Proofs out of the Quakers Books, on the firſt Head, concerning their Infallibility.

1. GEORGE Fox, Great Myſtery, pag. 105. For who witneſs theſe Conditions that they were in, that gave forth the Scriptures? They witneſs Infallibility, an infallible Spirit, which is now poſſeſſed and witneſſed among thoſe called Quakers. Glory to the Higheſt for ever

Again, a little after, So Iſay, the Devil, falſe Prophets, Antichriſts, Deceivers, Beaſt, Mother of Harlots; none of theſe can witneſs an infallible Spirit. But being out of the Spirit, that Chriſt, the Prophets and Apoſtles was in, that gave forth Scriptures, they are not infallible as they were, but with that they are all judged out.

II. Great Myſtery, pag. 98. And thou and you all that ſpeak and write, and not from God immediately and infallibly, as the Apoſtles did, and Prophets, and Chriſt; but only have gotten the Words; you are all under the Curſe in another Spirit ravenned from the Spirit that was in the Apoſtles. Saul's Errand to Damaſcus, pag. 7. They are Conjurers and Diviners, and their Teaching is from Conjuration, which is not ſpoken from the Mouth of the Lord, and the Lord is againſt all ſuch, and who are of God are againſt all ſuch.

Truth defended, by G. F. and Rich. Hubb, p. 104. Our giving forth Papers or printed Books, it is from the immediate eternal Spirit of God, to the ſhewing forth the filthy Practices of the World's Teachers, &c.

George Whitehead, Voice of Wiſdom, pag 33. his Opponent, Th. Danſon, having ſaid, As for our Want of Infallibility, 'tis no valid Plea againſt our Miniſtry. G.W. anſwers, His Falſhood here appears plainly, for they that want Infallibility, and have not the Spirit of Chriſt, they are out of the Truth, and are fallible, and their miniſtry is not of the Spirit, ſeeing they ſpeak not from the Spirit, but from their own Hearts, which are deceitful, where they want Infallibility, ſo out of the Abundance of the Heart, the Mouth ſpeaketh.

Note, Joſ. Wyeth, in his Switch for the Snake, p. 87. ſtates the Queſtion concerning their Infallibility, fallaciouſly in three ſeveral Particulars.

1. That the holy Spirit of God is infallible, &c. This is no Part of the Controverſie.

2. That the holy Spirit leads all ſuch who obey him, infallibly into all Truth neceſſary to Salvation: This is wrongly ſtated, the true State of the Queſtion being, Whether the Holy Spirit leads us into all Truth neceſſary to Salvation, without the external Doctrine, externally delivered in the holy Scriptures, by preaching and reading, and without all external means? This they affirm, as ſhall hereafter be proved; but this all ſound Chriſtians deny, who yet grant, that all the Faithful are infallibly led into all Truth neceſſary to Salvation, by the infallible Spirit, in the Uſe of the holy Scriptures, which contain the infallible Truths of the Goſpel.

3. That the Miniſters who are ſent forth in the Work of the Miniſtry, have, or may have (if they diligently attend to the Voice of the infallible Spirit ſpeaking in them) a certain infallible Knowledge and Aſſurance of the Truth of what they ſo deliver. This alſo is wrongly ſtated, the true State is not what they have or may have, but what they really have in all they preach and write, as is clear from the above given Quotations of G. F. and G. W. their great Leaders. To ſay, they may have, implies that they may not have, and in that caſe they are fallible, and ſo by their own Verdict, are under the Curſe, Conjurers, Deceivers.

Note, that their great Teachers and Leaders, G. F. and G. W. have taught, that the infallible teaching of the Spirit, is not by the medium or external Means of the Scriptures, and that Faith is not given by the external Word, doth appear from their Books.

1. G.F. Gr. Myſt. pag. 350. Ye tell People of an outward ordinary means by which Christ communicates the Benefit of Redemption. The means of Salvation is not ordinary nor outward, but Chriſt is the Salvation, who is eternal.

2. Gr. M. p. 133. His Opponent, T. Moor, having ſaid, The Scripture is the abſolute Rule and Medium of our Faith. In pag. 134. he anſwereth, The Scriptures is not the Author, nor the Means of it, nor the Rule, but Chriſt who gives it, and he encreaſeth it.

3. Gr. Myſt. pag. 243. And the things of the Goſpel, and of the Spirit are not attained by an external means.

4. Gr. Myſt. pag. 320. His Opponents having ſaid, God works Faith in us inwardly by his Spirit, and outwardly by his Word. He anſwers, Here thou goest about to make the Spirit and the Word not one; is not the Word Spiritual, and Chriſt called the Word?

Gr. Myſt. p. 168. Them that never heard the Scripture outwardly, the Light that every Man hath that cometh into the World, being turned to it, with that they will ſee Chriſt, with that they will know Scripture, with that they will be led out of all Deluſion, come into Covenant with God, with which they will come to worſhip God in the Spirit, and ſerve him.

Note, the Quakers that ſay, they are turned to the Light, yet are not led out of all Deluſion, but many of them are under great Deluſions and Error, concerning the great Truths of the Goſpel, as doth evidently appear by theſe and the following Quotations.

A Quotation being brought out of Gr. Myſt. in the Snake of the Graſs; G. Myſt. p. 213. Switch. pag. 79. Thou caſt not know the Scriptures, but by the ſame Degree of the Spirit that the Prophets and Apoſtles had. Joſ. Wyeth ſaith, in his Switch, By the Error of the Preſs, the Word ALL is left out: For which he quotes Gr. Myſt. pag. 212.

In anſwer to this, hear what G. F. ſaith in Gr. M. pag. 120. And he that hath found the true Record, the Spirit of God; with that he ſhall know ALL the Scriptures, and is come within the Book where all things are written, and which writes all things forth, the Spirit.

Note, G. F. no doubt, and G. W. did think they had found the true Record, the Spirit, &c. and therefore they knew ALL Scripture, and had the ſame Degree that the Prophets and Apoſtles had. G. F. G. M. p. 222. The Light, &c. is the Subſtance of all Scriptures, opens all Scriptures, and that all Scriptures ends in: Lets ſee all Scripture.

But that the Quotation of the Switch, G. M. p. 212. is lamely made, the following Words prove, that ſome of the Quakers at leaſt did underſtand (as they thought) ALL Scripture. The Paſſage is this; But they cannot know all Scriptures, but as they vttain to the full Meaſure of the Spirit of the Prophets and Apoſtles, and to the Meaſure and Stature, and Fullneſs of Chriſt: And if they do not attain to all this, they are not able to know all the Scriptures, and the Work of the Miniſters of God, was to bring People to this, to the Meaſure, and Stature, and Fullneſs of Christ.

Note, that they thought their Miniſtry had brought ſome of the Quakers to this; we ſhall ſee hereafter, and no doubt they judged they were come to it, viz. G. F. and G. W, Gr. M. p. 47. The Light which every one hath that cometh into the World, is ſufficient to Salvation without the Help of any other Means or Diſcovery.

But which is much more than that of Degrees! G. F. tells of them that were come to that, which is above Degrees.

Gr. Myſt. pag. 281. And the Blood of the Seed it cleanſeth from Sin, the Power and Stain of it; and then the Guilt is gone of it, and where this is known, the Seed that deſtroys Death; and him that hath the Power of it, which is the Devil; the Fullneſs is known, which is above Degrees, that which Degrees ends in.

Again, G. Myſt. pag. 318. For who comes to the Spirit, and to Chriſt, comes to that which is perfect, who comes to the Kingdom of Heaven in them, comes to be perfect, yea, to a perfect Man, and that is above any Degree.

Note, by this it appears, G. F. thought himſelf, and ſome others of the Quakers, come above any Degree, and that is beyond and above the Apoſtles themſelves, who were but in the Degrees, but they were come to the Fulneſs it ſelf, that is, to be equal with Chriſt himſelf.

But let us next hear G. Whitehead's Excuſe of G, F's Saying, None can underſtand Scripture, but by the ſame Degree of the Spirit the Prophets and Apoſtles had.

In his late Book, called Truth and Innocency, pag. 19. But if any true Knowledge of the Scripture be received, that must be by a Degree of the ſame Spirit, as I ſuppoſe, the Words before-cited ſhould be ſo tranſpoſed, and ſo intended.

Note, If this Liberty be allowed, to tranſpoſe Words in a Sentence, the falſeſt Aſſertions may be made true, and the trueſt made falſe, as Acts 12. It's ſaid, Herod killed James, by tranſpoſing James killed Herod. Is not this a rare Evidence of G. W's Truth and Innocency, or rather of his ſhameful Sophiſtry: But whereas he ſaith, the Words were ſo intended, the above Quotations prove that G. F's Intention was, that ſome of the Quakers, and to be ſure HE for one, were come to the ſame Degree; yea, which is more, to the Fullneſs, and that is above any Degree.

But it's no wonder G. F. thought he was come to ſuch Height of Perfection, when he ſaid in his Battle-door, All Languages are to me no more than Dust, who was before Languages were: This Paſſage Joſ. Wyeth quotes lamely, Switch, pag. 149. leaving out the Words, which were chiefly offenſive, who was before Languages were. What ſaith Joſ. Wyeth to this?Snake, pag. 85. And why did he not fully quote it, as it was objected in the Snake? It ſeems he found Difficulty to give a plain Anſwer to it, therefore made a lame Quotation. The like, or rather more blaſphemous Aſſertion is in a Book of J. Parnel, called, The Watcher, p. 37. But to the end of all Diſputes and Arguments, I am come; for before they was, I am, and in the Light do them comprehend, and judge to be out of the Light in Babylon, &c.

But here again let us note, that the Author of the Switch acts the dull Sophiſter very manifeſtly,Switch. p. 453, 465. when on the one hand he ſeems to be highly pleaſed with the Doctrine of the Church of England, in the Point of Inſpiration, and ſaith, He is glad that ſo eſſential a Truth, as is the Inſpiration of the holy Spirit, is owned by her: And on the other hand, for blaming the Author of the Snake, for his contradicting himſelf, by his approving the Inſpirations owned by the Church of England, and yet faulting the Quakers Pretences to, Inſpirations. The Author of the Snake had ſufficiently cleared this, in his Book called the Snake, &c. pag. 322. what ſort of Inſpiration the Church of England owned, which is that of ſanctifying and ſaving Graces; but for the extraordinary and miraculous Inſpirations of Prophecy and Tongues, ſhe doth not pretend to, nor teach, that they are commonly given, or that they are to be ſought, there being no need of them.

The manner of prophetical Inſpirations, which the Prophets and Apoſtles had, was ſuch as they had given them by the Spirit, without all outward teaching of Men or Books; and beſide this, they had the ordinary Inſpirations of the Spirit (given in the uſe of the external means in God's ordinary way) to wit, the ſanctifying and ſaving Graces of the Spirit inſpired into them. Here is a plain Difference betwixt the Inſpirations which the Quakers pretend to, given them without the external means of hearing, reading, &c. and the Inſpirations given in the uſe of the ordinary means of the written Word, both preached and read, that the Church of England lays claim unto, which makes the Sophiſtry of the Author of the Switch very manifeſt, and alſo his great Injuſtice to the Author of the Snake, ſo to charge him without ground.

But let us hear what great matters the Author of the Switch pretends, that the Inſpirations of the Light within, Switch, pag. 38. will teach them who attend upon it: It will (ſaith he) fully teach them their Duty to God, and enable them to perform it: It will diſcover to them a Syſtem of Principles truly Orthodox, with more Certainty than Counſel or Synod can, not taught by it; for be is indeed a wonderful Counſeller. It will first, fully and truly (beyond any Caſuiſt) ſhew unto Man what is his Sin, and if Man deſpile not this Diſcovery, but cloſe with it, it will beget in him a Loathing of his Sin, and then proceed to work in him a Repentance from dead Works, which if unfeigned, you ſee he is very cautious [but why If unfeigned? Can the Light within work any other Repentance but that which is unfeigned?] It will go on to ſanctifie him; and when Man, by this Light, Spirit, or Grace, is ſanctified; it will then witneſs to his Spirit that he is juſtified; ſo will Man come truly to be redeemed. This (he ſaith) in ſhort, is the Subſtance of what hath been by us declared, concerning this Divine Light, Christ in Man, and which is not more than is witneſſed of it in the Holy Scriptures.

Note, By this plain Confeſſion, we ſee what ſort of Syſtem of Divinity the Inſpiration the Quakers plead for, doth, or will give them who attend upon it; to wit, a-Scheme of Deism, or refined Paganiſm. In all this Subſtance of his whole Syſtem, not one word of Faith in Chriſt, as he outwardly dyed for our Sins; his being the great Sacrifice for the Remiſſion of our Sins, by Faith in his Blood outwardly, ſhed. But the Inſpirations of the holy Prophets and Apoſtles taught them this Faith, and the neceſſity of it, as well as of Repentance for the Remiſſion of Sins: And ſeeing the Quakers Inſpiration teacheth them nothing of ſuch a Faith, and the neceſſity of it, it is a plain caſe tho the Quakers pretend to the ſame Inſpirations that the Prophets and Apoſtles had; yet they have them not, nay, nor the ordinary Inſpirations that common true Believers have, in and by the means of the external Doctrine contained in the holy Scriptures, that lead them to regard Chriſt outwardly, as he was crucified and raiſed again, and is at the Right Hand of God, in our Nature, as the great Object of their Faith: But this the Inſpirations of the chief Teachers of the Quakers have led them not to regard.

In the whole Syſtem of his Orthodox Principles, the Subſtance whereof he tells us he has given; there is not one intire Article of the Creed, commonly called the Apoſtles Creed, mentioned; nay, nor ſo much as implyed. And indeed, he cannot (nor any of his Brethren) by any real Evidence, convince any Man. that their Inſpirations have taught them ſo much as one intire Article of that Creed, in the true Senſe, generally received by true Chriſtians; and according to their Principles, they muſt not ſay, that the Spirit has given or wrought the Faith of the Articles of the Creed in them, by the medium or means of the outward Word; for that is contrary to G. Fox's Doctrine above delivered, and as expreſly contrary to the Doctrine of G. Whitehead, in his Brief Diſcovery of the dangerous Principles of John Horne, G. W's. brief Diſcovery, p. 18. pag. 18. who blames J. Horne and T. Moor for having affirmed, that the Scriptures are the medium of Faith, [i. e. the means by which Faith is wrought in Believers.] There is no ſuch Scripture (ſaith G.W.) as ſaith, the Scriptures are the Medium of Faith.

Note, ſeeing the Quakers have not the Faith of Chriſt, as he was outwardly crucified, and died for our Sins, and roſe again; neither by the Light within them, nor by the medium of the Scriptures, as the Inſtrument of the holy Spirit, as other true Chriſtians have it; it is a plain caſe, they have no Faith of it at all, other than a meer hiſtorical Faith, as they have of any common Hiſtory; and indeed many of them have not that.

G. Whitehead, in his Quakers Plainneſs, p. 70. brings a quibbling Diſtinction betwixt a means and the means, he grants, The Bible may be a means inſtrumentally, as God beſtows a Bleſſing upon, or accompanies the ſerious reading thereof, as it directs to Chriſt Jeſus, or to his Light and Spirit, which openeth the Vnderſtanding in the holy Scriptures. And a little before he ſaith, Mark the Difference betwixt a means and the means, as between the Bible and Chriſt; that may be a means which is not the means, Chriſt being the abſolute way and means, by way of Eminency for Man to come to know God.

But to ſhew the Fallacy of this Quibble: By the means are generally underſtood the inſtrumental and ſubordinate Cauſes, to the principal Agent and Efficient, which ought not to be confounded. Chriſt is the Author, and principal Efficient of our Knowledge of God; and the Bible, i.e. the divine Oracles and Teſtimonies contained therein, are the means, and to ſay the means, or a means, is equivalent among all that know true Engliſh; as when we ſay, Food and Raiment are the means to preſerve our natural Life, or a means, the Senſe is the ſame.

But it is proved already out of G. F's Gr. Myſt. p. 243. that G. F. denyed that the things of the Goſpel, and of the Spirit, are attained by an external means; will G. W's Diſtinction here ſerve him? Will he again diſtinguiſh betwixt a means and an external means?

But let us apply this ſubtile Diſtinction of G.W. to the Words of G. F. in Saul's Errand, p. 6. who being charged that he ſaid, He was the eternal Judge of the World, he confeſſeth it, and brings ſeveral Proofs, as he thinks, to prove it, as that the ſpiritual Man judgeth all things, and the Saints ſhall judge the World: Now, ſeeing G. W. will needs have a Diſtinction betwixt a means and the means, why not alſo betwixt a Judge of the World, and the Judge, yea, the eternal Judge of the World, as he profeſſeth himſelf to be? It was not enough that G. F. ſhould be a Judge of the World, but the Judge, yea, the eternal Judge of the World; and by G. W's Logick, G. F. was not a Judge, but the Judge, by way of Eminency; yea, the eternal Judge of the World, But G. F. after his manner of frequently corrupting the Words of Scripture, as well as his Opponents Words, doth corruptly and falſly argue from that Scripture, 1 Cor. 6. 2. Do ye not know that the Saints ſhall judge the World: Note, the Words, ſhall judge, in the future, which G. F. corruptly applyeth to himſelf, in the preſent, or preterit. Tenſe, that he was or is the Judge, yea, the eternal Judge of the World.

Laſtly, To come yet more cloſely to G. W. himſelf, I will ſhew you how he denyeth the Scriptures to be a means for the Converſion of Jews and Heathens to the true Faith; in Truth defending the Quakers, by G. W. qu. 35. pag. 51. And what is that the Goſpel muſt be preached to, in the Heathens that will receive it? And whether they that preach to Turks and Heathens, ought to preach out of a Text, and prove their Doctrine by Scripture to them, as the Prieſts do in England, yea or nay?

Note, By this Query, he not only excludes the Scripture from being the means, but a means for converting Turks and Heathens; nor will his common Excuſe of ſaying it was but a Query, help him: This ſort of querying being the ſtrongeſt way of denying or affirming, both in Scripture and all other Writings.

Next let us hear W. Penn's Confeſſion concerning means, in his Key, printed, 1699. p. 12. perverſ. 8. The Quakers aſſert the Spirit of God to be the immediate Teacher, and that there is no other means now to be uſed, as Miniſtry, Ordinances, &c. He anſwereth, They never ſpake ſuch Language...for they never denied the uſe of means, but to this Day, from the Beginning, they have been in the uſe of them; but then they are ſuch means as are uſed in the Life and Power of God.

Note with what preſumptuous Confidence, W. P. dareth to ſay, they never ſpake ſuch Language, when G. F. their great Apoſtle, had plainly ſaid, as above-quoted, that the things of the Goſpel are not attained by AN external means: That they have been all along in the uſe of ſome means, as preaching, writing, and reading, is but to ſay, their Practice contradicts their Principles, which is very common to them: But to cover their Error, their way is to miſtate the Queſtion, as W. P. doth here, which is not whether outward means can truly profit, without the inward Aid and Aſſiſtance of the Spirit; for this is generally granted that they cannot, which is equivalent to his Phraſe, that the means then only profit when uſed in the Life and Power of God: And in very deed, their holding the Light within every Man ſufficient to Salvation, without any thing elſe, as they do commonly teach, deſtroyeth all neceſſary uſe of outward means; as who ſhould ſay, a Man has that within him, that is ſufficient to carry him to America without any thing elſe, as Boat or Ship, ſhould be underſtood to ſay, he can walk on the Sea, or flie in the Air to that remote Place.

The next thing in reference to their Infallibility, is their Pretence to the infallible diſcerning of Mens Hearts, without reſpect to their Works, good or bad. This is differently ſtated by them, and wherein we ſhall find a real Contradiction among them.

G. F. in his Gr. Myſt, pag. 89. had ſaid, Here thou haſt ſhewed, that the Quakers have a Spirit given to them, beyond all the Forefathers (which we do witneſs) ſince the Days of the Apoſtles in the Apoſtacy; and they can diſcern who are Saints, who are Devils, and who are Apoſtates, without ſpeaking ever a VVord, they that be in the Power and the Life of Truth.

This diſcerning of Mens Hearts, G. VVhitehead had formerly placed upon outward Signs in the Countenances of wicked Men or Women, which he ſtill juſtifieth in his Antitode. pag. 69.—Proud and haughty Looks, wanton and ſcornful Eyes, envious and fallen Countenances are rendred in Scripture, as outward Signs or Marks of ſuch wicked Hearts, which alſo the Gift of diſcerning perceiveth, and gives to ſee many times through ſuch outward mediums.

Note, G. VV. here layeth a great Streſs upon outward Signs in the Countenance, which he owneth to be outward mediums, through which the Spirit of diſcerning perceiveth, and giveth to ſee Mens Hearts, but yet he will not allow the Scriptures to be the medium of Faith, ſo preferreth outward Signs in the Countenance to the Scriptures, but then he much throweth down this ſort of diſcerning by Mens Countenances, by ſaying many times, for this leaveth their diſcerning to be many times fallible; and though the Scripture, and common Experience proveth, that the Countenances of ſome, openly vicious, and extreamly wicked, are Signs of their wicked Hearts, yet the Scripture giveth no univerſal Rule in the Caſe, but giveth us the Command of Chriſt,Iſaiah 11. 3. John 7. 24. Judge not according to Appearance, but judge righteous Judgment; and it was ſaid of Chriſt, He ſhall not judge after the Sight of his Eyes, nor reprove after the hearing of his Ears. But G. VV. will not take Chriſt in the caſe for his Example; but he pleads further, That the Gift of diſcerning of Spirits is given to ſome Members eſpecially (and ſtill is continued) in the true Church, and from which diſcerning, Satan cannot be hid, however he transforms himſelf. Here is another minching of their Infallibility of diſcerning, that it's given to ſome Members eſpecially, but he doth not allow it to all Members; however he ſeems to plead for all the Miniſters having it,Truth and Inn. p. 12. for he makes it an Evidence of great Darkneſs in his Opponents, to hold, that a Miniſter that is fallible is in the Spirit, a Miniſter of Chriſt, and yet cannot diſcern another Man's State or Condition, ſo as to give an infallible Character of him: And he contends ſo earneſtly for this infallible diſcerning in the Church, that he ſaith, If there muſt be no diſcerning of Spirits. no infallible or certain Character to be given of other Men's States or Conditions, by an inward Senſe or diſcerning of Spirits; then Chriſt's Sheep may follow Strangers, VVolves, Dogs, &c. and ſo be devoured, contrary to his own Doctrine, and below the Senſe and Inſtinct of the very Sheep, which leads them to ſhun Dogs and VVolves, when they make at them, whether they bark or howl, or be mute.

