George White­heads Pleasantry upon the Author of the Snake.I. IN his Epistle to the Reader. P. 1. He tells that the Quakers did not Intend to write any Answer to The Snake in the Grass, that it was not worth an Answer, &c. It was slighted by Ʋs (says he) and laid aside—as scarce deserving any particular Answer. Till the Importunity of some People, he says, did Extort this Answer from them. And yet, p. 265. I must Advertise the Reader (says he) that this Officious Author shou'd have spar'd his other Discourse (against the Quakers) untill he had seen an Answer to his Snake in the Grass.

This was very Cunning! Here He had that Author at a why not! For the Author, as others, did believe that the Quakers had no stomach to Answer that Book (which made them so long in doing it) because nothing is so hard to be Answer'd as Matter of Fact, of which that Book do's chiefly consist: And the Author was so Careful of his Quotations, that all G. Whitehead's [Page 2]sagacity has not found out one False Quotation in the whole Book. This George knew, and therefore he was brought to this Answer, like a Bear to the Stake. But an Answer ther must be, because, as he confesses, People did call for it, and thought the Quaker-Cause Lost without it.

And this Forc'd Answer, will sink it much Deeper in the Mire: for the Excuses are so slight, so Guilty, so Confessing, that every Discern­ing Eye must see thro' these Fig-leaves, which they are not able so to Patch together as to Cover their Nakedness:

His Meek and Lamb­like Treat­ment of him.II. This has Enrag'd them, out of All mea­sure against the Author: And tho' in The Snake, Sect. xvii. one wou'd think ther were so much of the Venom and Bitterness of their Spirit set forth, as at least to Prevent their Falling, for some time, into the like again; yet they verifie the Character that Author has given of them (while they are Pretending to Clear themselves from it) and shew that Bitterness and Fury are so Ingrafted into their very Natures, that they cannot Refrain from it, even when they are Pleading not Guilty to the Charge; and call them­selves, The Lambs of Christ, and The Meek of the Earth! Ther is hardly a Page in this Anti­dote that is not be speckl'd with the Meek Froth of these Lambs. Such as calling the Author of The Snake, Ep. to Rea­der. p. 2. Book. p. 3. and all that take his Part, The De­vil and his Agents. Furious, Foul-mouth'd, Perse­cuting Agents, Precipitated by the Devil and Ma­lice— A Poor Dissembling Hypocrite, thro' whom the Devil and Malice do Invent, 44.88.188.251.253.255.257.262.264. &c. Screwed up [Page 3]by the Father of Lies to such a Height of Malice and Outrage.— Like some Mercenary Soldier of Fortune— A Persecuting, sculking Adversary— Persecuting Incendiaries— This Author's Great Malice, Cruelty, and Persecuting Spirit— Most Hideous and sordid Calumny— The sink of his Gross Calumnies and Malice— Such Dirty Kennels of Lies and Abuses, as the Books of the said Author. &c. This is enough for a Taste of such Delici­ous Fare. I shou'd Transscribe Great Part of his Book, if I gave you a Collection of all of this sort that runs thro' it. And after all this Out-Cry, he has not shewn one False Charge, or Calumny cast upon the Quakers in All The Snake, as you will see in the Examining of those which he do's Allege. But this Bluster and Confidence (by way of Meekness!) he thought wou'd gain Credit with some, who wou'd take his word, rather than be at the Pains to Compare or Read Defences.

His Cry of Persecuti­on against him.III. And such wou'd think, by his Exclama­tions, that some Grievous Persecution were stirr'd up against them; that the Author of The Snake had Incited the Civil Power, to Hang, Draw, and Quarter the Quakers, to Confiscate their Estates, Imprison, Banish, Torture, or some Terri­ble Proceedings against them! But not a word of this, or any thing like it in The Snake, no, not as Alledg'd by G. W. himself; but, on the Contrary, ther is nothing else there Propos'd, but to Reason and Argue with them Fairly, and upon the Square; to Convince them out of their own Books and writings, and Undeniable Matters of Fact. Which if any man Quote [Page 4]wrongfully against them; or Deduce Unjust Consequences from them, he Exposes himself, and gives them the Fairest opportunity can be to vindicate themselves.

Indeed, if I shou'd Traduce and Defame in the General (as G. W. here serves the Author of The Snake) without Descending to Particu­lars; and Producing my vouchers clearly and a­bove board, whereby the Accused may have free scope to disprove the Charge, if False; this wou'd be a Persecution of the Tongue; and that is a Persecution, and a Severe one.

But if I Quote Book and Page (as the Author of The Snake has done) and Recite fairly; and Argue from thence in the Common way of Reasoning, this cannot be call'd a Persecu­tion.

Or it is such a one to which the Quakers have al­ways Invited, Encourag'd, and Provok'd us. Edw. Bur­rough, in his Return to the Ministers of London. A. D. 1660. Page 657. and 658. of his Works. Reprinted A. D. 1672. says to them, Search the Scriptures, and that Religion and worship and Ministry, which is not according to the Scriptures — let that Religion, worship, Church, and Mini­stry be utterly Condemned of The Lord, and all his People; and let such Ministers as cannot Prove their Call, their Maintenance, and Practices to be accor­ding to Scriptures, let such Ministers be Confounded, and silenced for ever; And come to try this Mat­ter when ye will. For whereas you cry out against us, as if we were Denyers of Scriptures, as if we were Enemies to Church, Deceivers, Hereticks, &c. But I say unto you, these things have you never yet justly Proved against us, but rather Accused us be­hind [Page 5]our Backs— And tho' for divers years to­gether we have been Publick, yet when did ever any of your Ministers seek by Lawful means to Convert us, or shew us our Errors? If we were as you say of us, Oh, it had been your time to have sought our Con­version!— If we be in an Evil way, as you say, let us hear your soundest Arguments, by the Spirit of God, and according to the Scriptures, to Prove those things which you say of us; Prove it by Evi­dent Arguments, that we Deny Scriptures, that we are Hereticks— I challenge you All, in the Name of the Lord, even All you Ministers of London, Let us hear your sound Reasons openly— Come out you Ministers, we are willing to be Try'd ac­cording to the Scriptures, and by the Spirit of God, in our Religion, and in Every Part of it; and if you be the same, then come forth— and let us have fair Dealing Openly, that Truth may be Manifest­ed Publickly, and Error may be Discovered— And this wou'd be a Christian like way; we wou'd hear what you have to Charge against our Religion, by sound Arguments, that we may Answer it— and come out when you will in such away as this, and this wou'd Satisfie thousands— and this is the way to Exalt Religion: and we wou'd think it a Happiness, more than otherwise, to be joyned in so­ber Debate and Dispute against you, that all may be satisfy'd who are Doubtful, and may hear your Principles and our Principles discussed, in the Pre­sence of the People, who may Judge by the Light and witness in their own Consciences, for to that, in All, we do appeal; And in such a Proceeding, come forth when you will &c.

But all this Daring was soon Quash'd when it came to the Tryal. How have they Ex­claim'd, [Page 6]of late, agaist George Keith for Provo­king them to Dispute in Publick; and have Quit the Field, crying out, and that in Print, that they wou'd meet in no such way, lest it might Provoke the Government; tho' the Lord Mayor had given his leave for the Meeting in one of the Publick Halls of the City, and one of the Sherifes was himself Present, and his Officers attending, to see order kept: But all that was nothing, the Quakers said it was a Tur­bulent way; And that the People were not Com­petent Judges of such matters; as they Printed in the Reasons they put out, for their Decli­ning to give G. Keith a Meeting, two years af­ter one another in Turners-Hall, the first on the 11. June 1696. the other upon the 29. Apr. 1697. To take away both which Pretences, four Reverend Divines of the City of London were appointed by the Lord Bishop of London to meet at Turners-Hall the 21 of Apr. 1698. And there to Hear and Examin the Charges of False-Doctrin and Heresies, which G. Keith had Exhibited against the Quakers, and to Inspect the Quotati­ons which he had brought out of their Printed Books. And Timely notice was sent to Will. Penn, G. Whitehead &c. of this meeting; and they, or what other Quakers pleas'd were In­vited to come and vindicate their Doctrin and Principles: But they were still the same men, they wou'd not come (unless a few for Spys) but Reprinted their former Reasons, new vaump'd, against any such Meetings: And they cry'd out that Printing was the only method to Decide their Controversies, and they wou'd take no other.

[Page 7]But G. Whitehead is as much Displeas'd at that. And Appeals to his Reader. p. 2. and 3. whe­ther The Snake be not as severe a Persecution, To Destroy and Murther our Reputations (says he) both as men and Christians. And I am told that they are Resolv'd to write no more Defences; for they have had as ill luck that way, as in Personal Disputes. It is a Grievous Persecution this, that men can neither Speak nor Write, but it is the worse for them! G. Whitehead their present Champion, seeks to Hide his Head be­hind an Act of Parliament, and wou'd Gladly find shelter under the Plenitude of that Indul­gence lately Granted to Dissenters, which he says (p. 2. to the Reader) these Malicious Peo­ple (whom he calls The Devil and his Agents) do Envy them, because they will not give over writing against them.

This Plea was put in, by Council Learned at the Law, for Mitigation of Damages, upon their Declining so many meetings for the Defence of their Cause at Turners Hall; And that they Fled for the same.

But they sent in their Room A solemn Pro­testation in behalf of the Act of Toleration; which they thought Reach'd even unto them; and that it was a sufficient Justification of their Principles. But the Reflections which were soon after Publish'd. 8. May, 1697. upon that Pro­testation (and which they have not yet Attemp­ted to Answer) has Disarm'd them of the Ad­vantage they propos'd by that Act of Indulgence; and left them no other Choice, but to De­fend their Cause, either by word or writing [Page 8](tho' that be a downright Persecution!) or by their future Silence, to let it Sink.

His Ad­dress to his Work.IV. Therefore, since it must be, George, let not your noble Courage be cast down, Cock your Hat, Look Bigg, and Enter the Lists with the Best Grace that you can. And he do's it, in the Rode he is most us'd to, the old Blasphe­mous Rant, of putting all upon The Lord. I con­fess then (says he p. V.) a holy Zeal the Lord raises, and has raised in my very Heart and Soul, against such Bitter Implacable, and Persecuting Spirits. And the Lor'ds Power I have felt, and do feel it to Aecompany and Inable me in Defence of His Blessed Truth and People. Now this Pow­er which he calls the Lord's was nothing else but the Spirit of Rancor and Revenge; which soon Discovers it Self; for in the very next words, instead of Justifying or Defending his Cause, he falls upon Threatning his Unknown Adversary. 'Tis pitty (says he) but this Defaming Author shou'd be Publickly Exposed by Name for his Folly and Outrage—that he may not be suffer'd to sculk and Hide himself like a Snake under the Grass. That was witty! There he was Even with the Snake in the Grass! Here he had some body in his Eye, tho' he knows not whom, and some mischeif or other, which he thinks it a Pitty shou'd not be Inflicted upon him, by those in whose Power it is: whom he thus Instigates to do it. This was the Holy Zeal which was Rais'd in his very Heart and Soul! His Meek Heart that hates the thoughts of Persecution! If he had found such an Indication towards it in all the Sn. what Tragical Improvements cou'd [Page 9]his way of Reasoning have made upon It! But, George, the Author gave some Reasons for Concealing of his Name, at the close of Sect XXIII. to which he thinks not fit to add any thing now, but only this, That if G. Whitehead and Will. Penn will set their Names, to all that they have Printed Incognito, he promises to put his Name, to the next Edition of the Sn.

His Shuffle about their Answer to the seven Queres. With a short Scheme of the Qua­kers Prin­ciples and the Mon­strous Foun­dation of them.V. All that follows in G. W's Ep. to the Reader is concerning the 7 Queres which were sent to their yearly Meeting. 1695. the Provo­cation that was given them to Answer two of them Directly, since they wou'd not the whole, as they Pretended, for their Length and Intricacy. And what G. W. says to this is consider'd in the Suplement to the Sn. N. VII. All to be added here is the Queres themselves, which was Promis'd in the Sup. and are Inserted in the Answer which the General Meeting of the Reformed Quakers at Philadelphia, in Pensilvania, Return'd to these Queres. Which I have Added in the Collection, at the End of this: to shew the Difference of those who Answer sincerely, and those who, when forc'd to it, Answer with Craft, and Dissimula­tion: And that we may see the Honesty and sense of that Excuse given in the Answer of the London Quakers, That these Queres were not so Plain and Direct, as that a Plain Yea or Nay cou'd be given to Each Quere, as was Desir'd: And therefore, That they Give one General Answer; against which they were Caution'd. But wou'd not be Forbidden. For the same Reason given in the Conclusion of the Sn. and in the Sup. N. VII. Because they cou'd not otherwise Cover their [Page 10]Frightful Heresies. Tho' this has not done it.

To shew which Effectually, I will give a short Scheme of the Quakers Principles: And lay open the Monstrous Foundation of them: where­by not only the Foul Fallacy of their Answer is Detected; but their Blasphemous Heresies made more Apparent.

First then I will Grant that that Paragraph in their Answer to the Queres, We sincerely Believe in Jesus Christ, &c. is set down in most Ortho­dox words, mostly in the Terms of the Creed. Why then shou'd we Quarrel with them? Why will we not let men tell their own Meaning? Why will we not Believe what they Profess? Wou'd this seem Equal Dealing with other Men? What more ought to be Expected from them, than to bring them to subscribe the very words of our Creed? What Better, or other words can we find as a Test for them?

But it was told in the Conclusion of the Sn. That they cou'd Subscribe the whole Creed, and yet not mean one word of it, of a Personal Christ Existing now in Heaven, in His own true Human Nature, without all other men &c. Therefore they were Desir'd to give a plain Yea or Nay but to Two short Queres, upon that Head. Which they will not do.

Now lest this shou'd seem an Unreasonable Imposition upon them: and to shew the Rea­der, that ther was good Grounds, and even Necessity for all this Caution with them, I will set down in as Clear a Light as I can, the Bot­tom and Foundation of this their Mystery of Ini­quity; which indeed is wonderful: And without [Page 11]Understanding of which Exactly, it is Impossi­ble to Dive into their Hidden Meanings that they have, whenever they speak of Christ.

1. We must know then, That they do hold (with the Anthropomorphits and Muggletonians) that God has a Body, of Flesh, Blood, and Bones: And that Christ, as God, had such a Body from Eternity. And that this was an Human Body. And consequently, that God or Christ was a Man from Eternity.

This Humanity of Christ they call Spiritual, Heavenly, Ʋncreated. And they Distinguish it from that Manhood which He took of our Na­ture, in the Womb of the B. Virgin: which they call Earthly, Corruptible, Created, and Outward Manhood.

2. They say that He took upon Him this Outward Manhood, but not into His own Per­son, so as to become Truly and Really His own Manhood, or Part of His Nature: But only as a Vail, Vessel, Garment, or Cloathing to His Heaven­ly Manhood. As when Angels assum'd Bodies to Appear in, they took them not into their Na­ture, but only as a Vail or Garment, for a time, and then laid them down again. Tho', while they Appear'd in them, they might be call'd Their Bodies, as being us'd or Possess'd by them. So, and no otherwise, the Quakers call the out­ward Body of Christ, His Body.

3. The Heavenly Manhood of Christ, Flesh, Blood, and Bones, they say Dwells in them. This is what they call their Light within.

4. They Attribute the whole of our Redemp­tion, of the Atonement, and Satisfaction made for our Sins, to the Madly suppos'd Sufferings, [Page 12]Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of the Hea­venly Manhood, or their Light within: Which they say, is all Perform'd Within them. Of which, they say, the Outward Sufferings of Christ were a Type or Figure.

5. They Vilifie the outward Christ, and His Sufferings, as of no Efficacy towards our Salva­tion, more than the Sufferings of other Good­men, as an Example or Encouragement to us. For they say, That their Light within is sufficient to their Salvation, without, any thing else, i. e. without the outward Jesus, what He did or suf­fer'd for us. And they Deny that He is now in Heaven, in the Outward Manhood of our Na­ture, or that He will Come in That Manhood to Judge the World. In short, They Deny Jesus of Nazareth, or that Person who suffer'd upon the Cross, to be Properly the Son of God.

6. They are Perfect Deists in Every Re­spect.

7. They are the most Monstrous sort of Deists that ever were in the World. For they hold with the Ranters (whence they sprung) That ther is no Difference or Distinction betwixt God, and Creatures: But that Every thing is God, even the Devil.

The first of these Seven Particulars, I will shew in this Place. The 2.3.4. and 5. are shewn in Sect. vii. viii. ix. and x. The 6th. in Sect. xvi. And the 7th. in the 2d. Part, Sect. vii. N. 2.

For the First then. That God, and Christ, as God, was a Man from Eternity &c. see Tho. Ellwood's Answer to G. Keith's Narrative. p. 96. 97. where he Delivers Will, Penn's true sense [Page 13]and Meaning. The Plain Import of all his (W. P's) Arguments (says T. E.) is, That Christ, as Christ, was from the Beginning, before He took that outward Body of Flesh, in which He suffer'd at Jerusalem; which is so far from a Denyal of His being, Man, as well as God, that it is a fair Ac­knowlegement of it; inasmuch as He wou'd not have been Christ, if He had not been Man, as well as God. As therefore He was Christ from the Be­ginning, so was He also both God and Man; and that not only In his People, but out of, or with­out them also. And if He was Truly Man Then, before He Appear'd in that outward Body, which was Nailed to the Cross, to be sure, He is not less Truly Man now; since that outward Manhood became (as I may say) a Cloathing to that Divine and Heavenly Manhood which He had before. Thus T. E. wrote lately, An. 1696. And shews what their Principles are Now. viz. That ther are Two Manhoods of Christ, the one outward; which serv'd only as a Cloathing to the Heaven­ly Manhood. That Christ had not been Christ, if He had not been Man, as well as God; And therefore, That He was Man from the Be­ginning, as well as God. And Consequently, That God, was Man, from Eternity: For Christ or the Eternal word, was no other than God.

