this is an addition to the Scripture And T. E. p. 47. brings him off as before by supposing that the Baptist meant as if Christ's Body at his coming to Judgment should not be chang'd at all from the condition and appearance it had upon Earth and that it was only this sort of Appearance which G. W. opposed It is well known says he p. 49. that many of the Baptists as well as others of other Professions do hold the Body of Christ now in Heaven to be as Really and Materially a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones as it was when upon the Cross And p. 47. Not so much as mentioning any Change in it Now if there never was a Christian who did not believe that Christ's Body was Glorified in Heaven and much changed from the Condition it was in upon the Cross how will T. E. answer for this Horrid and Senseless Imputation cast upon so many Christians How will he clear G. W. from Denying Christ's outward appearance at the Great Day when he can save him by no other Supposition than this which is notoriously False to all that bear the Name of Christians Ay and must be so to T. E. and G. W. themselves VII Here T. E. spends a great deal of fruitless pains as in several other places in Retorting upon G. K. But I leave him to Defend himself He needs no Second in his Contest with them For as to the Points of Doctrine Debated he has brought them for the most part to comply with him at least to Counterfeit an Agreement which is a Greater Victory if that were his aim They Confess that they have no Objection against his Morals and that they Differ not in Doctrine from him and yet have Excommunicated him that is have Condemned themselves And as to their Retortions and In-consistencies charg'd upon him he has hitherto kept himself superiour to them And set them an Example which is the only Method to save their Consciences and Reputation if they have not too much Pride to follow it that is he has own'd that there are some Errors in his former Books and has Promis'd to Print a Re-tractation of them as St. Augustine and other Great Men have done and to their Greater Praise But T. E. and the Party he defends stand still upon their Insallibility after it is Expos'd to the utmost Contempt They will yield no Error in themselves no not in an Iota not in their saying that Christ was bâ—rn at NaZâ—reth which T. E. in his Truth Defended printed 1695. p. 167. quotes out of W. Pean's Christian Quaker p. 104. But on the contrary They Invent such Salvâ—'s and strange Fetches to Reconcile their Heresies and Contradictions as T. E. in the Present Case that sinks them Deeper into the Mire is a Plain conviction of their guilt and makes them a Laughing-stock to all Maâ—kind But like a Bird that hides his Head and thinks no body sees him so they while they do not confess against themselves think themselves safe and will perswade many of their Implicit Followers that no body else sees them VIII But enough of this Let us Return to T. E. p. 53. he Defends G. W's Disputation against a Baptist for asserting that there was a Personal Christ now in Heaven at God's Right Hand all which G. W. turns Inward viz. a God's Right Hand WITHIN VS and a Christ WITHIN VS and to understand these as out of his People in a Personal being which are no Scripture terms says he still implies him to be a Personal God or Christ like the Anthropomorphite or Muggletonians conceit of him So that it seems a Personal God or Christ WITHOUT VS is as Ridiculous to G. W. as the Anthropomorphit or Muggletonian conceit of God's having a Body in shape and circumscription like to ours Can we imagine these Men so Ignorant as to know no Difference betwixt Person and Body but to think every Person to be a Body because in common speaking when we say such a Person we mean a Man and this Man has a Body This sure must be the Size of their Philosophy though it is hard to believe it that Men who are Writers and trouble the World with Books should remain in such Childish Ignorance as to think that no Spirit is a Person for which only reason they Deny Personality to God and by this fall into the same Muggletonism with which they charge the Baptist For if God cannot be a Person without having a Body then He must have a Body or have no Existence because every Intelligent Being is a Person that is the Meaning of the word Person Which if the Quakers have not hitherto understood Let them go to School again and Learn to Read before they Write and to Humbly themselves Greatly before God and confess their Fault before Men for Causing so Grievous a Schism in the Church and