Note, By this manner of G.VV's arguing, not only the Teachers, but all and every one of the People, if they be Sheep, muſt have this infallible diſcerning, whereas he pleads for the Miniſters having it, or ſome Members; ſo it ſeems the People muſt rely on the Miniſters diſcerning by an implicit Faith, or if not, be in danger of periſhing: But in plain Contradiction to this Doctrine of G.VV. who pleads for the infallible diſcerning of Men's Hearts, to every Miniſter; let us hear Joſ. VVyeth, who ſaith, Switch, p. 95. But though this holy Spirit can diſcover unto one, the Heart and Thoughts of another, as of Ananias to Peter, Acts 5. yet as that is not uſual, ſo neither is it neceſſary, nor is it that which we pretend to; nor hath G.F. in the fore-quoted Places, pretended to it, referring to the above-quoted Paſſage, where he makes this Obſervation, Switch, p. 90.—VVhich does very plainly ſhew, that G. F. did not attribute this Knowledge or Diſcerning to the Quakers or any Man, but to the Power and Life of Truth, where it is manifeſted. This Gloſs, as it is directly contradictory to G. Fox's Words, which ſay, They, i.e. the Quakers that be in the Power and Life of Truth can diſcern; ſo to the Words of G. W. who doth affirm, That ſome of the Members eſpecially have it.

But both G. F. and G. VV. hath carried this diſcerning farther than by the outward medium of Men's Looks and Glances, ſo that they can know the inward States of their Hearers, without looking to their Faces, yea, though their Backs be toward them; and not only what they are at preſent, but what they have been, and ſhall be from Eternity to Eternity. For Proof of this,

G. F. Gr. M. quotes his Opponents,G. M. p. 229. ſaying, VVill a diſcerning of the Goſpel Myſteries prove a Power to diſcern the State and Condition of Souls, what it ſhall be to all Eternity. And after ſome Words he anſwers; And ſo who are come into the Biſhop Christ, they are one Soul, they know the Hand of God, which the Soul lives in, which is the Power, and ſo knows it from Eternity to Eternity: And ſo ye Prieſts which do not diſcern the Soul and its State, to Eternity and from Eternity; ye are not in the Myſtery of the Goſpel, which gives Liberty to it, neither have ye it—And you five Prieſts have ſhamed your ſelves that do not know the Soul from Eternity to Eternity; and on this horrid Preſumption, that they knew the State of Men's Souls from Eternity to Eternity. Rich. Hubberth paſſes this ſevere Sentence on his Opponent, Truth's def. pag. 92. Thou art ordained of old for Condemnation, and for Perdition among the ungodly ones, and art a Reprobate. And p. 93. So here thou art curſed, and caſt out eternally. Note, this was only for his asking What is original Sin? And here he ſpeaks of the ſeveral States of the Soul, as when the Soul is in Death, and when it liveth, and God hath Pleaſure in it: By which Soul, he muſt needs underſtand the Soul of Man, for of the Souls of Men his Opponents did ſpeak.

Next G. VV. in his Truth defending the Quakers, hath gone as far as G. F. with reſpect to his Infallibility in knowing Men's Hearts.

The Queſtion being put to him in Truth def. p. 24. qu. 54. Do not you, G. W. blaſphemouſly take to your ſelf an Attribute of God, while you pretend ordinarily to know the Hearts of Men. And tell Mr. Townſend of Norwich, in the ſecond Page of your Iſhmael, That the Light of God is departed from his Conſcience. He anſwers, I take no Attribute of God to my ſelf, but what God hath given me, by whoſe Gift I witneſs that Promiſe fulfilled in me: ye ſhall diſcern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that ſerveth God, and him that ſerveth him not, Mal. 3. 18.

This arrogant aſſuming of one of God's Attributes, of knowing Men's Hearts, being objected againſt him lately, in a printed Sheet, called, An Account from Colcheſter, &c. In another late printed Paper, ſigned by ſeven Quakers at Colcheſter, called, Some Account from Colcheſter, they expoſtulate the Caſe with them who made the Objection: Is it ſuch an Error to believe or witneſs the fulfilling of this plain Promiſe, Mal. 3. 18. How do you then believe in Chriſt, in whom all the Promiſes of God are yea and amen? Is the contrary good Doctrine for you (our Acculers) to hold, that ye or Chriſtians ſhall not return, nor diſcern between the righteous and the wicked? &c. Do you not thereby prove your ſelves blind, and in Vnbelief?

Note, This in Mal. 3. 18. or any other Place of Scripture proves not that any Men ſhall have one of God's Attributes given them to know Men's Hearts; which is no where promiſed, but Chriſt hath taught us to know Men by their Works and Fruits, and not by his giving them one of God's Attributes whereby to know Men's Hearts; for if they had that, they ſhould be as God himſelf, to know without regard to the Fruits: But that Place, Mal. 3. 18. ſeems to have a plain Reference to the Day of Judgment, wherein the Works of all Men, however ſecret, ſhall be made manifeſt, and yet not by Men's having one of God's Attributes given them even then. And as to G.VV's Argument for the neceſſity of this infallible diſcerning given to Miniſters, otherwiſe Chriſt's Sheep may follow Strangers and be deſtroyed: This Conſequence doth not follow; for while they follow the Voice of Chriſt, that is, his Doctrine outwardly deLivered in the holy Scriptures, and inwardly ſet home and applied to their Hearts by the holy Spirit, they are ſafe; and when they follow not that, but Men of falſe Pretences, who bring a contrary Doctrine, and yet ſay, they have the infallible Spirit, as the Followers of G.VV. and his Brethren do; they are in great Danger of periſhing, and though the true Sheep of Chriſt ſhall not finally be deceived, nor finally periſh, yet they at times may be deceived, and have been deceived by falſe Teachers, and by none more than ſuch falſe Teachers, who falſly pretend to the Spirit of Chriſt, and yet preach contrary to his Doctrine.

But that the Quakers did not only pretend to extraordinary Inſpirations of the Spirit, but to miraculous Operations I ſhall ſhew you out of G. F's G. M. p. 254. Some of them having asked the Queſtion, VVhether your Baptizers cast out Devils, and drink any deadly thing, and it not hurt you? And whether the Houſe where you meet was ever ſhaken? And where he did give the Holy Ghost to you? The Opponent calls this an unlearned Queſtion, to which G. F. replies, This is to ſhew that you are not Believers, nor in the Power that the Apoſtles was in.

Note, By this it appears they lay claim to the ſame Power of working Miracles that the Apoſtles had, as to drink any deadly thing, and it not to hurt them, and that the Houſe where they meet was ſhaken: I have both heard and ſeen, that ſome of the Quakers Bodies were ſhaken in their Meetings, but I never heard nor ſaw that the Houſe where they met was ſhaken.

Note, while I was giving my Proofs out of G. F. and G. W. their Books, concerning their high Pretences to an infallible diſcerning Men's Hearts; a Quaker, called Samuel Miller, as I am informed, a Bricklayer, ſtood upon a Bench, and for a further Confirmation, ſaid with a loud Voice, George, I had a Viſion concerning thee twenty Years ago, that though thou didſt preach the Goſpel to others, thou thy ſelf ſhould be a Caſt-away. This he gave to corroborate G. F's Pretenſe of his knowing the State of Men's Souls from Eternity to Eternity: But if his and their bare Affirmation muſt be received for Truth, without all external Evidence, that I am an Apoſtate, a Caſt-away, what Man, howſoever innocent, can eſcape their uncharitable Cenſure? Another Quaker, called Thomas Kent, ſtood up, and would have preached, telling the Auditory, He felt a Fire or Flame burn in his Breaſt, he had a Conſciencious Concern upon him; but the People forbidding him to preach, he cried out, The Quotations were falſe, but gave not the leaſt Proof: I told them he has been diſowned by the Quakers, and recorded out of the Unity theſe many Years, for his Drunkenneſs, and oppoſing G. Fox's Orders; ſo after a ſhort time he was ſilent.

Proofs out of the Quakers Books on the ſecond Head, concerning their Sinleſs Perfection.

IT being objected againſt G. F. that he had ſaid, He was as upright as Chriſt▪ He anſwers, Saul's Errand, p. 11. Th • ſe VVords were not ſo ſpoken by me, but that as he is, ſo are we in this preſent VVorld, that the Saints are made the Righteouſneſs of God, that the Saints are one in the Father and the Son, that we ſhall be like him, 1 Joh. 3. 2. And that all teaching which is given forth by Christ, is to bring the Saints to Perfection, even to the meaſure of the Stature of the Fullneſs of Chriſt; this the Scripture doth witneſs, and this I witneſs; where Christ dwells, muſt he not ſpeak in his Temple?

It having been ſaid by one of G. F's Opponents, G. Myſt. p. 282 They (i.e. the Saints) cannot be perfect here or hereafter in Equality, but only in Quality. G. F. anſwers, Chriſt makes no Diſtinction in his Words, but ſaith, Be ye perfect, even as your Heavenly Father is, and be ye merciful as he is, and as he is ſo are we, and that which is perfect and merciful, as he is perfect and merciful, is in Equality with the ſame thing, which is of God and from him.

G. Whitehead, in Defence of this Paſſage, in Truth and In. p. 14. ſaith, Now where's the Blaſphemy pray? Was it not Chriſt's own Doctrine? Be ye perfect even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect; and Luke 16. 36. Be ye therefore merciful as your Father is merciful. Now what Diſtinction doth Chriſt make in theſe Words and Precepts, as in point of Purity, and where's the Perfection in Quality granted then, and wherein muſt this Perfection conſiſt?

Note, It was not Chriſt's Doctrine to be perfect in Equality with God's Perfection, for that were to command them to be God himſelf, and though Chriſt expreſſeth no Diſtinction, yet it is implied; and whereas G. W. pleads for the Saint's Equality with God in point of Purity, he is ſtill blaſphemous; the Saint's Perfection in Quality is not an eſſential Perfection, for what Holineſs and Purity they now have, they formerly had not, but God's Perfection is eſſential to him, and ſo is his Purity, his Purity and Perfection is himſelf, and ſo is not the Saint's Perfection or Purity, therefore there is an infinite Diſtance betwixt God's Perfection, and all Creatures Perfection whatſoever.

Again, G. M. p. 197. His Opponent having ſaid, He ſums up all in this, Be ye therefore perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect, that is, in Quality not in Quantity. G. F. anſwers, He that is perfect is perfect, as his Heavenly Father is perfect, is perfect as he is perfect: If thou or any have an Ear to hear, let him hear, and lay away thy Qualities and Quantities, and take the Words as they are, and all that are come into Christ, are come into Life from the Duſt and Aſhes, and are ſpiritual Men.

Note, This he ſpoke in Oppoſition to his Opponent his calling Man poor Duſt and Aſhes; here he magnifies himſelf above Abraham, who called himſelf Duſt and Aſhes, and yet was come into Chriſt, and into his Life. The like arrogant Expreſſion he hath in G. M. p. 299. Such as be Saints through the immortal Seed, are not Duſt and Aſhes, for the immortal Seed lives and abides and endures for ever.

A Tittle of the Law is ſeen not to be broken,G. M. p. 310. and this (ſaith he) is known in vs.

VVho comes to the Kingdom of Heaven in them,G. M. p. 281, 318. 〈◊〉 to be perfect, yea, to a perfect Man, and that is above any Degree.

Again, Are you not worſe than Lawyers and Phyſicians, taking the Peoples Money, and yet cannot make them perfect Men? G. M. p. 268.

Note, By this reckoning, all the deceaſed Quakers were perfect with a ſinleſs Perfection before their Deceaſe, yea, and all they not deceaſed, by G. F's Doctrine above-quoted, for in all theſe Plates G. F. means a ſinleſs Perfection.

He blames his Opponent for ſaying, One that is in the Kingdom of Grace groaning for Adoption. • And p. 218. G. M. He will not allow any that's tranſlated into the Kingdom, to have any Members to be mortified.

He judges his Opponents for ſaying, That Pollution was in the Church, and ſaith, That the Church is without Spot, or VVrinkle, or Blemiſh, on any ſuch thing, meaning ſurely the Quakers Church.

But that the Quakers Church or Miniſtry, are not all ſuch, who are without Spot, or Wrinkle, or Blemiſh, or any ſuch thing. G. VV's General Epiſtle (which he calls, A Chriſtian Epiſtle to Friends, &c.) ſufficiently ſheweth, in p. 4. He chargeth it upon too many Profeſſors of Truth (viz. among the Quakers) their Negligence and Vnfaithfulneſs to Truth in themſelves, which hath cauſed a Decay of Love, and want of Charity towards others, and then inſtead of humbly waiting and depending upon the Lord, ſome have exaled themſelves in a ſelf-will ſelf-conceit and affection to Preheminence in Judgment over others, until thereby Diviſions and falſe Separations have been cauſed, and ſtirred up by them, to the great Grief of the Spirits of the upright: Such were never throughly ſubjected into true Humility, Mortification, true Self-denyal, or dying with Chriſt, &c.

In that called G. Fox's Canons, or Orders (ſo did all that Party of the Quakers call them that joined with John Story and John Wilkinſon, two eminent Preachers of the Quakers, in oppoſing them) publiſhed by G. F. about the Year 1669, and ſigned or ſubſcribed only by G. F. [Pope-like indeed] having this Title, Friend's Fellowſhip must be in the Spirit, and all Friends muſt know one another in the Spirit and Power of God. At the Number 9 we have the following Words; And alſo all Men that hunt after Women, from Woman to Woman; and alſo VVomen, whoſe Affections run ſometimes after one Man, and ſoon after another, and ſo hold one another in Affection, and ſo draw out the Affection of one another; and after a while leave one another, and go one from another, do the ſame thing; theſe doings make more like Sodom than Saints, and is not of God's moving or joining. And in Number 10. And Notice be taken of all evil Speakers, Backbiters, and Slanderers, and fooliſh Talkers, and idle Jeſters; for all theſe corrupt good Manners. And in Number 11. All ſuch as are Tale-carriers and Railers, whoſe VVork is to ſow Diſſention, are to be reproved and admoniſhed. And in Number 12. And all ſuch as go up and down to cheat by borrowing, and getting of Money of Friends in By-places, and have cheated ſeveral; all ſuch are to be ſtopped and judged; as there is a VVoman, tall in her Perſon, freckled in her Face; and alſo one John Harding, who are for Judgment and to be condemned. And in the Concluſion he ſharply reproves them of the Quaker's Society, who ſit nodding in a Meeting, for their Sleeping, and Sottiſhneſs, and Dullneſs; and he ſaith, Therefore be careful and watchful, and let it be amended. And laſt of all he adds, Let this be read in all your Meetings.

On this I noted, that theſe and other Faults he chargeth upon many of his Brethren, owned to be Quakers, evidently prove their viſible Church and Society are not ſuch a Church of Chriſt, which he ſaith, is without Spot or VVrinkle, as above-quoted; and that, as a People, they are far from that ſinleſs Perfection they commonly boaſt of, on which account they are not known, as a People to pray in their publick Meetings for Pardon of Sin; and yet, where ſuch Faults are, were they ſincere, they would both confeſs and ask Pardon of God for their Sins. I noted alſo, that according to this Injunction, theſe Orders on Canons of G. F. are duly read in their quarterly Meetings, both here in Europe, and alſo in America, whereof I have been an Eye and Ear Witneſs. But as he hath not in all his Canons enjoined the reading the holy Scriptures, nor any Part of them in their Meetings; ſo I ſaid, I never heard any Part of Scripture read in any of their publick Meetings, either for Worſhip or Diſcipline; and they caſt great Blame on me, for my reading ſome Texts of Scripture in our Meetings at Turners-Hall. But let it be further noted, that ſeeing G. F. and G. VV. have ſo ſtrongly affirmed, That the Quakers can give an infallible Character of Men, to know who are Saints or Devils, without ever ſpeaking a Word; what need had G. F. in his Canons, to give ſuch a Deſcription of ſome, by Name and Face, whereby to know them to be Cheats? Surely if they had ſuch an infallible diſcerning as they pretend, they need not to have ſuch outward Characters of Deceivers.

Note, Were not ſome of theſe above-mentioned, Members of the Quaker's Church? and are not ſuch Evils as he has mentioned, that were among them, Spots, and Blemiſhes, and Sins? Yea, G. VV. doth own, in his Voice of VViſdom, p. 17. before that State of Freedom [from Sin] be witneſſed, There is a Time of Pain in Travel, and of ſuffering in Temptations and Tryals. Note, do none of theſe belong to the Church, who yet have not arrived to a ſinleſs Perfection, but are in that Time of Travel? But what if they die in that Time of Travel, before a ſinleſs Perfection be attained? G. VV. has paſſed a nibſt ſevere and uncharitable Cenſure on them. Voice of VViſdom, p. 42, 43. This ſinleſs Perfection (for that's the true State of the Queſtion) all muſt come to witneſs who ever come to be ſaved, for there is no unclean thing muſt enter into Chriſt's Kingdom, therefore People muſt either expect Freedom from Sin in this Life, or never.

Note, Thus he has paſſed a moſt uncharitable and cruel Sentence, nor only upon many who were in a ſincere Travel towards Perfection, and yet have not attained to a ſinleſs Perfection before their Deceaſe, but alſo upon his deceaſed Brethren, many of whom deceaſed (as I judge he muſt confeſs) while they were in the Travel towards it, for Quakers commonly are not longer lived than other Men, they die at all Ages, young as well as old, and many die that are but Novices in their Way: And certainly G. Fox, and E. Burr. Fr. Hougel, Rich. Hubb. and ſome of their greateſt Saints lived in great Ignorance, Error, and Unbelief, in divers great Fundamentals of the Chriſtian Faith, and in great Uncharitableneſs towards ſuch as differed from them, and remained in theſe Sins to their dying Day; ſhall we therefore be ſo uncharitable to them, as G. Ws Doctrine is, to conclude they are all damned, and pariſhed eternally? God forbid, we will be more charitable to them than his Doctrine alloweth.

But then again, in Contradiction, not only to G. F. but, himſelf, he pleads in his Voice of Wiſdom, That the Believers Works are perfect, and God hath wrought all their VVorks in them, citing Iſa. 26. 12. So theſe VVorks of God, which true Believers witneſs, are perfect, and the Believers have ceaſed from their own VVorks, which were imperfect, and are come into God's VVorks which are perfect. But then what ſaith he concerning them who are in the Travel towards Perfection? Are not they Believers; Have they no Faith? Thus their Confuſion is evident.

They do not conſider, that though the Work of Faith, Labour of Love, and Patience of Hope in Believers are the Works of God, yet they are alſo the Works of thoſe Men, in whom they are wrought; it's they who believe, who love and hope by God's Operation or working in them, and therefore they being imperfect, though God is a perfect Being and Agent, their Faith, Love and Hope are imperfect, it being the Property of all Effects to be according to the weaker and more imperfect Cauſes, according to that true Maxim, Bonum ex integra cauſa, malum ex quolibet defectu, a perfect Effect muſt have all its Cauſes perfect.

But whatever Charity we may ſuppoſe they may have for their deceaſed Brethren, they have little or none for any ſuch who do not believe to the Hight of their Doctrine of a ſinleſs Perfection before Death; their Doctrine obligeth them to judge, that none of other Societies are ſaved, becauſe they do not believe the Quakers Doctrine of Perfection before they die, the contrary of which, they call the Doctrine of Devils, the which, if any die, and do not renounce before their Deceaſe, by the Quakers Principle, they cannot be ſaved.

But ſome of them now begin to go into the ſame Road with others of other Profeſſions, and after a large Circumference, wherein they have far departed from them who ſay, That the Souls of Believers are at the inſtant of Death made perfect in Holineſs; yet return and ſay the ſame thing concerning their imperfect Brethren who are deceaſed, and yet before their Deceaſe, arrived not to a ſinleſs Perfection; which, if it may be allowed to imperfect Quakers, may be as well allowed to others, ſineere Travellers towards Perfection, many of whom, no doubt, have arrived to greater Perfection before their Deceaſe, than any among the Quakers Worthies, of whoſe Perfection they ſo much boaſt, who lived in great Error and Unbelief in the great Fundamentals of Chriſtianity, and Uncharitableneſs towards others, and of whoſe Repentance for the ſame we never heard any Account.

Again, G. F. in his G. M. p. 251. in Defence of his and his Brethrens ſinleſs Perfection, thus anſwers to that in Eccleſ. 7. 20. There is not a juſt Man upon the Earth which doth good and ſinneth not. This juſt, this wiſe Man upon the Earth, which doth good and ſinneth not, that was the Eſtate of the Law, which Chriſt is the End of, who is a greater than Solomon, who is the juſt, and Righteouſneſs it ſelf, and makes Men free from Sin.

Note, that G. F. in Contradiction to his own Gloſs, in the ſame Page, to prove a ſinleſs Perfection, brings the Examples of Job and David, both which were long before Chriſt came; and to prove David's ſinleſs Perfection, he brings David's Words; and David ſaid, He had ſeen the End of all Perfection. Is not this a rare Proof for a ſinleſs Perfection? But if G. F. did not mean Chriſt without, but Chriſt within, to be the End of the Law: As this is a falſe Gloſs on Paul's Words, ſo that imports, that Solomon was not come to the Light within him, which G. F. calls Chriſt within; but how then could Solomon pen ſuch Books of the Scripture, which the Quakers confeſs to have been writ by Divine Inſpiration, if Solomon had not come to the Light within him?