Now let Us go a little Back, and see the same Doctrine taught by the Quakers formerly. Isaac Penington in his Question to the Professors, &c. Printed An. 1667. p. 30. do's plainly Di­stinguish these Two Manhoods of Christ. Thus he says.

[Page 14] He that knoweth the Substance, the Seed of the Kingdom, the Birth of the Spirit, knoweth the Flesh and Blood which is of the Seed. And this Flesh is Flesh indeed, this Blood is Blood indeed, even the Flesh and Blood of the Seeds Nature; But the other was but the Flesh and Blood of our Nature, which He honoured in taking upon Him, in which He did the will, in which He offer'd up the Acceptable Sacrifice; but yet did not give the Honour from His own Flesh and Blood to It. For the Flesh and Blood of our Nature, was not His own Naturally, but only as He pleas'd to take it upon Him, and make it His. But that whereof He formeth Ʋs, and which He giveth us to Eat and Drink, is the Flesh and Blood of His own Na­ture: And this was It wherein was the Virtue, and wherein is the Virtue, Life, and Power for Ever. Happy, O happy is he who is of It, who is taken out of and Formed of Him (as Eve was of Adam) and so becomes Flesh of His Flesh, and Bone of His Bone. &c. This was the Flesh and Bone of the Heavenly and Eternal Manhood, which he calls of the Seed's Nature, that is of Christ, not as He was of the Seed of Abraham, after the Flesh, but as He is the Seed or Light in our Hearts; for I. P. calls this the Seed's own Flesh and Blood, of His own Nature. And Distin­guishes it from the Flesh and Blood which he took of our Nature. And says, that the Vertue and Life is not in that, but in the Flesh and Blood of His own Nature. Not the Flesh and Blood (says he p. 25.) of the outward Earthly Nature; but the Flesh and Blood of the Inward spiritual Na­ture. Not the Flesh and Blood which Christ took of the first Adam's Nature; but the Flesh [Page 15]and Blood of the Second Adam's Nature. This is of God, or Christ, as God. And p. 10 says, We are taught both by the Spirit, and by the Scrip­tures, to Distinguish between Christs own Flesh; and that of ours, which He took up, and made His. Ther is much more to the same Pur­pose in that Book of Penington's, with which I will not Detain the Reader.

The last Authority I shall Produce is of the Great Fox Himself, in his Book call'd, Several Papers given forth for the Spreading of Truth &c. Printed, 1671. There p. 54. is a Chapter which bears this Title, Concerning Christ's Flesh which was Offered &c. And this Flesh he makes not to be That which He took of the B. Virgin, but That, which he had from the Beginning, and which he supposes was Crucify'd when Adam Fell: And in That Crucifixion to Consist the Atonement and Satisfaction made for Sin. And he takes that Text, The Lamb slain from the Foundation of the world, not as then Decreed and Purposed by God, but Literally, as then Actually Fulfill'd. Thus he Begins that Chapter. Christ, the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the world; when it began its Foundation, then the Lamb was slain— And Christ, according to the Flesh, Cruci­fied, the Lamb slain, that Flesh of His, which is a Mysterie, when the first Adam's and Eve's Flesh was Defiled. This he calls a Mystery. And it is the true Mystery of Quakerism. It is upon this account, That the Quakers think all the Christian world to Lie in Darkness but Them­selves. That other Christians know of no o­ther Flesh and Blood of Christ, but that outward Flesh, which He took, in Time, of the B. Vir­gin. [Page 16]Hence it is common in their Discourse, and in their Books, to tell others, That the Flesh of Christ is a Mysterie; That they under­stand nothing of it. As Solomon Eccles wrote, That the Pope,Sn. Sect. x. p. 138. the Episcopal, the Presbyterian, Independants, and Baptists, understand the Blood of Jesus Christ, no more than a Brute Beast. Therefore the Quaker's Confessing to the Blood of Christ in General Terms, can be no Justi­fication of them, while they mean another Man­hood, Flesh, Blood, and Bones, of Christ than any Christian ever Dreamt of. But it Argues their Deep Deceit and Hypocricy, to seem to Justifie themselves to the world, by their General Confessions; But Conceal their secret Meaning, whereby they know that they Differ most Wide­ly from those, with whom they make this False Appearance of Agreeing Exactly.

Therefore their Answer to the Queres is no Answer, while they Refuse to Renounce this Distinction that they have of Different Man­hoods in Christ: or otherwise, to Explain them­selves, and tell us, which of the Manhoods they mean. The words of their Answer to the Que­res, upon this Head, are these, We sincerely believe in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Living God, both as he is true God and Perfect Man. But what they mean by Man here, they do not Declare. Whether that Eternal or Heavenly Manhood before spoke of, or the Outward and Terrestrial Manhood, which he took of our Earth? But Tho. Ellwood (we thank him) has told us and Discover'd the secret, in his Answer to G. Keiths first. Narrative. p. 205. where he Recites a Quotation G. K. had brought out of G. Whiteheads Book The [Page 17]Malice of the Independent Agent. p. 17. That Christ's Body now in Heaven is the same in sub­stance He had on Earth, which wou'd seem a Fair Confession to the Humanity of Christ. But hold a little (crys T. E.) Did G. White­head ever call or own Christ's Body now in Hea­ven, or while it was on Earth, to be Terrestrial or of the Earth? Here we see how to Understand their words, and how to Interpret this their An­swer to the Quaeres; not of the outward or Ter­restrial Manhood, which Christ took of our Nature; but of their Secret and Heavenly Manhood, which they Madly Fancie, He had from Eternity.

And thus G. Whitehead Explains himself, in his Part of The Christian Quaker. Printed. An. 1674. p. 140. where he says, That he was not at all against Jesus Christ being God and Man, take Man (says he) as Christ is the Hea­venly, Spiritual, and Glorify'd Man. But he Con­fesses, that he was against this. viz. That Jesus Christ consisteth of Human Flesh and Bone. Here he Distinguishes betwixt the Heavenly and the Human Manhood. The first he Ascribes to Christ, but Denies the Latter, that Christ has any Human Manhood. And the Reason he gives for it, is, Seeing Christ (says he) was from Ever­lasting, which is the same we have heard before from Thom. Ellwood, where he takes upon him to Explain Will. Penn's sense in this Matter, viz. That Christ, as Christ, always had a Man­hood; And seeing He had it from Everlasting, therefore it cou'd not be the Human but the Heavenly Manhood, Flesh, Blood and Bone. What then was that Flesh and Blood which he took of the B. Virgin, wherein He suffer'd and Rose again? And of which he said, Behold my Hands [Page 18]and my Feet: Luk. xxiv. 39. Handle me and see, for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones, as ye see Me have. To this says G. W. (ibid. p. 139. 140.) yes, Christ Had such Flesh and Bones, but he did not Con­sist of them. I distinguish between Consisting and Having. Says he. i. e. A man Hath anything that he Possesses or wears, I Have a Cloak, but I do not Consist of that Cloak, that is, It is no Part of my Nature; and I may Put it on, or Throw it off, without any Change of my Na­ture. And no otherwise do the Quakers reckon of the Body and Blood which Jesus our B. Lord took, in Time, in the Womb of the Virgin. Not that He took it into His Person, so as to Con­sist of it; as a Man do's Consist of Both Na­tures, of his Body and Soul: But only, that He Had it, that is, Made Ʋse of it, and wore it, for a Time, as a Vail or Garment; which He has now laid aside; and subsists in Heaven, on­ly in that Heavenly and Eternal Manhood, Flesh, Blood, and Bones, which He had, as Christ, from Eternity. And they make it a Contradiction to say That Christ do's Consist of any other Flesh and Bone, that is, of Human Flesh and Bone, they think this to be a Contradiction to Christ's be­ing the Eternal Word; because they hold that He cou'd not be the Word or Christ, without Consisting of Flesh, Blood, and Bone: And there­fore, That if He had None but the Flesh &c. of the Human Nature, which was Created in Time, it must follow, That He was not the Word or Christ from Everlasting. Thus says G. W. (ibid. p. 139.) Is there not a Plain Contra­diction between Jesus Christ Consisting of Flesh and Bone, Human Nature; And that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Eternal word from Everlasting, &c.

[Page 19]Therefore you see it is Necessary for us, in order to Oblige these Quakers to Discover their Meaning, that we Insist upon the word Human, And that they will Answer, whether they Allow Christ to have Now in Heaven any Human Body? Or whether He do's Consist Now of that Bo­dy; or did Consist of it, while He was upon Earth?

But will the Word Human hold them? Have they no Dodge nor Shift whereby to use even that word Plainly, in a sense, in which they know that no body Understands it in this Case? What if we spell it Humane for Human, and take Humanity in the Moral and not Natural sense of the word; as when we say, that such an One is a Man of Great Hu­manity, i. e. of Good Nature, Gentleness, Good­ness, &c.? And Christ or The Word having Great Goodness in His Nature, consequently we will allow Him a Humane, tho not a Human Nature! I am Confident the Reader do's now think that I am Fooling with these Quakers; and Mean this only as a Banter: For that he must Conclude it Impossible for any Men to shew themselves such Knaves as well as Fools, to Dodge at such a silly and Impudent rate with Mankind; while they Pretend to the Greatest Plainess and Sincerity of any Men upon the Earth. Therefore let him Read a Quaker Book Intitul'd A Testimony for the true Christ and His Light in the Conscience, in Confutation of Robert Cobbit's Testimony against the Truth &c. Printed An. 1668. And said on the Title Page to be From some of them called Qua­kers. But suppos'd to be Penn'd by G. White­head. There p. 4. and 5. they say, As he (Rob. [Page 20]Cobbit) speaks of Humane, with Relation to Na­ture or Body, it hath Relation to the Earth, or Humus the Ground, of which Man was made; which the First Man is of, not the second (though He was Really Man too) but Humane or Huma­nity in the other sence, with Relation to Gentleness, Mercifulness, and the like, this we know was, and is in the Image of God (in which Man was Made) and His Gentleness, Kindness, Mercifulness, &c. is Ma­nifested in Christ—And the true and Real Humanity, as Oppos'd to that Cruelty, Envy, and In-Humanity, which is got up in Man since the Fall: so that Humani­ty, und the Unreasonableness of Beasts are two things. Thus the Quakers. Here they Deny Christ the Second Man to have been Made of Humus the Earth, as the First Man was; And yet say they He (the second Man) was Really Man too. How was this? It cou'd not be in the same sense as the First Man, who was Made of Humus the Earth, if Christ did not take our Nature, or Humus upon Him. No, The Qua­kers do not mean it in that sense, as if Christ had ever taken our Human Nature, so as to Consist of it, or let it be any Part of His Per­son. And yet they say That He is Really Man too. By which they Mean only, That Eternal and Heavenly Manhood before Mentioned. And so Banter the World, with their Plain Confessi­ons, in Double Meanings!

Yet have they the Confidence, to Cry Whore first. And Boldly Challenge others with what Themselves are the most Notoriously Guilty, of any that Live upon the face of the Earth.

[Page 21] Sam. Fisher, one of the Chief Rabbies of the Quakers, Sam. Fish­ers Works. p. 177. Charges the Priests against whom he Disputes, with Shameful shiftings from sense to sense, miserable marchings from Meaning to Mean­ing; so that we can hardly know where or How to find them, nor what they mean. But we (says he) mostly or ever keep to the True, Honest, Ordinary, and Plain purport of the words, as they lie open and Clear to every Ordinary and Common Capa­city.

And G. Whitehead Intitul's one of his Books, The Quaker's Plainess, detecting Fallacie.

Whereas their Books are such Un-intelligi­ble Jargon, that one must serve a Prentiship be­fore he can understand one word almost of what they wou'd be at. Nay they Glory, and often Boast that their Words, as well as Names, are Hidden from the World.

And this not only in their Books, but I Appeal to all that Converse with them, whether the same Mysteriousness be not in all their Conversation, concerning Religion. When you ask them the meaning of their Light within, their Christ with­in, their Life Read, &c. They Answer Com­monly with a Grunt—of Disdain, or Pity, as they wou'd have you take it. And when they Vouchsafe to Speak, it is to this Purpose, These things are Hid from thee, and from the World. Read within, there thou wilt find them. But we know them, and have Sweetness and Life in them, &c. Their Language is as much a Cant, as the Gipsies. And this has Preserv'd them so long Ʋn-disco­ver'd in the World. Yet they make up a Mouth, and Pretend to Plainess, beyond all others! But you shall never get them to Answer Di­rectly, [Page 22]or to the Purpose; To give a Plain Yea or Nay to any Question concerning their Heresies. If they say I wrong them, let this be the Test, That they will either Own or Disown this their Notion of an Heavenly and Eternal Manhood of Christ: And tell us, in Plain Terms, which of the Manhoods, that which is Created, or that which they say is Ʋn-created, they mean, when they Confess to the Manhood of Christ now in Heaven. And till they do this (which I Guess, will not be in Hast) let my Charge stand good against them: Which I may Reasonably pre­sume from all Judicious Readers. But, ther is no stop in the Art of Heresie. This their Mad Notion of an Heavenly Body in God, or Christ, has brought them to Fancy, that they them­selves have the same Heavenly Body. And thus they Understand our being Members of Christ, not as being Members of His Church, of which He is the Mystical Head: But as Members of this His Heavenly Flesh, Blood, and Bones: And therefore say, that Their own Bodies shall ne­ver Dye. G. Fox, when one minded him, that he wou'd Dye, Will. Ro­gers his Christian Quaker. IV. Part. p. 49. and turn to Dust, and there­fore that he ought to be Humble; Answers, in his Letter, which is Printed, Thou sayest, when I am turned to Dust and Dead: Is this thy Doctrin? Are the Members of the Heavenly Body turned to Dust and Dead? This Doctrin proceeds from Darkness, and not from the Light of Christ. This is very Intelligible! And Easie to the Meanest Capacity! This is the Quakers Plainess! It was not said, that his Soul shou'd turn to Dust, this was spoke of his Body. And here he denies it of the Body. Why? Be­cause [Page 23]it was a Member of the Heavenly Body of God. And yet they do not doubt but their Bodies must Dye, in the True, Honest, Ordinary, and Plain purport of the Words, to which they Mostly or Ever keep! But this Mystery is Ʋn-Riddl'd in the Second Part. Sect. vii. n. 2. where it is shewn, That they hold their Bodies as well as Souls to be God.

It is told in the Preface, how the Qua­ker Heresies were Borrow'd from the Ancien­ter Sectaries amongst us: And this their Answer to the Seven Queres, shews that they have In­herited their Plainess and Sincerity in Repre­senting their own Principles to the World.

The Family of Love, who Prevaricated in every Article of the Creed, Printed a Confession of their Faith, in the very words of the Creed, An. 1656. But how they meant it, Mr. Knew­stub has shewn us, which is Inserted in Heresi­ography. p. 97. where, by Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord, they mean only Righteousness, which they call Christ; and Sin they call Anti-Christ; and the Seed of the Woman they make to be only a Principle or Quality in our Hearts, and not any Person; which are the very Words and Sense of Will. Penn, in his Part of The Chri­stian Quaker. p. 97, 98. And in his Address to Protestants. p. 118, 119. What is Christ (says he) but Meekness, Justice, Mercy, &c. And thence Infers, that every Meek Man, must be a Chri­stian.

But the Familists go on, in the words of the Creed, Who was Conceiv'd of the H. Ghost: Born of the Virgin Mary; that is, in their Cant, as every one of them is Conceiv'd of the H. [Page 24]Ghost, by the Renewing of the Spirit, in their Hearts, Born of the Virgin Mary; i. e. In their Virgin Hearts. Thus the Quakers understand it. See Will. Bayly's Works. p. 291, 292, 293. where this is, at Large, Insisted on. And the standard of the Lord. p. 17. says, in this same sense, That where Christ is Born, He is Born of a Virgin, that is, In them, as there Explain­ed.

Again, Suffer'd under Pontius Pilat. was Cru­cify'd, Dead, and Buried; and Descended into Hell. i. e. That Jesus Christ, or The Light, is Crucify'd, &c. In Men; under Pontius Pilate, i. e. The Wicked one, or our Corruptions and Lusts. Et sic de Caeteris. And the same Author tells, p. 100. That, because of these Double Mean­ings of the Famalists, ther was no way to Discover them, by any Words or Tests that cou'd be fram'd; But only by making them Renounce and Disown their Ring-Leader, one Henry Nicholas, and to Condemn his Doctrin; which they wou'd not do. And thus must we deal with their Spawn the Quakers; while they Refuse to Disown the Pernicious Doctrins of Fox, Whitehead, Penn, &c. we must Conclude, That they still do own them, notwithstand­ing of all their Jesuitical and Janus-Confessions; which they have Copy'd after the Like Plain-Dealing Familists! Of whom, you may see more in the Authors I have Quoted. Who wrote before ther was a Quaker in the World, or the Name known. But this shews, who were the Fathers that Begot them. For they were the Sons of Many Fathers, All the Pestiferous Sects of Forty One. Whose Vomit they have [Page 25] Lick'd up, and Render'd it ten times more Nauseous and Deform'd.

And the Legions which Possess'd these Sons of Belial, are Enter'd, with Double Force and Ma­lice, into this Herd of Swine: whom They have Captivated, both Souls and Bodies, in an Higher Degree than any of the Former; or than Any, perhaps, that have been known in any Age: Which I come next to shew; with G. White­head's Defence of them.