Branding so many Christians all the World but themselves as Limbs of the Devil and Deserters of the Faith upon a Mistake which Proceeds meerly from their own Ignorance But though God be a Person without a Body yet Christ has now and ever will have a Body an Human Body in His Person even the same Body which he took of the Blessed Virgin in which He Suffer'd Rose from the Dead and Ascended into Heaven And for G. W. to call this the Anthropomorphit or Muggletonian Conceit shews his Utter Ignorance and Blind Heresie for both these give a Body to God i. e. to God the Father to the very Nature of the Deity Which has no Relation to those who acknowledge only the Body of Christ but own no Body of the Father But G. W. puts both in the same Bottom and makes the one as absurd and contradictory as the other to shew how sound and orthodox he is in the Christian Faith And T. E. makes no other Defence for G. W. but his Old False Suppose that this Baptist was an Anthropomorphit Nay p. 53. he finds fault with G. K. for saying that There is no Church of England Man Presbyterian or Baptist that holds that notion That the Godhead has the shape of a Man T. E. tells him that he is too slight a Voucher for all of these Communions Insinuating as if some of them did hold that Notion against his own Heart which knows the contrary All the World knows it That all these Communions do Detest and Abominate any such Notion Nor can I tell him in all Christendom where to find except himself and Partners any Associates for the Muggletonians in this Point but only their Brethren the Bidleite Socinians or Vnitarians for Bidle was a Profess'd Anthropomorphit as he has Publish'd in his Socinian Catechism But T. E. takes great pains to prove that G. W. do's acknowledge in what Sophistical sense he understands and we too now understand them a Body of Christ now in Heaven Let him free himself then upon this Hypothesis from Muggletonism and he will at the same time
Switzerland Piemont Geneva and a few other Hans-Towns in Germany which are all of them in the whole World And their Rise not above 150 Years ago So small a Proportion do these Modern Dissenâ—ers from Episcopacy bear either as to Antiquity or Numbers to the Episcopal Churches of the World without Reckoning those of the Romish Communion who are indeed the greatest opposers of Episcopacy Reducing it 〈◊〉 the See of Rome which onely they term Aposâ—olical But all these and all the other Dissenters above Nam'd together with them will not amount to a Tenth part of the Number of those in the Communion of the above-Nam'd Episcopal Churches none of which ever own'd the Supremacy of Rome except Denmark and Sweden who have with us thrown it off And all these the Church of England do's own as Churches and each of them as Members of the Catholick Church And no one of them do's assume to her self the Title of The Church None but the Church of Rome and the Quakers If any other of our little Dissenters do assume this to themselves we will give them into the Bargain But I believe there is none of them will Pretend to it And now since T. E. does own that a Gathered People and not Particular Persons however Holy is the Common and true Notion of a Church I wou'd Gladly be inform'd where the Quakers do Place the Church before G. Fox Or was there no Church of Christ before Did it quite fail out of the World And were Christ's Promises defeated which said that it shou'd never Fail or the Gates of Hell prevail against it If he says That there were particular Persons in all Ages of their Principles 1. They can shew none such except the vilest Hereticks who were condemn'd by the whole Catholick Church But 2dly This if it could be prov'd would not do their business Because T. E. has here confin'd the Notion of the Church to a gather'd Body of People Then either there was such a Gather'd Body before G. Fox which the Quakers are oblig'd to shew or otherwise there was no Church of Christ before G. Fox or otherwise the Quakers are not The Church now Because they have separated from All other Gather'd Bodies of Christians in the World It is left to the Quakers Choice which of All these Absurdities they will fall under for it is impossible to avoid them All. If they think to Retort which is no Answer That this is like the Question which the Papists do ask at us Where was your Church before LUTHER Ans This is not where THE Church was And if the particular Church of England were lost as the Seven Famous Churches to whom St. John wrote in the Revelations and she has no more Promise than they yet THE Church is