But let us hear another as nonſenſical Gloſs of G. VV. on the ſame Place, Voice of VViſd. p. 18. Eccleſ. 7. 20. Anſ. The Converſation of the Saints is in Heaven, Eph. 2. 6. Philip. 3. 20. And they are redeemed from the Earth and from the Vanity, where Solomon ſaw all things in the Days of his Vanity, in which all were Sinners.

Note, Is this any Proof, that the Saints, ſuch as Paul, who writ theſe Words, were not real Men upon Earth? And is not G. W. a Man upon Earth ſo long as he eats, drinks, ſleeps, &c? Thus we ſee how they pervert the Scriptures to prove their ſinleſs Perfection; for if G. W. will own he is one of theſe juſt Men on Earth, that Solomon writes of, he muſt confeſs himſelf to be a Sinner, if he will not own himſelf to be a juſt Man upon the Earth, yet he muſt allow his Body to be upon Earth, unleſs he will ſay, our Sight deceives us when we ſee him in the Streets, and then either his Body is no Part of him, or if it be, it hath Sin, and conſequently, he alſo hath Sin, if he will own his Body to be a Part of him.

But let us yet again hear another nonſenſical Gloſs of G. F. to maintain his and his Brethrens ſinleſs Perfection on the Words of James, In many things we offend all, G. M. p 309. Mark, ſaith G. F. In the many things we offend all, but we are come to the one thing, Christ Jeſus, the End of the many things, and in him there is no Sin, and who is in him ſins not, who put an End to the many things that must end and change. Thus we ſee his and his Brethrens Preſumption, who plainly declare they were got beyond James, and all the Faithful to whom he wrote thoſe Words; and he chargeth both James and all the Faithful, to whom he wrote all theſe Words, with a horrid Falſhood, that they were not come to the one thing, to wit, to Jeſus Chriſt: And if none are come to Chriſt or in Chriſt, but who are perfect with a ſinleſs Perfection, as G. W. doth here argue, then young Believers and Converts, who are travelling towards Perfection, are not in Chriſt, nor come to Chriſt, becauſe they have not that ſinleſs Perfection, which is both a moſt falſe and moſt comfortleſs Doctrine, and injurious to all young Chriſtian Converts at leaſt, and may be thought, by young Quaker Converts, injurious to them alſo.

Note, while the Proofs were reading out of the Quakers Books for their ſinleſs Perfection, a Quaker (ſuppoſed to be John Whiting) ſaid, George, if Men are not perfect before Death, when are they made perfect? It must be either before Death or after Death. I anſwered, In the inſtant of Death, and that is neither before Death nor after Death; as if one ſhould ask, when did Peter and other deceaſed Saints put off the earthly Tabernacle, whether before Death or after Death? The Anſwer is, neither before nor after, but at the Inſtant of Death.

But let us hear yet ſomewhat more of G. F's great Conceit of his and his Brethrens Perfection, even in Equality with God himſelf.

Abrief Diſcovery of the Threefold State of Antichriſt, G. W's. brief Diſcovery, p. 15. printed 1653. he being charged with ſaying, That he was as upright as Chriſt; he anſwers, theſe Words were not ſpoken by me, but that, as he is, ſo are we in this World, that the Saints are made the Righteouſneſs of God, that the Saints are one in the Father and the Son, that we ſhall be like him, and that all teaching which is given forth by Jeſus Chriſt, is to bring up the Hearers to Perfection, even to the Meaſure, Stature, and Fullneſs of Chriſt, this the Scripture witneſſeth, and I witneſs fulfilled in me.

Note, this is more than what is in Saul's Errand above-quoted, for there the Words of Scripture are kept to, that mention the Meaſure of the Stature of the Fullneſs, but here it's far beyond what is written in Scripture, that he was come, not only to the Meaſure, but to the Stature and Fullneſs of Chriſt, and what is this but to be equal with Chriſt and God? Saul's Errand, p. 13. G. F. He that is perfectly holy, is perfectly juſt; where this is revealed, there needs no Addition, for the Man of God is perfect.

This will yet more fully appear by the following Quotations.

In Truth def. by G. Fox and R. Hubb. page 65. a Query being propoſed by the Opponent, Who is like to be the Man thou ſpeakeſt of, he that ſaith he is equal with God and Chriſt. or he that preacheth Chriſt the Head? The Anſwer is, Here in this Queſtion thou openly ſhew • d by ſelf, 〈…〉 the Mind the Apoſtles had, for (ſaith he) I would the ſome Mind were in you, that was alſo in Chriſt Jeſus, who thought it no Robbery to be equal with God, and yet made himſelf of no Reputation, Philip. 2. 5. And here thou haſt ſhewed thy ſelf, that thou haſt neither the Mind of Chriſt nor his Apoſtles, but art an Antichriſt, and an Enemy againſt them that witneſs theſe things, which the Apoſtle, ſaid, I would that ye were of the ſame Mind. And again the Apoſtle ſaith, Our Fellowſhip is with the Father and the Son, 1 Joh. 1. 3.

Again, in his G. Myſtery, p. 248. he quotes, (but very lamely and corruptly). C. Wade, in his Book Quakery Slain, He denies the Son of God to be revealed in Man▪ only by Adoption, and cries againſt Equality with the Father.

Here before I give you G. F's Anſwer, I ſhall give you C. Wade's Words, as they ſtand in his Book, to which he anſwers.

C. Wade's Words in his Quakery ſlain, are theſe, p. 23. G. Fox, in the 8. pag. of Saul's Errand, affirmeth, That he that hath the ſame Spirit that raiſed up Jeſus Christ, is equal with God, and the Saints have the ſame Spirit in Meaſure, for God's Spirit is but one. And G. Fox ſaith, in pag. 11. That he is a Saint. Thus he would again prove, That he, a poor wicked Creature, is equal with God the Creator, and if ſo, then G. Fox is the Creator of G. Fox, and the whole World; and he intimately claimeth Chriſt's Equality with God, by his perverted citing of Philip. 2. 6, 7. Now in Oppoſition to G. F's affirming, He was equal with God, C. Wade, in his pag 24. ſaith. The Scripture ſaith, that even the Saints themſelves are not God's Sons otherwiſe but by Adoption only by Chriſt (note that you Quakers) not as being Chriſt, as you fooliſhly fancy but by Chriſt, for it's written, Having predeſtinated us unto the Adoption of Children by Jeſus Chriſt, Eph. 1. 5. See this confirmed, Gal. 4. 5. Rom. 8. 23. and Creature adopted Sons cannot be equal with their Heavenly uncreated Father, who vouchſafeth by free Grace, by and in his Son Chriſt, to adopt them to be his Sons in Acceptation only: Neither can any Creature adopted Sons, be equal with God's only begotten Son, the Creator of all adopted Sons, and all other things, both in Heaven and in Earth alſo. This is the true and full Quotation out of C. Wade his Quakery ſlain.

In Oppoſition to which ſound Doctrine of C. Wade, G. Fox thus anſwers.G. M. p. 248.

Anſ. And that is contrary to the Apoſtle, who had the Son of God revealed in him, and the Aſſembly of Divines gave forth a Catechiſm, which, Children, old and young, was to learn, and ſaid. The Holy Ghoſt and Son was equal in Subſtance and Power and Glory with the Father: What? Then all that have the Son and the Holy Ghoſt, hath that which is equal in Power and Glory with the Father. In this thou haſt not only judged thy ſelf, but all the Aſſembly of Divines at Weſtminſter, 1649.

Note, G. Fox here doth not quote the Page of C. Wade's Book, as frequently he doth not throughout his G. Myſt, give his Opponents Pages of their Books, which it ſeems was in Deſign, that his unfair Quotations might not be ſo eaſily found out. Now obſerve, whereas G. F. brings C. Wade, crying againſt Equality with the Father, we ſee by the Quotation given, what Equality with the Father C. VVade cries againſt, to wit, not the Equality of Chriſt, the only begotten of God, with the Father, for that he expreſly affirms by ſaying, That Chriſt, God's only begotten Son, is the Creator of all things; but the Equality that C. Wade cryed againſt, was the Equality of G. Fox, and Creature adopted Sons with the Father, and for his ſo ſaying, G. Fox makes him to have contradicted the Apoſtle, and alſo the Aſſembly of Divines at Weſtminſter, and judged both himſelf and them.

This I think ſo evident a Proof, that G. F. thought himſelf equal with the Father, that neither G. W. nor Joſ. Wyeth, nor any of their Brethren, with all their little Craft and Sophiſtry, can clear this Paſſage from that down-right Blaſphemy, That G. F. was equal with God, for neither the Aſſembly of Divines at Weſtminſter, nor C. W. deny the Equality of the Son and of the Holy Ghoſt, for G. Fox grants they owned it; but the Equality which C. Wade cryed againſt, was the Equality of G. F. or any of the Saints with the Father. But here we find the Strength of G. Fox's Logick, The Son and Holy Ghoſt are equal with the Father, therefore G. F. is equal with the Father, the Proof of which Conſequence muſt be one of theſe two following Aſſertions; the one is, That G. Fox thought himſelf to be the Son of God, or ſuch a Son as was equal with the Father; the other is, That becauſe the Son of God was revealed in G. Fox (as he thought) that therefore G. Fox was equal with the Father. As to the firſt of theſe Aſſertions, as it is utterly falſe, that G. Fox was the Son of God, to wit, the only begotten Son of God, the Word made Fleſh, ſo the other is utterly a falſe Conſequence, that becauſe the Son of God was revealed in him, that therefore he was equal with the Father; but ſurely, if the Son of God had been revealed in him, that Revelation would have taught him not to utter ſuch horrid Blaſphemy.

But that C. Wade did not deny, but own as much as the Scripture warranteth, That God the Father, as alſo Chriſt the Son, were manifeſted or revealed in the Saints: I ſhall quote a Paſſage in his Book, being originally the Words of one T. Moor, that wrote againſt the Quakers, whom J. Nailer had charged, That he would exclude God and Chriſt out of the World, and that he ſhould no more dwell in his People till Doomſday: In Oppoſition to which C. Wade quotes the following ſaying of T. Moor, which he approves, pag. 23. of Quakery ſlain, That the Majeſty of God, whoſe Throne is in Heaven, is in his Inſpections, Influences, and Operation every where; and in his gracious and ſpiritual Preſence, and manifeſted Nighneſs in and through his Son, dwelling in Sion, even in the Hearts and Societies of his People.

Now let us hear what Joſ. Wyeth and G. Whitehead ſay in Defence of that blaſphemous Paſſage above-mentioned, quoted from Saul's Errand to Damaſcus, p. 8. He that hath the ſame Spirit that raiſed up Jeſus from the dead, is equal with God. Joſ. Wyeth doth plainly juſtifie it by the like falſe Conſequence as G. Fox made;Switch, pag. 59. he ſaith, For when Men are guided by the Holy Spirit, they are certainly guided by God, for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are one God, and therefore equal, and that which is equal, as G. Fox (he ſaith) often expreſſeth it. But doth it therefore follow, that becauſe the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoſt are equal, that therefore he that hath either the Son or the Holy Ghoſt, is equal, either with the Son, or Holy Ghoſt, or with the Father? yet this is Joſ. Wyeth's blaſphemous Conſequence, to juſtifie G. F's Blaſphemy.

But G. W. hath found two other Ways to defend the above-ſaid Blaſphemy of G. F. in the Supplement to the Switch, he ſaith, p. 528. And if any among us have writ of them who are perfect in Chriſt Jeſus, being led by his Spirrt, as in that Senſe equal. I underſtand equal only as like unto God, or in Vnion with him, being united unto him by his Spirit, as he that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit.

Note firſt, The Word Equal, no where that I know, either in Scripture, or other Books, or common Speech in any Language, ſignifieth only as like, therefore this is a meer Force put upon the Word, and a ſtrained Senſe: But Secondly, That could not be the Senſe intended by G. Fox, becauſe, as I have above ſhewed in a former Quotation, he proves that he is equal with God the Father, becauſe the Son and Holy Ghoſt are equal with the Father. Now will G. W. ſay, That the Equality betwixt the Son and the Holy Ghoſt and the Father, is only an Equality of Likeneſs, as to ſay, the Son and the Holy Ghoſt are only like the Father, but are not really equal with the Father: This was the Arian Hereſie, that the Son was like the Father, but not equal or of the ſame Subſtance with the Father; they ſaid he was Homoiuſios, but not Homouiſios.

But he hath yet another String to his Bow, in his Truth and Innocency, pag. 10. Therefore the Words [He that hath] in the ſaid Inſtance, ſhould be left out, being contrary to G. F's and our Principle, and to his own very Words and Confeſſion a little before in the ſame Book, quoting Saul's Errand, p. 5, 6. where G. F. ſaith, It was not ſo ſpoken, as G. Fox was equal with God, but the Father and the Son is one. But the Fallacy lyeth here, he did not ſay, George Fox, to wit, the Name George Fox, or the outward viſible Body that bears that Carnal Name, as he ſomewhere calls it, but the new Name that he hath, that is the He that is equal with God, becauſe that He is the Son, and as to what G. W. ſaith of Union with God, that G. F. did not mean Union by Faith and Love, but a perſonal Union, appears from G. M. p. 100. He brings in his Opponent ſaying, God dwells not in the Saints as a Perſonal Union. In Oppoſition to which he anſwers, How comes the Saints then to eat of his Fleſh, and to be of his Fleſh and Bone: Note, it ſhould be by a perſonal Union? And God dwelling in them, and have Vnity with the Son and the Father, and to be of his Body which is the Church, and Christ the Head: Yea, he blames his Opponent, G. M. p. 258. for ſaying, To ſay that God is ſubſtantially in Man, as eſſentially one with him, can be no other but the Man of Sin.

But whereas G. W. ſaith, He that hath ſhould be left out; pray who put them in? That they were G. Fox's Words, the Book called Saul's Errand, affirms, if this Liberty be allowed to tranſpoſe, leave out, and add Words in a Sentence, nothing ſo vile and blaſphemous or atheiſtical, but may be juſtified by G. W. who hath uſed all theſe three Methods to defend his and his Brethrens vile Errors.

But let us hear one Paſſage more of G. F. out of G. Myſt. p. 299. to let us know what Conceit he had of himſelf as being more than a Creature; he tells, That one had raiſed a grievous Lye against G. F. and ſaid, he ſaid he was Christ, p. 298. to the End. This Man having ſo charged him, and having told him he had Witneſs to prove it, G. F. told him, He was a Judas, and he went away, and after a while hanged himſelf, and Chriſt in the Male and in the Female, if he ſpeak he was Chriſt the Seed, and the Seed was Chriſt, but he did not ſpeak it as a Creature.

Note, he grants he ſpoke the Words, That he was Chriſt, but he did not ſpeak it as a Creature, therefore he thought he was ſomething more than a Creature, the Seed in him ſpoke it, which was Chriſt, and that was not a Creature, but what Seed was in him, or in other Quakers, that was not a Creature; I cannot find out any other in his Writings, but his Soul or inviſible Part that he makes to be Chriſt and a Part of God, as will afterwards appear on a diſtinct Head.

But he has yet another Defence to ſave the like blaſphemous Saying of F. Howgel, They that have the Spirit of God are equal with God in Nature, but not in Stature.

It having been objected againſt the Quakers, that ſome of them have ſaid, They that have the Spirit of God are equal with God: To this F. Howgel anſwers, after ſome foregoing Words,F. Howgel's Col. p. 232. He that is born from above is the Son of God, and he ſaid, I and my Father are one; and where the Son is revealed and ſpeaks, the Father ſpeaks in him; and dwells in him, and he in thy Father; there is Equality in Nature though not in Stature. Here it is a plain Caſe that F. H. places this Equality in Nature but not in Stature, betwixt him that has the Spirit of God, who is born from above, and God himſelf; for to place it betwixt Chriſt, as he was the Son of God before all Ages, and God the Father, were to ſay, That the Son is equal with the Father in Nature but not in Stature, which has a twofold Error in it; firſt, To make a Diſtinction betwixt God's Nature and Stature. Secondly, Suppoſe that Diſtinction, That the Son is equal to the Father in Nature but not in Stature, both which are moſt groſs and blaſphemous, and no leſs groſs and blaſphemous it is to affirm, That the Saints are equal with God in Nature but not in Stature.

Now let us hear G. VVhitehead's Defence, Truth and Inn. p. 10. The Equality in Nature (objected) relates to the Divine Nature which the Child of God partakes of in Meaſure, though not in Stature, relates to the Child, that Divine Nature is one and unchangeable, but our participating of it, and Growth in it is gradual, until all (i. e. Chriſt's whole Church and Body) come into the Meaſure of the Stature of the Fullneſs of Chriſt. But doth all this Saying of G. VV. prove that the Children of God are equal with God, either in Nature or Stature? The Saints are ſaid in Scripture to be Partakers of the Holy Ghoſt, are they therefore equal to the Holy Ghoſt? Which yet is the Way of G. VV's reaſoning; the Equality in Nature he ſays, relates to the Divine Nature, but who is it that is equal to God in the Divine Nature, but not in Stature? was it the Son or Holy Choſt that is equal to God in the Divine Nature but not in Stature? Nay, therefore it muſt be the Saints or Believers; here a Propoſition is framed, They that have the Spirit of God are equal with God; and then this Diſtinction is given; They are equal in Nature, but not in Stature: This Propoſition hath for its Subject They, i. e. the Saints or Children of God. In all Propoſitions, all the Parts of the Predicate belong to one and the ſame Subject, the which Parts are equal in Nature but not in Stature: But it is an unaccountable Liberty that G. VV. takes in his Way of defending theſe Blaſphemies, not only to change the Signification of Words from all common Uſe, but the unalterable Rules of right Reaſon, as in the preſent Caſe; like as if one ſhould ſay, G. VVhitehead is equal to A. B. in Nature but not in Stature; Nature relates to G. W. but not in Stature relates to another; but who is this other who can tell? Or as if one ſhould ſay G. W. is a Man, but not honeſt, Man relates to G. Whitehead, but not honeſt relates to another. It is a real Shame that ſuch pittiful Sophiſtry ſhould be uſed by G. W. to defend his and his Brethrens vile Errors and Blaſphemies, whereby he makes himſelf guilty of them, and all to ſave his and their pretended Infallibility: It were much more Manly, as well as Chriſtian, fairly to acknowledge and retract thoſe moſt erronious Paſſages, and own their Fallibility and Error, and be contented to be lifted among fallible Men, for humanum est errare, labi, decipi; and not only ſo, but to be greatly humbled for the Preſumption, that being Men, they ſhould equal themſelves to God.

But the general Conceit of their ſinleſs Perfection, as they are a Body of People, is ſuch, that both G. W. and Joſ. Wyeth doth juſtifie W. P's objecting to the Church of England, their praying from ſeven to ſeventy, Lord be merciful to us miſerable Sinners.

G. VV. ſaith, in Truth and In. p. 15. Alas poor Sinners! Is not a Sign of Laughter at • hem, but rather of Lamentation and Pity over their miſerable Eſtate, who are always 〈◊〉 but not forſaking their Sins. The like Anſwer doth J. VVyeth give in the Note, Is not this a plain Evidence of the great Pride that is among the Quakers concerning their ſinleſs Perfection; As a Body of People, and their great Uncharitableneſs towards, not only the Church of England, but all others called Chriſtians throughout the whole World; yea, all Chriſtians in all Ages, and the univerſal Church of God, both under the old and new Teſtament, who always uſed Confeſſion of Sin, and prayed for Forgiveneſs of Sin? find as Chriſt taught his Diſciples to pray daily for their daily Bread; ſo to pray daily for Forgiveneſs of Sins: So under the old Teſtament there were daily Offerings for Sin, and the High Prieſt, however ſo holy, yet offered both for his own Sins, and the Sins of the People: Doth it therefore follow that their Confeſſions and Offerings were hypocritical?

But doth not G. VV. know, that as there is a gradual going unto Perfection, ſo there is a gradual forſaking of Sin, and a putting off the old Man with his Deeds? Muſt not they who feel themſelves wounded with Sin, ſeek for a Cure? And ſhould not the diſeaſed come daily to the Phiſician till they be cured? And as to the Quakers Uncharitableneſs, and G. VV's eſpecially, towards all in the Church of England, whom he chargeth without Exception, that they are ſtill confeſſing but not forſaking their Sins. How can he more prove this Charge againſt them than his own Society or himſelf? Many, both in the Church of England, and other Proteſtants, can compare with the beſt of the Quakers for Holineſs of Life, and exceed them in many Virtues, eſpecially in Humility. But do no not they better who confeſs their Sins, and yet through humane Frailty, find that they relapſe into ſome Sins, than ſuch proud Phariſees among the Quakers, who neither confeſs nor forſake their Sins? ſuch as their ſinful Ignorance and Errors in the great Fundamentals of the Chriſtian Faith, their too high Eſteem of themſelves, and Uncharitableneſs towards others, calling all others but themſelves, The World and Idolaters, and their Worſhip Idolatry: And if any, formerly among them, come to a more ſober Mind, and to a more ſound Underſtanding and Faith in Chriſtian Doctrine, and are more charitable towards others: They call them Apoſtates, as they do call me and others, whom God in his great Mercy has of late recovered from the Errors and Uncharitableneſs that were and are among them; ſo that for owning the Proteſtant Churches, and that we can join in the Worſhip of God with them, we are rendred Apoſtates by G. VV▪ and his Brethren in their printed Pamphlets againſt us: But if we be Apoſtates for this, then by G. VV's and his Brethrens Sentence, all the Proteſtant Churches are Infidels and Idolaters.