His Sober Caution consider'd, as to these Quakers who were Possest with the Devil. wherein, the wonder­ful story of John Gil­pin,VI. His Sober Caution (as he call's it) contains the first 12 pages of his Book. And it is all spent in warding off the several Instances, which cannot be Deny'd, of Quakers Possess'd with the Devil in most wonderful and Astonishing Manner. The Bulk of his Reasons is that such Instan­ces can be no Reflection upon the People call'd Quakers, or upon their Principles, more than if they had happen'd among any others of other Communions.

• 1. But this is Answer'd in the Sn. Sect. xxi. p. 309. &c. where it is shewn that such En­thusiastical Madness and Possession do's proceed from the Principles of the Quakers, and is caus'd chiefly by them. And besides it is a most No­torious Mortification to their Pretence of Per­fection and the Spirit of Discerning, beyond all o­ther Men.
• 2. But G. W. adds some other Arguments here, as p. 3. he Asks, How Satan is trans­form'd into an Angel of Light, when he appears like a Mad-man, a Witch, a Devil, a Blasphemer? Ans. Who says that he appears then like an Angel of Light? You must allow him sometimes [Page 26]to take his own shape. But Secondly, The Pretence of Godliness and High Illuminations, which these Possess'd Quakers make such Great Boast of, that is the Sheeps Cloathing, and the Disguise of Light which Satan then puts on; and with which many are Deceiv'd.
• 3. G. W. adds next, that Men thus Mad or Pos­sess'd are fitter Objects of Compassion than of that Wit and Raillery which the Author of the Sn. be­stows upon the Quakers. Ans. That is true. And that Author bestows none of what G. W. call's Wit or Raillery upon them, unless G. W. reckons himself as one of them. The Author of the Sn. do's not esteem All the Quakers in that High Degree of Enthusiastical Madness as Gilpin, Toldervy &c. And therefore G. W. ought to take that little Familiarity us'd sometimes with him, as a Complement, as supposing him not in that Excess as others, as not yet Quite with­out the Boundaries of Reason: out of which when he shoots sometimes, with Extravagance so Excessive as to Pass the Reach of Argument, then is he, in kindness, to be Reduc'd by shew­ing him his Folly, in it's Plain Dress, which he call's Wit and Raillery.

Nor is this without its Pity and Compassion, though Laughing, may be the Cure; as to Hypo­condriacks, who cannot be Reason'd, yet sometimes are Jested out of their Delirous Imaginations.

Which when any man comes to be Persuad­ed are the Immediat Dictates of the Holy-Ghost, then is his Madness in Perfection.

And the Quakers have never yet been able to give us any Mark or Rule or shew of Rea­son, that they do not thus mistake All their [Page 27]own Wild Imaginations for the Inspiration of God.

We see (and G. W. cannot but own it) to what Excessive Heights this Enthusiastical Principle has driven some of the Quakers: therefore let the Rest beware, for they are up­on the same Rode.

They have lost their Compass, while they set their Light above the Scriptures: And have no other Assurance that they are in the Right, but their own Assurance that they are so. Which sort of Assurance not only Sometimes, but Always do's accompany every Error: For no Man can be in any Error, who do's not think himself to be in the Right: Else he were not in an Error; but in a Willful Obstinacy if he Per­sisted in it, after he knew it it to be an Error.

Now to Christians who believe the Divine Revelation of the H. Scriptures, these are a Rule, by which we measure our own Imagina­tions; and if any thing comes into our Heads contrary to these, we are bound to Reject it: But to believe it a Divine Inspiration, and so not Controulable by Scripture, this is to be Mad, to be given up to all Delusion, to sur­render our Hearts, as a Blank Table for the Devil to write what he pleases upon, and to pass it as the Ingravings of the Finger of God! And if ther be no Light, that is, no Ʋnderstanding in us, but what is Divine, we must think every thing Divine that is written there. And then we are Seal'd up in Error; from which ther can be no Returning while we keep in that Principle; the Scriptures can be no Reproof or Cheek to us, while we think [Page 28]that what we call our Light with in is Superior to the Scriptures, and by which the Scriptures themselves were given forth. And Reason, which is Human, and, as these Men term it, Carnal, can never be admitted by them to Rectify what they think to be Divine. So that all Avenues are stopt to their Recovery. This is the most Dreadful condition that any Man can be suppos'd to be in. It is Despe­rate to any thing but a Miracle. Therefore you see what Reason we have to Remove Men from this Principle. And this is the Heart of Quakerism. They Reckon themselves Se­cure without Reason. They are sure, because they are sure. And this sort of Assurance proceeds from the Imagination; and therefore is strongest in Mad-Men: And the Maddest of the Quarkers, the most highly Enthusiastick, have the strongest Assurance of this kind. How different are these Men from those sort of Christians to whom St. Peter writes, and admo­nishes them, To be Ready always to give an An­swer to every Man that asked them a Reason of the Hope that was in them? 1 Pet. 3.15. But our Quakers give no Reason; they cry out upon Reason, as Carnal; and are against It, because It is against them. For no Reason can be given for any Hope or Inward Perswasion which is not Grounded upon Reason. Fancy and Rea­son are two things. And no Reason can be given for Fancy. This is the Difference be­twixt that Perswasion or Assurance which comes from the Sobriety of Religion, and that which comes from Enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is Imagination; and no Reason can be given for [Page 29]what Assurance comes from thence. But the Assurance of Religion is a Sober and a Rational Persuasion, Grounded upon Reason, and there­fore ther is always a Reason to be given for it.

This do's not take away or lesson the Ne­cessity of the Ordinarie Assistances and Inspira­tions of the H. Spirit; which are, in a sound sense, call'd likewise Enthusiasm. This is Ex­plain'd, and the difference of Enthusiasms clear­ly laid down in the Sn. Sect. xxii. But I have said so much of it, in this place, that Line upon Line, Precept upon Precept, here a Little and there a Little, I might, by any means, Instill this Difference of the Quaker from the Divine Enthusiasm into their Minds; and Guard them from this Fundamental Error, which carries in its Belly, all the others into which they are led: And of which they must first be Cur'd, before they can be Retriv'd from any other. And, to Repeat it again, that they may keep their Eye still upon this One Point; all I desire of them is, to let their Enthusiasm or Inspiration be Subject to the Scriptures, and not set up Above them. This was the Rule in all Holy Enthusiasms; they submitted to be Try'd and Ex­amin'd by the Rule of the Scriptures. Then we have some Rule, some Compass to Steer by. But if we set our Enthusiasm Above the Scrip­tures, this is the Wild, the Mad, the Diaboli­cal Enthusiasm of which I have been speaking. And of which if the Quakers were once Cur'd, they wou'd, with the Blessing of God, soon Return to a Sober Mind.

[Page 30]4. G. W. is very Angry it shou'd be said that the Quaker Principles do make men more sus­ceptible of the wild Impressions of Enthusiasm than other Men. And says against this, that as few of them have run Mad as of other Men. And p. 8. he Provokes his Adversary to produce his Catalogues of the Quaker — Mad-Men.

Why truly, if Catalogues had been kept of them, I believe they wou'd be found to Exced any of such a Number of Men, by the Instances which we have seen of them.

All of which G. W. wou'd throw off; by In­stancing in a Few, whom, he says, they have Disowned. Thus says he p. 3. 4. His Instan­ces of John Gilpin in 1653. James Milner, and John Toldervy, cannot affect the Quakers, since they have Long since testifi'd against the Madness of those Persons he Mentions.

Ans. 1. Other Persons were Mention'd be­sides these; And ther are Many More of the Like.

Ans. 2. These Persons above Nam'd have not been Testify'd against as Mad-men by the Quakers. But, on the Contrary, James Milner is Justify'd for a True Prophet by G. Fox, after all the Madnesses he was Guilty of. Which is shewn in the 2d. Part. Sect. ii. N. 7. G. F. calls him a True Prophet of The Lord. And G. W. Now calls him a Mad-Man: which I know not how to Reconcile, but by owning of the Truth, That the Quaker-Prophets are Mad-Men. If G. W. can find any other way, let him shew his Parts!

[Page 31]In the next Place, as to Toldervy, he went Back and Forward, And the Quakers did Own or Dis-own him, as he went To or From them. But I know not that they have made a Mad-Man of him, before this time, now, in this An­tidote. If they thought him Mad they spent their time well, in writing so Many Books against him, And Answering of his Books!

But as for Gilpin, he left them Quite, after he had (by the great mercy of God,) Reco­ver'd from his so Monstrous Possessions by the Devil while he was a Quaker. He had enough of them! Therefore they Laid Load upon Him. But what was it they Charg'd him with? It is Horrible to Repeat it! They Mistook the De­vil for God! They Attributed the Possessions he was under to the H. Spirit; And said, That they were the Workings of The Light within, or Christ in his Heart; subduing the Devil, or his Corruptions; which Trembled in him: And that this was the Cause of his Dreadful Con­vulsions. That his Charging them upon the Devil, was Blaspheming of God whose Work they were. That his seeking for Relief from them (which they call'd the Cross of Christ) And not being willing to Ly Under them, was his Deserting of God; And Returning under the Power of the Devil; being Weary of Bearing the Cross, &c.

All this Appears by the Answers which the Quakers put out to this Relation which Gilpin gave of himself, call'd The Quakers Shaken. An 1653. One is in G. Fox's Gr. Myst. p. 297. Ther is an other call'd The Standard of the Lord, &c. by Atkinson, Burrough, Howgil, and 15 or 16 [Page 32]more whose Names are Subscrib'd, the same year. An. 1653. This Book I Forc'd my self to Read over, with Horror, and Reluctancy, be­cause of the Diabolical Fury, Rage, and Blas­phemy which fill every Page in it. There p. 23. They Answer Gilpin's saying, that that Trembling which seiz'd him, was of the Devil, thus, I manifestly witness against thee, that it was the Lord of Heaven and Earth that made thee Tremble. And p. 11. Concerning the Power that struck thee down from thy Chair, that I own to be of God. And that which spake to thee Bidding thee be Humble, and brought the Low down upon thy Knees; That I own to be of God, &c.

Now what this was which Spoke to Gilpin, that Struck him from his Chair, and made him Tremble, &c. will be best known from his own Narrative, which, because it is but very briefly Touch'd in the Sn. Has been long out of Print; and so hard to be had: And that it is very Material, give me leave to Repeat but some Passages in it. viz. That this Gilpin was Perverted to Quakerism in May. 1653. By the Famous Christopher Atkinson, whose Name is up­on the Title-page of the Answer to it above nam'd (tho others Subscribe to it) of whose Gifts see Sn. § vi. n. v. That the Burden of the Quaker Preaching was To Deny all Ministerial Teaching and Ordinances; p. .2 together with all notio­nal knowledge formerly gain'd by use of such means—That whatever any learn out of the Scriptures, by Hearing, Reading, Catechizing, &c was but Notional, Carnal, and Hanging upon the Tree of Knowledge: And so under the Curse▪ [...] they Apply to this, Gal. iii. 13. Cursed is [Page 33]every one that Hangeth on the Tree. i. e. on the Tree of Knowledge. so they understand that Text. That all our Duty was to hearken to a Voice within Ʋs; which was the only Rule.

That he earnestly desir'd to have the Quak­ing and Trembling-Fits (which was then very Frequent among them) thinking as they Taught him,p. 3. that this was the Manifestation of the Light within, and its Struglings to overcome our Corruptions. That at last they came upon him so Violently, that he cou'd not stand upon his Feet, but fell down, Trembling, Quaking, Howling and Crying in such a Terrible and Hi­deous Manner, as Astonish'd all his Family. That he was Pleas'd with this, Thinking it, to be the Pangs of the New-Birth. The night follow­ing, he was troubl'd with Terrible Dreams and Visions. And afterwards Lying Awake, p. 4. and thinking of them, I sensibly Perceiv'd (says he) something, as I Imagined, Lighting upon my Neck, giving me a Great Stroke, which caus'd much Pain to me; and after that Another, and so a Third and Fourth, each stroke being less than the former, and each stroke descending lower down, till it came to the middle of my Back: And then I thought that something enter'd into my Body; which I Perswaded my self, from Satan's Instigation, to be the Spirit of God descending upon me like a Dove and Entring into me.

After this, he tells of strange Fits he had in his Garden, his Limbs being carry'd and shaken, without his Consent: And he Thrown down, Rais'd up, Turn'd upon his Back, then up­on his Belly &c.

Again, at a Meeting, p. 5 [...] where C. Atkinson and John Audland (whose Blasphemous Letter to G. [Page 34]Fox is Annex'd to the 3d. Edit. of the Sn.) Preach'd, In the time of his (J. Audlands) Speaking I was (says Gilpin) by the Power with­in me, Drawn from the Chair on which I sat, and Thrown upon the Ground, in the Midd'st of the Company: Where I Lay all Night; All which time, My Body and all the Members of it were still in Motion; I being turned from my Back to my Belly, and so back again several times; and Ma­king Crosses Continually with my Leggs one over the other; My Hands also were cary'd to and fro up­on the Ground, by a Convulsive Power, as if I had been Writing upon the Ground. In all which Acti­ons and Motions, I Acted not, in the Least Mea­sure, by a Natural Power of Mine own; Neither did I Resist, or could I Resist that Power which Acted Me; but was altogether Passive. I was per­swaded, That it was the Immediate Power of Christ; And heard, to my thinking, a Voice speaking to Me, and saying, That that writing with my hand upon the Ground, did signifie the wri­ting of the Law within my Heart. Having lain all night upon the Ground, in the Manner a­foresaid, The Power (as before in other Actions) moved my Hands to my Head, and laid them upon the Top thereof fast Closed together; whereupon I heard a Voice saying, Christ in God, and God in Christ, and Christ in Thee; which words I was Compelled to Sing forth before the Company, in a strange Manner, and with such a Voice, as was not Naturally Mine own: I sung also divers Phra­ses of Scripture, which were given into Me. Af­ter which I was Raised from the Ground, and set upon my Feet, by the power within me; which bad me be Humble, and brought me down again upon [Page 35]my Knees, and with a whispering Voice said to me, Stoop Low, Low. And having stooped near the Ground with my Face, it said to me, Take up thy Cross and Follow Me. Whereupon Arising — I was suddenly Drawn down the street &c. viz. To the Fidlers House. whither William Dodding, and John Audland did Accompany him. And odd Freaks were Acted. I have Recited this Passage so Particularly, because, as before Quoted, the Quakers do Maintain, That the Power which struk Gilpin down from his Chair; and brought him Low down upon his Knees, bidding him be Humble &c. was of God; But that which Led him to the Fidlers, and Mov'd him to Play upon the Base Viol, and Dance, was of the Devil. (as in the Standard &c. p. 11.12.) whereas, it was the same Pow-that Acted him all along. And going to the Fidlers, was but a Part of the same Passage. But this shews how the Quakers hate Musick. As that Power said to Gilpin. p. 7. That it Hated Musick, which shews it to be the same Power that Acts the Quakers; A Sullen, Doged Spirit, Ʋn-Tun'd, and In-Harmonious! The An­tipodes to Heaven! I suppose the Quakers thought, That it cou'd not be an Evil Spirit which bad Gilpin be Humble; that is, That the Devil can­not. Transform himself into an Angel of Light, or a Wolf wear Sheeps Cloathing. They forgot that the Devil Quoted Scripture to our Saviour. And that they themselves have Quoted it upon occasions, tho' they have Declar'd War against it. But was it a Good Spirit which Tempted Gilpin to Despair, and to Cut his Throat? p. 8. as he tells that this Power did, which Possess'd him; [Page 36]And Promis'd that he shou'd have Eternal Life, if he wou'd do it. At which when he star­ted; and began to suspect that it must be an Evil Spirit which Tempted him to Self-Murder; Then the next Fit he had, the Spirit told him, That it was indeed an Evil Spirit which had Acted him all that time, under the Notion of the H. Spirit of God: But that Now the Holy Spirit had come upon him, and Chas'd away that Evil Spirit; wherefore now that he might be sure he was in the Right. And then again, upon other such like Occasion, the Voice wou'd tell him, That even that Spirit which pretended to be the Good Spirit, was still the Evil Spirit; and had told him a Ly, on Purpose to Deceive him: But that now the Holy Spirit was come in Good Earnest, and that he might De­pend upon it. And thus for several times successively, as oft as he Entertain'd Suspitions of the Spirit that Acted him; And he was as oft Deceiv'd by it. Cou'd this then be a Good Spirit, which so oft call'd it self the Evil Spirit? For it is plain, by his Story, That it was the same Spirit which all along Possess'd him, till he was finally Deviver'd from it, by Returning to the outward Ordinances of the Church, which he had Forsaken. Was it a Good Spirit which Mov'd him, as he came from the Fidlers, to Proclaim through the streets as he went, I am the way the Truth and the Life? And Wil­liam Dodding the Quaker in his Company: who did not Reprove this Blasphemy: for it was Common with the Quakers (See §. vii.) But said that he had no Power to Leave him. as he tells p. 7. This [Page 37]was the Power Tormented Gilpin; which was surely no other than the Devil, who Tempted him thus to Blasphemy and Self-Murder. But this G. Fox will not allow; but says (Gr. Myst. p. 299.) That it was The Devil who was made to Tremble in Gilpin. Not that it was the De­vil who made Gilpin to Tremble. No, They say that was God. And that it was the Devil, not who Tormented, but who was Tormented in Gil­pin.

I will not Detain the Reader with the Rest of Gilpin's story, which is indeed Prodigious: only make this Observation upon it, that, if it be True, ther can be no Doubt, of what many (Now a days) will not Believe, That ther are Diabolical Possessions. And that it is True, we have not only Gilpin's own Ac­count, but it is Attested by the then Mayor of Ken­dal (where Gilpin then Liv'd, And was so Possess'd) by the Minister, and several other Per­sons of Credit, there Present.