not lost of which she is but One Member And All the above-nam'd Episcopal Churches who never submitted to the Pope of Rome are abundantly sufficient to Repel that Frivolous Objection of the Papists as if there had been no Church of Christ before Luther except only the Church of Rome But to the Quakers who make Themselves Only to be THE Church this is an Invincible Argument And they will never be able to struggle from under it And it is to be observ'd how the Papists and the Quakers are alike involved by this Contradictory Pretence of setting up a Particular for the Vniversal Church Christ has promised to his Church That it should never fail or fall from the Faith i. e. He will always preserve such a Church somewhere or other But the Promise is to no Particular Church Now when a Particular Church arrogates to its self the Title of THE Church it is consequential to this That she should set up for Infallibility too VVhich Rome and the Quakers ONLY have done and it obstructs Both in Returning from their Errors who ONLY have assum'd that Presumptuous Title Which whoever does as Gregory the Great said is a Lucifer for Pride and the Fore-runner of Antichrist This the Papists and the Quakers have to divide among themselves And the Contradiction of the Stile Roman-Catholick i. e. Particular-Vniversal is as Applicable to A Quaker Church for THE Church Here by the way let me shew the Extensive Charity of the Church of England and other Episcopal Churches above that of Rome and of these Narrow and up-start Dissenters who wou'd confine the whole Church of God to themselves But as St. Cyprian said of the Bishop of Rome That while he sought to thrust other CHVRCHES from him he onely thrust himself from the CATHOLICK CHVRCH So have these in a much more plain and open manner and with such Absurdity as is Loathsome To hear such an Ignorant wretch as Solomon Eccles a Prophet and great Preacher of the Quakers say the Quakers are in Truth and none but they Which T. E. Repeats p. 212. Being objected by G. Keith and gives no other Answer but I have not seen that Paper that I remember But passes no Censure or Reflection upon it If the Quakers should say That their Charity is as Extensive as that of the Episcopal Churches which extend the Notion of The Church only to themselves And the Quakers do it to themselves Let them consider how far theirs is extended viz. To a few â—n Pensilvania and some other Colonies of the West-Indies which besides the Quakers here at home are all the Gathered Bodys they have to Brag of Except a very Few and Inconsiderable in Holland and much Fewer in one or two places in Germany But 〈◊〉 them all come in they bear not the Proportion of a Mole-Hill to a Mountain to the Episcopal Churches which are all the whole Christian World except a small parcel of Wens or Warts which have lately grown to the Body of the Church in these Western Parts But then again The Charity of the Present Episcopal Churches extends Backwards to all the Ages of the Church ever since Christ For all these have every where and always been Episcopal without one Exception till of very late years and onely in this Corner of the World But the Quaker Charity can extend no farther Backward than G. Fox in the year 1650 but 46 agoe For before that time they cannot pretend to any Gather'd Body of People that ever was in the World of their Principles or Perswasion So that this Comparison lets them see their Diminitive Novelty and ought to turn their Faces from whence they came XI Page 213. There is a dispaâ—e concerning a very offensive Passage in W. P's Rejoinder to J. â—aldo p. 310. Which G. Keith says is Nonsense or Anti-Christian Doctrine as being Intended to take away the Humane Body of Christ For which G. Keith says that W. P's words which follow are given for a Reason Viz. Because that Flesh of Christ is called a Vail but he himself is within the Vail which is the Holy of Holies whereunto Christ Jesus our High Priest hath entered Heb. X. 20 21. I confess