But if the Church of the Quakers be a ſinleſs Church, that need not to confeſs their Sins, nor pray for Forgiveneſs of their Sins, how doth this agree with the large. Acknowledgments that G. VV. has made in his Chriſtian Epiſtle to the People called Quakers, of ſo many things amiſs among them, as above quoted? Either ſuch faulty Perſons are owned Members of their Church, or they are not; if they are not, why do not they diſown them, and excommunicate them, or declare them to be none of them.

If they own them to be of their Church, then their Church is not without Sp • t, Wrinkle, or Blemiſh; and conſequently, not the Church of Chriſt by G. F's Doctrine? If it be ſaid. The Tares cannot be diſcerned oft times from the Wheat then where's their Spirit of diſcerning, whereby they can know who are Saints or Devils without ſpeaking ever a Word? Surely if they have ſuch a Spirit of diſcerning, their Sin is great to ſuffer ſuch a Mixture among them as G. W. complains of in his Chriſtian Epiſtle eſpecially now that they reckon E • oth's Prophecy is fullfilled in them:Truth and Inn. p. 13 They, i. e. the Quakers, are the ten thouſand of his Saints in whom the Lord is come to execute Judgment upon all. Why do they not begin at home, and firſt cleanſe their own Houſe, and purge out the old Leaven from among them? How is it that diverſe unclean Perſons, even of their Miniſtry, have been owned to preach among them while living in ſecret Uncleanneſs, diverſe of whoſe Names they know I can produce? Why did they not diſcern them, ſeeing they have (as they pretend) an infallible diſcerning of Mens Hearts? Or if they did diſcern them, why did they not diſcover them, and get them caſt out of the Camp?

As to the Inſtance above given of the daily Sacrifices for Sin, which were offered under the Law: If it be replyed, That they grant the Law made nothing perfect, but now a ſinleſs Perfection is brought in by the Goſpel. I ask them what became of them all of that ancient Church (who daily confeſſed their Sins, and prayed for Forgiveneſs) when they died? Did they die in their Sins! Or where were they cleanſed from their Sins after Death? Or did they all periſh, according to G. W's manner of reaſoning againſt his Opponents in his Voice of Wiſdom above quoted.

As to that Place in Scripture, The Law made nothing perfect; and other the like Places; they are to be underſtood, firſt, Comparatively, the Goſpel State under the New Teſtament, as to the general, is a State of more Purity and greater Perfection than the State of the People under the Law. Secondly, The ceremonial Part of the Law, as Circumciſion and the Sacrifices, did neither in whole, nor in part, give them the Remiſſion of their Sins, but were Types of Chriſt, that alone Sacrifice, by which Remiſſion of Sin and Sanctification both then was and now is obtained.

It is on the Conceit that the Quakers have of their ſinleſs Perfection, eſpecially their Miniſters, that they are not known to pray for the Forgiveneſs of their Sins, in their publick Meetings, which gave occaſion to that Queſtion in Truth defending the Quak. by G. VV. p. 8. Q. 11. Do not you think it needleſs to pray for the Pardon of your Sins? To this G. Whitehead replies, We have prayed for the Pardon of our Sins, and the Lord, who heard our Prayers, hath pardoned and remitted our Sins, by the Power of the World to come, which we have taſted, and do taſte of, as many witneſs. But of late ſome of them have got a way to pray in the third Perſon plural in their Meetings, as I have obſerved; as thus, If any here have ſinned againſt thee, give them Repentance and Forgiveneſs: Or thus, Pardon them that have ſinned againſt thee: Thus I have heard John Field pray, but I never heard him, or any here in England, to the beſt of my. Remembrance, pray in the firſt Perſon plural, Forgive us our Sins; though Daniel, and the beſt of the holy Men recorded in Scripture, prayed, Forgive us our Sins. A Quaker ſaid, George, dost not thou know, that it is the manner of Friends, if any have done amiſs, to deal with them, and get them to confeſs and ask Forgiveneſs: I ſaid, that was but as to particular Perſons, and private Offences; but that was no Proof as to their general Confeſſion and praying for Pardon of Sin. Another Quaker ſtood on a Bench, and began to read a Paſſage out of a Book of mine, called, The Way caſt up, printed in the Year 1677, containing ſome Words of Prayer, which I ſaid I had heard, or Words to that effect, uſed in our Meetings, both to God the Father, in the Name of Jeſus Chriſt, and alſo to Jeſus Chriſt, naming him by the Name Son of David. This Paſſage that Quaker brought (his Name, as I am informed, is John Whiting) to prove, that the Quakers prayed for Forgiveneſs of Sin, for I was then a Quaker, but what he read out of my Book not being well heard, he was deſired to hand the Book to the Miniſter that ſtood by me, and read the Quotations; which was done, and the whole Paſſage, containing a Prayer, was read, which is this; VVay caſt up, p, 121. Son of David have mercy on us. O thou bleſſed Lord Jeſus, that wert crucified and died for our Sins, and ſhed thy precious Blood for us; be gracious unto us. Thou that in the Days of thy Fleſh, wert tempted of Satan, afflicted, bore our Sins on the Croſs, felt our Infirmities, and wert touched with them. O thou our merciful High Priest, whoſe tender Bowls of Compaſſion, are not more ſtraitned, ſince thy Aſcenſion, but rather more enlarged, and whoſe Love and Kindneſs is the ſame towards thy Servants in our Days, as it was of old, help us and ſtrengthen us, and by the Power of thy divine Life and Spirit; raiſe us up over all Tentations, and indue us with a Meaſure of the ſame Patience and Reſignation that dwelt ſo fully in thee, and which thou didst ſo abundantly manifest in all thy Sufferings in the Days of thy Fleſh. Thou art the ſame that thou wert, thy Heart is the ſame towards thy Servants, as when thou wert outwardly preſent with them in the Fleſh. Thou art our Advocate and Mediator in Heaven with the Father▪ Our merciful High Priest, who is not untouched with the feeling of our Infirmities. Thou, even thou, bleſſed Jeſus, thou knowest our moſt ſecret Deſires and Breathings, which we offer up unto thee, in the Enablings of the bleſſed Life and Spirit, that thou mayeſt preſent them unto thy Father and our Father, that in thee we may be accepted, and our Services alſo; and for thy ſake our Defects and ſhort Comings, our Sins and Tranſgreſſions that we have committed, may be forgiven us.

The Prayer being read, divers Miniſters and others ſaid it was a good Prayer, but they never heard that any ſuch Prayer was uſed in any of the Quakers Meetings: A Quaker, called Daniel Philips, ſtanding by near where I ſtood, ſaid that Book was approved by the ſecond Days Meeting at London, which was a great Untruth: I told how I wrote that Book in Scotland, and from Scotland ſent it to a Correſpondent in Holland, who printed it there; and when it came over to London, in the Year 1678. it met with great Oppoſition from divers of the Preachers of the Quakers at London [as Stephen Criſp, William Shewen, William Mede, and, Samuel Newton] and one of the chief things they blamed in my Book, was this very Prayer, and eſpecially that Part of it, Jeſus Son of David have mercy on us: Some of them ſaid it was half Popery; for though G. K. would not pray to Mary the Mother of Jeſus, as the Papiſts do, yet he was for praying to the Son of Mary: Others ſaid it was Common Prayer: A larger Account of things relating to the Oppoſition I met with from the Quakers for that Prayer, and ſome other things in that Book, ye will find in the late Book called A Defence of the Snake, in that called A Collection, from p. 16. to 38. I further ſhewed, that what I had delivered in that Book, and others of my Books in former times when I was reckoned in Unity with the Quakers, did plainly evidence that I held the Faith of the Fundamentals of Chriſtianity with all true Chriſtians, though in ſome leſſer Matters I was biaſſed and miſled by them into divers Errors, particularly in rejecting the Sacraments of Baptiſm and the Supper; which I have ſince retracted; and for my holding the fundamental Doctrines of the Chriſtian Faith, as appears by that Book, and other Books of mine. All the Time of my Quakeriſm, a Quaker in Ponſylvania, who was a Juſtice of Peace [his Name was Arthur Cook] ſaid unto me, George, thou never was a right Quaker all thy Days? but an old rotten Presbyterian.

The reading of that Paſſage in my Book, containing the Prayer aforeſaid, which the Quaker brought to make againſt me, had a far contrary Effect to what he intended; for many (ſome Miniſters; and others) preſent ſaid, This makes for G. K. not againſt him; let the Quakers bring any ſuch Paſſage out of their Books, to prove they were of that Faith with him. Some of the Quakers that objected againſt that Prayer in my Book, asked me, in one of the Meetings that were appointed to hear the Objections againſt my Book, and my Anſwers, Where did I ever hear any Engliſh Friend of the Miniſtry pray after that manner? Poſſibly, ſaid they, ſome Scots Friends, who were thy Proſelytes, thou haſt heard to pray ſo: I confeſs they gueſſed right, they were ſome Scots Friends whom I had heard to pray ſo, and ſo I had prayed; and being at a ſtand to inſtance any Engliſh Friend that I had heard ſo pray, W. Penn told them, he had ſo prayed, and that not long ago, but he ſaid, It was in private: G. W. ſaid, Let the Scripture decide it; whereupon he calls for the Bible, and reads in 1 Cor. 1. 2. What ſay ye to this Friends, ſaid G. W? Ye ſee that Paul did approve the Corinthians that called upon the Name of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt: Their Anſwer was, Paul was dark and ignorant in that thing, as G. K. is, for our Parts we know better. Here note the Fallacy both of G. W. and W. P. who for all this ſeemingly owning Faith in the Man Chriſt Jeſus, by confeſſing they were to pray to him, yet in their printed Books have oppoſed that Faith without any Retractation.

Proofs on the third Head.

Proofs on the fourth Head. Concerning the Holy Trinity.

GEorge Whitehead, G. W's. Truth and Inn. p. 50. in his Truth and Inn. and Joſ. Wyeth, in his Switch, pretends, That it is not the Doctrine or thing intended that they deny, i. e. the Father, the Word, and Holy Spirit, which three are one.

And ſaith Joſ. Switch, p. 184. Wyeth, We own their Diſtinction in all the Inſtances of it recorded in Holy Writ. The only thing they pretend to ſcruple at or deny, is the calling them three Perſons, which they ſay are not Scripture Terms, and they are wholly for keeping to Scripture Terms in Matters of Doctrine.

But to this I ſay' firſt, How many unſcripture Terms do they freequently uſe? Where do they find in Scripture, the Term immediate Revelation, immediate teaching of the Spirit, immediate Word, which they ſo commonly uſe? Again, where do they find in Scripture, That, ſee G. M. p. 324. the Seed, to which the Promiſe of Salvation is, is Christ within? Several Papers, &c. p. 47. And that Expreſſion, where do they find it in Scripture, That the ſame Spirit takes upon it the ſame Seed, which is Christ, now as ever, &c. That God the Father took upon him Humane Nature, That the Spirit is the Rule; and many more, not only unſcripture Terms, but contrary to Scripture? But why do they call them Three Witneſſes, as G. W. hath ſo expreſly called them? Where do they find them in Scripture ſo called? That Place in John's firſt Epiſtle doth not call them Three Witneſſes, but Three bearing Record, or witneſſing.

But it is not only the Words. Three Perſons, wherewith they are offended (th • unjuſtly, for perſonal Acts and Properties are given to them, and therefore, according to plain Conſequence from Scripture, they may be called Perſons) but the Doctrine or thing intended they deny, for they allow not that they are diſtinct▪ otherwiſe than in Manifeſtation; ſee G. W's Divinity of Christ, p. 94. he ſaith, The Three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit (or the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) are one and inſeparable, no where in Scripture called three ſeparate Perſons, nor finite in Perſonalities, though Three [in Manifeſtation] and ſo teſtified of (as Three Witneſſes) for the Confirmation of the Goſpel.

Note, Seeing G. W. doth not own them to be Three, otherwiſe but in Manifeſtation, this is not only to deny the Names or Words, Three Perſons, but to deny that they were Three from all Eternity, or before all Ages, for there was no Manifeſtation, either of One, or Two, or Three from Eternity: His calling them Three in Manifeſtation, is to call them three Manifeſtations; and ſeeing all Manifeſtation has a Beginning with Time, by his Doctrine there were not Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, three any wiſe diſtinct from Eternity: There was no God the Father from Eternity that did beger, nor no Son from Eternity that was begotten, nor Holy Ghoſt that from Eternity did proceed from the Father and the Son, by G. VVhitehead's Doctrine.

And F. Hougil, in his Collection, p. 308. delivers the ſame erronious Doctrine: He ſaith, That the Holy Ghost is called another (than Chriſt:) Another is not underſtood of another Life, of another Subſtance; but is underſtood of another Manifeſtation, or Operation of the ſame God, who ſubſiſts in the ſame Power in which the Father, the Son, and the Spirit ſubſiſt, as I ſaid unto thee before: Another, as to diſtinguiſh of the Operation and VVork of the Spirit and of the Son, we do not refuſe. By this Doctrine of F. Hougil, they are but diſtinct Manifeſtations, Operations, and Works.

Now if G. VV. or the Author of the Switch will ſay, that there were three Manifeſtations, Operations, or Works in the Godhead from all Eternity: It is abſurd to ſuppoſe ſuch Manifeſtations, beſide that they are unſcripture Terms, the ſame Arguments that they uſe againſt, three Perſons, will as much, and indeed much more, be of Force againſt three Manifeſtations; for if the Father be a Manifeſtation from Eternity, of what is he a Manifeſtation? Can he be a Manifeſtation of himſelf? Or is he a Manifeſtation of the Son, who (as they ſay) is a Manifeſtation? Thus one Manifeſtation would be the Manifeſtation of another Manifeſtation; but then what would the Holy Spirit be a Manifeſtation of?

And ſeeing in God there are no Accidents, theſe three Manifeſtations are not three Accidents, nor three Subſiſtences, nor three Subſtances, nor three Perſons; and conſequently (according to theſe Men) they are nothing at all but their own Inventions.

But VV. Penn, in his Sandy Foundation, has not only argued againſt three Perſons, but againſt the Holy Three, for he bringeth five Arguments againſt their being a Holy Three, Page 12, 13, 14. one of which is this in expreſs Words: Since the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God (which their Opinion neceſſitates them to confeſs) then unleſs the Father, Son, and Spirit are three diſtinct nothings, they must be three diſtinct Subſtances, and conſequently, three diſtinct Gods. Now let his Argument be applied to the unſcripture Terms, three Manifeſtations, and it will have the ſame Force, or rather greater; but indeed it hath none at all againſt three diſtinct Perſons, for there is a plain Diſtinction of a Medium in created Beings, betwixt Subſtance and Nothing, the three Dimenſions of a Body, Length, Breadth, and Depth, are neither three Nothings, nor three Subſtances; the Underſtanding, Will, and Locomotive Power of Man's Soul, are neither three Nothings, nor three Subſtances, and yet they are but one Soul, though all Creaturely Similitudes are improper to expreſs this Myſtery.

Beſide, how could a Manifeſtation become Fleſh, or take Man's Nature, as the Son did? And how could one Manifeſtation ſend another, or beget another, or a third Manifeſtation proceed from two other Manifeſtations?

But whereas Joſ. VVyeth ſaith in his Switch, p. 184. VVe own their Diſtinction in all the Inſtances of it recorded in Holy VVrit: In contradiction to this, hear F. Hougil, in his Collection, p. 251. he calls it damnable Doctrine to ſay, That Chriſt muſt be diſtinct from the Father and the Holy Ghoſt: Before in God, and now from God; their Quibble about ſeparate doth not help them, for ſome that have ſo called them, have declared they meant nothing by ſeparate but diſtinct; and now if Joſ. VVyeth and G. VV. will have diſtinct to ſignifie ſeparate, ſeeing they pretend to own the Diſtinction of the Father and the Son, they muſt own the Separation.

And whereas, the Teachers among the Quakers profeſs they are not changed in any thing of Doctrine or Practice, from what they were from the Beginning, for Truth is one (ſay they) and changes not, and as God is one, and Truth is one and changeth not, ſo his People are one: Now let us compare the Doctrine of G. VVhitehead, what it was in the Year 1659. when he writ his Truth defending the Quakers (which he ſaid was written from the Spirit of Truth) concerning the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and what it was in the Year 1697, when he wrote his Antidote againſt the Venome of the Snake.

In his Truth defending, &c. printed 1659. in p. 2. he ſaith, VVhat the Scripture ſaith of the Godhead, the Father, the VVord, and the Spirit, which are one, 1 Joh. 5. 7. we own, but deny the Popiſh Term of three diſtinct Perſons, which you call God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghoſt, which tends to the dividing God, and to the making three Gods: [Note, here he not only denies the three Perſons, but the Orthodox and Scriptural Explanation of them, of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghoſt.] And thou who haſt vindicated ſuch a Dream; could never prove it by the Scripture, when thou waſt put upon it: And do not you Prieſts, in your Divinity, as you call it, affirm, that a Perſon is a ſingle rational compleat Subſtance, and differing from another by an incommunicable Property? And art thou ſo blind, as to think that there is ſuch a Difference in the Godhead? Seeing Chriſt is equal with his Father who is a Spirit, then what incommunicable Property can he differ in from the Father, that is not communicable to the one as well as the other? Here we ſee, he not only oppoſes the Terms, Three Perſons, but the Diſtinction of the Three their incommunicable Properties, which are theſe, That the Father begot the Son from everlaſting, the Son was begot of the Father from everlaſting, and the Holy Ghoſt did proceed, both from the Father and the Son from everlaſting; and ſurely the Father's Property is incommunicable to the Son, and ſo is the Son's to the Father, and the Holy Ghoſt's Property to both, for it cannot be ſaid, that the Son begot the Father, or that the Son is the Father, &c. or that the Holy Ghoſt is either the Father or the Son.

But now let us hear his late Doctrine in his printed Antidote, 1697. p. 139. Though 'tis true (ſaith he) 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 VVork of the old or new Creation. Firſt, G. VV. ſhould tell us, where doth he find in Scripture, in expreſs Terms, that they are diſtinct in reſpect to their Properties of Relation. Secondly, Whether theſe Properties of Relation are communicable or incommunicable Properties: Surely he muſt ſay, incommunicable, and that he did in his Book, Truth defending, expreſly deny: For if he ſhould ſay, theſe Properties are communicable, ſuch as God's abſolute Properties are, as holy, wiſe, good, &c. then the Son might beget, and the Father might be begotten. And laſtly, Seeing he now owns a Diſtinction of Properties of Relation, though in unſcripture Terms, he muſt, by good conſequence, own three Perſons to be the Subjects of thoſe Properties, for no Properties, or Predicates, or Attributes, can be without their proper Subjects; for though it is the Father's Property to have begot the Son from everlaſting, yet the Father is not a Property, but the Perſon or Subject that has that Property. Thus we ſee, how Proteus-like G. VV. has changed his Shapes in the Years 1659. and 1697. and yet there is no Shadow of Change in him for all this, if we will believe him. But further, by ſome of his late Books, we ſhall find him, not only owning the Diſtinction of the three, in reſpect to their Properties of Relation, but advanced much nearer, ſo far as to diſown his former Oppoſition to the Terms Three Perſons, which in his Book called Iſhmael, that was his jointly with others, he had charged his Opponent to have conjured out of one, and told him, that both they and he are ſhut up in perpetual Darkneſs for the Lake; and this he doth in two ſeveral Books, one printed in the Year 1690. called The Chriſtianity of the People commonly called Quakers, where he ſets down the Words quoted out of his Iſhmael more largely; the other called Truth and Innocency, printed this very Year, 1699. where he leaves out the moſt offenſive Words, and puts an &c. in their room, as being (I ſupoſe) aſhamed of them, and well he might; but he is not aſhamed to affirm, he is not changed in his Faith. But let us hear how he excuſeth what he writ in his Iſhmael, that was printed in the Year 1655.Truth and Inn. p. 51. Though his Name is at the Book, yet he poſitively diſowns the Words, and affirms, They are none of his, and that he writ not that Part of the Anſwer to Townſend: And in his Book, called The Chriſtianity, &c. above mentioned, he ſaith He looks on the Words as wrong writ, or wrong printed, and that he raced them out, or corrected them long ſince, where he has met with that Anſwer.

But is not this a Piece of dull Sophiſtry to ſave the Credit of his Infallibility? Had he not better, more like a Man and a Chriſtian, acknowledged his Error, than to lay the Fault upon [as wrong writ, or wrong printed?] And if he corrected them long ſince, how comes it that he never publiſhed his Correction in any of the Books he has publiſhed ſince, betwixt the Year 1655. and 1690. containing the ſpace of 36. Years?

But for evidence againſt him, that he hath not ſincerely ſaid, That he writ not that Part of the Book, it is enough that he owned it, and this I can prove, that without Exception, he owned it to be his jointly with theſe others who ſigned it with him, as appears from his Truth defending the Quakers, p. 1. printed four Years after the Iſhmael: And he belches out the like antichriſtian and profane Expreſſions againſt the three Perſons in the Godhead, in Terms equivalent to thoſe in the Iſhmael. He ſaith, in his firſt Page, in Anſwer to the firſt Queſtion, Do not you repent for your endeavouring vainly to defend, Auguſt 29. 1659. in ſo great a Congregation, theſe Poſitions printed in a Book writ by George Whitehead? He anſwers for himſelf and his Brethren thus: The Poſitions we defended, are according to the Scriptures of Truth, and them we need not repent of. Theſe were they contained in that very Book called Iſhmael, as doth appear out of the Book Iſhmael it ſelf; [here the Book was produced] one of which Poſitions were, in aſſerting the Scriptures or Writing not to be the Word: Another was, That there is no ſuch Word in the Scriptures, as Three Perſons in the Trinity, but it is a Popiſh Doctrine, as the Maſs or Common-Prayer-Book mentions it. Fourthly, And thou that affirms three diſtinct Perſons in the Godhead, art a Dreamer, and he that dreams, and tells Lies, contrary to the Scriptures of Truth which we own, he with his Imaginations and Dreams, is for the Lake. Here it is plain, that by his Imaginations and Dreams, G.W. meant the Miniſters Doctrines of calling the Scriptures the Word, and affirming that there are three Perſons in the Godhead; ſo whereas he ſaid in his Iſhmael, Townſend and the three Perſons are ſhut up in perpetual Doctrines: Here in Truth defending, &c. he ſaith, He with his Imaginations and Dreams [that is the three Perſons] is for the Lake: Now this is not one whit more ſober than his Words in the Iſhmael, how then is it that G. Whitehead has not found ſome ſhift to put this part of his Truth defending upon another? Again, in his Truth defending, &c. p. 25. he plainly owns that Book called Iſhmael to be his, four Years after it was printed; and now, though in his Truth defending, &c. he ſaith, That he and his Brethren need not repent of the Poſitions laid down in that called Iſhmael; yet now in the Year 1690. in his Chriſtianity, he ſaith, He was ſorry his Name was to that Paper; and yet, as before is mentioned, in Truth defending, p. 1. he ſaith, They need not repent of it. Is not this a plain Change in G. W. He need not repent of what was writ, and yet was ſorry that it was writ: Formerly he owned that Book in the Year 1659, and in the Year 1690, He writ not that Part, and was ſorry it was writ; and all this without any Change in his Mind: But when People are ſorry for what they do, we commonly reckon they repent of it.

