ by his Spirit and Light within them The Question how are the Dead raised and with what Body come they forth I have often waved as unnecessary as well as unwarrantable being reprehended in some 1 Cor. 15. 35 26. I being willing to acquiesce in the will of God in that matter to give a Body as it pleaseth him and to every Seed it s own Body as proper thereunto ver 38. One thing I would be better understood in Not having