utter Strangers to the true Principles of the Christian Religion so do's it Deserve an Animadversion which I will spare in this place III. T. E. p. 111. puts the Baptist's Objection against G. W. in these words Now the Quakers would be so far from directing Men to go to the Material Temple at Jerusalem that they make it but a vain thing to look to Jerusalem to the Anti-Type of that Temple viz. to Jesus Christ as he was there Crucified or to that Blood that was there shed for Justification Now says T. E. see the Answer which G. W. gives thus The Quakers see no need of Directing men to the Type for the Anti-Type nor yet to Jerusalem either to Jesus Christ or His Blood And where do the Scriptures say the Blood was There shed for Justification T. E. says in Excuse That there is a Typographical Error in this Passage But do's not Infallibility reach to Writing or Printing as well as Speaking It seems the Quaker Infallibility do's not go throughout But what is this Error Why intread of The Quakers see no need of Directing Men to Jerusalem either To Jesus Christ or His Blood it should have been Either says T. E. For Jesus Christ c. i. e. That Men need not go to Jerusalem For to look For the outward Material Blood which was shed There 1600 Years ago Why was that the Baptist's Meaning T. E. dare not say that The most Superstitious that ever went thither in Pilgrimage never thought any thing so absurd as that 2dly What is the Difference betwixt FOR and TO in this Place To send Men to Jerusalem TO look for Jesus Christ or His Blood or FOR to look for them 3dly Was this Typographical Error ever taken Notice of before No not a word of it though it was Printed in the Year 1663. Were there any Errata of the Press Printed Yes a good many at the End of the Book Was not this among them No. Then surely it was either thought not to be an Erratum or not so Material as Trasmutation for Transmutation and several other Literal Erratas which are there carefully Printed And Trumping it up Now shews the weak Efforts of a Dying Cause like a Drowning Man catching at a Straw which yet do's not save him For as before said this Typographical Error supposing it to be one do's no service at all to his Cause but leaves him just where it found him But what says he to that Expression above quoted Where do the Scriptures say the Blood was there shed for Justification This is a Crabbed Place And though T. E. Repeats it again p. 112. Yet he says not one Word in excuse for it But G. W. lets us see his Opinion fully in the same Book here quoted by T. E. viz. The Light and Life of Christ within Printed 1668. p. 51. where he makes a Dialogue betwixt the Baptist he Disputes against and himself Thus. I ask says G. W. who is He that satisfies and appeaseth God Dischargeth the Guilty and Pays the Debt Bapt. It is the Man Christ Jesus G. W. Whence came He Bapt. God gave Him G. W. And what is this Man Christ Jesus who can Satisfie Pacifie an Infinit God Bapt. He is God-Man born of a Virgin G. W. How would this Divide God and set Him at Distance from Himself Is it good Doctrine to say That God Pacified God when He saw Himself angry For says the Baptist It was God Man that did it Which is all one as to say God Corrected Himself and then He was Mediator to Himself c. Thus G. W. Blasphemously with the Socinians and in their very words Ridicules the Satisfaction of Christ and our Justification by it and shews his utter Ignorance of the true Christian Doctrine Which I stay not now to Dispute My Business being only to Detect these Men That they have Grosly Mistaken it But before I proceed I find my self oblig'd to ask T. E's Pardon For that I said just now while I was considering his page 111. That he Durst not say That the Baptist's meaning against whom he Disputes was to send Men now to Jerusalem to look for the Blood of Christ which was shed There 1600 Years ago as if it were now to be found there And indeed I thought so That neither T. E. or any Man whatever Durst have ventur'd upon a Supposition so Monstrously Absurd But to my great surprize I find reading p. 115. That he Positively and without any Haesitation asserts it That the Baptist did Direct People now to go Thither Jerusalem for it the Blood of Christ there shed or Look thither for it as if it were now to be found there These are his Words I will not take up the Reader 's time to vindicate this Baptist W. Burnet whom T. E. thus accuses but Refer to his Book Intituled The Captital Errors of the People called Quakers Printed 1668. In Answer to which G. W. wrote The Light and Life c. above quoted And it will there appear not only that W. Burnet had no such gross conceit but that he Plainly and Fully Expresses himself to the Contrary viz. That it was the Merit of Christ's Blood and Faith in the Redemption thereby wrought that he contended for and not that the Material Blood which was shed at Jerusalem was Now there to be found But the Quakers oppose the Christian Doctrine and when pinched think to Blind the Eyes of the World by Pretending that they only spoke against such Opinions as never were held and which their Opposers Detest as much as they can do