This offenſive Paſſage, objected againſt G. Whitehead, out of his Iſhmael, was objected againſt him by Chriſtopher Wade, in his Quakery ſlain, p. 9. printed in 1657. And though G. W. printed againſt C. Wade, in his Truth defending, 1659. yet he then took no notice of that Paſſage, to diſown it to be his.

But how is it that G. W. diſowns what was written in the Book called Iſhmael, againſt the three Perſons? Doth he now own the three Perſons not to be Popiſh, as he formerly charged them, Truth def. p. 2? Though he has not in the leaſt retracted his abuſive and reviling Speeches againſt this glorious Truth, both in the Iſhmael, and in his Truth defending, &c. [for that would reflect upon his Infallibility) yet he would ſeem now to own the Doctrine of the three Perſons, ſince the Act for Toleration came forth, for that Act of Toleration does except thoſe who deny, in their preaching or writing, the Doctrine of the bleſſed Trinity, as it is declared in the Articles of Religion, viz. the 39 Articles. But that G. W. may have the Benefit of the Act (which at preſent he has not by Law, whatever he has by Indulgence) he ought alſo to diſown ſome other abuſive Expreſſions of his, and ſophiſtical Arguings he has uſed in his other Books, as particularly, not only in his Truth defending, &c. above mentioned; but in his Divinity of Chriſt, ſigned by the two Letters, G. W. ſee p. 18. he hath theſe Words, As to T.D's telling of the Son of God's Incarnation, the Creation of his Body and Soul, the Parts of that Nature be ſubſiſted in, &c. To this I ſay (ſaith G. W.) if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both created, doth not this render him a fourth Perſon? And as nonſenſical and abuſive is the reaſoning of G. Fox their great Apoſtle, in the Epiſtle prefixed to the Divinity, ſigned by him and John Stubbs, where, in the 9th Page of that Epiſtle, they thus argue;—And he ſpeaks again, in his 14th Page, of three diſtinct Perſons are one with the Godhead: Now Reader, is not here four, to wit, three Perſons and the Godhead? And thus G. F. and G. W. make no leſs, by their wild and nonſenſical Reaſonings, than five Perſons in the Godhead, an Abſurdity they would fix on the Doctrine of three Perſons; for by their Arguments, the Godhead is the fourth Perſon, and Chriſt's created Soul and Body is the fifth: Do not theſe Paſſages require a Retractation, and will they ſay they are Proteſtants, and one with the Church of England in Matter of Doctrine, and in the common Principles of Chriſtianity, and yet boldly ſtand in the Defence of thoſe abuſive Paſſages?

But whereas they argue (ad hominem) that there muſt be five Perſons, if Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt be ſaid to be three Perſons, ſeeing G. W. calls them three Witneſſes, by their nonſenſical Argument, there muſt be five Witneſſes that bear Record in Heaven, viz. the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoſt, and the Godhead; theſe are four, and the created Soul and Body of Chriſt, that is the fifth: But G.W. has a way to evade this laſt, by denying that Chriſt has any created Soul or Body, as in the Words in p. 18. above mentioned doth appear, for which I ſhall have ſome uſe hereafter.

Joſ. Wyeth, in his Switch, p. 184. would make his Readers believe, It's only the Word Perſon they object against, as too groſs: We cannot (ſaith he) but think the VVord Perſon too groſs to expreſs them.

But to detect this Fallacy, pray let us take notice, that G. F. whom he calls an Apoſtle, has expreſly owned the Perſon of the Father, G. M. p. 247. But thou ſaith, Chriſt doth not dwell in them perſonally, doth not Chriſt dwell in his Saints, as he is in the Perſon of the Father, the Subſtance? And are not they of his Fleſh, and of his Bone?

Again, G. Fox, G.M. p. 248. owns expreſly Chriſt's Perſon; for firſt, having cited his Opponent's Words; It is a falſe thing to ſay Chriſt's Perſon is in Man; in his Anſwer (without finding the leaſt fault with the Term Perſon) he makes Oppoſition thus, VVhich is as much as to ſay, none are of his Fleſh, or of his Bone, nor eat it, nor had not his Subſtance.

By this it appears, that G. F. did not find fault, either with the Word Perſon, as belonging to the Father, or with Chriſt's Perſon, but he will not allow them to be two Perſons, but one Perſon. But if any will ſay, he allowed them to be two Perſons, then by the Arguments, both of G. F. and G. VV. they muſt be two Gods; for if three Perſons infer by Argument, three Gods, by the ſame Argument, two Perſons will infer two Gods.

The above mentioned Words of G. F. in G. M. Doth not Chriſt dwell in his Saints, as he is in the Perſon of the Father, the Subſtance? Joſ. VVyeth, in his Switch, recites as quoted out of the Snak • : Here the Switch finds no fault with G. Fox's owning the Perſon of the Father, which were G. F's own Words, but labors to prove, that by that ſpiritual Oneneſs betwixt Chriſt and his Followers, G.F. did not mean to make the Soul of the ſame Perſon and Subſtance with God, which how ineffectual his Labor is in that may be ſhewn afterwards.

Note, that the Switch doth juſtifie G. F. his Saying, That God the Father did take upon him Humane Nature, p. 190. and in Truth's defence, by G. F. p. 85. The Son's Body is called the Father's; they are one, not two, viz. the Son and the Father.

But here, once more on this Head, let us take notice of G. VV's Fallibility and ſelf Contradiction in moſt evident manner. In his Light and Life, p. 47. he blames his Opponent, VV. B. for theſe Words following, concerning Chriſt; Now, as he was God, he was Co-creator with the Father, and ſo was before Abraham, and had Glory with God before the VVorld was, and in this Senſe came down from Heaven. To this G.VV. replies, VVhat Nonſence and unſcripture Language is this, to tell of God being Co-creator with the Father, or that God had Glory with God? Doth not this imply two Gods, and that God had a Father, let the Reader judge? Note how he calleth it Nonſence and unſcripture Language, to ſay, That Chriſt, as God, had Glory with God, and that he had a Father; which is a plain Evidence that G. VV. denied the eternal divine Generation of the Son, contrary both to the Nicene and Athanaſian Creed, and Scripture alſo. But let us ſee how he excuſes himſelf in his Antidote, p. 188. But the Phraſe, God Co-creator with God, I think ſtill implies two Creators, and conſequently two Gods. 'Tis 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 VVord, one Spirit, and ſo one Creator.

Note, Here we ſee the Force of G. VV's Argument againſt Chriſt the Word, being God, Co-creator with the Father, is, that it would infer the Father and the Son to be Co-workers, and conſequently two Gods. This Antidote he writ in the Year 1697. but in the Year 1674. wherein he publiſhed his Quakers Plainneſs, in p. 24. he allows the Father and the Son to be Co-workers in the following Words; That the Diſtinction of the Father and the Son, is not only nominal (as this Oppoſer implies against us) but real, in the divine Relation of Father and Son; the Son as being the only begotten of the Father, and alſo known as Co-workers; in the Order and Degrees of Manifeſtation and Diſcovery, where it is plain, by his late manner of arguing, in his Antidote, againſt the Father and the Son being Co-workers, that it doth infer two Gods; that in his Saying, in his Quakers Plainneſs, as above quoted, That the Father and the Son are known as Co-workers; he has rendred himſelf guilty, by his own Argument, of holding the Father and the Son to be two Gods: This is not only a Contradiction to himſelf, but a ſevere Cenſure on himſelf, that in the Year 1674. he was guilty of Idolatry, in holding, That the Father and the Son are two Gods.

Note Reader, that the Quakers uſe to object two things againſt my charging Contradictions upon G. W. and other their principal Authors: Firſt, That I have contradicted my ſelf in my former and later Writings: To this I have anſwered, What in my later Writings I have retracted of my former Errors, is no Contradiction; for that's a Contradiction, when a Man holds contradictory Propoſitions to be both true [ſimul & ſemel] without retracting his Errors. But what a Man retracts, he is no more chargeable with; let G. W. and his Brethren retract their Errors, and I ſhall ceaſe to charge them with them, or with Contradictions. Secondly, they object, That I may find as many Contradictions in the Scriptures, as in their Books: Thus we ſee how they undervalue the Scriptures, to be as contradictory as their Authors; but I deny there are any real Contradictions in the Scriptures, but there are many in the Quakers Authors.

Again further, hear a Quotation out of the Primmer of G. F. junior, and S. Criſp, p. 24. And they that come to ſee and know the Son, they come to ſee and know the Father alſo, for the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, as ſaith the Scriptures, and they are called by one Name, which is, The Word, or The Light, For the Word is God, and Christ is the Word, and God is Light, and Christ is the Light of the World, and the Spirit of Life proceeds from God and Christ, who are Light.

Note, Seeing they hold that the Father and the Son are called by one Name, which is, The Word, and that the Father is the Word, and the Son is the Word, it is evident they make no Diſtinction betwixt the Father and Son? and therefore, according to their falſe Doctrine, ſeeing the Word was made Fleſh, and the Father is the Word, the Father was made Fleſh, the Father was born of a Virgin, the Father ſuffered Death on the Croſs, yea, the Father is the Son, and the Son is the Father, which is a plain overturning the great Fundamentals of Chriſtianity; yet this Primmer is ſo highly magnified among the Quakers, that almoſt every Family of them have it to teach it their Children, and they call it in the Preface, A Fruit of the Plant of Righteouſneſs, given forth for the removing the Vſe of ſuch Books and Catechiſins, as are ſprung forth of the corrupt Tree, which now is to be burned, and its Fruit rejected: Now theſe are all the Books and Catechiſms publiſhed by any others but themſelves.

Again, in p. 23. they ſay, And though ſome have known him (viz. Christ after the Fleſh) yet henceforth know they him ſo no more, as ſay the Scriptures of Truth.

Note, Here they pervert the true Sence of Paul's Words, as they commonly do in their Books and Preachings, giving Paul's Words for a Reaſon why they do not preach Faith in Chriſt, as he came in the Fleſh, died, and roſe again, &c, as neceſſary to Salvation, becauſe, ſay they, VVe are no more to know Christ after the Fleſh; whereas it was the great Subject, both of Paul's Preaching, and of all the Apoſtles, to wit, Jeſus Chriſt, as he came in the Fleſh, died for our Sins, and roſe again, and aſcended, &c. inſomuch, that they did, with one Accord, declare, That the Gift of the Holy Ghoſt, with all the ſaving and ſanctifying Graces of the Spirit, do come to Men, by Chriſt, through Faith in him, as he came in the Fleſh, died, roſe, and aſcended; and that this Faith was wrought in Men by hearing the VVord outwardly preached.

Again, in p. 23. they ſay, Now Children, the Scriptures of Truth do declare of God and Christ, and the Spirit of Truth, which are one; but the Scriptures cannot bring you to know God, and Chriſt, and the Spirit of Truth: And yet they ſay, concerning this Primmer, and the Contents of it, p. 2. That they are very uſeful for Children and others to Learn, that they may be turned unto the Light, which is the Gift of God: Here they ſeem to prefer their Primmer to the Scriptures; for they ſay, of the Contents of their Primmer, That they are very uſeful for Children and others to Learn: To learn what? Surely ſome Knowledge of God and Chriſt they will ſay, and yet they will not allow ſo much to the Scripture; and on a diligent Search, I find not, in all this Primmer, one ſimple Direction, to Children and others, to read the Scriptures, and what they have quoted of Scripture in it, is but little, and much, even of that, groſly perverted and miſapplied, as in p. 44, 45. they ſay, They that hear the Light [that is in all Men, and common to all Men] they hear God, for God is Light, and they that hear God, they hear Chriſt alſo, for God and Chriſt are one (as ſaith the Scripture) and they that hear Chriſt, hear the Author of the true Faith, and ſo hear the Saviour of their Souls, and the Light is that Prophet, which all that hear not him, are to be cut off.

Here we ſee how groſly they pervert that Place of Scripture, Deut. 18. 15. Acts 3. 22. 7. 37. which is not to be underſtood of the common Illumination given to all Mankind, but of the Man Chriſt, as he outwardly came in the Fleſh, and did execute his prophetical Office on Earth, by preaching and teaching; and as he doth now ſtill execute his prophetical Office in his Church, by his Word outwardly preached, and his Spirit inwardly accompanying it to make it effectual.

Again, p. 82. they run into the ſame wild Notion, that others, Familiſts and mad Enthuſiaſts run into, of the Blood of Chriſt within them: For, ſay they, and all wait together in the Light [viz. as it is common to all Mankind, Infidels, Jews, Mahumetans, Heathens; for ſo they underſtand it] and believe in it, that ye may be the Children of the Light, and therein watch unto Prayer, and one over another, and this will beget ye into unfeigned Love, and walk in the Light, ye will have true Vnity and Fellowſhip one with another, and the Blood, which is the Life of Jeſus Chriſt, ye will feel cleanſing you from all Sin, and ſo ye will come into Vnity with God.

Note, By this it is evident, as will more fully appear on a particular Head following, that by the Blood, which they call the Life of Jeſus Chriſt, they meant not his Blood outwardly ſhed, or his Life that he outwardly laid down, viz. the Life of his Manhood without us, for the Remiſſion of our Sins, and cleanſing therefrom: But according to their uſual Cant and Phraſe, The Blood, that is the Life, and the Life is the Light within: So that they make the Blood, the Life, and the Light within them, to be one and the ſame thing; but neither in this Primmer, nor in any other of their Books, do I find the leaſt Direction to Faith in the Blood of Chriſt, as it was outwardly ſhed on the Croſs, therefore in this Primmer, and in their other Books, they give Poiſon to poor Children, to ſuck or receive, inſtead of wholeſome Food.

Proofs on the ſixth Head, Concerning the Soul. Whether the Soul of Man is a Part of God.

G. VVhitehead is at great Pains. in his Truth and Innocency, page 7. and 9. to prove, that when George Fox ſaid, The Soul was a Part of God, and of God's Being; he did not mean the rational Soul of Man, and which he calls the reaſonable Soul or Spirit formed in Man, but that divine Inſpiration or Breath of Life, whereby Man became a living Soul, as the great and univerſal Soul of Mankind, even the Soul, or Life of the Soul, as ſome phraſe it.

And Joſeph VVyeth, in his Switch, page 53. pleads, That he meant not That the created Soul was a Part of God; and will have it, that George Fox held, That the Soul of Man was created. But none of them give the leaſt effectual Proof out of his Books, where George Fox mentions any created Soul to be in Man, that is not a Part of God: Their Inferences are weak, as That Chriſt is the Biſhop of the Soul: The Soul is in Tranſgreſſion in Death: The Soul redeemed rejoyceth in God: All this doth not prove; that George Fox did hold, that the Soul of Man, in all theſe Conſiderations, was not a Part of God: For, according to him, the Soul being a Part of God, this part rejoyceth in God the Fulneſs; and God or Chriſt conſidered as the Fulneſs, is the Biſhop of the Soul that is a Part of him, the Soul being like a Drop of Water returning into the Ocean, ſo taught the Ranters; and that all Creatures were Parts of God, who was the Subſtance of all things; and ſo ſaith George Fox expreſly, Great Miſtery, page 99. and Edward Burrough, ſee the Collection of his Works, pag. 827, 828. And George Fox denieth, That either Christ or Men have a Humane Soul, or that Chriſt hath either a Humane Soul or Body, Great Miſtery, pag. 99, 100. His Objection is idle againſt Humane, as ſignifying Earthly, from Humus, the Ground, which is but a Cloak to cover his groſs Eerror.

None of his Opponents ſaid, the Soul was from the Earth: He might as much object againſt the Language of Scripture, that calleth Chriſt the ſecond Adam, the Word Adam ſignifying Red Earth. That the Soul is in Tranſgreſſion in Death, proves not that George Fox did not hold it to be a Part of God, for he and other Teachers among the Quakers teach, That what they call the Seed Chriſt, is crucified in the wicked, and is held in Satans Chains, and what are theſe Chains but Sins, as is above proved out of Truth's Def. p. 49.

But for a full and clear Evidence, that George Fox did hold the Soul of Man to be a Part of God, in anſwer to Magnus Byne his Book, called, The ſcornful Quakers anſwered. Great Miſtery, p. 90. Is not the Soul without Beginning coming from God, returning into God again, who hath it in his Hand? And in Anſwer to Jonathan Clapham his Book, called A Diſcovery of the Quakers Doctrine, Great Miſtery, page 100. Is not this that cometh out from God, which is in God's Hand, part of God, of God and from God, and to God again, which Soul Chriſt is the Biſhop of?

It is to be noted and well obſerved, that this Oppoſition that George Fox made to thoſe Men and his other Opponents, as Richard Baxter, and the five Miniſters of New Caſtle, about the Soul which they denied to be a Part of God, or without Beginning, and he affirmed it was. [By Oppoſition to them] was not about any divine Soul in the Soul that was the Life or Soul of it, as George VVhitehead would have it; by which he means, God or the Holy Ghoſt, for in all Diſputes, the Subject of the Diſpute is one betwixt the Opponent and the Reſpondent; and though ſometimes, where the Matter is intricate and nice, the Subject is hard to find out, and the Opponent may mean one thing, and the Reſpondent another; yet in a Caſe that is clear, and eaſie to be underſtood, as this Caſe is, there can be no Difficulty about the Subject of the Diſpute, as indeed here there is none; which Subject of Diſpute betwixt George Fox and his Opponents above mentioned, was purely and ſimply the Soul of Man, and not any divine Principle in the Soul. As to inſtance from Magnus Byne, the Beginning of this Controverſie betwixt Magnus Byne and George Fox, about the Soul, was by a Queſtion that Magnus Byne put to Thomas Lawſon a Quaker, which was this [ſee in Magnus Byne, The ſcornful Quaker anſwered, page 103.] VVhat is the Soul of Man, and the Preciouſneſs of it, ſeeing Chriſt ſays, It is more worth than all the VVorld?

To this Thomas Lawſon the Quaker anſwers, The Miniſters of Jeſus, who come by the Will of God, ſuch know the Soul, and watch for the Soul, Heb. 13. 17. But thy watching is for the Fliece, and art querying what the Soul is which lies in Death, and State, and Condemnation ſo long as it lives, and the falſe Accuſer lives, and it the Firſt-born knows not, nor the Preciouſneſs of it, who prefers the World, and obeys it before the Light of Chriſt, and ſo ſells the Soul for the World, as thou doſt who profeſſeſt him in thy Lip-talk, but denies him in Practice, Ways, and Converſation, though Chriſt ſaith, The Soul is more worth than all the World.

To which, Magnus Byne, his Opponent thus replieth; In all this Anſwer, there is not a Tittle unto-the Queſtion; here it appears thy perfect knowledge fails thee. Here thou gueſſeſt, that the Soul is Chriſt, for he is the Firſt-born the Scripture mentions; and ſo according to thy Blaſphemy, Chriſt it ſeems may be damned and caſt into Hell, for ſo it is ſaid of the Soul, Fear him who is able to caſt Body and Soul into Hell. See how dark thou art in making no Difference between the Soul and Chriſt; the Soul is indeed a precious thing, there is a kind of Infiniteneſs in it, which all the World cannot ſatisfie; and therefore the Man was a Fool that ſaid, Soul, take thine Eaſe becauſe thy Barns are full; and yet notwithſtanding this kind of Infiniteneſs in the Soul as being reſtleſs, till it return to God; yet it cannot be Infiniteneſs it ſelf, it cannot be the Firſt-born, for of whole Man it is ſaid, whereof the Soul is the more noble Part, VVhat is Man that thou art mindful of him? Heb. 2. 6, 7. Man you ſee is inferior unto the Angels, much more inferior to the Son of God. And farther (ſaith he) though the Soul be the Seat of Chriſt, and Chriſt be hid there as a Treaſure in a Field, even in the innermoſt Room of the Soul, yet the Soul cannot comprehend the infinite Majeſty; ſo Chriſt in his diviner Eſſence or Being, much leſs, can it be Chriſt who is God over all bleſſed for evermore? And though there be indeed a bleſſed Union and Fellowſhip between Chriſt and an holy Soul, yet ſtill there is a vaſt Difference between the Eſſence or being of the Soul and Chriſt, the one being ſtill a Creature, and the other the Creator of it.