But now suppose it was not True, Is it not as Great a Degree of Possession, to make a Man Believe, That he had been so Possess'd, and Heard such Voices &c. if it had not been so? And the Transports he was in, were many of them such as Exceeded the Power of Nature; which any one will Acknowledge that Reads his Narrative.

Nor can this be put upon the Common Effects of Madness; for no such Effects were ever seen in Gilpin Before, or after he Return'd from the Quakers.

Or if it was Madness (of what ever sort) it was Visiby Caus'd by the Quaker Preachings, [Page 38]and their Doctrine. And Cur'd by Returning from them. And no doubt, but Possessions of the Devil, when to a great Degree, will Transport Men, even unto Madness. Their is an Enthusiastical, as well as a Natural Mad­ness.

It is observ'd hereafter, that neither the Apostles, or any other Recorded in the H. Scriptures, were Converted to Christianity by such Violent and Monstrous sort of Convulsions of their Bodies. These are the Transports of Euries. But the Spirit of the Gospel is all Meek­ness, Sobriety, and Gravity.

But how will G. W. Reconcile his charging this of Gilpin's upon Madness; and G. F's say­ing (Gr. Myst. p. 298.) That he came to be al­most a Distracted Man: How will they Re­concile this with what others of the Quakers, nay, and themselves, at other times, say, that these Extraordinary Quakings and Convulsions of Gil­pin were the Workings of the H. Ghost in him? Do the B. Influences of God's H. Spirit bring Men to Distraction and Madness! G. Fox says (ibid) That the Lord smote Gilpin, that he came to be Almost a Distracted Man. That is true, it was the Lord who smote him; but how? by Delivering of him to Satan, for the Destruction, that is, the Punishment of his Flesh, that his Spirit might be Saved, in the Day of the Lord Jesus. 1 Cor. 5.5. which Punishment God did usually Inflict, in the beginning of the Gospel, upon Excommunicated Persons, who Despis'd the Authority of His Church; for the Terror of others, as well as the Reclaiming of Themselves, And, in these later days, God [Page 39]has Exerted His Power, in the same signal manner, upon many of those who have will­fully Excommunicated Themselves, and Tram­pled under their Feet that High Authority, with which Christ has Invested His Church! even the same that the Father gave unto Him. Of these Scorners, the Quakers are the most Outragious, and Blasphemous: And therefore this Judgment from God, has fallen most upon Them. And this is the greatest Part of their Judg­ment, that they know it not to be such: But mistake the Strokes of God's Executioner, the Devil, for the Workings of the H. Spirit of God: And so Construe that as an Approbation of their Cursed state, which was sent to Re­claim them from it. At least, to be a Warn­ing to others, how they fall into their Snares; who are, by the Just Judgment of God, de­liver'd up to the Devil, both Soul and Body, even in this Life! This is a most Material Point; Therefore I Insist so long upon it.

And I desire the Quakers, and all others, to Consider, that, as this Gilpin was thus Deli­ver'd over to Satan, upon his Forsaking of the Church, and Publick Ordinances of the Prayers, and Sacraments: So, upon his Return to these Holy Institutions, he was, by the Great Mercy of God, Rescu'd from the Power of the Devil, and Restor'd to his Former State. Which he Amply Acknowledges, and Desires the Chri­stian Reader to joyn with him in Returning Prais­es unto the Lord, for his Goodness towards him. p. 14. This Provok'd the Rage of that Cursed Spirit which Possesses the Quakers, to the ut­most, which Return'd this Answer, p. 23. of [Page 40] The Standard, &c. The Reader, if he be a Chri­stian, will Return Plagues upon thee; thy Praise is Abomination. And as to the outward Or­dinances, being Means of Grace, in the Consci­entious use whereof God hath Promis'd to Reveal Himself to His People, and to give them Comfort, as Gilpin says, p. 13. That same Spirit which Tormented him, Return'd Answer, p. 22. of The Standard, I Deny that God ever did, or will ever Reveal Himself by any of those things. And says (ibid) of Gilpin's charging these Possessions of his upon the Devil, that all this was, On­ly to Reproach the Living God, which the Saints Witnessed in them. This was their Light with­in, which they say is God: Whose Workings they suppos'd those Possessions of Gilpin's to be: And therefore, that it was Blaspheming of God, to say, that these came from the Devil.

To the same Purpose Answer'd G. Fox, in his Gr. Myst. p. 298. where he Repeats the words of Gilpin thus, He saith, he began to Consider, how he had offended God, by his neglect of the use of External means, Reading, Hearing, and Prayer, and Rejecting the Revealed will of God, in his Word; and Hearkning to the Voice of God, only within. And in Answer, falls, like the Rest, upon Running down all Exter­nal Means of Reading, Praying, &c. for a whole Page together: And Directs Only to the Light within, as that which is Wholey, and Soley, and of it self sufficient. So when that Voice was neglect­ed (says he) then was John Gilpin Confused, &c. whereas, as himself tells, and the thing shews it self, it was the Hearkning only to that Voice, which brought him into all his Confu­fusion: And, in his Returning to the Exter­nal [Page 41]means, God did wonderfully Deliver him from that Confusion, which the Quakers call his Condemnation, his being Weary of the Cross, &c.

However now G. W. calls him a Mad-Man; But do's not say, that these Possessions was his Madness. No, the Quakers think he was Mad, in seeking to be Deliver'd from them. And that when he grew Sober, then was he Mad!

But G. W. says, that they have long since Testify'd against the Madness of these Persons. viz. Gilpin, &c.

We have seen how they Testify'd against it! By Justifying it, as a Divine Inspiration! If G. W. can shew any other Testifying of theirs, let him.

But when did they Testify against Gilpin? never till he Testify'd against Them. In all the time of his monstrous Possession, they stuck to him, and Accompany'd him, even John Andland himself, and William Dodding, who Declar'd he had no Power to leave him, for, he was Acted by the same Spirit. These and other Quakers went along with Gilpin to the Fidlers, and thro' the Streets, when he Blas­phem'd, Proclaming himself, to be The way, the Truth, and the Life: And none of them Rebuk'd him, or then found any Fault at all with him: But on the Contrary, thought him a Chosen Vessel; and then Actuated by the H. Spirit of God. But when he Return'd to the Ordinances; and Declar'd that to be a Cursed Spirit by which he was Acted: Then! Then! and not till Then, they left him. Then they Accused him of Blaspheming Their God, that is, the Devil. Let them shew that ever they Testify'd against him, before that time. Yet now, they bring their Testifying against him, as an Ar­gument (by Innuendo) not That, but As if they had [Page 42]not own'd him in his Madness: And so were not Chargeable with it! Whereas they own'd him only in his Madness; But when he Return'd to a Sober mind, then they Disown'd him. He was no longer Fit Company for Them! So that he must (after all their Dodgings) stand still in the Catalogue, not of our, but of Their Mad Men. He was ours, only when he was Sober: And Theirs only while he was Mad; and no Longer. But now we will go to other Instan­ces of Madness.

1. First then, Proofes of the Quakers being Mad. In those who went Naked. suppose you saw a Man go Naked thro' the streets, and Besmer'd all over with Excrements, and to come into a Publick Church, in that Condition (as Solomon Eccles, one of the Chief Quaker Preachers, did in the Church at Alderman-bury in London) when the People were there Assembl'd to Divine worship; wou'd not every body conclude such a Man to be Mad? for we know Madness only by the signs which men do shew of it. And if this be al­low'd as a sign of Madness or a Disorder'd Mind, then we shall have a Large Catalogue among the Quakers; and that Cheifly of their Mini­sters and Apostles: for this was Common with them, at their first Setting up. And to this Day, we have seen several of them Naked in our streets, denouncing Woes, Judgments &c. If it be said that these were Prophets, and that this was an Effect of their Prophetical Furie. This will make them Madder still, if it be not True. And whether it be True or not, I re­fer to the Sn. Sect. vi. N. viii. where their Prophe­tick Talent is Examined. And will the Madness of Solomon Eccles appear Less, because when [Page 43]he came into the Church at Alderman-bury all Naked, cover'd only with vile Excrement, he did this as an Emblem of the Nakedness and Filth of the Minister, in Preaching out of the Bible (which G. Fox calls Conjuration, see Sn. p. 22.) and that he might as well come thi­ther with that T—d in his hand, as the Mi­nister with his Bible? A comparison full of Re­verence to the Holy Scriptures! And George Whitehead, in his Light and Life of Christ with­in &c. Printed 1668. p. 38. Vindicates this same Sol. Eccles for this his going Naked, as a Sign (Says G. W.) of the Nakedness of such Dark Professors and Priests as he S. E. witnessed against. And instead of being Asham'd of such a Beast, he there Blasphemously compares this Brutality of his to Isaiah's being Commanded to go Naked for a Sign to Egypt. Not knowing that the sackcloth or Garment of Hair which Isaiah was Commanded to Loose from his Loyns, it being worn Girt close about the Loyns, was a Rough sort of a Mantle or Ʋpper Garment Made of Hair, which the Prophets did usually wear, and by which they were known (See Zech. xiii. 4.2. K. 1.8. Matth. iii. 4. Rev. xi. 3.)

Which being Ʋngirt, it was being Ʋndrest; and appearing so, is, in the Common way of speaking, call'd being Naked, as if a man came out all Ʋndrest into the streets, they wou'd say, why do you appear thus Naked? And to Cloath the Naked, is meant of their Poverty, not of their Shame. Or if a man shou'd Strip off his Cloaths, to Fight, Run, Work, or to do any thing upon which he was very Intent, as David when he Danced before the Ark, in a Linen Ephod, this was call'd being Naked, and that Shamelessly too [Page 44]2. Sam. vi. 20. that is, for a King to be so Naked, or Ʋndrest. Thus it is to be Under­stood, when it is said 1 Sam. xix. 24. that Saul Stript off his Cloaths, and Prophesied Naked before Samuel, that is, he lay'd by his Robes; It was a Mark besides of Respect to Samuel, as to the Doctor and Master there of that College of the Prophets. As with us, Scholars will not come in their Cloaks, to take their Lesson from their Master; nor do Men appear so muffl'd up where they intend to shew Respect. Yet not altoge­ther naked, no nor Ʋndrest, Loose, or Slattering; that is a Greater Contempt, and Ʋndecency, and may be call'd being Naked. Thus it is said, that Peter was Naked. Joh. xxi. 7. and that he Girt his [...] his upper Garment, which was Loose before, when he knew that it was The Lord Jesus who appear'd unto them.

But if the Ʋpper Garment were not only Ʋn­girt, but quite laid aside, this wou'd be call'd a Going Naked, yet not such a Nakedness, void of Modesty, to Discover our Shame, as the Qua­kers did. And Ignorantly and Impudently wou'd vouch the H. Prophets as a Precedent. To whom if any such Command, for Extraordinary Rea­sons, had at any time, been given, it wou'd not have Excus'd the Immodesty, or the Blasphemy of any who shou'd Pretend the like Command from God. But this Mad-Freak was Common to their She-Prophets as well as the Men. The Wife of Edmund Adlington of Kendal, went Na­ked thro' the Streets, the 21. Nov. 1653. As did Mary Collinson another Quaker in the same Town, who Rebuked those that cover'd her Nakedness, telling them, That they had hindered the work of the [Page 45]Lord. If you ask my Authority for this, I have it out of a Book, Intituled A further Dis­covery of that Generation of Men call'd Quakers. Printed 1654. subscrib'd by five of the then Ministers. p. 83.84.85. where you will find more Instances, as of Edmund Nuby's wife who went Naked through Kendal, and after in Dec. 1653. came in the same manner into the Church at Kendal. Another, in the Same Posture, about the beginning of January, into Hutton Chappel, at the time of Exercise (as they word it) Eli­zab. Levens and Miles Newby (Here they go by Couples, Male and Female like the Beasts into the Ark) went Naked up the streets at Ken­dal. This was attested by Mr. Walker Mini­ster at Kendal, under his hand, by his Letters baring Date 31. January. 1653. Thom. Castel went as Naked, as he was Born thro' the streets at Kendal, the 10. January. 1653.

On Monday. 28. Octob. 1653 one Thom. Holme of Kendal went as Naked thro' the Market-Place at Kirby Steven, upon the Market Day; and at his turning he said, It is not I but God that goeth Naked. And the week following, another Great Ring-Leader of the Quakers one Taylour came to that Town. And Denounced Woes against it, for Rejecting that Prophet of The Lord, whom He had sent to do signs and wonders in it.

All these Instances were in one Year, with­in the Compass of 4 Months, in and about Kendal, when Quakerism was but 3 years old. You may Imagin then how many more Exam­ples might be Produc'd in other Places, throu­out this and other Kingdoms and Nations where [Page 46]they have spread themselves, in 48 years time now since they came into the World.

But if you say, that these Testimonies are taken from Adversaries the 5 Ministers before Mentioned.

I Answer, that in things of such Publick and Notorious Nature, it cannot be suppos'd that they wou'd Print a Lye, so soon, that is Pre­sently after (as by the date of their Book) such things were done; when it wou'd have been in the Power of Every body in those Towns to Contradict and Expose them.

And if these Instances had been False, it is not to be Imagin'd but that the Quakers in those times wou'd have Deny'd them.

But further, we have both George Fox and James Naylor their Answer to this book of these 5 Ministers: And they Both do allow these In­stances to be True; Boast of More of them; And Defend and Justifie the thing, as being Di­vine and From God.

G. Fox's Answer is in his Great Mystery. p. 233. where as to these Persons going Naked, he says, This hath been a Figure of your Naked­ness, who are Egypt Spiritual and the Ethiopian Black — And speaking of the Holy Prophets ha­ving been Signs to those in their Generations, he adds, such the Lord hath moved his Servants to give a True Sign amongst you, and not a Lying; who have their Cloathing, of the Spirit, which ye want; which ye shall witness the Truth of the Lord God in the Sign, if ever ye come into the True Cloathing of the Spirit of God. By this, no man can be sav'd who will not Allow and Receive [Page 47]these Beastly Im-Modesties of the Quakers, as Divine and Heavenly Signs.

James Nayler, in his Answer to this Book of the Five Ministers, which he Intituls A Dis­covery of the Man of Sin. Printed 1655. com­ing to that Point of their Going Naked, he says p. 48. God hath made as many Signs among you, as to go Naked in your Steeple-Houses, in your Markets, in your Streets, as Many in the Northern Parts, which is a Figure to you, of all your Na­kedness. Here he owns many Instances of the like Nature in other Places, I cou'd Produce more by name, as of Daniel Smith Distiller of Malborrough in Wiltshire, who about Twenty years ago, went from Malborrough to Hull, on purpose to shew himself stark Naked in the Church there, which he did. And I suppose the Friends have not forgot (at least the Quaker that Marry'd her has not) that Precious Ser­vant Maid at Putney, who came Quite naked into the Room where her Master had Company at Dinner: and when some wou'd have cover'd her shame, she thank'd them for their Love, but wou'd not admit of that sort of Kindness: But said that she was moved of the Lord to march quite round the Table, in that same Posture, which she did. But why shou'd I heap up Instances of this their Beastliness, see­ing it is not Disputed, but Justify'd; And the Receiving such Obscene Bruts, as Signs sent from Heaven, made necessary to Salvation, as you have heard from Fox!

But all sober Christians will rather look up­on them as Signs of the Prodigious Delusions of the Devil; to make Men believe, even Women, [Page 48]that Divesting themselves of all Natural Mo­desty And Exposing themselves Naked, in Pub­lick, Naked Men and Women together (as be­fore is told) and out-doing the very Impudence of the Stews, is Consistent with that Shamefast­ness and Sobriety which is so strongly Inculcat­ed in the Gospel of Christ! But to think such Highly Englightned, beyond the ordinary Mea­sure, and thereby to Commence Prophets, and Prophetesses sent from God, what is this but to have their Brains turn'd with this Enthusiasti­cal-Madness; and, without straining the Mat­ter, to be Literally out of their Wits, and Di­stracted! What Greater Signs are shewn of it, even in Bedlam! And are not they as Mad, who Defend and Justify these in their Madness! Of which more hereafter.

2. But as those who thus Expos'd themselves Stark-Naked, In their Strange Singulari­ties. are to be Computed no other­wise than as Stark-Mad; so these who in lesser Degrees, act contrary to the Common Reason and Sense of Mankind, are to be suppos'd Mad­dish; for ther are Degrees of Madness.

Now if we see a man Abstract himself from all Human Conversation, to be always alone; to Grow surly and Morose; silent and sullen when Accosted; Exotick and Phantastical in his Dress, shunning what any body else do's wear; loving to Appear Singular in all his words and Gestures, who will neither Speak, Look, nor Go like other men; the Common observation of Mankind reckons of these as Growing to­wards Madness.

[Page 49]But, if they say such a stress upon these; as to think it a Sin to use the Common Language, Habit, or Salutations, this is a Heightning of their Madness. To make it as G. Fox do's, a Sin for Women to have slit-Peaks on the Skirts of their Wastcoats, Short Black Aprons, or Vizard-Masks; or for Men to wear Skimming-Dish Hats (as he calls the little Hats) or Ʋnnecessary Buttons on their Coats or Cloaks. And to Pro­nounce all this stuff as from the Immediat Spi­rit of God! (see Sn. p. 299.) If this be not Madness, I think Olivers Porter had hard mea­sure, to have his Preaching Confin'd to Bedlam when G. Fox. was suffer'd to go Loose, who said in his Journal. p. 24. When the Lord sent me forth into the World; He forbad me to put off my Hat to any — and I was Requir'd to Thee and Thou all Men and Women, they wou'd Down with all wordly Honour, as long as they had no share in it.