But if they Differ not from us now in Doctrine as they of Late would have us believe Why then do they seperate from us Why have they Branded all other Communions but themselves as in the Apostacy as Conjures Devils c. Have they never understood our Doctrine till Now Then Now tho' Latâ— let them Return IV. The next Quotation objected by G. Keith is out of a Letter of one Solomon Eccles A Great Preacher and Prophet of the Quakers where he said That the Blood of Christ is no more than the Blood of another Saint Which T. E. excuses thus p. 117. But that Blood which he said was no more than than Blood of another Saint was the Blood that was forced out of Him Christ by the Souldier after He was Dead This is a Plain Confession instead of a Defence But hear the Reason he gives for it He makes a Difference betwixt the Blood which Christ shed before His Breath went out which he calls a Voluntary offering of Christ Himself because He was then Alive and betwixt the Blood shed after He was Dead which he calls The Forcible Act of a Souldier i. e. not Voluntary in Christ and so of no more Vertue than the Blood of another Saint This is Horrible Did not Christ Voluntarily Deliver up His Body to the Death and His Blood to be Spilt yet these Men would render His Death
Temporal Affairs which at first were very small when they set up their Principle against Swearing But since are grown very Considerable and they have now as large a share of Mammon as most in the Kingdom which is often Risqued by their refusing to Swear in matters of Law And they have hit upon this Medium to Reconcile their Interest and their Consciences together But which has got the better I leave the Reader to Judge However to qualify the latter a little they have since Published a Collection of Testimonies out of the Writings of their Ancient Friends wherein all Contradictions are to be found to justify their present Proceedings which with the opposite Testimonies some whereof are above Recited are Printed by John Pennyman who remain'd a Member of their â—raternity till such Contradictory Practices as these drove him from them VIII Page 209. T. E. excuses W. Pen for saying That to deny the Locality of Heaven and Hell was not very offensive by giving this Definition of Locality viz. Certain particular Places or Parts of the World set out bounded and limited to any certain and determinate Dimensions Well How does this excuse it If this be so then is not Christ's Body in any certain place bounded and limited to any certain and determinate Dimensions i. e. in no place at all for all space is thus determined and limited else it were not space And if Christ's Body be in no Place then has he no Body for every Body must be in some place or other And if this be not offensive then what can be But T. E. says 2dly p. 210. That W. P. only said it was not very offensive Which shews says T. E. that he held it to be offensive and was offended at it Goodly Goodly Very angry he was indeed But why not very offensive Is the taking away any outward that is any Local Heaven or Hell and the Truth of Christ's Human Body but a Little offensiveâ— No. But very Pleasing to the Quaker Light within which wou'd turn all these Inward and make but an Allegory of them And in this case not very offensive means the same as not offensive at all And it is a Common Phrase especially when we wou'd Excuse any thing and to Insinuate our Likeing at least not Dislike of it Particularly where the Case is such that our open and Positive Commendation might be ill taken It is like Sounding the Depth of the Water that we may know how far we can go without danger But if these be such small offences and easily past over I would fain know what those Monstrous things are for which the Church of England and other Professions have been Stigmatiz'd by the Name of Baals Priests Devils Incarnate and such like Appellations with which I will Dâ—rty no more of my Paper Why verily for Preaching up the Locality of Heaven and Hell and of the Body of Christ now Loâ—ally in that Local Heaven And thus Running out from the Quaker Allegorical Doctrine of finding all these within us and no where else This is the Grand Quarrel the Quakers have against us For they can Name none other IX There is another Position which gave very little offence to W. P. as Sorting with a most Blasphemous and Absur'd Notion of the Quakers that the Soul of Man is a Part of God Which is fully prov'd in The Snake in the Grass Part 2. Sect VII Where G. Fox's words are Quoted making our Soul of the same Person and Substance with God