Next he comes to give his own Definition of it; The Soul (ſaith Magnus Byne) is a moſt noble Power, a living Being, an Eſſence that quickens the Body, and yet dies not, ſleeps not when the Body dies and ſleeps, but returns unto God who gave it: This Soul is a little Map of the great World, and makes Man a little World; for in his Soul is comprehended the Life of Plants, the Senſe of Beaſts, the Reaſon of Men and Angels: This Soul quickens and makes Man a living Creature, a ſenſitive Creature, a rational Creature. After he has deſcribed the Soul of Man (which he expreſly calls a Creature, as above quoted) in its ſeveral Powers and Faculties of the Mind, Reaſon, Judgment, Will, Memory, Fancy, Appetite and Affections; to wit, the created Soul of Man: He ſaith, God is the Life of our Life, and Soul of our Soul; he proceeds very regularly to tell, That in this Soul of Man, or in the Spirit or Mind of it, as the higheſt Power, when it is regenerated and reſigned, lives the great King manifeſted; here he dwells as in Mount Sion, here he delights to be as in his Temple. And in this Soul of Man, unenlightened and unrenewed, Chriſt lies hid and is as one dead [note, he doth not ſay dead, as the Quakers ſay, but is as one dead] and unſavory unto the Soul, and ſo the Soul is in Darkneſs, Weakneſs, Sinfulneſs, Sorrow, Fear, Bondage.

Thus we ſee Magnus Byne doth ſo clearly ſtate the Subject of the Controverſie betwixt him and the Quakers his Opponents, which was the Soul of Man, the created reaſonable Soul, that is neither God nor Chriſt, though he owneth that God and Chriſt are in the Souls of Men, both regenerate and unregenerate, but after different Manners, that he leaves no room for any of the leaſt Capacity of Underſtanding to miſtake the true Subject of the Controverſie; and therefore George Fox, whom Joſeph Wyeth magnifieth as the APOSTLE in this Age, could not be ſuch a Sot as not to underſtand the true Subject of the Diſpute, which was the Soul of Man, the reaſonable Soul, that which thinks, wills, loves, which dieth not when the Body dieth, and which again and again he calleth a Creature, and the created Soul, diſtinguiſheth it from Chriſt in the Soul, which he ſaith, is the Life of our Life, and Soul of our Soul. [The ſame Expreſſion uſed by George VVhitehead, in his Truth and Innocency.] Yet notwithſtanding all this clear ſtating the Subject of the Diſpute, which was the Soul of Man [and not that divine Principle in the Soul.] George Fox doth make a great Difference with him, and ſets himſelf in great Oppoſition to him, and will needs have it, That the Soul [to wit, the Soul of Man, which was the only Subject of the Diſpute] is without Beginning, coming from God, returning to God again. Alſo he oppoſeth Magnus Byne's Saying, There is a kind of Infiniteneſs in the Soul [viz. with Reſpect to the Largeneſs of its Deſires, which the whole World cannot ſatisfie, as he explained himſelf;] but it is not Infiniteneſs it ſelf, which George Fox wrongly quotes by adding the Word IN, making him ſay, It is not Infiniteneſs IN it ſelf, which mars the Senſe: But George Fox, in Oppoſition to M. B. will have the Soul of Man [which was the Subject of the Diſpute] to be Infiniteneſs it ſelf without Beginning.

Note, Here a Quaker, Daniel Philips objected, That Diſputants might differ about the Subject of the Diſpute, ſo as the Opponent might mean one thing, and the Reſpondent another: But I anſwered, They might ſo, when the Matter is intricate and obſcure by Ambiguities of Words; but it could not be ſo here, the Subject of the Diſpute being ſo clearly propoſed, that none but a Sot or Cheat could or would miſtake the Subject, which the Quakers will not allow G. F. to be, having ſo great an Eſteem of his Wiſdom, as the Apoſtle in this Age.

And the like is to be ſaid of all the Diſputes betwixt George Fox and his other Opponents about the Soul, which were only about the Soul of Man, and not at all about God or Chriſt in the Soul, for they all did contend there was a real Diſtinction betwixt the Soul and God or Chriſt who was in it: But George Fox would allow none, but ſtill contended, That the Soul, concerning which they and he diſputed, was a Part of God without Beginning, &c. And in his Great Miſtery, page 91. he blames Magnus Byne for calling the Soul a Creature, and ſaith, he is in Babylon and Confuſion. And in his Diſpute with the five Miniſters of New Caſtle, Great Miſtery, pag. 227, 228. he ſaith, The Soul, whereof Christ is the Biſhop, is divine and immortal; alſo he moſt groſly wrongs the five Miniſters of New Caſtle, and charges them with holding it to be their own Principle; Great Miſtery, page 227. That the Soul is a Part of the divine Eſſence.

And in his Great Miſtery, page 29. he ſaith to them, And ſo you five have judged your ſelves to be Blaſphemers, who ſaid, The Soul was Part of the divine Eſſence, and yet it is Blaſphemy to ſay ſo. This he moſt unjuſtly chargeth in them, quoting their Book, called, A Diſcovery of that Generation of Men called Quakers; but in that very Book, which was produced and the Words quoted, as they are in that Book, page 5. the five Miniſters deliver it, not as any Poſition of theirs, but as one of the Quakers Poſitions [having this Title on the Top, Quakers Poſitions] being the third in Number, and in all being ſeventeen] That the Soul is a Part of the divine Eſſence. What Excuſe can George VVhitehead, or any of his Brethren find for this palpable Injuſtice in George Fox? Could he be ſo ſottiſh as not to diſtinguiſh betwixt the five Miniſters Poſitions, and what they call the Quakers Poſitions, and which they expreſly blame and diſown, and give their Arguments againſt? And if he was not ſo ignoratly ſottiſh in the Caſe, what can it be conſtrued but a wilful Lie thus for him to charge them?

And for a further Confirmation that George Fox did hold, That that very Soul of Man [which George VVhitehead calls the reaſonable and rational Soul, Truth and Innocency, pag. 7, 8, 9. and which George VVhitehead confeſſeth hath ſinned] doth not ſin, and is not at any time a ſinful Soul; conſequently is, according to him, a Part of God; I bring a Quotation out of his Great Miſtery, page 337. George Fox quotes his Opponent ſaying, The Soul of Man is a reaſonable ſinful Subſtance: To this George Fox anſwers, How can that which is ſinful be reaſonable? And if that which is unſinful be reaſonable, and ſinful be reaſonable both, then they are one in Vnity. The Lord will take the Soul for an Offering for Sin, Iſa. 5. 3. See how thou and the Prophet agrees here. But what is that Soul that the wicked is not able to kill? Is it not that which God hath in his Hand? And this is a Lye to ſay, That which is reaſonable is ſinful.

Note how groſly he perverts that Place in Iſa. 53. 10. When thou ſhall make his Soul an Offering for Sin: This is underſtood of the Soul of the Man Chriſt who ſuffered without us, and not of any Soul within us, which yet is George Fox's Notion; and this very Soul in Men, this reaſonable Soul, George Fox will have it to be the Odering for Sin: And becauſe it is ſo, therefore he concludes it is not ſinful, not capable of ſinning; yet George Whitehead ſaith, The reaſonable Soul is capable of ſinning, and hath ſinned in Men (though it never ſinned in Chriſt.) See how theſe two Apoſtles do now contradict one anoother, and yet none of them fallible! Note, again, how George Fox thought he put a very puzzling Query to his Opponent to convince him, that the reaſonable Soul in Men did not ſin; What is that Soul that the wicked cannot kill? Surely by this Query George Fox meant the Soul that the wicked cannot kill, was not the Soul that could ſin, wherein he ſheweth his great Ignorance; for though the wicked cannot kill the ſinful Souls of Men, yet as Chriſt ſaid in the following Words, He is to be feared, to wit, God, that can cast both Soul and Body into Hell Fire: Now what Soul can be caſt into Hell Fire, but the Soul that ſinneth? But laſtly, By George Fox's Argument, That if the ſinful Soul be reaſonable, and the unſinful Soul be reaſonable alſo, then they are one in Unity, which he would have to be a great Abſurdity; thus he hath plainly diſcloſed the Miſtery of his profound Doctrine, that is a Branch of Ranteriſm, viz. that there are but two Principles, one good in Man, that never ſinneth or doth evil, the other bad, that ſinneth, and never doeth good; the one is God, or a Part of God, the other the Devil, or a Part of the Devil: And his denying that one and the ſame Soul doth ſin at one Time, and doth well at another Time, clearly proveth, that according to him, there is not any Soul of Man, but what is either a Part of God, or of the Devil: And he diſcovereth his great Ignorance, in denying that the reaſonable Soul is ſinful, the contrary whereof is true, that no Soul but a reaſonable Soul, is or can be ſinful: for what is it that makes the Beaſts uncapable of ſinning, but that they are not reaſonable?

And whereas his Opponent had very well argued, that the evil Spirits are both ſinful and reaſonable; George Fox anſwereth, This is a Lie, for reaſonable is not ſinful, unreaſonable is ſinful; quoting 2 Theſſ. 3. 2. And that we may be delivered from unreaſonable and wicked Men, for all Men have not Faith. But this doth nothing favour his Manichean Notion; he was ſo ignorant as not to diſtinguiſh betwixt the Faculty of Reaſon, and the Act of Reaſon, when Men that are reaſonable, and have reaſonable Souls, act contrary to Reaſon; they are ſaid to be unreaſonable, to wit, in Act; but ſtill, the Soul that ſinneth is reaſonable, with reſpect to the rational Faculty, nor could evil Spirits ſin, if they were not reaſonable, i. e. indued with rational Faculties? Beſides, the Greek Word, in 2 Theſſ. 3. 2. is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and is not ſo properly tranſlated Unreaſonable, but (as it is on the Margin) Abſurd, i. e. ſuch, who, though they have Reaſon, yet will not give place to Reaſon, but act contrary to it; and George Fox, had he had the right Uſe of his Reaſon, might have ſeen, that it is no more an Argument againſt the Soul of Man being reaſonable, that it acts unreaſonably, than it is an Argument that the Soul is not enlightened by the Light within, becauſe it often acts contrary to the Dictates of it.

Again, for a further Confirmation of George Fox's Doctrine, That the Soul that ſinneth, is not the Soul that is to be ſaved; and that therefore, the Soul that is ſaved, or is to be ſaved, is only Chriſt, the Seed within Men: Hear what George Fox ſaith, Great Miſtery, page 324. he quotes his Opponent ſaying, That the Seed, to whom the Promiſe of Salvation is made, is or hath been Sinners. This he oppoſeth ſaying, The Promiſe of God is to the Seed, which hath been laden as a Cart with Shaves by the Sinner, which Seed is the Hope Christ, that purifies even as God is pure: So this Promiſe is not to Seeds, as many, but to one, the Seed which is Chriſt.

Note In the ſame Paragraph he ſaith, So here is the Creature come to know its Liberty amongst the Sons of God, and the Seed Christ, never ſinned in the Male nor in the Female.

Note what he means by the Creature that comes to know its Liberty, which hath not ſinned, and hath the Promiſe of Salvation, ſeems not intelligible, for he denieth that the Seed is a Creature, and yet it is that to which the Promiſe of Salvation is, to wit, the Seed Chriſt in the Male and in the Female that never ſinned; but he groſly perverts that Place in Gal. 3. 16. for by the Seed Christ, is there meant Chriſt as he came outwardly according to the Fleſh out of Abraham's Loins, to whom the Promiſe was, that in him all Nations of the Earth ſhould be bleſſed, but this was not to a Seed within that needed Salvation.

Like to this is what he ſaith in Great Miſtery, p. 15. having quoted his Opponent ſaying, There is nothing in Man to be ſpoken to but Man: To this he thus oppoſeth, How then Miniſtred the Apoſtle to the Spirit, and Christ ſpake to the Spirits in Priſon, and Timothy was to ſtir up the Gift that was in him, and the Spirit of the Father ſpeaks within them, and the Light it ſhines in the Heart? Here the Scriptures are for Correction of thee, and Reproof of thee, who ſaid, there is nothing to ſpeak to in Man but Man.

Again, In Great Myſtery, p. 187, he quotes his Opponent ſaying, It would be good News, if the Quakers ſhould go and preach to the Spirits in Hell. To this he anſwers, The Quakers have been among the Priſoners that be in Hell, and miniſtred to that, and the CORRUPTIONS ſhall go into the Fire that hath no End, and they that do wickedly and forget God, ſhall go into Hell, and Death and Hell ſhall go into the Lake of Fire; and there is more in theſe Words yet than thou canst receive, for God is the Salvation of all Men, but ſpecially them that believe.

Note, thus we ſee he is very charitable, and the Quakers Miniſters are very charitable, that they have been among the Priſoners in Hell, and preached to that. But how is this great Charity conſiſtent with his ſaying, That that which ſinneth is not ſaved, unleſs he mean that Sin is not ſaved, though the Creature is?

The very ſame Doctrine, concerning the Soul, I find aſſerted by Edward Burrough in his Works, Coll. page 27. Thou ſayest, one of us told thee, That that which ſinned could not be ſaved. I anſwer (ſaith Edward Burrough) It is out of the Reach of the Wiſdom, and thy vulturous Eye ſhall never ſee it, I ſay, as the Scripture ſaith, The Soul that ſinneth must die, and every Man muſt die for his own Iniquity: If thou haſt an Ear, thou mayſt hear.

Thus we ſee the Agreement of theſe two great Teachers of the Quakers, about the Souls that ſin, that they ſhall not be ſaved, nor can be ſaved. But how groſly doth Edward Burrough pervert thoſe Scriptures to prove his moſt corrupt Doctrine, that is plain Ranteriſm? Becauſe the Scripture ſaith, The Soul that ſinneth muſt die; doth it therefore follow, That it cannot afterwards be ſaved, both from Death, and Sin, that is the Cauſe of it? Indeed Sin hath brought a Spiritual Death upon the Souls of Men: But what then? Muſt they therefore none of them that have ſinned be ſaved? Had not the Epheſians been great Sinners, yea, and they were dead in their Sins and Treſpaſſes, yet theſe very ſame Men having the ſame Souls, were quickened and made alive by Chriſt, Epheſ. 2. 3. And you hath he quickened who were dead in Treſpaſſes and Sins?

And George Whitehead himſelf is guilty of the ſame abſurd Doctrine with G. F. and Edward Burrough, who in his He-goats Horn, pag. 11, 12. denieth that Chriſt hath our Nature in Heaven, and that it is one and the ſame Nature in Men, by which the Gentiles ſinned, aud by which they did the things contained in the Law: And in his Voice of Wiſdom, page 20. he holdeth, That Chriſt is both the Efficient and Subject of the good Works that are wrought in Men, which is in effect to ſay, it is not Men, or the Souls of Men that repent, believe, obey God, but Chriſt in them, or elſe he muſt ſay, The Soul that believes, repents, obeys, is Chriſt; and though in his later Books he ſeems to deny this, yet will retract nothing, for that would reflect on his Infallibility: But his common Salve for this Sore is, That he may ſee cauſe otherwiſe to word the Matter, and yet mean the ſame thing, as he has of late expreſt in ſome of his Books.

Note, Whereas in the Cloſe of the third Meeting, a Letter of John Audland (a Preacher among the Quakers) to George Fox, was read, wherein is contained groſs Idolatry, which confirms, in matter of Fact, what George Fox ſaid of himſelf, That he was equal to God, and that he was Christ; and upon this Notion John Audland addreſſed himſelf to George Fox, as to God and Chriſt, in his ſaid Letter, the which, for its Affinity with the Doctrine of George Fox, diſcovered in the firſt and ſecond Part of this Narrative, I think fit here to inſert.

John Audland's Blaſphemous Letter to George Fox, Spelt and Pointed according to the Original.

DEare and preſious one in whome my life is bound up and my ſtrenth in thee ſtands, by thy breathings I am nuriſhed and refreſhed: and by thee my ſtrenth is renewed: bleſſed art thow for Ever more: and bleſſed are all they that Enjoy thee: life and ſtrenth comes from thee holy one: and thow art the bleſſed of the lord for Ever more, dear dear reach unto mee, that I may be ſtrenthened, to ſtand in the mighty power and dread of the lord, for the ſarviſſe is very great, my travell and burthen was never, ſoe as now ſince I ſaw thee: but dayly doe I find thy Preſence with me, which doth exceedingly Preſerve mee; for I cannot reane but in thy preſence and power: pray for me that I may ſtand in thy dread for Ever more: deare my deare brother John Cam hath been Exceeding ſicke and he is very weake I can ſay little of his Recovery as yet his wife is with him ſhe is deare and preciouſly keept; their deare love is to thee, chreach through all in thy mighty power to him this bearer can declare to thee of the work this way: Jo: Willkinſon and Jo: Storey is heare, their love is dearly to thee: deare harte there is one thinge that lies upon mee: I ſhall lay it before thee: as tuching my coming into Wiltſhire: I was there at Juſtice Stoks houſe: and his famaley is all prety loveing and convinced: and he is a ſober wiſe man and there is honeſty in him which will ſtand: and there is a pretey people that way: it hath laid exceeddingly upon me theſe 3 days of thy beeing at that place: I know not ſuch another place in all the Counterey: for thee: dear: I was much wounded to know that thow was in ſuch a rude place and ſuffers ſoe amongſt them: and this was I moved to lay before thee: and great is my diſere that it may be ſoe: the Place is about 20 miles from breſtol in wiltſhire one mile from chipenam a markete towne Juſtice: ſtoks houſe, Jo: Cam tould me that the Juſtice he was with was a very Loving and prety, man: this bearer was there he can declare to thee more: but oh that thou weare but at that place I mention: it is free and ſuteable for frends coming to thee: it lies much upon mee: and if thow find movings ſtrike over thither I ſhall ſay no more of it: the worke is great heare away pray for us all that in thy Power we may abide for Evermore: I am thyne begoten and nuriſhed by thee and in thy Power am I preſerved glory unto thee holy one for Ever:

John Audland.

The Letter being read, the Auditory was ſtruck with Admiration, and generally ſignified their great Abhorrency of the Blaſphemy and Idolatry contained in it to G. Fox: I told them, the Quakers had two Excuſes as to this Letter, one was, that it was feigned; becauſe, as it was once printed, it had a wrong Date, viz. 1665. which was ſome Years after John Audland was dead. But that was the Fault or Miſtake of the Publiſher of that Letter; that proves not the Letter to be feigned, for the original Manuſcript was read in the Meeting, that had no date, and was handed about to ſeveral Miniſters and others, together with another Letter of the ſame John Audland, in Manuſcript, to another Perſon, who did unanimouſly judge it was the ſame hand that writ both the Letters. Their next Excuſe is, That theſe Words in John Audland's Letter, were not intended to G. Fox, but to Chriſt, or the Life in G. Fox: And the like Excuſe G. F. made in a Letter writ with his own Hand [which was produced and read in the Meeting, and is ready to be produced before any that ſhall call for it] for a Woman Quaker, that in a Quakers Meeting, ſaid to George Fox, Thou art the King of Iſrael: That ſhe ſpoke her Words to Chriſt, viz. in G. Fox: But I told, This did not hinder it to be Idolatry, nor was any juſt Excuſe in the Caſe, for it was the ſame Excuſe that the Heathens gave for their worſhiping Idols, becauſe it was not the Idol, but the divine Power that was in it, which they worſhiped. The like Excuſe gave thoſe Quakers that ſung Hoſanna to James Nailer, at his Proceſſion into Briſtol, and the ſame Excuſe he made for them.

Proofs out of the Quakers Books, on the following Heads, viz. Christ's Coming to Judgment: The Reſurrection of the Body: The Light Within: Baptiſm and the Lord's Supper. Eighthly, Concerning Christ's last Coming to Judgment.

G. F. in his G. M. p. 9. quotes J. Bunyan ſaying, That the Place where Chriſt ſhall come to Judgment, is at the Mount of Olives, at the Eaſtſide of Jeruſalem; to this he Anſwers, Thou haſt put him far enough off from thee, and haſt not yet judged thy ſelf (and Chriſt is come to Judgment) and ſo art one of the falſe Prophets, who bids People look for him beyond the Sea, lo here, lo there; but who are come to Chriſt, the Light, the Life, they need not go forth; who abide here, are ſealed by the Spirit, puts not off the good and evil Day.

Note, Waving that Queſtion, over what place on Earth Chriſt ſhall appear at his laſt Coming, we ſee here, That G. F. oppoſeth not only to the place of his Coming, but to any outward and perſonal Coming yet to be, and chargeth J. B. to be one of the falſe Prophets for aſſerting it; and ſaith, Christ is come to Judgment, as if there were no other, for that's the true ſtate of the Controverſie, betwixt J. B. and him; J. B. did not deny that Chriſt was inwardly Come, to reprove and judge for Sin, but he aſſerted his Coming perſonally to Judgment without us alſo.

G. W. in his Light and Life, p. 40. 41. Diſputing with W. B. about Chriſt's outward Coming in his Glorified Body, to Judge the Quick and the Dead, anſwereth to the ſeveral Scriptures that W. B. brought for Chriſt's outward Coming at the end of the World, and carries them all to his inward Coming already fulfilled, ſuch as, 1 Theſſ. 4. 15, 17. and Acts 1. 9, 10, 11. Acts 2, 32, 33, 34. Matth. 24. 30. and Verſe 26. 14. and oppoſeth W. B. in his underſtanding them of his outward Coming in Glory at the end of the World.— And as to that, 1 Theſſ. 4. 17. (ſaith G. W.) which W. B. brings to prove that Chriſt ſhall come in the latter end of the World, from Heaven, above the Clouds. Now in Ver. 15. it's ſaid, That we which are alive, and remain unto the Coming of the Lord. Now I ask (ſaith he) if they did live and remain to a perſonal Coming of Chriſt in the Clouds, yea, or nay? Or can it be reaſonably thought to be a Coming that is not yet, that they lived and remained unto?