Now in all the fore-mention'd Instances the Quakers have made themselves as Mad as any ever were in the World. And have been so esteem'd at Rome, and other Places where they had never been before; as they were at first when they Rose up amongst us: only the Com­mon use of it now, has abated of the Strange­ness, but nothing of the Irrationality and Mad­ness, not to speak of the Breach of Justice or Reli­gion; for Honour is as much Due to our Superiors, as either Fear, or Tribute, and Equally Com­manded. Rom. xiii. 7. and to Deny it, is Im­morality, and a Sin; besides the Singularity, and Proud-Humility, which Entitles it to a High [Page 50] Degree of Madness. And in this, the whole Bo­dy of the Quakers is Involv'd.

In making Themselves free from Sin; and Equal with God.3. But thirdly, wou'd not that man be Coun­ted Mad who shou'd Fancie himself Exempted from the Common Condition of other Mortals, to be as Bright and Glorious and Impassible as an Angel? And is it not as much to think our selves as Pure and Impeccable as they; even while we feel our own Frailty and Imperfections in Day­ly and Frequent Instances! Yet still to Cry, that we are Pure, and without Sin! Nay, Per­fect, even as God! And Equal to Him, and One with Him, in very Nature and Substance, and a Part of Him! Can any Madness be Imagin'd beyond or Equal to this! And G. W. p. 88. gives his Consent to secure such Persons in Bed­lam, if we can find any such among them, that we can plainly Prove to hold the Same. Now whether this be not Plainly Prov'd in the Sn. Sect. ii. iii. and iv. I leave to the Reader. And G. W. do's neither Deny, nor Answer one of the Quotations there Produc'd: But stoutly Denies the whole Charge, without so much as Attempting to Invalidat any one Particle of the Evidence. Which I think I may Modestly say is very like the Answer of a Mad-Man.

In Assuming to be Pro­phets.4. But I will put the Case lower than that of Aspiring to be Equal with God: Suppose then that a Poor Country Lad shou'd come to London, and hapning upon a Rich Widdow, shou'd presently fancie himself to be some Duke or Great Prince; and, as such, shou'd Issue forth his Proclamations, Commissions &c. wou'd not G. W. give me leave to think this fellow a little Craz'd? But suppose he shou'd [Page 51]set up for a Prophet sent Immediately from God, as Elijah was; And, as such, shou'd take upon him to Dictate to Kings and Emperors, and Com­mand them, In the Name of the Lord to Give forth Prophesies, and affix to them, Thus saith the Lord &c. And suppose he Cou'd shew no Credentials at all for this High Commission, only bid Men take his own word for it; wou'd not this make him much more Extravagantly and Blasphemously Mad? Now how many Mad-Men of this sort have we had among the Qua­kers? Even Fox their Original, and all the way down as many as have Wrote, or almost that have Preach'd or Spoke amongst them. This is a Talent without which whosoever speaks, is a Conjurer, as Fox has Determin'd in his Westmorland Petition. p. 5. in his Saul's Errand. p. 7. and els­where, as shewn in the Sn.

Ther is one particular Instance put in the Front of the Preface. p. xi. of the First Edit. of the Sn. (it is p. 281. of the Third Edit.) where a Prophetical Curse is set down of Con­fusion against George Keith. And it is not a Hasty, Rash Curse, in Passion or so, as is usual among the Profane Cursers and Swearers of the World: But it is a Deliberat, Grave Curse, in Cold Blood, set down in Writing, and sent to George Keith; it bears Date the 17th. of the 4th. Month. 1695. And is subscrib'd George Whitehead. And begins in these words. Thus Saith the Lord. And it is written not in the Name of G. Whitehead, as any Thought or Prog­nostick of his own, but every word in the Per­son of God, as speaking to G. Keith, Because [Page 52]thou hast poured Contempt upon My Servants, I will assuredly bring Confusion upon thee &c.

Now for this George Whitehead thus to assume the Stile of the most Extraordinary Prophets of God, and to Fancie himself one of them, I think will be Judg'd a Greater Degree of Mad­ness, than if he had Fancy'd himself to be a Duke, or a Prince: for a Prophet Immediatly sent from God, is certainly Cloath'd with a far Greater Honour than any that can be Bestow'd by the most Splendid of Worldly Titles. There­fore this is no ordinary mistake, or such as cou'd befall any Man in his Wits.

Nay farther (to shew the Excess of G. White­head's Madness) Suppose he shou'd think that this Prophetical Curse of his against G. Keith, to be not only Equal to any Prophesie Recorded in Scripture, but of Greater Authority than any Chapter in the Bible: wou'd any body, in this case, Excuse him from the very Height of Mad­ness! And for this, see his Truth defending the Quakers An. 1659. p. 7. where this Question was Demanded of him, Do you Esteem your Speak­ings to be of as Great Authority as any Chapters in the Bible? And he sets down his own An­swer in these words. That which is Spoken from the Spirit of Truth in any, is of as Great Autho­rity as the Scriptures and Chapters are, and GREA­TER. This he Repeats again in the same words, in his Serious Appology. An. 1671. p. 49. And Quotes his former Book, to shew that this was not spoke by Chance, but was a standing Principle among them. Now then, if G. W. will say, That the Curse which he sent to G. Keith was Spoken by the Spirit of Truth, [Page 53]he owns, by his own words, that it is not on­ly of As Great Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are, but of GREATER! And then I think we need no further Proof of his being Stark-Mad. But, on the other hand, if he will, to save himself from this Imputation, Acknow­ledge that that Curse was not Spoken by the Spi­rit of Truth, then must he own himself Guilty of a most Notorious Blasphemy, to Dictate thus in the Person of God, and make God to speak his Lies, and the Delusions of his Besotted Brain. And if this be not put upon the score of Mad­ness, then ought G. Whitehead to suffer the Pun­nishment of a Blasphemer. Therefore he shou'd Return his Thanks to those who are so Mer­ciful as to Prove him only Non Compos (as of Felo de se) to save his Chattels and his Carcass too. But this is not only as to this Curse a­gainst G. K. (that is but one Instance among many) nor only as to G. W. but it Reaches to All that the Quakers have Deliver'd, In the Name of the Lord, not only against Particular Persons, but the whole Church of England, the King, the Bishops and Priests, and the Lawyers too: they are Particularly mark'd out for De­struction, if ever the Quakers do Prevail, they are the Midianites whom we must Vex, that is Destroy (see Sn. p. 230.) And if the many Thousands of their followers in England do be­lieve (as they Profess) that what these their Leaders and Prophets have said is all from the Mouth of The Lord, the Consequence (besides the Blasphemy of it) must be very Dangerous: especially since they have already Publisht their Declaration wherein they Assert their Right and [Page 54] Title to Possess the Ʋttermost parts of the Earth: and their Principle to Fight, even with the Car­nal Sword, to Re-Gain it, whenever they see their time. vid. Sn. p. 212.

Now if they will not let this be taken from them, upon the Account of Madness, believe it, it is time to Look after them. However it is Good to keep a Sword out of a Mad-Man's hand. See hereafter Sect. iv. p. 38. and we go on to yet Plainer and even Ocular Proofs.

In their Preter-Na­tural Qua­king. &c.5. A fifth Instance of Madness, or rather of Diabolical Possession, is the Monstrous Quaking and Shaking, which for Ten years together after their first setting up, was strangely noted a­mong them, and from which they had the Name of Quakers: It has much Abated since the Re­stauration. 1660. Yet Remainders of it are still left amongst them.

To this G. W. says p. 6. N. 6. How proves he that this proceeds from Delusion and Diabolical Possession p. 44. and not from the word and Power of God? But, George, How canst thee have the Confidence to ask such a Question, when thee knowest right well that this is Prov'd fully in the Sn. But thee Slidest over all the Proofs, and then Gravely Askest How Proves he? The Reader will see Proofs sufficient in the Sn. Sect. xxi. even the very Confessions of those who were so Possess'd. But G. W. Quotes a particular Page of the Sn. how proves he p. 44? this is of the First Edition. (it is p. 298. of the Third Edit.) He had hopes that no one wou'd look so much as into any one page which he Quoted, but take all upon his word. For in that ve­ry Page, ther is a Proof, which G. W. Conceals [Page 55]instead of Answering. G. Fox in his Westmorland Petition. p. 5. And in his Saul's Errand. p. 7. said that whoever spoke, and not from the Mouth of the Lord, were False-Prophets, Conjurers &c. These passages had been (with several others to the same purpose) Quoted before in the Sn. And in p. 44. which G. W. Names as having no Proof, these are again Referr'd to, and the In­ferrence is made, that if all the vile stuff which the Quakers have Printed be not from the Mouth of the Lord then, by G. Fox's sentence, they are Conjurers: and another Instance of G. Fox's Senslesness is added In that same Place, which was not Quoted before, viz. his making it Heathenism and Idolatry to have any Creature in Heaven or Earth, as Sun, Moon, or Star, a Man, Beast, Fish, Fowl or Tree Painted upon a Sign-Post; but only something of Man's making, as a Fork, a Saw, a Bed-staff, or the like: Then his Pronouncing, as from the Mouth of God, against the slit-Peaks behind on the Skirts of Women's wastcoats, Mens Skimming-Dish-Hats, and such like Childish and Ridiculous stuff: And it is there Urg'd, that if All this was not from the Mouth of the Lord, then, G. Fox had Pro­nounc'd himself to be a Conjurer, and so of the other Quakers. And if they were Conjurers, then those Monstrous Quakings and Shakings which Possess'd them were from the Devil, and no Divine Inspiration, as they Pretended. And G. W. answers not a word to any thing of this, but asks still what Proof is ther in p. 44. when this very Proof is in p. 44. And I Desire him now to Answer it. Was all that stuff which is there Quoted of G. Fox's from The Mouth of [Page 56]the Lord? if G. W. will say Yea, I suppose I shall need no further Proof of his Madness, as well as of G. Fox's. If he says Nay, then I must ask him whether G. Fox said True, when he wrote, That whoever spoke and not from the Mouth of the Lord, was a Conjurer? If not True, George was a Lyar; and if True, he was a Conjurer: And if a Conjurer, his Quaking and Shaking was the Possession of the Devil, and did not Proceed from the word and Power of God, as G. W. wou'd turn it, And asks How Proves he? Do George, Ask that Question over again, and it will be as Good an Answer to this, as it was to the Sn. And you may Quote this Page too if you will, as well as p. 44. of the Sn, And tell the Reader that ther is not a word of the Matter neither Here nor There.

But George is a Cunning Whipster, he had a farther Design in this than he was wil­ling shou'd be seen. He put in his Plea for their Quaking, as Proceeding from the word and Power of God, by saying How Proves he? i. e. the Contrary. But George Knew well enough that this Plea wou'd never Hold, therfore he wou'd not assert it Positively, only by an Innuendo. And then in the same p. 6. N. 7. he puts in another Excuse (which he will as little stand by) as if this Quaking was only Fits of Convulsion, for thus says he, Ʋnless some have been taken therewith (i. e. with this Quaking) in some Convulsion Fits, which are Common to some Persons among Divers sorts of People:

[Page 57]As to this, I desire George to Consider, That this Plea Destroys the Former. For if their Quaking be only Fits of Convulsion, then is it no mark of the Extraordinary Workings of the Spirit in the Quakers, as they have Boa­sted; and wrote in Defence of it; nay and call'd it an Holy Duty (Sn. p. 298.) and com­par'd it to the Quaking of Moses and the Prophets. It will be very Profane to put all this upon Fits of Convulsion. But it will not do, in the Case of the Quakers. For it is very obvious, that these Quakings of the Quakers did not proceed from any Natural Cause.

• 1. These Quakings Possest them only, or most Generally, at their Meetings: And then wou'd Seize Many of them together.
• 2. They came Suddainly, and left them En­tirely when they went away; And had not such Symptoms, or left such Marks behind them as Natural Diseases.
• 3. They were not Remov'd by Phisick or any Natural Means.
• 4. They who had them Pretended to Visi­ons, even of Spirits Dancing about them, Spea­king to them, and Directing them to do ma­ny Extravagant things, to follow Flys, Burn their Leggs in the Fire, and some to Kill them­selves, as in the Relations which Gilpin, Tordervy, and others have given of themselves. And were told by these Spirits, that these Qua­kings were the workings of God's Spirit in them: And therefore bidden to Rejoyce in them: And when they came ont of these Fits, they Express'd the Great Joys they had in them, tho' [Page 58]mix'd with Intolerable Pains. And therefore many Long'd for them.
• 5. They Exceeded any Convulsion or Natu­ral Disease. See the account in the Sn. p. 301. Add to this another Instance given in the Further Discovery before Quoted, wrote by Five Ministers. p. 91. of a Quaker woman who came to Disturb one of their Congregations at Kel­let in Lancashire, she fell into a Trance, her Belly puffed up, her sides Extended, her Back-bone thrust out, her whole Body as a Bladder when it is in Blowing &c. This is attested under the hand or Mr. Moore Minister at Kell [...]t. But Instances are Endless. See the General Account of it in a Book Printed at that time. 1653. call'd A brief Relation of the Irreligion of the Northern Qua­kers. Wrote by Francis Higgison p. 15. ‘Those in their Assemblies that are taken with these Fits, fall suddenly down as it were in a Swoon, as tho' they were surpris'd with an Epilepsis or Apoplexy, and ly Groveling on the Earth, and strugling as it were for Life; and some­times more Quietly, as tho' they were Depar­ting. While the Agony of their Fits is upon them their Lips Quiver, their Flesh and Joints Tremble, their Bellies swell as tho' Blown with Wind, they Foam at the Mouth, and sometimes Purge as if they had taken Phisick. In this Fit they continue sometimes an Hour or two, sometimes Longer before they come to themselves again; And when it leaves them, they Roar out Horribly with a Voice Greater than the Voice of a Man; The Noise, those say that have heard it, is [Page 59]a very Horrid Fearfull Noise, and Greater sometimes than any Bull can make.’

Take another two Years after this. Wrote by Mr. Edmund Skipp then Minister of Bodenham in Hereford-shire, but who (as himself tells us) had been before seduc'd by the fair Pretences of the Quakers, and was one of them; But, by the Great Mercy of God, having Discover'd [Page 60]their Gross Deceits, he Return'd from them; and then Gave notice of them to the World in a Book, printed 1655. which he Intituled The Worlds wonder, or The Quakers Blazing-Star &c. there p. 22. he tells of these Mysterious Deceits of Anti-Christ.

Thus far I have transcrib'd out of this Au­thor, not only as to this of their Quaking, but because he do's withal open to us, the very Heart and Bottom of the Quaker Here­sie. viz. That the Meritorious Cause of our Justification is not the Sufferings of Christ in His Body upon the Cross; but that the same sufferings must be wrought over again in us, that we must Bear our own Sins, in our own Bodies, and must be Healed by our own Stripes; which likewise they call the Suf­ferings of Christ or the Light within them. And that what he suffers thus within every man, is the only Meritorious Cause of. his Justi­fication, and Reconciliation to God. That what He suffer'd Outwardly upon the Cross is nothing to us, but an Example, a History, or Facilt Representation of the Greater Mystery of what He Suffers and Acts within us: Wherein only the Atonement and Satisfaction for Sin is Per­form'd. And this they suppos'd to be done in these Monstrous Possessions of Quaking, &c. And therefore were greatly Desirous of them, as thinking their state not secure till they had gone thro' one of these Fits at least. As Mr. Skipp tells of himself, while he was a Quaker. p. 25. I thought it was my unhappiness (says he) that I was not, and it was great Cause of trouble [Page 63]and unspeakable sorrow to me, and that which caus'd me to complain bitterly time after time, but they wou'd tell me that I must wait for it, and they said that they cou'd Believe for me, and they were Confident I shou'd be a very Glorious Piece, &c. Here their Spirit of Discerning fail'd them! But that which makes the long Quotation I have taken out of Mr. Skipp the more Valua­ble, is, because G. Fox has wrote an Answer to it in his Great Mystery, where p. 314. he, after his usual fashion, Epitomizes and Falsifies Mr. Skipp's words above Quoted, thus, It is Blasphemy to say we must fill up the sufferings of Christ. Ther are no such words in Mr. Skipp, not so put together; but he referrs to that Part above Quoted, where Mr. Skipp calls it Blasphemy to say that they must suffer as Christ did, and are sav'd by Their own sufferings, and not by Christs. In which G. F. opposes Mr. Skipp, and says, in Answer, Thou hast not Drunk the Cup of the Wrath and Judgment of the Al­mighty, and that you must Drink before you come to know the seed of God come from under all the Power of Wickedness in thee—And Christ who bore the Sin of the whole world, felt it, and was under it, and was offered, and over it all, and makes his Enemies his Foot-stool. This is all his Answer. And shews what he means, by con­sidering what it is which he opposes; for without seeing the Books which he Pretends to Answer (of which few are now Extant) ther is no Understanding, by him, either what they said, for he seldom Quotes them True, or what himself says, who cou'd write nei­ther Sense nor English. But here you see he [Page 64]Denies nothing of Mr. Skipp's Charge against the Quakers, but rather Justify's and Defends it, in other words, that we must suffer as Christ did, till the Seed of God come from under the Power of Wickedness, which are almost Mr. Skipp's own words. And Fox do's not Deny, that they Place the Meritorious Cause of ther Justi­fication in those Sufferings within themselves, and not in the outward Sufferings of Christ: And that when these Inward Sufferings in their Con­sciences are over, and the Seed Purged, then that ther is an End of Hell, that these Sufferings of the Seed in them, is the only Hell, this Fox do's not Deny, tho positively Charg'd upon them: Which is a Plain Confessing; The Least one can do is to Deny (as G. W. here, in. this Answer of his) But when we Pretend to Answer, and dare not so much as Plead Not Guilty, it is a full and total yielding to the Charge. The truth is, the Light within is All things to the Quakers its Shining (as they think they are sure) within them, they call Heaven, its being obscur'd, that is Hell; And they Believe no other Hea­ven or Hell, or God, or Christ but their Light within. And when they are Possest with their Quaking Fits, they call it the Fighting of their Light within against their Darkness within; which G. W. wou'd turn off here upon Convulsion Fits. For which I leave him to be Chastis'd by those Quakers who have wrote Apologies for their Quaking, as being the Effects of a Divine In­spiration: And those who were much troubl'd, because that Extraordinary Quaking had now, in a Great measure, left them, as if thereby they had Lost that Measure of the Spirit which [Page 65]their Fathers Possest, or which Possest their Fathers. To Comfort whom Pat. Levingston wrote a Book call'd Plain and down right Dealing, where­in he told them that their first years were Purging years; but that when Phisick had Purg'd sufficiently, then the Patient was more Still and Quiet (See the Sn. p. 295.) yes, George, and after Convulsion-fits too when they are over! But, George, few Desire fits of Convulsion or any Na­tural Disease, and Long for them, as the Qua­kers for their Possessions: None Express Exta­sies of Joy in Natural Diseases, as we have heard of this Quaker Sickness.