without Beginning or Ending and Infinite in it self to be one Soul with God a Part of his Substance Person Essence and Being But this is something Mollified as to the Expression in that which T. E. says p. 210. Was not very offensive to W. P. Viz. Assigning to it the Soul of Man something more of Divinity than the usual opinion doth What was that something And what more of Divinity is it which the Quakers ascribe to the Soul than the usual opinion doth The Divinity is not Divided and therefore if we Truely and Properly partake of any Part of it we partake of it All. Man's Soul was Breathed from God and made a Glorious â—mage of him and Partook of many Excellencies and Endowments which were Communicated to it by God All this The usual opinion doth ascribe to the Soul But what more is it which the Quakers wou'd have Even what I have above told you out of the Founder of their Faith G. Fox And if this had not been Pleasing to W. P. he wou'd not have been a little offended at those General Expressions which lead to this and which do Imply all this He wou'd not have ascribed more of Divinity to the Soul than the usual opinion doth since that more is Rank Blasphemy But this he wrote in his Younger days in the First Flights of his Zeal and New Conversion to Quakerssin when the Fascinations of that Spirit were Fresh and Vigorous But I hope and desire to believe that he will do it no more And that he gives T. E. little thanks for these Lame Defences which he has made for him X. The next thing observable is the Quakers Notion of a Church which T. E. p. 210. Says must not be taken with Respect to Particular Persons the Faithful or Believing but with Respect to a Gathered People which says he is both the Common and True Notion of a Church And in this sense he boldly stands to it that the Quakers are the onely Church of Christ upon the Earth And says p. 211. That this is no Presumption in them to affirm nor ought to be offensive to others to hear since we says he therein Claim no more to our selves than every other Body of Professed Christians claim to themselves Namely that they and they onely as a Gathered People are the true Church of Christ But of all these Bodys of Christians which T. E. Names I know of none with whom the Quakers do joyn in this but onely the Church of Rome For the Church of Rome onely except the Quakers make themselves the Catholick Church excluding all others as a Gathered People who are not of their Communion But the Church of England never yet call'd her self The Catholick Church or excluded others even as a Gathered People from being Members of The Church The most Rigid for Episcopacy allow all Episcopal Churches to be Included within the Denomination of The Church which Appellation none of them Rome onely Excepted do confine to their own Church And â—is brings in the Churches of Denmark Sweden and vast Empire of Russia in Europe the whole Greek Church spread far both in Europe and Asia the Numerous Churches of the Christians in the East-Indies where St. Thomas the Apostle Planted the Christian Faith and they derive themselves from him And the large Region of the Abyssens in Africa All which Churches are and ever have been Episcopal And do far out number all the Anti-Episcopal Communions in Britain Holland
of all the Ease that cou'd be given them and to let them Recover from their Errors with the least Pain But where so Publick a Scandal has been given to the whole Christian World Especially where so many of the Generality of the Quakers do still as above shewn stick in the very Bottom of that Sink of Heresies which they have been Taught and are like so to stick while they see their Leaders go about to Justify to Excuse and Palliate them In this Case there is an absolute necessity for them Plainly and Fully to Retract and Condemn these Heresies And without this there can be no True Repentance without doing all that is in their Power to Draw those out of the Ditch whom they have led into it Were their Repentance sincere it wou'd Provoke not onely a willingness but a great Zeal to do this to save those Souls whom they have misled Without which they can never save their own But so far have they been from doing any thing of this that on the contrary they have in the most Solemn and Publick manner that is Possible for them Riveted and Confirm'd All that they have Taught even from the Begining They have a Yearly General Council every Whitsun-week in London compos'd of Representatives from all the Counties in England and either Deputies or Letters of Consent from all the Bodys of