Note, How G. W. here moſt weakly (but very plainly to diſcover his Infidelity) argues againſt Chriſt's Coming at the latter end of the World; and whereas in my Firſt Narrative I did ſhow, That when Paul ſaid, We which are alive, and remain to the Coming of the Lord, he ſpoke by an Enallage Perſonae, We for They, we which remain, i.e. ſuch of our Brethren, who ſhall be found alive at Chriſt's laſt Coming, &c. To this T. E. Anſwers, in his pretended Anſwer to my Firſt Narrative, p. 162. Why might not the Apoſtle ſpeak in the firſt Perſon [We] as ſuppoſing that great and extraordinary Appearance and Coming of Christ (the certain time of which no Man knew, Matth. 24. 36.) was ſo near at hand, that it might probably fall out in his Lifetime; and for this ſenſe he quotes, Heb. 1. 2, 9, 26. 1 Pet. 1. 20. 1 Joh. 2. 18. 1 Cor. 10. 11. 1 Pet. 4. 7. as becauſe the times after Chriſt came in the Fleſh, are called the laſt times, that therefore the Apoſtles thought, the end of the World was not far off, i. e. in his ſenſe, That Paul and the other Apoſtles, thought that Chriſt would come to Judge the Quick and the Dead before they dyed.

This groſs and abſurd ſenſe, as it is contrary to G. W.'s words, ſo it renders Paul to have ſpoke an untruth, even by Divine Inſpiration; for ſaid Paul, This we ſay unto you by the word of the Lord. J. Wyeth in his Switch, p. 297, 298. and his Brethren; their common excuſe, here and elſewhere, that theſe were but Queries, ſignifie nothing to defend them; the very import of theſe Queries, implying a poſitive denyal. See this Fallacy of T. E. more fully detected in Satan Diſrob'd, being a Reply to his pretended Anſwer to my First Narrative.

Again, G. W. in Light and Life, p. 41. ſaith,— But Three Comings of Chriſt; not only that in the Fleſh, at Jeruſalem, and that in the Spirit, but alſo another Coming in the Fleſh, yet to be expected, we do not read of, but of a Second Coming, without Sin unto Salvation, which in the Apoſtles days was looked for: And theſe words of Paul, The dead in Christ ſhall riſe first, he expounds of an inward Death.

To this G. W. Anſwers very fallaciouſly, in his Truth and Innoc. p. 61. But is this to deny or oppoſe Chriſt's coming to Judge the Quick and the Dead? 'Twas never ſo intended. And queſtioning ſome Men's carnal Expectations of a fleſhly coming of Chriſt, to be ſeen with their carnal Eyes; was this to deny his coming in the Glory of his Father, with his Angels, to reward every Man according to his works, [quoting, Matth, 16. 27. Luke 9. 6.] no ſure, for that's confeſſed and undeniable.

Note, His and his Brethren's common evaſion to hide their Infidelity, is to quibble about the Word FLESH; as if their meaning were only to deny, That Chriſt is to Come, in a fleſhly Body, ſubject to the like Paſſions it had in his ſtate of Humiliation, when upon Earth, as Hunger, Thirst, Pain, Death, &c. But this is no part of the Controverſie, betwixt the Quakers and their Opponents. But, why may not Glorified Fleſh be taken to ſignifie Spiritual Fleſh, as diſtinct from Mortal Fleſh, as well as Glorified Body ſignifies Spiritual Body, without any change of Subſtance?

But it is evident that G. W. not only denyed, that Chriſt would Come to Judge the World, in a Body of natural and paſſible Fleſh, but that he would not Come, in the ſame Subſtance of that Body he had on Earth, which was a mortal and paſſible Body, of the ſame Nature with ours; for he makes it moſt abſurd, That an earthly Body and an heavenly Body can be the ſame Subſtance, as above-quoted.

Now, That he denyeth that Chriſt was in Heaven in a bodily Exiſtence, or would come to Judgment, as the Son of Mary, in a bodily Exiſtence, [to wit, having any thing of that Body which he had on Earth,] is evident from his Nature of Chriſtianity, p. 29. D • ſt thou look for Chriſt, as the Son of Mary, to appear outwardly in a bodily Exiſtence to ſave thee, according to thy words, p. 30. If thou doſt, thou may'ſt look until thy Eyes drop out, before thou wilt ſee ſuch an Appearance of him.

Note, To excuſe his great Infidelity, he uſeth a groſs Fallacy in his Truth and Innoc. p. 61. and giving a lame Quotation of his own words, This is true in Fact (ſaith he) for thoſe very Eyes decay and periſh. But this was no part of the Controverſie betwixt G. W. and his Opponent, who did not preſume to ſay or think, That Chriſt's coming to Judge the World in that bodily Exiſtence would be before his Death; but the thing earneſtly aſſerted, was, That Chriſt as he was now really in Heaven in a bodily Exiſtence, at God's Right Hand, ſo he would come in that very bodily Exiſtence to Judge the World; for which G. W. doth evidently oppoſe him as above-quoted. The Phraſe, Thy Eyes will drop out before thou wilt ſee ſuch an Appearance, is equivalent to this, Thou wilt never ſee ſuch an Appearance, nor any other Man ſor thee, as that common Phraſe, at the Greek Calends. And whereas he adds: And Christ's last Coming in Power and great Glory in his Glorious Body, accompanied with his mighty Angels, at the Reſurrection, must be ſeen with ſtronger, clearer, and more celeſtial Eyes, than periſhing Eyes. Here he ſtill hides his vile Error. What are theſe more celeſtial Eyes, ſeeing he will not have Chriſt's Coming to be without Men in a bodily Exiſtence? For in his Light and Life, he quotes Matth. 16. 27, 28. and Luke 9. 26, 27. in plain oppoſition to Chriſt's outward Coming, ſaying,—When was that Coming to be? Is it now to be looked for outwardly; and ſeeing he is not to Come outwardly but inwardly, theſe celeſtial Eyes, in his ſenſe, muſt be inward Eyes. But then, how ſhall the Wicked ſee him? for the Scripture ſaith, Every Eye ſhall ſee him, even they who have pierced him; muſt they have celeſtial Eyes wherewith to ſee him? And tho' the Wicked ſhall not ſee him in the ſame manner that the Godly ſhall ſee him, yet certainly, according to Scripture, and the Faith of all true Chriſtians, all that ever lived, as well as they that ſhall be found alive in the Body at his Coming, both good and bad, ſhall ſee him, as an object without them; yea, Chriſt told the Chief Prieſt and the Jews, Mat. 26. 64. Hereafter ſhall ye ſee the Son of Man ſitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. At which ſaying, the High Prieſt rent his Cloaths, and ſaid, he had ſpoke Blaſphemy. It ſeems if G. W. had been preſent, he would have given the ſame judgment. Doth G. W. think that the High Prieſt and thoſe Jews ſhall ſee Chriſt with celeſtial Eyes, ſeeing, according to his Philoſophy, no other Eyes but celeſtial Eyes can ſee him at his Coming?

But again, Note, G. W.'s palpable contradiction both to himſelf and to T. E. in his Truth and Innoc. above-quoted, p. 61. he ſeems to own Chriſt's Coming, as a thing yet to be at the end of the World, tho' in Light and Life, p. 41. from that very place, which he now quotes for it, Matth. 16. 27, 28. he did argue againſt it; and thus in expreſs words doth T. Elwood in his pretended Anſwer to my Firſt Narrative argue, p. 160. That Coming (ſaith he) there ſpoken of by Chriſt, Matth. 16. 27. could not be meant of his Coming at the end of the World, becauſe it was to begin in that very Age. And yet G. W. in his Truth and Innoc. contrary to his former gloſs, and T. Elwood alſo, would ſeem now to underſtand it of Chriſt's coming, as a thing yet to be at the end of the World, and if he do not ſo underſtand it, he moſt groſly deceives his Reader, and if he do ſo underſtand it, he palpably contradicts himſelf, as well as his Brother T. E. and yet he is the inſallible G. W. ſtill, without any change. And for all G. W. his ſeeming now at laſt, to be drawn, to a plain confeſſion of his Faith, concerning Chriſt without us, in his, Appendix to the Switch, p. 544. yet he is ſtill fallacious, and lurks like a Snake in the Graſs. He profeſſeth to own his belief, concerning Chriſt without us, in Eight ſeveral ſteps, from his Conception and Birth without us, to his Reſurrection, and Aſcenſion without us, Being ſeen (ſaith he) to aſcend without us, and a Cloud received him out of their ſight, who beheld him aſcend; unto whom it was ſaid by the Two Angels preſent, This ſame Jeſus which is taken up from you into Heaven, ſhall ſo come in like manner, as ye have ſeen him go into Heaven, Acts 1. 3, 9, 10, 11. And doubtleſs when he ſo comes, and all his mighty Angels with him, it will be in great Glory and open Triumph, and he will in that Day be greatly glorified in his Saints, and admired in all them that believe, 2 Theſſ. 1. 7, 8, 9, 10.

Note, How he gooth no further in his confeſſion to Chriſt without us, but to his Aſcenſion, and the Cloud receiving him out of their ſight. But in the other two following ſteps of the Chriſtians Faith, fully as neceſſary as the former Eight, and without which the other Eight are of little or no ſignification, to demonſtrate a true Chriſtian, viz. Chriſt's being ſat down without us, at the Right Hand of God, in the true Nature of Man, conſiſting of a Created glorified Soul and Body, the ſame he had on Earth, the ſame in Subſtance, but wonderfully changed in manner and condition, and in that very glorified Nature of Man that he will come without us, to Judge the Quick and the Dead; he is altogether ſilent, and his Words ſeem rather to imply a denial of them, than any affirmation, as with reſpect either to Chriſt's being now in Heaven, without us, in that Body which roſe from the Grave, or his coming without us from Heaven in that Body to Judgment.

Again, take notice of another fallacy of G. W. in his anſwer to the queſtion propoſed, whether they (i.e. the Quakers) believe in Chriſt as without them, as without all other Men, he varieth the terms of the queſtion, from a believing in Chriſt without them, to a Hiſtorical Faith of their believing that Chriſt was Conceived without them, Born without them, Crucified without them; all which he and his Brethren may believe Hiſtorically, as they believe the Hiſtorical Relation of Moſes's Birth, Death, &c. and yet have no Faith in Chriſt without them, as the great Saviour of Men, for remiſſion of Sin, Juſtification and Eternal Life and Salvation,Light and Life, p. 64. as the great Object of ſaving Faith, for this he hath fiercely oppoſed in his Light and Life, arguing againſt W. B. who aſſerted Chriſt without us in Heaven, to be the Object of our Faith, for Juſtification. (Saith G. W.) Is the Object and Foundation of Faith divided from the Faith?

But what the Cloud is that received Chriſt out of the ſight of Men, and with what Body Chriſt did aſcend, and whether as a Perſon without us, Chriſt is to be Prayed unto, and whether he is to return as a Perſon without us to Judge the World; hear what W. Bailie, a great Author among the Quakers, ſaith. In his Printed Collection, p. 300. —But methinks I hear ſome ſay (in their Reaſonings and Imaginations) What Body hath he, and where is it, ſeeing it is ſaid, he is at the Right Hand of God? This I ſhall Anſwer (ſaith he) with his own words, which he ſpake here on Earth, viz. No Man aſcended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, the Son of Man which is in heaven; he that hath an Ear to hear let him hear and take notice, what Body that was which came down from Heaven, when Mary ſaid unto the Angel, How can this be, ſeeing I know not a Man? Thus we ſee he falſifies our Saviour's words, and will have no Body that aſcended to Heaven, but what came from Heaven; whereas our Saviour, in the place quoted, mentions not the Word BODY.

Again, In his Treatiſe Deep calleth unto Deep, p. 30. he ſaith,—And ſo he taught them to Pray, Our Father, &c. not to look at his Perſon, and Pray to him as a Perſon without them, but bad them Pray to their Father which ſeeth in ſecret, &c. Again, in his p. 26. But, indeed, it is but a Cloud that hath received him out of the ſight of the Gazers; but ſaith the Lord to his Children, I have blotted out your Iniquities like a thick Cloud.—And, indeed, this [viz. the Cloud of their Sins] hath hid both his Body and Face from you, for the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Lord from Heaven, comes not with outward obſervation, but the Kingdom is within. And in his p. 29. I never read in all the Scriptures (ſaith he) as I can remember, of a Third Coming of Chriſt, perſonally in his own ſingle Perſon, or of a perſonal Reign, beſides, what ſhall be in his Saints. And G. W. in his Christ Aſcended above the Clouds, not only denyeth any perſonal Coming of Chriſt, yet to be at the end of the World, but denyeth him to have a perſonal Exiſtence in Heaven, without the Saints, and chargeth it to be Anthropomorphitiſm and Muggletoniſm. And, indeed, I know not one place of Scripture, of the many that are juſtly brought by ſound Chriſtians to prove Chriſt's Coming without us, in his Glorified Body to Judge the World, at the great Day of Judgment, but they have turned altogether to his inward Coming, which, they ſay, they witneſs already fulfilled in them, and they look for no other Coming.

Ninthly, Concerning the Reſurrection of the Body that Dyeth.

G. W. inſtead of anſwering to the Quotations brought out of his and his Brethren's Books againſt the Reſurrection of the Body that Dyeth, has not ſo much as produced them; or any part of them, they are ſo broadfac'd Proofs, to evidence his and his Brethren's Infidelity in that great Article of Faith, that he ſeems aſham'd ſo much as to mention them. And whereas he ſaith, their Arguments not being anſwer'd by their Oppoſers, he ſhall need ſay the leſs to them; and concludes, That he would have them ſo Charitable, that they would not condemn them as Blaſphemers, for believing that their Reſurection-Bodies ſhall be Spiritual and Glorious, far excelling theſe natural, carnal and earthly Bodies; for elſe, how ſhould the Saints Bodies be like unto Chriſt's Glorious Body.

Note here again, He ſeeks to cloak his and his Brethren's Infidelity, by perverting the true ſtate of the Queſtion, which is not, That the Reſurrection-Bodies of the Saints ſhall not be wonderfully changed, and far excelling theſe natural, carnal and earthly Bodies, and made Spiritual and Glorious, like to Chriſt's Glorious Body, for that is acknowledged; But the true Queſtion is, Whether the Saints Bodies, at the Reſurrection, ſhall be ſo changed, that they ſhall not be the ſame in Subſtance, or Eſſence of Bodies, and conſequently in no reſpect the ſame; for if the Subſtance be not the ſame, to be ſure, the Accidents are not; and conſequently, nothing of that Body that dyeth, either in Matter or Manner, in Subſtance or Modification, riſeth again; for our Lord's Body, tho' it was wonderfully changed in Manner and Qualities, at his Glorification, yet it remained the ſame in Subſtance or Eſſence of a Body. And yet more fully to detect their Fallacy, the following Quotations will prove, That they look for no Reſurrection of the Body out of the Grave, at the end of the World; but all the Reſurrection they look for, is, The New Birth, or what they expect, as ſome of them ſay, immediately after Death, which, to be ſure, is no part of the Body that is laid in the Grave. But whereas he ſaith, that W. P.'s and T. Elwood's Arguments about the Reſurrection have not been anſwer'd by their Oppoſers, is falſe; they have been ſufficiently Anſwer'd again and again, as The Snake in the Graſs, Satan Diſrob'd, and in my Firſt, Second, and Third Narratives.

G. Whitehead in Chriſtian Quaker, p. 353. brings T. Danſon ſaying, The happineſs of the Soul is not perfect without the Body, its dear and beloved Companion; the Soul having a ſtrong deſire and inclination to a re-union to the Body, as the Schools not without ground determine, &c.

To this G. W. Anſwers; Both Calvin, T. Danſon, the Schools, and divers Anabaptiſts, are miſtaken in this very matter, and ſee not with the Eye of true Faith, either that the happineſs of the Soul is not perfect without the Body, or that the Soul hath a ſtrong deſire to a re-union to the Body, while they intend the terreſtrial elementary Bodies; for this implies the Soul to be in a kind of Purgatory, or diſquietneſs, till the ſuppoſed Reſumption of the Body.

To the ſame effect doth W. P. argue againſt T. Hicks, Reaſon againſt Railing, p. 137. He quotes T. Hicks arguing for the Reſurrection of the Body; the Joy's of Heaven imperfect elſe. To this W. Penn oppoſeth. I Anſwer, Is the Joy of the Ancients, now in Glory, imperfect? Or are they in Heaven but by halves? If it be ſo unequitable, that the Body which hath ſuffer'd ſhould not partake of the Joys Celeſtial, is it not in meaſure unequal, that the Soul ſhould be rewarded ſo long before the Body? This Principle brings to the Mortality of the Soul (held by many Baptiſts) or I am miſtaken. But why muſt the Felicity of the Soul, depend upon that of the Body? Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Widow,, and ſo in a ſtate of Mourning and Diſconſolateneſs, which ſtate is but a better ſort of Purgatory.

Note, We ſee from both their Reaſonings, they would infer divers abſurdities, that would follow upon that Doctrine, that the Souls of the deceaſed Saints now in Glory, do look for a re-union to their Bodies, which they put off at the Bodily Death. So that by their manner of Reaſoning, as well as their expreſs Words, they declare themſelves in their own behalf, and in the Name of the Quakers, whoſe Faith they pretend to give an account of, to be poſitive Unbelievers as concerning any Reſurrection of the Body that Dyeth, or any re-union of that Body, to the Soul to which it was formerly united before the Bodily Death. But ſtill G. W. as his manner is, perverts the true ſtate of the queſtion by his ſaying, While they intend the terreſtrial elementary Bodies: For if he mean that the Bodies after they are raiſed ſhall have the ſame terreſtrial elementary Qualities, Paſſions and Accidents, that they had before Death, he wrongs his Opponents, for none of them have ſo affirmed: But if he mean the ſame Subſtance or Eſſence of Bodies, under more excellent Qualities and Endowments, as far excelling the former, as Spiritual excells Natural, or Animal and Carnal, Immortal and Incorruptible excells Mortal and Corruptible, and Heavenly excells Earthly, they are the ſame: For in all changes that Bodies are capable of, as well as Souls or Spirits, from worſe to better; the ſubject of theſe changes muſt remain the ſame, and that is what is juſtly called the Subſtance, as when the Soul or Mind of Man is converted and changed from Earthly affections to Heavenly, the Subject or Subſtance which is the Soul or Mind is the ſame, and by as good Reaſon, when a Body is changed from Earthly qualities to Heavenly, the Body is ſtill the ſame Subſtance or Subject, tho' changed in Qualities and Conditions: For further proofs out of both G. W. and W. P. I refer to my Third Narrative, p. 26, 27, 28.

Again, Rich. Hubbertborne, a great Author among the Quakers in his Coll. p. 121. proceedeth at the ſame rate againſt the deceaſed Saints, looking for the Reſurrection of their Bodies.—And theſe are they (ſaith he) that plead for a Life in Sin, while they are here, and that ſay, that the Saints glorified in Heaven, do yet hope, For the Reſurrection of their Bodies, and ſo not come to the end of their hope, tho' in Heaven, when as the Saints upon Earth, witneſſed the end of their hope the Salvation of their Souls. Now theſe may well deny perfection on Earth, who deny it in Heaven, which the Saints, we and the Scriptures do witneſs it in, both and againſt all ſuch, who are not fit to ſpeak of the things of God. See further in my Third Narrative, p. 29.

Note, Here again, G. W.'s groſs Fallacy and Sophiſtry, Truth and Innoc. p. 59. as if Rich. Hubberthorne had only oppoſed the Doctrine of the glorified Saints in Heaven, not being perfect, which is a moſt deceitful Evaſion, by miſtating the Controverſie, R. Hub. here is not diſputing againſt the Papiſts who maintain a Purgatory, but againſt a Proteſtant Author, who did hold, That all the deceaſed Saints, are perfect with a ſinleſs perfection, but it doth not therefore follow, that they do not in that ſinleſs ſtate, hope for the Reſurrection of their Bodies, which yet is R. Hubb.'s inference, by which he doth plainly diſcover his, and his Brethrens infidelity in that great Article of the Chriſtian Faith, viz. the Reſurrection of the Body.

Again, in Coll. p. 275. he gives us his ſenſe of the Reſurrection. The Seeds (he ſaith) are but two in the whole World [viz. the Seed of the Woman, and the Seed of the Serpent] having each Seed its own Body, and in every one, until the one be caſt out, and every one of theſe two Seeds in every Man ſhall ariſe in its own order, the one ſhall riſe unto everlaſting Life, the other unto Condemnation,—Chriſt the Seed made his Grave, IN the Wicked, and IN the Rich in his Death, and out of that Grave ſhall riſe with his Body unto everlaſting Life, if thou canſt receive it, thou may'ſt be ſatisfied. Are not theſe Words horrid Perverſions of Scripture, and containing abominable Blaſphemy!

Again, G. F. in his Diſtinction betwixt the Two Suppers, p. 20. ſaith,— And the Apoſtle ſaid, that there ſhall be a Reſurrection of the Dead, both of the Juſt and Unjuſt, and for Preaching the Reſurrection of the Dead (namely, Chriſt Jeſus) he was called in queſtion, Acts 24. 15, 21. And in p. 21. quoting 2 Tim. 2. 17, 18. he ſaith, But Hymenaeus and Philetus concerning the Truth erred, who ſaid that the Reſurrection was paſt already; ſuch overthrew People from the Faith, that ſtands in Chriſt, who is the Reſurrection and the Life, through which Faith, they attained to the Reſurrection, and had their vile Bodies changed, and made like unto his Glorious Body.

Note, How he perverts the Scripture both in words and ſenſe; the Scripture words, Who ſhall change our vile or low Bodies, reſpecting the time to come, at the Reſurrection of the Dead; but he ſaith, they attained the Reſurrection, and had their vile Bodies changed, as a thing already fulfilled. Alſo he makes the Reſurrection that Paul Preached in the Acts 17. 18, 22. and 23. 6. to be Chriſt himſelf, perverting our Saviour's words, who called himſelf the Reſurrection and the Life, to a literal ſenſe, which (as is obvious to all intelligent Perſons) contain a figurative ſenſe, to wit, the metony my of the Cauſe getting the Name of the Effect, as is frequent in Scripture, and in all Authors; as when God is call'd in Scripture the Saints Hope, and Confidence, and Salvation, i. e. the Author and Cauſe of their Hope, Confidence and Salvation.