And all this cou'd not be Counterfited: for None can Counterfit such violent Convulsions and Distortions as Exceed the Power of Nature. In the Next Place Young Children among the Qua­kers were often feiz'd with these Quaking Fits, and these cou'd not Counterfit. And many Ear­nestly Desir'd them, but cou'd not have them when they wou'd.

And since they are neither Natural nor Coun­terfit, they must be a Praeter Natural either Di­vine or Diabolical Possession: And which of the two it is, ther are some Rules whereby to Guess, which are Mention'd in the Sn. Sect. xxi. which G. W. wou'd do well to Consider, and not Shuffle them off as he do's in this Answer.

But he gives up the Cause, by Assigning such Contradictory Reasons: for, in the same breath, within the Compass of one Page he makes three supposes for these Quakings. First, The word and Power of God. Second, Convulsion-Fits. Third, Exorcism, or the Casting out of some Evil Spirit. If he had said the Entrance of the Evil Spirit, [Page 66]and its taking of Possession, he had come nearer the Mark. But however, Why do's he make so many Guesses at the Causes of this Quaking? Did he not know whether it was Convulsion, or Inspiration, or Exorcism? or was he Asham'd to tell?

Well, but as to our Present purpose, from whatever Cause these Quakings do Proceed, it is allow'd on all hands that the Possession is ve­ry Strong; and carries with it the most visible Effects of Madness. And as the Old Proverb says, Once Mad, and Ever the worse, so they who have been once Possess'd with these Qua­king Fits, seldom Ever after recover the state they were in before, but have Raz'd Looks, and something Frightful about them.

But it is not all the Quakers whom God has Deliver'd so far into the Power of the Devil: And others have been Possess'd as well as the Quakers: But this was more Peculiar to the Quakers than to any others of any sort of People; otherwise they had not got the Name of Quakers from thence. And at the time when the Devil was most Busie, and these Qua­kings were most Violent, and most Frequent, about the year 1653, Quakerism was then but very young, only three years old; and the Quakers did not then bear Proportion of One to a Thousand (speaking within Compass) to the Rest of England: so that we have had a Thou­sand of these sort of Mad-Men among the Qua­kers for One any where else. And if we Reckon those Mad, who Defend the Madness of others, then very Few of the Quakers will be left out of this Classis of Mad-Men. But I wou'd Desire [Page 67]them, in their Lucid Intervals, to Consider that God was in the small still voice, not in the Furi­ous Wind, Earth-Quake, or Fire. It was the Evil-Spirits who Tore those that they Possess'd, I Kings xix. and put them into Convulsions, Foaming, wallow­ing, Roaring— It is said of those who heard the Apostles, that some Smote their Breasts and Re­pented, others search'd the Scriptures dayly, to find whether these things, which they Preach'd, were so. But can the Quakers give one Sin­gle Instance of any that was ever Converted to Christianity, at this Frightful Hideous Rate! Do not such Violent Transports look like the Spirit of Furie and Madness, more than of Meekness, Love, Humility, or any of the Christi­an Graces! And then if we look into the wick­ed Errors and Heresies which were Taught by this Quaker Spirit, it makes it a full Demon­stration what sort of Spirit it was; and whence that Convulsive Birth of Quakerism did proceed: And that their Madness was not Caused by any Ordinary or Natural Distemper of Brain; but (which is much more Lamentable and Dismal) by the Possession of Evil Spirits.

G. W's. putting this off with Convulsion-Fits, may be Compar'd to that of Mahomet's Fall­ing-Sickness; who pretended that at those times the Angel Gabriel came with Revelations to him. But if Mahomet's Convulsions came from his Inspiration, his case and the Quakers are as near of Kin as their Doctrin: For Mahomet Pretended to Reverence the Scriptures both of the Old and New-Testament; only his Light within Guided him to Mis-understand them as to the Trinity and Incarnation: And his Alcoran [Page 68]is nearer the Quaker and Socinian Comment upon the Text, than any other can be found in Christendom.

It has been observ'd that the Beginnings of several Heresies and Sects have been Attend­ed with these sort of Violent and Preternatural Transports, as in John of Leyden, Knipperdolling, and some later Enthusiasts among our selves, besides the Quakers. Such Punishments did in the Primitive Church often follow the sentence of Excommunication upon Notorious offenders. And God has, in our Later times, which have learn'd to Dispise those Spiritual Censures, Inflicted the like upon those who have Deli­ver'd themselves unto Satan, by Excommunicat­ing themselves, in Forsaking the Church, and and making Schisms against Her. Of these some notice may, perhaps, be taken hereafter. But this Instance of the Quakers is as Notorious as any, of the Power given to the Devil o­ver Heresy-Archs. And I will not now take any others under consideration, my present business being only with the Quakers.

In their Silent-Meetings.6. Ther is a Sixth Instance of Madness, which seems a Branch of Infection from the former; or rather a Lesser Degree of Possession, or of a more Sullen tho' less Furious Spirit than the other. Some are Possess'd with a Dumb Devil, who hang down their Heads, and will not Speak or Answer one word, say to them what you will. I have seen some of these in Bedlam. And these Generally love to be Alone, and Indulge their Melancholy. But if you shou'd see a company of these appoint Meetings to­gether, not to Converse, but on purpose to be [Page 69]All Silent: Wou'd you not think their Madness had. Exceeded the Common Bounds! Yet this might pass only for a Mad Freak. But sup­pose, that they made a Case of Conscience of this, and urg'd the Obligation of it from Eze­chiel's sitting Silent some time by the Captives at Babylon; and the like of Job's Friends, from Consideration of the Greatness of his Grief: And farther shou'd find out Spiritual Improve­ment in this Silent Converse, by the Spirits fly­ing from one to another, especially if they came to the Quaker-Gryp (like that of the Ma­sons) when they Shake hands, this moves their Spirits much, and they Communicate by the Eyes, and by the Ears (for tho they do not Speak, they Grunt and Sigh hard, and sometimes Whis­per or so) by the Pulse, by the Pores, by Sym­pathy in every Part! Now all this is the Case of the Quaker Silent-Meetings, which some of them love better (for they are more Loving) than their Speaking ones. And the Arguments above mention'd have been made use of in Defence of them. These Meetings shou'd be in a Dark Room, which together with their Silence, might Contribute to their Cure. For what business they have there, needs no Outward Light, more than any Words to be made on't; especially if their Quaking-Fits happen'd at the same time; for such are Mon­strous Sights, and best past over in Silence.

In the New Qua­kers of America.7. Ther is Another Range of Quakers, whom I suppose G. W. will give me one and All in­to my Catalogue of Mad-Men, that is, those call'd Case's Crew or the New-Quakers in America (of whom a short Account is Given in the [Page 70] Sn. p. 75. to 79.) who throw Dust in the Eyes and Mouths of the Old Quakers, giving them Serpents food. &c. These have Restor'd the Primitive Quakerism, with some Improvements, they bring Fidles into their Meetings, and Dance, Firsk, Vault there with wondrous Activity. They turn off their Wives, because the Children of the Resurrection neither Marry nor are given in Mar­riage: And declare Marriage to be of the Devil, because the Children of this world, Marry: there­fore they live in Common, and thro' off Ordi­nances, of which Marriage is but one. And some of them keep up the Primitive order of going Naked; as Mary Ross who after her Appearing in that No-Dress in Publick, became Publick her self, and the Rulers of the World took offence at her Gifts, Imprison'd and Punish'd her out­ward Man, or Woman. It was the same Spirit or Flesh that mov'd our England-Quakers, to the same Excess: And if they had been Scourg'd for such Beastly Immodesty's, as she was, it might have Cur'd their Itch. If that was not the Dis­ease, it cou'd be nothing Short of Madness: which these American Quakers took from the Example of the European Quakers, who led the Naked-Dance as before is shewn.

Vindica­ting of Mad-men.8. I will now Close up this List of Mad-Men, with those who do Vindicat All or Any of the Madnesses before mention'd: since ther cannot be a Greater sign of a Mad-Man than to think Mad-Men to be Sober. But to mistake Rank Madness for Inspiration, and Prophesie, and the Miraculous Gifts of the Holy Ghost, is as High a Pitch of Madness as can be Nam'd. And this will Include all those Qua­kers [Page 71]who do not think the Rest to be Mad, who have Run into or Defended any of the Mad Freaks before Mention'd. Particularly All who will not think George Whitehead to be Mad, and some others I will not Name.

If it be said, That many of these men, whom I have Charg'd with Madness (in their several Degrees) do, in Common Conversation, and in their Worldly business, talk like other Men, and shew no signs of Madness. I will Grant it. But so you will find it with many Mad-Men, till you come to hit upon the Point which Di­sturbs them. Every Mad-Man is not Mad in Every thing. A Man may be Mad, Secundum Quid.

Ther is a Remarkable story of a Great Don in Spain, who took a Fancie that he was The Holy Ghost: And therefore was shut up as a Mad-Man. But taking occasion one day to Discourse upon the Politicks with one of the King's Council, who came to see him, he Ar­gu'd a Knotty Point which had Puzl'd the King and Council, with so Great Accurateness, that this Councellor Venting it next day at the Council receiv'd General Approbation: Upon which he took occasion to Interceed with the King for the Liberty of his Friend, owning that what he had said, was all borrow'd from him: and therefore did Conclude that it must be the Malice of some of his Enemies, which had Mis-Represented him, as a Mad-Man. The King bad his Friend Return to him again, and if he did not own that he was the Holy Ghost, he shou'd have his Liberty. But he stuck to his Point, and Remain'd a Mad-Man, notwithstanding of all his Politick Qualificati­ons.

[Page 72]And now, upon the whole Matter, I Refer it to all the World whether ther can be Pro­duc'd such a Catalogue of Mad-Men, in so many several Instances, as I have here shewn of the Quakers, among such a Number of any sort or Discrimination of Men upon the face of the Earth? G. W. has Extorted this from me. And one wou'd think that this were sufficient to Excuse me from Answering any more of his Book. But however I will Proceed to Examin those Mistakes and Abuses which he Alledges in the Sn. for wrong may be done, even to a Mad-man; and ther is an old saying which G. W. has us'd upon occasion, Give the Devil his Due.

The Abu­ses and Mistakes which G. W. Alle­ges in the Snake.VII. The Catalogue of these Abuses begins at p. 13. of his Book; And he begins at p. 93. of the Sn. it seems he found None in all that went before this. And his Curse of Confusion upon G. Keith, before mention'd is in p. xi. But ther was no Abuse or Mistake in this, therefore he lets that Pass, without any Notice.

As to the Necessity of Prea­ching.I. The first he Instances is in p. 93, 94. (it is Sect. xxiii. N. iv. p. 328, 329. 3d. Edit.) where, from the Quaker-Principle of Reducing all to the Light within, and making that suffici­ent, without any thing else, it is urg'd as In-conse­quential to this, that the Quakers shou'd Preach outwardly &c. To which G. W. Answers, That this is a Condemning of the Apostles, and of the Church of England, who Preach outwardly, and yet do own the Inward Anointing, or the Light within, as well as the Quakers.

[Page 73] Ans. But not as do the Quakers. That is, to set it above the Scriptures (as has been spoke to) and to make it Sufficient to Salvation with­out any thing else, as G. W. here owns again p. 28. i. e. without any Necessity of an out­ward Christ, or Scriptures, or any thing else. And according to this sense of the Anointing or Light within, it is altogether Impertinent to have any outward either Preaching or Ordinan­ces; for that must be Ʋnnecessary that is Added to what is Sufficient without it.

But neither the Apostles nor the Church of Eng­land having ever had any such notion of the Light within, but that it needed Helps; there­fore their Preaching was most Rational. And that of the Quakers is Irrational, and Contradicto­ry to their own Principles.

The Com­parison of Fox and Muggle­ton. With G. W's. Malicious Innuendo, as to the Act of To­leration.II. To what is said of the Comparison be­twixt Fox and Muggleton in the Sn. he says. p. 14, 15. That it is a Gross Calumny against G. F. whose Divine Inspiration and sound Testimony, gi­ven him of God, was Evident against Muggleton's Dark Spirit, Presumptuous and Blasphemious (thus the Quakers pronounce Blasphemous) Doctrin. And this is every word he says to the Matter. This is a Pretty Easie way of Answering! If you will not take his own word, ther is not a word like an Answer in his Book. He shou'd have Deny'd the whole Sn. at once: And sav'd himself and me this trouble.

But p. 15. he wou'd charge the Reflection that is made upon the Toleration 1650, where­in Fox and Muggleton appear'd, as if intended against the Present Toleration, and so to bring the Author under the Lash of the Government. [Page 74]It is not worth any Answer, I only mention it to shew the Good Nature of the Man; who in the same Page cries out upon Persecution for Conscience Sake.

As to the O [...]der of the Qua­kers a gainst car­rying Guns in their Ships.III. His next Skip is to p. 104. where he finds a Great Mistake; The Author was there shewing that since 1660 the Quakers have De­cry'd the use of the Carnal weapon, and as a Proof of it (which they do not Deny) he said that by Order of their Yearly Meeting 1693 they were Commanded that none of them shou'd carry Guns in their Ships. This is Ʋntrue (says G. W. p. 15.) we know no such Commands — only a tender Caution to such that have acted contrary. Here are two Grievous Mistakes! First: not a Command, but a Tender Caution. i. e. their Command was worded in that Form. See Sn. p. 271.272. Secondly, not a Command for the Future, only a Caution or Reproof to those who had transgress'd before. And do's not this Imply a Command (Oh! I beg your Pardon) a Caution for the Future? And do's not this shew the Quakers pretended Principle, as much as in the words cited in the Snake? And were they Cited to any other End than to shew that Principle? I have not seen that Yearly Epistle, only took an Account of it from those that had Seen and Read it; And I find they have given me a True Account, tho' it were not Sillabical, as G. W. Objects: and none but he wou'd have made such an Objection, to no Purpose in the world but for Objection sake. This shews what little Room was left him in the Sn. for Objections, when he makes such work with this; and sets down Part of that Yearly Epistle, but not the whole, nor that Part [Page 75]which Relates to the Guns, that we may see how it is worded. But he has Confest e­nough.

As to their Principles being Dan­gerous to Govern­ment.IV. He finds no more fault to p. 115. of the Sn. (it is p. 214. of the Third Edit.) which he Excepts against p. 16. 17. In that part of the Sn. it was shewn of what pernicious Consequence it was to Government for the Quakers to assume (as they do) a Prophetical Commission, Immedi­ately from God, as the Prophets of old had: That this wou'd Inferr a Power for Deposing of Kings, and Alteration of Government, as some of the old Prophets did, by Command from God. That besides the Quakers had, by a Solemn Declara­tion, asserted their Right to Possess the whole Earth, and to Fight for it, with the Carnal Sword. And the words of their said De­claration are there set down, which was Penn'd by that Renown'd Quaker, Edward Burrough, and Subscrib'd by Fifteen of the Principal Leaders a­mong the Quakers in the Name of All the Rest.

Now G, W. do's not deny one word of all this. What then? How do's he Answer it? what is the Mistake, Abuse, or Calumny which he charges upon this Passage? He says, These are very Bitter, Invidious and Calumnious Suggesti­ons, and Cruel Jealousies of a High Nature, as if this poor Libeller eagerly thirsted after our Blood. That Libeller (as you call him) I dare say had no Design upon your Blood, or the Blood of any body. But if you Preach up Bloody and Treasonable Doctrin, must no Man Detect this, without a Design upon your Blood! You Proclame Blood to the Ends of the Earth, [Page 76]especially against the Priests of all Professions, Oh! Give the Priests Blood to Drink, for they are worthy — Slay Balaam, vex the Midianites, Blot out the Remembrance of Amaleck from un­der Heaven, that is, the Clergy and the Lawyers &c. as the Quakers themselves Explain it (See Sn. p. 230. &c.) yet this must not be told you, but you Cry out, Here is a Design upon our Blood! But you Answer not a word of the Charge. Are any of your Authors falsly Quoted? Have they not said all these things? Will you then Disown these Authors, at least, as to these Bloody and Desperate Tenets? No. This cannot be done. For then their Infallibility will Crack: And your whole Foundation Sink. Then will it appear that the Spirit by which they have been Led, was not the Spirit of Truth, but of Murder, Treason, and the Vilest Errors.

The Best Excuse that can be made for them, in this Case, is that which I have before In­stanc'd viz. Madness. For if they are in Good Earnest, in all these Bloody Designs which they have Express'd, Considering their Power and Number now amongst Us, they are Dangerous indeed! And Every Government will be oblig'd to take a Care of them.