Quakers in the World And every year this Soveraign Authority of the quaker-Quaker-Church do's Issue forth in Print an Yearly Epistle as they call it Directed to All Quakers throughout the World which is their Supream Law and counted Infallible with them I have seen that of this Year 1696. Wherein mention is made of Deputies or Letters sent thither from Barbadoes Maryland West-Jersey Pensilvania Burmudoes Antegua Holland Ireland and Scotland And since so great a Schism was Risen in their Church by the opposition chiefly which G. Keith gave to them by Accusing them of such Gross Heresies as we have heard it wou'd be Expected That this their General Council shou'd give an ultimate Decision in this Controversy which they have done in Terms as full as they cou'd in Prudence use while the Contest was so Publick But it is plain enough to be understood by all those for whom it is â—ntended The Quakers are therein Requir'd to Hold up the Holy Testimony of Truth which hath made us say they a People to God and Preserved us so unto this Day and that in all the Parts of it For Truth is one and Changes not And what it convinced us of to be Evil in the Beginning it Reproves still These are the words of their Decree And by this we are as Evil in their opinion as ever we were And the Clergy of the Church of England are still That Abominable Tribe Baal's Priests Wolves Dogs Bears Devils-Incarnate c. But what they think of us is not so Material But by this they are all as bad who place their Faith in the outward Jesus For it is onely for this that the Quakers have so Condemned us It is for this that they say the Devil is in us All. As G. Fox said to Chr. Wade Great mistery p. 250. The Devil was in thee thou say'st thou art saved by Christ without thee and so hast Recorded thy self to be a Reprobate But we have seen enough of this before And this which the Quakers call Truth is not onely to be kept in the main the great Branches of their Doctrine but In all the Parts of it Every Tittle of all of what we have already seen For Truth is one and Changes not i. e. The Quakers have not Changed in any thing from that Truth which they Taught at First Infallibility must not give way no not in a Circumstance 2. But I have a Question to ask which I know the sincerity of the Friends will not Refuse to Answer Whether among the Quaker-Bishops who compos'd this their Last General Council there was not one George Archer by Name a great Preacher in or about Wiltshire Who this last year having out of Pure Zeal to Propagate the Truth gotten a Woman with Child to cover the Scandal perswaded an Old Man to Marry her and himself Performing the Priest's Office Preach'd at the Espousals much in Commendation of the Bride But she not staying the Formality of nine Months after her Marryage and Teeming sooner the Old Man complain'd to this Archer who being assur'd of the Firmness of the wench and to Remove all suspicion of himself Pray'd that she might not be deliver'd of her Pains till she discover'd the true Father Which beyond his Expectation she did and put the Saddle upon the Right Horse And the Knaves of that Countrey getting this by the end forc'd him to shift â—is Quarters And he came up to London to whom the other Quakers gave the Right hand of Fellowship And there he Preached and exercis'd his Talent with great Approbation Till Failing in a Worldly as well as a Carnal sense he was put in Prison for Debt since the last Yearly Meeting Wherein whether he did not Assist as one of the Infallible the Infallible Friends will let us know But if he be not Fail'd in another sense a Prison will no more cool his Courage than it did Christopher Atkinson's another Preacher Prophet and great Author of the Quakers who wrote The Sword of thâ— Lord Drawn to cut down Churches Kingdoms and Nations yet Lightned his Heart with Thomas Symonds his Maid in Norwich Goal 1655. And none of the Infallible cou'd find it out till himself confess'd it You may see that sad story at Large in The Snake in the Grass Par. 2. p. 89. c. Yet none of these things nor Henry Winder's Quaker-witches nor 1000 other Instances can be given does abate any thing of the Quakers Pretence to an Infallible discerning Spirit to Judge all Persons and all things as well as Magistrates Kingdoms and Churches which G. Fox Positively asserts in his Great Myst p. 5.96 c. And says p. 89. That they can discern who are Saints who are Devils and who Apostates without speaking ever a word And Edw. Burrough in his Epistle Prefixed p. 7. Extends this to all and every of the Quakers To us says he