Tenthly, Concerning the Quakers Notion of the Light Within.

THE true Doctrine and Senſe of the Light Within, as a Divine and Supernatural Gift of God, given to all faithful Chriſtians, of whom it is truly ſaid (as David ſaid, concerning himſelf) The Lord is their Light and their Salvation; and alſo that Christ the Eternal and Eſſential Word, who was in the beginning with God, and was and is God, is that true Light, that doth enlighten every Man that cometh into the World, even Heathens and all Individuals of Mankind, with a common and univerſal Illumination, Diſcovery and Knowledge, of certain moral Principles, of Juſtice and Temperance; and alſo of ſome general knowledge of God, as the great Creator and Ruler of the World, and of ſome general moral Duties towards him as ſuch, [whether by certain innate impreſſions preventing the exerciſe and actings of the rational Faculty, or by exciting and awakening the rational Faculty of the Soul, as it is enlightned and aſſiſted by God Almighty, as the primary Cauſe, and by the works of Creation and of general Providence, as ſecondary Cauſes; whether one or both of theſe ways is not ſo neceſſary at preſent to determine,] is a Doctrine well warranted by Scripture, and conſented unto by the generality of Profeſſors of Chriſtianity, and which I not only conſent unto, but highly value as an excellent Principle, labouring daily, by the Grace of God, practically to improve whatever true Light within I have, both Common and Special, and, I hope, ever I ſhall ſo do, and ſo I pray that God may enable all and me to do the ſame: But the Quakers Notion of the Light within, held in general by them, and authentickly received from their Principal Teachers, particularly G. F. G. W. E. Bur. and others, is extremely contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and alſo to the beſt dictates of our rational Faculties, to which no divine Light, either within Men or without Men, can contradict.

To ſhow which hath been a principal part of my buſineſs in all the the three Meetings, above-mention'd, and is the ſame in all the three Parts of this Narrative, the which contrariety I intend to ſhow in a ſhort Scheme of their abſurd, unſcriptural, as well as irrational Notions of what they call the Light within; which, upon due examination, will be found to be Darkneſs, and not Light, within.

1. It's natural to Man to have a Supernatural Light, W. P.'s Prin. Chriſt. p. 15.

2. There is no natural Light in Men, Prin. Chriſt. p. 30. There are not two Lights in Men, p. 31. Thus he allows no diſtinction betwixt natural Reaſon, which is a good and true Light, and Gift of God to Men, and the Light of Faith, given to all true Chriſtians, and the Light of prophetical Inſpirations given to the holy Prophets and Apoſtles, but confounds them, by making them all to be one and the ſame thing, whereas they, are all very diſtinct, tho' all coming from one Fountain and Author, God, the Father of Lights.

3. Man at his coming into the World hath a Light from Chriſt, which is more than Conſcience, G. F.'s G. M. p. 209.

4. And ſeeing the Light is but dim in Heathens and Chriſtians, and Prophets and Apoſtles, by Prin. Chriſt. as above-quoted, no Man has, or ever had, any other Light, but what he had at his coming into the World.

5. The Light within, not only true Chriſtians, but within all Men, Heathens, Turks, Jews, is ſufficient to Salvation without any thing elſe, G.W.'s Antid. p. 28. Thus the Man Chriſt without us (who is both God and Man) and his Death and Sufferings, and Blood outwardly ſhed, and Mediation for us in Heaven, are all excluded from being ſo much as concurring Cauſes of our Salvation.

6. The Light within every Man (litterally underſtood without any Metonymy) is God, Chriſt, the Holy Ghoſt, the Unction or Anointing, is blinded in ſome by the God of this World (G. F. News out of the North, p. 19.) is Crucified, Impriſoned, Slain, in wicked Men, and its Blood is ſhed in them, and that is the Blood that they trod under feet (ſee the places above-quoted) and is the Blood of Atonement.

7. This Light is firſt a Seed, then a new born Child, and laſtly, the Mighty God; ſee W. P.'s and W. B.'s words above-quoted.

8. This Light within being God, &c. teacheth the Quakers immediately and infallibly, as it did the Prophets and Apoſtles, and they Speak and Write from the ſame Prophetical Illumination and Inſpiration that the Prophets and Apoſtles had; yea, from the ſame degree, at leaſt ſome of them; and G. F. was come to the ſame Fulneſs that was in Chriſt, and the Works of their Miniſtry is to bring People to the ſame Fulneſs, that was in Chriſt, that it may be in them, i. e. to make them all equal to Chriſt and God, as above-quoted.

9. The Light within, teacheth them, what they Preach and Write without the Scriptures, being the means, or a means to help or aſſiſt them in ſo Preaching and Writing: hence it is that E. B. upbraids all Proteſtant Miniſters, Coll. p. 126. ſaying—Their Prophecy and Preaching would ſoon be ended, if they had not the Scripture, which is other Men's Words, and that which was ſpoken to others, to ſpeak their imaginations from.

10. That this Light within every Man, is the Goſpel, the Power of God, unto Salvation, to every one that believeth in it, and is the alone Object of Faith, [as above-quoted] and that Prophet whom God promiſed to raiſe up.

11. That the Light within every Man, is the Rule of Faith, and Life to all Men, as above-quoted, yea, a full Rule to lead to Salvation, where it is obeyed. The Glory of Chriſt's Light within, by G. W. and others p. 32. and p. 28. from the Light of Chriſt within, they [i. e. all Men] have ſo much of the Inſtructions or Precepts therein [in Scripture] contained as are neceſſary to Salvation. Note, This is to teach People to be ſaved, by a meer Covenant of Works, Do and live, which none ever yet fulfilled, but Chriſt, for all have ſinned, Rom. 3.

12. This Light within them is whole Chriſt, God and Man, Fleſh and Spirit, G. F. G. M. p. 246. 249. and G. E. is ſo much for the Fleſh, Body, Blood and Bones of Chriſt within, that he denyeth that Chriſt has any Body that is abſent from his People, and is now in the preſence of his Father, G. M. p. 211.

13. It is the Fleſh and Bone of Chriſt, a meaſure in one, and a meaſure in another. Note, This is to make the whole to be the part and the part or (G. M. 246.) meaſure to be the whole.

14. The Saints eat his Fleſh, and they that eat this Fleſh, hath it within them. G. M. p. 322. Thus arguing moſt groſly from a Metaphorical eating to a Literal.

15. The Light within is the Urim and Thummim, as G. W. ſays Truth and Inno. p. 16. which not only the Quakers have, but all Men, Heathens and Infidels as really as they.

16. Chriſt within is the Doctrine of Salvation, which IS ONLY neceſſary to be Preached, and he is a deceiver, that exhorts People for Salvation to any other thing than the Light of Chriſt, as he hath enlightned them within.

Note, This evidently appears from thoſe paſſages in E. B.'s The true Faith of the Goſpel of Peace, p. 29. 30. quoted in that called, Some account from Colcheſter, ſigned by Seven Quakers above mentioned, [the whole of which account is in the ſeveral heads of this Narrative fully replyed unto] which theſe Seven Quakers are ſo far from Cenſuring, that they have juſtified them, p. 16. 17. But to hide their deceit in their reply they tranſpoſe the Words of E. B. in his Q. 12. which were the Light of Chriſt to Christ who is that true Light, whereas it is manifeſt, that by Chriſt that true Light, they meant the ſame which E. B. viz. ONLY the Light within.

Again, in their p. 17, 18. they juſtify G. W.'s ſaying, They that want infallibility, and have not the Spirit of Chriſt, they are out of the truth, and are fallible, and their Miniſtry is not of the Spirit.

Note, Here they not only diſown ſuch Miniſters who have not the Spirit, but who are fallible in any caſe; for that's the true ſtate of the Controverſe, as ſtated betwixt G. W. and T. D. Voice of Wiſdom, p. 33. Want of infallibility is a valid Plea againſt the Miniſtry; let the intelligent therefore judge whether G. W.'s fallibility ſufficiently proved in this Narrative, as well as that of his Brethren by his Argument, has not manifeſtly diſcovered him and them to be no Miniſters of Chriſt.]

Note, Their faulting ſo much, ſome ſmall Errors of the Preſs no wiſe materal, as by the Original manuſcript yet extant, and ready to be produced, if required, is to be ſeen, ſhows their quibling Humour, ſtraining at a Gnat, and ſwallowing down a Camel; as alſo their querying if this or that of the Quotations brought againſt them be againſt the Foundation of the Chriſtian Religion, as was ſaid in the Title-Page of the Sheet, to which they have made a pretended reply; but are they ſo ignorant as not to know that every Error is againſt the Foundation, in ſome degrees though every Error is not Fundamental, ſo as to deſtroy the Foundation, 2. That Errors as well as other ill things receive their denomination from the greater and worſe part; as indeed, the far greateſt part of all therein contained is deſtructive to the very Foundation of Chriſtian Religion, as is on the ſeveral Heads plainly ſhown.

And as to the Printed Teſtimony of John Gledhill, Nonconformiſt Miniſter, which they have prefixed to their Some Account, it avails them nothing, for he grants that he did witneſs to the truth of the Quotations, and no more was deſired from him. The Printing of his Name without his knowledge and conſent, reflects no blame on the Perſon who deſired him to ſet his hand to it, even tho' he told him, that that Paper was not deſigned for the Preſs, for that Perſon did not put it to the Preſs, but it was Printed without his leave or conſent; and the Perſon who put it to the Preſs, was under no tye to hinder him from ſo doing, but judged it would be of Service to the Truth to make it publick, as he ſtill ſo judgeth; and it is no diſhonour to J. Gledhill, nor his Brethren, but commendable to have their Names in Print, to atteſt to the great Truths of the Goſpel, in oppoſition to the Quakers great Errors, that do ſo manifeſtly contradict them. And it would be yet more commendable in him and them, to bear a more full and zealous Teſtimony againſt them, to ſtop the gangrene of the Quakers vile Errors, that have ſo much prevailed in Colcheſter, as in many other places of the Nation.

Note, By this and all the foregoing Quotations it is ſufficiently evident, that the Light within, not as taught by the Scriptures, but as taught by the Quakers, hath led them into manifold Blaſphemies, and vile Errors, as the Norfolk Miniſters have moſt juſtly charged them, concerning God, Chriſt and the holy Scriptures.

11thly, and 12thly, Concerning Baptiſm and the Lord's-Supper.

IN a Book, call'd, Some Principles of the Elect People of God, in Scorn call'd Quakers, p. 75. The Baptiſm we own, which is the Baptiſm of Chriſt, with the Holy Ghoſt and with Fire, but we deny all other; for there is but one Lord, one Faith, one Baptiſm, one God and Father of all; add they who would have one Baptiſm outward and another inward, would have two Baptiſms, when the Scripture ſaith the Baptiſm is but one; and whoſoever hath the Baptiſm outward, are the ſame they were before, but the Baptiſm of Chriſt makes a new Creature.—And now I ſee the other to be formal Imitation, and the invention of Man; and ſo a meer Deluſion; and all are Heathens, and no Chriſtians, who cannot witneſs this Baptiſm, Matth, 15. 4. who can witneſs this DENIES ALL OTHER; for the Scripture ſaith, the Baptiſm is but one. And in p. 76.—And are without, feeding upon the Husk and Shadow, which is carnal; for the Bread which the World breaks, is Carnal and Natural, and only feeds the outward carnal Body, and goeth into the Belly, and ſo paſſeth out into the Dunghil; and ſo likewiſe the Cup which they drink, and ſo the Communion and Fellewſhip of the World paſſeth away; but this is no nouriſhment to the Soul, but ſtill the Soul lies in Death, and here is no Commnnion, but natural, outward and carnal, of ſeveral Minds and Hearts, full of Filthineſs and Uncleanneſs, which IS THE TABLE OF DEVILS, Eating and Drinking their own Damnation, not diſcerning the Lord's Body, which is Spiritual, which the natural Man diſcerns not.

W. P. in his Reaſon againſt Railing, p. 108.— I affirm, by that one Scripture [Heb. 9. 10.] Circumciſion is as much in force, as Water-Baptiſm, and the Paſchal Lamb, as Bread and Wine, they were both Shadows, and both elementary and periſhable.

And we can teſtifie FROM THE SAME SPIRIT, by which Paul renounced Circumciſion, that they are to be rejected, as not now required; neither have they, ſince the falſe Church eſpouſed and exalted them, ever been taken up afreſh by God's Command, or in the leading of his Eternal Spirit; and the Lord will appear to gather his People out of them, but never to eſtabliſh or keep People in them.

Note, Notwithſtanding the ſevere Cenſure that the Quakers have paſſed on the outward Adminiſtration of Baptiſm and the Lord's-Supper, in the former Quotation, and W. Penn in this latter Quotation; in the one they ſay, Baptiſm with Water, and the Lord's-Supper, with Bread and Wine, are to BE DENYED, WE DENY (ſay they) ALL OTHER; and in the other W. P. ſaith, they are to be REJECTED, and this (he ſaith) they can teſtifie from the ſame Spirit by which Paul renounced Circumciſion; yet W. Penn, in his Key, Printed at London, 1699. ſaith,—Hence it is that the People call'd Quakers, cannot be ſaid to deny them [viz. the outward Adminiſtration of Baptiſm and the Supper] that is (ſaith he) too hard a Word,— But they leave them off, as fulfilled in Christ, who is in them, their hope of Glory. Is there not here a palpable contradiction betwixt W. Penn and his Brethren? He ſaith in his Key, p. 28. The People call'd Quakers cannot be ſaid to deny them, that's too hard; and yet in the former Quotation, they have uſed that very ſame Word,—WE DENY ALL OTHER, ſay they; and call it the Invention of Man, and ſo a meer Deluſion.

But it is fearful Deluſion in them, to call theſe ſo ſolemn Inſtitutions of our Bleſſed Saviour, expreſly enjoyn'd to the end of the World, and his coming to Judgment, by ſuch Names; yea, and the like contradiction is found betwixt W. P. in his Reaſon againſt Railing, in the Year 1673. and the ſame W. P. in his Key, Printed 1699. In the former he ſaith, We can teſtifie from the ſame Spirit by which Paul rejected Circumciſion, that they are to be rejected; In the latter he ſaith, The People call'd Quakers cannot be ſaid to deny them, that's too hard a Word; yet we ſee they have denyed them, both by Practiſe and verbal Confeſſion; yea, and rejected them, and with no leſs pretended Authority, than the ſame Spirit by which Paul rejected Circumciſion.

Where is now the Unity they boaſt of? ſeeing in this, as well as in divers other things of great weight, they are ſo contradictory and unconſtant to themſelves, and yet without all change, if we will believe them.

And notwithſtanding the ſevere Cenſure that the Quakers in general, and G. W. in particular, have paſſed on Baptiſm and the Lord's-Supper, outwardly Adminiſtred, calling them, the Invention of Man, a meer Deluſion, and Idolatry, and the Lord's-Supper, The Table of Devils, and the Cup of Devils: yet G. W. in his Antidote, p. 114. Printed 1697, pretends a great deal of Moderation and Charity to ſome who practiſe them, but without any change in him— And tho' too many now are very Formal and Superſtitious in thoſe outward Obſervations and Shadows, laying ſo much ſtreſs for Salvation upon them, that they neglect the Subſtance, yet others being more conſcientiouſly tender in the obſervation thereof, we are the more tender to theſe, ſo as not to cenſure or condemn them meerly for practiſing that which they believe is their Duty, either in breaking of Bread, or Water Baptiſm, yet deſire they may ſee further.

Note, What can this ſmooth Language of W. P. and G. W. concerning Baptiſm and the Supper now of late Years import or ſignifie to all impartial Perſons, but that thereby they ſeek to deceive the weak and ſimple, ſeeing they will not acknowledge, that they are changed in any reſpect from what they were in the beginning, either in point of Perſwaſion, or Charity? They mean the ſame now, as when they called them, univerſally and without exception, beggarly Elements, worldly Rudiments, Idolatry, Invention of Man, and meer Deluſion?

But ſeeing they are not changed in their Faith and Perſwaſion, concerning Water Baptiſm and the Supper, they cannot with any good Conſcience be changed in their being more charitable now then formerly, ſo that G. W.'s ſaying, they do not cenſure or condemn them, who are more conſcentiouſly tender in the obſervation thereof, meerly for practiſing that which they believe is their duty, is a meer fallacy. Do they not condemn all viſible Chriſtian Societies but their own, and call them Apoſtates, the World, Idolaters, Worſhippers of Baal, and the Preachers belonging to thoſe Societies Prieſts of Baal, &c. Do they not cenſure them, who practiſe Idolatry, and Man's Invention, and meer Deluſion? as they have paſt Judgment on thoſe outward practiſes, to be ſuch. And if People's practiſing what they believe is their Duty, being miſled by an erring Conſcience, and Ignorance of Mind (as the Quakers think all are ſo miſled who practiſe the outward Baptiſm and Supper) can excuſe them from cenſure, according to G. W.'s way of Argument, they may extend as much Charity, not only to Judaiſing Chriſtians, that would practiſe outward Circumciſion, but to Inſidels, Jews and Mahometans; yea, and the moſt Superſtitious and Idolatrous Papiſts, for no doubt many of them practiſe what they believe is their Duty, when they pray to the Virgin Mary, and other Saints, and adore the Bread in the Maſs, being miſled by an erring Conſcience, to believe it is the real Body of Chriſt.

But they falſely infer, that becauſe unworthy Perſons do partake of the outward Supper, that therefore it is the Table of Devils, and the Cup of Devils, Paul did not ſay, he that Eats and Drinks unworthily, Eats at the Table of Devils; But he that eats this Bread, and drinks this Cup of the Lord unworthily, ſhall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, 1 Cor. 11. 27. Thus we ſee that according to Scripture, that Cup which the unworthy drink is the Cup of the Lord, and not the Cup of Devils, and that Bread which they eat is the Bread of the Lord, as Auguſtine ſaid, the unworthy they eat Panem Domini, but not Panem Dominum the Bread of the Lord, but not the Bread which is the Lord?

Some of the Quakers ſaid, George, ſeeing thou art for the outward Baptiſm and the Supper, why doſt thou not practiſe them.

To this I gave the following account, which many declared was ſatiſfactory unto them, that not having an outward Call, I ought not to adminiſter them to others upon the pretence of an inward extraordinary Call, which too many pretend to have. And for my Speaking at Turners-Hall, and elſewhere as I had occaſion, I do not pretend to any extraordinary Call in ſo doing, but what I did, was what a private Chriſtian, who has a Spiritual Gift and Ability given him of God (eſpecially to oppoſe Hereſie) may and ought to do, to teach his Neighbours Catechiſtically (not to ſet up any Sect, or make any Schiſm) as Origine taught in Chriſtian Aſſemblies, when a Lay-man, before he received Ordination; and ſo did others, as Euſebius ſhoweth in his Church-Hiſtory: And as to Baptiſm, I was ſatisfied with what I had received in Infancy, being Born of Chriſtian Parents; for I believe, That Baptiſm, being a Seal of God's Covenant of Grace, doth as really belong to Infant Chirdren of Believers under the New Teſtament, as Circumciſion did to Infant Children of Believers under the Old Teſtament. Next as concerning the Lord's-Supper, after it pleaſed God to convince me that it is an Inſtitution of Chriſt, and let me ſee my Error and Sin, in rejecting it, for which I have been humbled before God, and asked his Forgiveneſs, and which, I hope, God for Chriſt's ſake, has given me; I had ſome conſiderable time of heſitation, about the lawful and due Adminiſtrator, and after I had clearneſs in that, I delay'd for ſome time, for the ſake of ſome others, leſt my forwardneſs ſhould be an hindrance and offence to them; but, through Mercy, that being much removed, I became uneaſie to delay it longer, ſo that I declar'd I did intend, God willing, with the firſt opportunity, to receive it. And whereas my Adverſaries among the Quakers did object againſt me, that I am a Member of no viſible Society, and on that pretence refuſe to have any publick Diſpute or Conference with me. To this I anſwer'd, firſt, Suppoſing it were ſo, why ſhould that be made a Crime in me, which W. P. in his Preface to G. Fox's Journal, eſteem'd ſo great a Virtue in G. Fox, viz. That he was of no particular Society; but, ſecondly, I told them I was a Member of the Catholick Church of Chriſt, and I did own the Church of England to be a part of the Catholick Church, and other Proteſtant Churches to be other parts of the ſame.

In the cloſe of the Meeting I told the Auditory, I was ready, by God's Aſſiſtance, to prove againſt my Adverſaries, the Chief Leaders and Teachers of the Quakers, particularly George Whitehead, Joſ. Wyeth, and them of the Second-Days-Meeting at London, who have approv'd the Quakers Books, That they do not believe One Article of that call'd the Apoſtles Creed, in the true ſenſe of Scripture, and of all true and Orthodox Chriſtians throughout the World; and I deſir'd the Quakers preſent, to acquaint their Brethren with my ſaid Propoſal: I alſo told the Auditory, that the falſe pretences of the Quakers Teachers to extraordinary prophetical Inſpirations gave them the juſt Character of falſe Prophets, and all ſuch who had the like falſe pretences with them; and that none could juſtly be ſo called, however otherwiſe unſound or miſtaken, that had not thoſe high pretences. That it was ſome of the moſt crying Sins committed in this Land, that ſo many falſe Prophets ſhould abound in it, ſpeaking Lyes in the Name of the Lord, and ſaying, Thus ſaith the Lord, pretending the fame Immediate Meſſage and Authority that the true Prophets had, whenas they can give no proof of it, but many undeniable proofs can be given to the contrary, as particularly their vile Antichriſtian Errors publiſh'd in their Books, and that lewd Swearing and open Prophanation of the Name of God, are not greater Sins, nor ſo great nor dangerous, in many reſpects, as their ſpeaking Lyes in the Name of the Lord, and entituling their vile Errors and Blaſphemies to the Spirit of God, as they commonly do.