And that in some other Manner than as John Parret, Charles Baly, and Jane Stoaks were Serv'd, who were so kindly dealt with at Rome to be sent to a Mad-House, and Phisick prescrib'd for them.

The Matters thus Suggested (Says G. W. p. 17.) are so Gross, that we need say little to them. How! Say but Little to them! If they are so Gross, you need say the More to them. But what if [Page 77]they are True, as well as Gross? And you offer not to Disprove one Tittle of the Truth of them. And the more Gross, one wou'd think you shou'd be the more Concern'd to Disprove them. And if the least of the Proofs which are brought against you, had been False, or any way Exceptionable, no doubt, we shou'd have heard of it (as from Rich. Scoryer, about a small Mistake alledg'd as to his School) George, you shou'd either have said nothing of this Matter, or have said more to it. But the Nation is oblig'd to you for this Discovery.

You Repeat this Charge again. p. 18. where you Quote the Sn. p. 133. saying, Their Prin­ciples Destructive to all Government, &c. And you answer. This is a General, very Gross &c. How a General? was ther only a General Charge given against you; and no Proof, no Particulars at all Mention'd? Yes, George, ther are abun­dance of Quotations, and Particulars which are Insisted upon, and Prov'd at large. And Thou do'st not Answer to any one of them, Thou Dar'st not Deny one of them: yet here Thou woud'st Impose it upon the Reader, as if nothing but a General Charge had been Exhibited against you. This is Thy Sincerity and Quakers Plainness.

Their Oppo­sition of Tythes.V. From this place to p. 24. he spends a­gainst what is said in behalf of Tythes. And p. 19. Quotes the Sn. saying that the Pope was the first Author of the Sacrilegious Impropriati­ons; which is more largely Insisted upon in the Sn. yet he Charges the Author as a Popish A­gent; and in his Contents calls this a Popish Plea for Tythes▪ But all the Reason he gives is, that some Papists were for the Divine Right of [Page 78] Tythes. Then he names some of the Protestants which were not of this opinion. And this is all (Poor Man) that he knows of the Matter. He Answers none of the Arguments which are there brought for Tythes; nor do's he bring any Arguments against them. That is none of his Method!

But as to Fr. Bugg's Impeachment against them for opposing and Annulling the Laws of the Land which enjoyn Tythes, he fairly Pleads Guilty, in Express Terms, while he thought he was Ac­quiting the Quakers of that Charge: And he Re-Asserts their Seditious Principle. p. 18. a­gainst The Secular Powers Imposing them, Tythes being Abolisht (says he) by Christ's Law. Which was all that Bugg Charg'd against them, as mak­ing our Laws to be Anti-Christian.

Upon this Head, I wou'd Recommend to their serious Consideration, a Principle they set down, in a Famous Martyrologie of theirs, call'd, The West Answering to the North. An. 1657. wrote by G. Fox, and several others of their Chiefs; suffering then some Chastisements, for their Blas­phemie, &c. Contrary (as they thought) to the then Laws; by the Arbitrary Orders of some In­ferior Magistrates. There p. 80. they say, That for Any Party of Men, under a Government, to Make Laws, being not Lawfully Authorized so to do, for the Binding of others; and thereunto to require obedience, is the setting up of Themselves above the Law, and Treading it under their Feet; And ren­dring of them whom they do so Bind, their Slaves and Vassals; And so is Treason.

[Page 79]Now in the Sn. Sect. xix. Ther is mention'd a Declaration Sign'd by above Seven Thousand of the Quakers, Abolishing all the Laws, and Damning the Law-Makers, who Enact Tythes, the Payers of them, the Receivers, or any who but Countenance or Own them. This was in the year 1659. At which time the Quakers were very Busie with their Proposals to oppose the Restoration of the Church and the King. Rob. Rich, Hiden things &c. p. 29. a Quaker tells Us of two other Printed Papers of the Quakers, that same year, one subscrib'd by more than Ten Thousand, and the other by More than Fifteen Thousand. All presented to the then Parliament. To whom I am Credibly Inform'd, They offer'd to Raise Twenty Thousand Men, against the Com­mon Enemy, so they Term'd the King, and Loyal Party. And they had then so much Fa­vour, That, as the above Author Informs us (And cannot Deceive Us in that) by the Act of Parliament bearing Date the 28 June 1659 for Setling the Militia, the Quakers were made Commissioners, to Form Troops and Regiments, to Nominate the Officers, and to Assess Money for Buying Horse, Arms, &c. He Names Five by Name, whom he knew, who were of the Com­mittee for the Militia of Westminster, and how many more, he says, he knew not. But that is not the Business now. We have sufficient Testimony of their Firmness to the King and Royal Interest, at that Time! That which I wou'd Reason with them now upon, is, Their Annulling of our Laws (as of Tythes) Not being Lawfully Authoriz'd so to do. Their setting up, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Yearly Synods, or Parliaments; wherein they Issue Orders and Laws, [Page 80]to All the Quakers. And Excommunicate those who Refuse to be Obedient. They Leavy Money, by Benevolence; which none of them Dare Re­fuse, under Pain of being Dis-own'd (as they Phrase it) which to most of them, (who Trade Chiefly with one another) is to be Broke and Ʋn­done. By these Voluntary Taxes, per Force, they have Fill'd and Maintain a Treasury, or Publick Stock; to Carry on their Common Cause: Among other things, to enable any Poor Friend, to support a Law-Suite against the Priests for Tythes. Of which several Instances can be given. That these Baals-Priests, may have no other Choice, but either to Loose the Tythes of the Quakers or Pay more for them, than they are worth. Especially the Poorer sort of the Clergy, who are Easily Tyr'd out at Law: Unless they had such a Fund as the Quakers have to support them.

Let me Entertain the Reader with one In­stance, upon this Head, which happen'd Lately: And has Conduc'd to open the Eyes of some Deluded Quakers, particularly of William Ma­ther, who writes the Account himself, by his Letters, Dated from Bedford 12. July. 1698: And tells, That one Joseph Clark, a Quaker Prea­cher, being sued for his Tythe by the Priest, John Feild, an Eminent London Quaker Preacher, and one of the Principal Directors of the Court of Second-Days-Meeting; which is the Helme of the whole Quaker Government; it is the Conclave, which Preseribes even to their General Council, the Yearly Meeting at London; and which is more, Commands their Bank or Publick Treasury; This John Field Encourag'd Joseph Clark to stand [Page 81]out the Suite with the Priest; and Promis'd to secure his Goods from the Priest, if it came to the worst. But Jos. told W. Mather (to keep him Firm to the Cause) That it was The Lord, who Moved him, not to Pay his Tythes to the Priest. How­ever so it fell out (whether thro' Multiplicity of Business in John, or want of Due Solicitation in Joseph, or from whatever Cause) That John did not Perform, as Joseph Expected; who ha­ving waited till the Day before the Assizes at Bedford; and no Relief coming, was Forc'd to surrender: And sent to Agree with the Priest. And then told Will. Mather, That The Lord gave him Freedom to Pay Tythes, as well as other Taxes. Which, with other things, has much stumbl'd Mather, as to their Infallibilty, and even Sincerity, especially, Their Inscribing every thing they Do, or Think, to The Name of The Lord God! And that, both Backwards and For­wards!

But it is the Treason, and not the Blasphemy of their Practice herein that I am now upon. Which they have made Treason (as before Quo­ted) in others. And therefore must come under their own Law, or Confess themselves to be Lyars and Deceivers.

If they say, That their Testimonies against Tythes &c. are not Laws or Commands, only Ad­vices and Recommendations, That is sufficiently Answer'd in the Sn. Sect. xix. where it is shewn, That they made it no less than Rebellion for any Quaker to Pay Tythe, upon any Account. And in their Rabshakeh, against Mr. Crisp. An. 1695. p. 90. They call his Marrying by a Priest, and Paying of Tythes, Transgressions; and such as [Page 82] Cut him off from the Ʋnity of the Faithful. Now, where ther is no Law, ther is no Transgression. And it is no Mean Transgression that will Cut a Man off from the Ʋnity of the Faithful. That must be some Dreadful Damning Sin! And such they make our Laws. And Require Obedience (in opposition to them) to their own Laws; and thus Set Themselves above the Laws, and Tread them under their Feet; And render those whom they do so Bind, their Slaves and Vassals: And so (by their own Sentence) are Guilty of Treason.

N. B. The above Mention'd John Field is he who wrote the Letter Printed in the Collecti­on N. 5. to the Lord Mayor of London, where­in he Endeavours to Prove, That the Setting up of Tythes is, in Effect, to say, That Christ is not become Man, or suffer'd Death for Man. &c. call's them Slanderous Covetousness; And threat­ens the Government, both Lords and Commons, with God's Vengeance, who suffer Priests Charita­bly. i. e. Who have any Charity or Favour for them.

The Quakers had much more Charity for the Impropriators: And some Quakers allow'd them­selves to Pay Tythes to them, which shews That their Rage against Tythes, Proceeded Chiefly from their Malice to the Clergy. Nay some of the Quakers themselves (as I am Inform'd) have been Impropriators, and Received their Tythes. They will tell us whether the Qua­ker Squire Fettiplace in Gloucester-shire, was not of this Number? They wou'd not Refuse to Buy an Estate, because there were Impropriati­ons Annex'd to it. Much less wou'd they Give [Page 83]up the Impropriat-Tythes, after they had Bought them.

VI.Their Treasons in Abetteng Oliver and the Rump.He comes next p. 24. to the Charge against them of their Treasons and Rebellion: And their Abetting of the Ʋsurpations under Oliver and the Rump. Which, according to Custom, he Denies; but offers not to Disprove one single Quo­tation of those many which you will find Sect. xviii. of the Sn. This is Reply'd to in the Sup. N. 11.

And I cou'd give many other Instances besides those in the Sn. Ther was a Book Printed by the Quakers. A. D. 1656. Intituled The Cry of Blood. Subscrib'd by these Eminent Quakers. Geo. Bishop. Thomas Goldney. Henry Roe. Edw. Pyott. Dennis Hollister. in name of all the Rest then about Bristol, where Complaining of their sufferings from the then Government, they say, in the Title Page, that it was contrary to The Righteous Ends of the War. i. e. of their Rebellion against the King. and p. 25. they say, For which (i. e. subverting the Fundamental Law) the Late King, Strafford, and Canterbury were Impeached Attainted and Executed as Traytors. And p. 31. they accuse some that Affronted them, whom they call'd Royeters, to be Cavaliers, and that Charles Stuart was Publickly mentioned by the Name of King. p. 69. They Plead as Merit in behalf of John Camm, and John Audland (See his Blasphemous Letter to G. Fox, Annex'd at the end of the Sn.) two of their Famous Prea­chers, That they had been Six or Seven years in Arms for the Parliament, and had Fought and per­formed Eminent Service in the Field. And. p. 90. That Thomas Robertson (another Preacher) was [Page 84]Five or Six years in Armes for the Parliament, an Officer in Colonel Brigg's Regiment, was at Preston Fight, at the Engagement at the Bridge, in Scotland, and Carlise, living on his own Estate, and bearing his own Charges in the Wars, except a small Summ which he receiv'd after the Fight at Preston. That Josiah Coal was also a Soldi­er in service of the Common-Wealth, and at Wor­cester Fight. This was one of the Prime wor­thies of the Quakers, a Preacher of Renown. See his Blasphemous Letter to G. Fox. in the Sn. p. 114. 115.

Here the Treasons and Rebellion and Fighting of these Quaker-Leaders were Glory'd in (instead of being Condemn'd) by the rest of them, in the year 1656. But since 1660, they have got a New Light, they are now against all outward Fighting, Treason and Rebellion! Yet will not Censure any of their Ancient Traytors, Fighters, and Rebels: for such were their Chief Apostles; and led by the Infallible Light within! But they wou'd have that Forgotten, till a Day may come, when, as in 1656, they may again Plead these Glorious Merits of their Saints. And in the mean time, make a Mouth at us, while they wou'd Pame them upon us, as the only Lambs of Christ!

But ther is one of these Lambs that I have not yet Nam'd under this Head of Treason, whom I must bring forth before G. W. to see what Character he will give us of him. This Quaker in the year 1659 had a Dispute with one Thomas Smith in the Mayor's House at Cambridge, soon after Sir George Booth had ta­ken Armes for the King, and was Suppress'd [Page 85]by the Rebels. It is told in the Sn. Sect. xviii. p. 228. How busy the Quakers were upon that occasion, against the King's Interest, and Boa­sted in it as their merit, that they had given the first Intelligence to the Ʋsurpers against the Loyal Party; and gave their Advice or Command (and that In the Name of the Lord God!) to cut off all the Cavaliers whom they had taken Pri­soners. They were Full of this their good ser­vice, and very Vain of it. And this Quaker whom I am speaking of, taking his opponent Smith to be well Inclin'd towards the Royal Cause, and having him in the Mayor's House, he broke off from the Subject of Religion they were met about; and Demanded of him, whe­ther he owned his Brethren the Priests, who had so much stirred up the Rebellion against the present Government? To which Insnaring Question, the Quaker says, Smith answer'd, That he did not own them. But that was (said the Quaker) because he saw they did not Prosper in their Designs. But when they did Prosper, as they did the year following, then the Quakers were the only Royal and Loyal Party! and said they had been so all along! And accus'd these same Professors (as they call'd the Presbyterians, Inde­pendents &c.) that they had been the King's Ene­mies, and therefore not fit to be Trusted by Him, or to be suffer'd to Teach the People. as shewn in the Sn. Sect. xviii.

Now G. W. tell us Plainly, what do'st Thee think of this Quaker before mention'd? we wou'd have thy opinion of him. Was he then a Loyal Man, when he call'd it Rebellion to assert the King's Cause against the Ʋsurpa­tion [Page 86]that then obtain'd, and upbraided others with being Concern'd in it?

If thou woud'st know his Name, not to keep thee longer in suspence, it is, George White­head. And this thee wilt find p. 25. of a little pretty Treasonable, and very Blasphemous Book of his call'd Truth defending the Quakers &c. Printed that same year 1659. said, on the Ti­tle Page to be written from the Spirit of Truth in George Whitehead, and George Fox the yonger. I wou'd have thee Read it George. It is as full of Heresies as a Dog is of Fleas, Larded thick with Nonsense, and Pride Prodigious. And prithee, George, lets have thy Censure of it, the next time thou sets Pen to Paper, if thou be'st not Tyr'd with that sport, as well thou May'st, considering thy Luck at it. It is now 49 years since that precious Piece escapt thy Fist. And if thee art not Grown Wiser, as thou'st Grown Older, thou'lt verefie the Proverb, no F—l to an Old F—l.

It is told in the Sn. Sect. xviii. How G. Fox and the Quakers stood out against the Restau­ration of King Charles II. to the very Last, even in the Beginning of the year 1660. And yet Immediately upon the Kings Coming Home, Run to him, with Addresses of their Love &c. I have one here to Add, which came Lately in my way. G. Bishop his Bitterness and Im­placable Hatred to the King, and his Cause, is Particularly Insisted upon in the Sn. How he Preach'd and Commanded, In the Name of the Lord, That the Cavaliers, who were then Pri­soners, shou'd be All put to Death. This is in his Book of Warnings Printed in the Beginning [Page 87]of the year 1660 before the Restauration. And now I find another Book of (his) warnings. An. 1661. Directed to The King and Parliament to the Arch-Bishops, and Bishops &c. where p. 2. he Recommends the Innocent People (the Qua­kers) to their Protection, as Those who suffer'd with you (says he) and by and under your Ene­mies; who have Good will towards you &c. And not Content with this Gross Dissimulation in Themselves; he falls upon the poor Presbyte­rians, for their Inconstancy, and Turning about; he upbraids them, p. 18. with their being Ʋpwards and Downwards; and Backwards and Forwards; Now here and now there; Reeling and Rouling; Pinching here sometimes, and Drawing as Contra­ry at another. This needs no Application to the Quakers.

G. Fox his Aspiring to be Equal with God.VII. In the Sn. ther is set down a Tryal at the Assises, and Depositions upon Oath that G. Fox and others of the Quakers did call them­selves Equal with God &c. To this says G. W. p. 25. That we ought not to take the De­positions of Adversaries against them. This is Pleasant! why, if any of the Quakers had De­pos'd this, then they had been Apostats, Judases, &c. (as the Quakers have call'd their Late Sepe­ratists) and so Adversaries with a witness. And all others are Adversaries of Course. And if none of their words must be taken, the Qua­kers may Blaspheme, Rebel, Murder, Steal, or what they Please. For is not any one that wou'd Accuse them of any of these things, an Adver­sary? And an Adversaries word must not be taken!

[Page 88]But let alone Adversaries. Has not G. Fox and others of the Quakers asserted the same in their Printed Books? And are they not Quo­ted in the Sn. Sect. iii? And has G. W. An­swer'd to one of these Quotations? No. Not to one of them. yet he Pretends this Book of his, to be an Answer to the Sn. And in the Contents he stiles the above Answer thus. A False Charge against G. Fox &c. Examin'd and Answer'd. Yet this is all the Answer he has given to it.