every one of us in Particular And this Light gave us to discern between Truth and Error between every False and Right way And it Perfectly discover'd to us the true State of ALL THINGS And whoever wanted this Infallibility of Discerning the Quakers counted them False-Ministers Conjurers Witches Devils c This was their great Charge against the Church of England and others That because they did not Pretend to this Infallibility of Discerning therefore they were False Churches c. As Fox in his Great Mistery p. 94.107 c. And all this In all the Parts of it this last Yearly Meeting has Confirmed 3. But they support this not onely in words they take care to have their youth fully Tinctur'd with the same
a Punctilio of Church-Discipline in submitting to the Jurisdictions of the Womens Meetings and other Instances of G. Fox's Authority and their now Ruling Elders But as to matters of Faith they are perfectly one And as to all and every one of the Points which we have discussed For which Reason G. Keith has left Harp-Lane as well as Grace-Church-street And those of Harp-Lane are as violent opposers of him and the Christian Doctrine which he teaches as the Quakers of Grace-Church-street Therefore as to matters of Faith which we are now upon Thom. Curtis and all those of Harp-Lane who joyn with him are as Proper Instances as if they had been all Pick'd out of Grace-Church-street Answ 3. If this be not True let Grace-Church-street Disown Harp-Lane as not holding the same Faith with them or for any thing else but their Breach of Vnion for the causes before told But there is nothing else so much as Pretended betwixt them They differ but as the Dominicans and Franciscans in the Church of Rome all one in the Faith onely some disputes about their Orders VII And this Division of the Quakers concerning their Church Authority tho it be not of so great Consequence as the Fundamentals of Faith which we have debated Yet it Involves them in as great Absurdities and Contradictions as the other Their Original Pretence was the Sufficiency and Independency of the Light within every Particular Person as has been said against all Impositions or Restrictions whatever from any outward Authority Which made W. Pen in his Address to Protestants p. 152. 2d Edit Interpret that Text Math. XVIII 17. Tell it unto the Church to Relate onely to Private Injuries 'twixt Man and Man and not at all to matters of Faith This was when that Text was urg'd against the Quakers in General for their Defection from the Church But in his Book call'd Judas and the Jews which he wrote against the separate Quakers there p. 13. He brings this same Text full against them and Argues from thence That if in Case of Private offences betwixt Brethren the Church is made Absolute Judge from whom there is no Appeal in this World how much more in any the least Case that concerns the Nature Being Faith and Worship of the Church her self T. E. Endeavours to solve this Contradiction p. 218 of his Answer It having been objected by G. Keith in his Narrative He wou'd put it off thus That in Judas and the Jews W. P. onely meant to give the Church Power to Try and Reject Spirits And that in his Address to Protestants he onely deny'd Power to the Church to Define and Impose upon all People under Temporal and Eternal Punishment Articles of Faith c. And this he says is no Contradiction But W. P. in his Judas c. Makes the Church ABSOLVTE JVDGE from whom there is no Appeal in this World of matters of FAITH as well as others And what does this differ from all those Big words which T. E. brings together to Frighten us and Divert the Question For an Absolute Judge from whom there is no Appeal may Define Impose upon all People c. And if his Power reaches to matters of Faith as Mr. Pen says the Power of the Church doeâ— then if matters of Faith do Reach to Temporal and Eternal Punishment the Power of such Absolute Judge must Reach to those Cases Likewise And to make the Church such an Absolute Judge by vertue of that Text Math. XVIII 17. As Mr. Pen in his Judas c. And yet to say as he does in his Address c. That this Text gives no Power at all to the Church in matters of Faith but that it Relates onely to Private Injuries is full as great a Contradiction as before T. E. meddl'd with the Defence of it But having had occasion to consider this Passage of Mr. Penn's more fully in my Discourse Proving the Divine Institution of Water-Baptism Sect. X. Num. V. p. 42. I will Insist no further upon it in this Place And tell the Reader the Good News That I have done Oct. 26. 1696. FINIS