In the same manner he passes off the Charge of their Assuming the Name of God and Christ to themselves; and their Pretence to Perfection Equal Even to God &c. He says to this. p. 26. That it is False; and Asserts the Contrary. But Answers none of the Proofs. See Sn. Sect. x. p. 132. and Sect. xiv. p. 175, 176. Let me add here one Proof more. I have before Quoted a Book wrote by Five Ministers call'd A fur­ther Discovery &c. There p. 23, 24. is a Let­ter of Will. Baldwinson, Dated 14. January 1653. and attested by Three others, where Will. Bald­winson Declares that he, before a Company, where James Nayler and Richard Farnsworth were setting out this Doctrin of Perfection, De­manded of them in these words, Friends, do you hold that a man may attain to that Height of Perfection in this Life to be as Perfect, as Pure, as Holy, and as Just as God Himself? And he asserts, that They Joyntly Reply'd, Yea, and they were so. After p. 62. of that Book, these Five Ministers say of the Quakers, But what dare not these men do, who Dare lift up themselves in their Blasphemous Pride, to be as Pure as God? G. Fox [Page 89]Answers this Book in his Great Mystery and p. 232. Repeating these last words thus, But how Dare these men lift up themselves, in their Blasphemous Pride, to say they are pure as God? He do's not at all Deny the Charge, but Ju­stifies and Defends it from being Blasphemy; and says, Doth not Christ say, Be ye Perfect as your Heavenly Father is Perfect? and As he is, so are we in this present World &c. These are the Texts they Commonly Abuse to this Blas­phemous Purpose. John Harwood a Quaker, but who had fallen out with G. Fox, wrote a Letter to The Friends against him. An. 1663. which is Intitul'd To all People that Profess the Eternal Truth &c. where p. 3. he says, G. Fox hath call'd Himself The Son of God, and also said I am the Seed, which he might as well have said I am Christ, for we know that the Seed is Christ &c. To this G. Fox Printed an Answer the same year 1663, with this Title, The Spi­rit of Envy, Lying, and Persecution, made Mani­fest. Where, p. 2. He Answers the above Charge thus. And first thou saydst, G. F. calls himself, The Son of God &c. And this thou calls a Crime. This is all he says to it. Confessing the Charge: but Retorting upon Joh. Harwood, for his Igno­rance (being a Quaker) to think it a Crime in G. Fox to call Himself, The Son of God, and Christ, and The Seed. Here now G. W. has a Plain Answer, and out of the Mouth of one, whom he will not call an Adversary. And we need no more witnesses against G. Fox, when we have it from his own Mouth.

[Page 90] Their Asser­ting the Sufficien­cy of their Light within to Salvation, without Christ. And Assu­ming the Name of Christ to Them­selves.VIII. He comes p. 27. to a material Point indeed. where it is objected against the Qua­kers, That they hold the Light within Every Man that comes into the world, sufficient to Salvation, of it self, without Something else, that is, without the outward Christ, to suffer and Dye outwardly for Us. Which makes Christ's coming into the World of no Necessity at all to our Salvation; And Faith in Him to be but a sort of an Accomplishment, or Civility to­wards Him, but no way Necessary: And puts the Heathen upon as good a Foundation as the Christian. Nay, I must say upon a Better; for if Faith in Christ be, by the Gospel, made Necessa­ry to Salvation; and the Light within the Hea­then be sufficient without this; Then is this not only Ʋnnecessary, but it puts us farther off from Heaven, by making more things Necessary to our getting thither than what is Requir'd from the Heathen: Then might Cornelius have an­swered the Angel that commanded him to send for Peter, who shou'd tell him words, by which he and his House shou'd be saved, Act. xi. 14. that he had a Light within which was Sufficient, without any thing else. And that he had Duly follow'd this Light; for he had the Testimony of a Devout man, Act. x. 2. and one that feared God, with all his House. But this shews that ther was Something else Necessary, without which he and his House were not to be Saved.

This was the Ground of the Quarrel which the Quakers took against G. Keith, because he Preach'd among them the Necessity of Faith in the outward Jesus; which they call'd Preaching [Page 91]of Two Christs. i. e. one more besides their Light within, which they call The Christ.

G. W. says, in answer to this, p. 28. That they were not offended at G. K's Preaching Christ, or his suffering and Dying without Ʋs, truly con­sider'd. Truly Consider'd! what do's he mean by this? It is Impossible to catch these Qua­kers speaking one word Plain, without a Men­tal Reservation! By Truly Consider'd he means, That the Quakers do allow the History of Christ, of His Death and Sufferings. i. e. That ther was such a man, and that he Did and Suffered such things; and that the Light or Christ was in the man Jesus, whence he was called Christ, as others who have the same Light may, for the same Reason, be called by the same Name of Christ, which, as they say, belongs to Eve­ry Member as well as to the Head. Is not the Substance, the Life, the Anointing called Christ, wherever it is found? Doth not the Name belong to the whole Body (and Every Member in the Bo­dy) as well as to the Head? says Isaac Penington, in a Book which he calls A Question to the Pro­fessors of Christianity. Printed 1667. p. 27. And in the same place says, That the Apostle gives them (the Members) the Name Christ together with Him, that is, together with Jesus who was called Christ, and he Quotes for this 1 Cor. xii. 12. in which Text ther is nothing like what he would be at. But it shews the Qua­kers Notion; which he go's on to fortifie thus. The Body (says he) is the same with the Head; one and the same in Nature; and doth not the Na­ture belong to the Nature in the whole? i. e. Be­cause Christ has taken Our Nature, therefore [Page 92] J. P. wou'd give us His Nature, which wou'd be to make Us God. As he words it. p. 7. We are as well of His Flesh and Blood, as He was of ours. By Christ's Flesh of which we Partake, he means the Heavenly Flesh which the Quakers say Christ had from Eternity, and that it is in them, that is, Christ's Divine Nature, of which J. P. makes us to Partake, as well as He of our Human Nature: which yet they say He took not Really, for J. P. do's not allow Jesus to be the Lamb of God, but that the Lamb (i. e. the Light) Dwelt in Him, as in a Vessel, in like manner as in us. By Feeling (says he ibid.) and knowing the Lamb in our Vessels, we know also what was the Lamb in His Vessel. So that by this, Jesus was not the Lamb or Christ, but only the Vessel in which the Lamb or Christ did, for a time, Reside. Which he further Explains, p. 33. in these words, Now the Scrip­tures Do Expresly Distinguish between Christ, and the Garment which He wore; between Him that Came, and the Body in which He came; between the Substance which was Vailed, and the Vaile which Vailed it. Lo I come, a Body hast thou Prepared Me. There is Plainly He, and the Body in which He came. Ther was the outward Vessel, and the Inward Life. This we certainly know, and can never call the Bodily Garment, Christ, but that which Appeared and Dwelt in the Body. So that by this, Jesus was not the Christ, only the Prepared Body, Garment, or Vaile in which Christ Dwelt. The same Argument is Prosecuted by Will. Penn, in his Part of the Serious Apology. p. 146. and in the like words with Is. Penington, to shew the Unanimous Con­sent [Page 93]of the Quakers in this the Heart of their Christianity, These are his words. He that laid down his Life, and suffer'd his Body to be Cruci­fy'd by the Jews, without the Gates of Jerusalem, is Christ, the only Son of the most High God: But that the outward Person which suffer'd was Proper­ly the Son of God, we utterly Deny— A Body hast thou Prepared me, said the Son, then the Son was not the Body, tho' the Body was the Son's. i. e. The Body was the Son's, as a man's Gar­ment or Vaile is his who owns and wears it; as the Body; of Will. Penn is the Son's who (he supposes) Dwells in it: But the Son was not the Body, that is, Jesus, in whose Body Christ Dwelt, was not the Son, not Properly the Son of God, but in a Large sense, as other men are call'd the Sons of God. And Christ Suffer'd His Garment or Vaile, the Body of Jesus, to be Crucifi'd: But that the outward Person which suffer'd, was Properly the Son of God, the Quakers do Ʋt­terly Deny. And as that Person which Suffer'd was not Properly the Son of God, it follows as certainly that the Son of God was not Pro­perly that Person, or was not Properly a Man.

This was the Meaning of Will. Penn, in his Sandy Foundation. p. 20. calling Christ a Finit, Impotent Creature. He did not mean the Eter­nal word. Or that this Word was Properly a Man in our Nature; for then, tho' the Manhood was a Creature, and Finit, yet the Man, or Person was not so. As a Man's Body is Corruptible, yet the Person Consisting of Body and Soul, is not so. Tho' the Properties of Each Nature, whereof a Person do's Consist, may be Attributed to the Person; as a Man is said to Dye, to Eat, Drink, Sleep &c. tho' these are Proper only to the Body: [Page 94]And likewise he is said to Think, to Reason, to be Immortal, tho' these are Proper only to his Soul. Thus God is said to Dye, to shed His Blood &c. tho' this be Proper only to the Man­hood, which the Word assum'd into His own Person: And Man is said to be God, Infinit, Almighty &c. tho' this be Proper only to the Di­vine Nature of Christ, who is likewise Truly and Properly a Man. And none who had a True Notion of this, cou'd ever have brought himself, to call Christ, a Finit, Impotent Creature. Such a Blasphemous Contempt of our B. Lord and God, cou'd never have Dropt from the Pen of a Christian. But upon Will. Penn's Scheme, that the Word was not Properly a Man, it must follow, that the Person who Suffer'd was not Properly the Son of God: And Consequently that the Person who Suffer'd, which is the Christians Christ, was but a Finit Impotent Crea­ture, and not Truly and Properly the Christ. J. Pennington asserts that the Name of Christ did not belong to the Person of Jesus, which he calls only the Vessel, or Vaile (as in his Quest. to Professors. p. 25.) but only to the Light or Christ which Dwelt in Jesus, as in the Quakers: So that the Name (Christ, says he) is not given to the Vessel, but to the Nature, to the Heavenly Treasure, to that which is of him In the Vessel. And he Contends That it was not the Flesh and Blood of the Vaile which was the Sacrifice that Cleanses. i. e. not the Flesh and Blood of Jesus, but The Flesh and Blood within the Vaile. i. e. the Spiritual Flesh and Blood of their Light within. Not the Flesh and Blood (says he) of the outward Earthly Nature; but the Flesh and Blood of the Inward [Page 95]Spiritual Nature: Not the Flesh and Blood which Christ took of the first Adam's Nature; but the Flesh and Blood of the Second Adam's Nature. And What is the Laver of Regeneration (says he p. 24.) wherewith the Soul is washed? Is it the wa­ter which ran out of the side of the Natural Body, when it was Pierced with a Spear? or the Water which floweth from the Spirit? And Can outward Blood Cleanse the Conscience? &c.

Now G. W. is not against telling the History of the Life and Death of Jesus, that is, as he puts the Caveat, Truly Consider'd, i. e. so as not to lay the stress of our Salvation upon Faith in those outward Sufferings, or to make that Necessary to us: That Prerogative they Re­serve only for the Sufferings, Blood-shedding &c. of Their Christ, the Light within. That only is sufficient without any thing else. And when you come to this (say they, in a Book Intituled The Doctrin of Perfection vindicated. Printed 1663. p. 19.) you will cease Remembring His Death at Jerusalem, and will come to see how He hath been Crucify'd In you &c. His outward Death is to be Forgotten; for the stress do's not Ly up­on that! And, as Mr. Penn says in his Qua­kerism a new nick-name &c. p. 12. Since they believe that appearance (of Christ in the Flesh at Jerusalem) they need not Preach what is not to be again. (See Satan Dis-Rob'd. p. 11.) Ther is an End of any more Preaching or Faith in that! Nay, it do's Hurt, as taking men off from Tru­sting wholey and soley in the Light within as sufficient without it! Which is the very Heart and Soul of the Quaker-Faith. And therefore they think the Heathen in a Better Condition [Page 96]than those Christians who lay so much stress upon the outward Christ, His Death and Suffe­rings; for that the Heathen have not that En­combrance to Divert them from Trusting wholly to their Light within, and to nothing else. And they think the Faith in the outward Christ so very Destructive, that G. Fox, Denounces them to be Reprobates, and Possest with the Devil, who Expect to be sav'd by Faith in the outward Jesus; and as wholly Ignorant of the Inward Pre­sence of Christ in the Heart: For thus he Re­plies upon Christopher Wade, who had, in a Book he wrote call'd Quakery Slain, asserted the Necessity of Faith in the outward Christ; but withall he is Full and Large upon as Great Necessity of the Inward Presence and Operation of the Spirit of Christ in our Hearts, In his In­spections, Influences, and Operations — and by His Spirit Dwelling even in the Hearts and Societies of His People. as he words it. p. 4. And that by his Spiritual Influences, He is in all His Saints, p. 7. That He is Dwelling in the Believers Heart, by Faith of and in Him, p. 19. — And from thence the Saints are said to be the Habitation of God through the Spirit, p. 36. And much more to the same Purpose. But all this Faith is built upon the outward Christ, His Death and Suffe­rings without Ʋs: And therefore G. Fox wrote an Answer to this Book, in his Great Mystery. p. 246. And Replies thus upon Wade. p. 250. And the Devil was in thee, and thou saith thou art saved by Christ without thee, and so hath Re­corded thy self to be a Reprobate, and Ignorant of the Mystery of Christ within thee. So that, by this Doctrin, to believe in a Christ without, is [Page 97]to be Possess'd with the Devil, to be a Reprobate, and Ignorant of Christ within. For they make to be these Two Christ's, as they objected against G. Keith, when he Preach'd to them of a Christ without. Which G. W. here allows, Truly Consider'd! that is, to Believe the History of Christ; but not to Trust in Him as an Object of our Faith; for that wou'd take away the Sufficiency of the Light within, without the outward Christ. And this G. W. do's plainly Confess, where he tells what it was for which they were Angry at G. Keith, not the Preaching Christ's outward Sufferings; But (says he) at his Ʋndervaluing the Light within, as not Sufficient to Salvation, or not Sufficient without something else. These are his words, p. 28. And this is as Plain a Con­fession as can be in words. And G. W. go's on to Prove it, by saying that the Light with­in is God and Christ &c. Which he Denies to our Jesus the Son of Mary, wou'd it be good Doctrin (says he) to say, Light and Life p. 54. that Mary and Simeon carry'd their Saviour on their Arms? — or that they carry'd God in their Arms — if that Child was God-Man, as he (Will. Burnet) terms him. And he Upbraids W. B. thus, your Boasting of your God and Christ at a Distance above the Clouds Stars and Firmament— And p. 55. whereas we are Accused (says he) with Denying that Blood let out, to be any way Meritorious to Salvation. I ask, whether any thing is of Eternal Merit and worth that is not Everlasting? This is to Exclude the Blood which Christ took, in Time, of our Nature, from being Any way Meritorious to Salvation: But placing all upon the shedding of His Spiritual Blood, which He had, as God, [Page 98]from Eternity. Agreeably G. Fox attributes all the Merit towards Salvation, in that Flesh of Christ, which was Crucify'd, when Adam Fell, as before Quoted out of his Several Papers, for the Spreading of Truth. Where p. 57. he go's on thus, so Adam and Eves Flesh was Defiled, but the Flesh of Christ, the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the world, yet His Flesh never Cor­rupted, which Flesh is the Offering — and in this Flesh is the Belief that takes away the sin, that ne­ver Corrupted, that is the offering for Sin, and the Blood of this Flesh Cleanseth from Sin — so the seed Reigns, His Flesh the offering is Believed in, and Fed upon — And so this Pure Flesh this offe­ring is set over all — so all Christendom hath talk'd long enough of Christ's Flesh and Blood. p. 58. p. 59 By this the Quakers think that Flesh of Christ of which we speak is of no longer use. At the Close of this Chapter G. F. go's about to Answer a very material Objection put against him viz. To what Purpose was Christ's coming in the outward Flesh, if all the Reconciliation was by His Heavenly Flesh? G. F. puts the Objection in these words. But if any should hold the Seed on­ly within them, and that Christ is not come in the Flesh, and hath not Appear'd in the shape of a man — And truely G. Fox finds no harm in all this, Provided they stand out stiff against outward Offerings and Services. That is the Eye-sore of the Quakers. Take away the Merit of the out­ward Sufferings of Christ, and the outward Ordi­nances which He has Established in His Church. And All is well! G. F. gives no Advice to those who believe no Christ come in the Flesh, to learn any thing of that Doctrin; nor finds [Page 99]any Fault with those who, Rejecting that, do hold the seed only within them; but bids them see if that they speak of (i. e. their seed or Light within) doth or hath brought them out of Adam in the Fall, and put down all Adam and Eves Sons and Daughters Inventions, which they have Invented in their Idol Minds, and other outward Offerings and Services; for (says he) they that own that Christ, that was offered, that was slain from the Foundation of the world, the Lamb, they own that, and their Belief stands in that which doth bring down the Inventions of the Sons of Adam, and Daughters in the Fall. So that here is a Belief in Christ, without a Believing that ever He came in our Flesh! viz. By Be­lieving in His Inward and Heavenly Flesh, Blood, and Bones which were Crucify'd when Adam Fell; which the Quakers call the Seed or Light within; which they think Sufficient of it self, without any thing else. i. e. without any Faith in the outward Flesh which he took of our Nature, which they call Corruptible and Earthly; and therefore of no Virtue or Efficacy towards our Salvation, more than as a Good Example, like the Lives of other Vertuous men: And therefore that men may be Good enough Chri­stians, without knowing any thing of that which is but a History to Us, that is, the Life Death, and Sufferings of Jesus of Nazareth: But that the Mystery and the Efficacy is only in what is wrought within Us; and that Faith in that, is the only true Christianity. This is the Center of Quakerism. And therefore I have Endeavoured to Render it very Plain and Ob­vious, [Page 100]as that upon which all the Rest of their vile Heresies are Founded.

This that I have said, will obviate all the Quotations brought in the Appendix, Sect. 2. p. 12. &c. of the Quaker-Testimonies to Christ as come in the Flesh. For either They must A­bandon this Distinction of the two sorts of Flesh, Blood, and Bones of Christ, or otherwise it is Impossible to Hold them, while they mean that of the one, which they seem to speak of the other. And, what Signifies their Acknowleging even Christ's outward Flesh and Humanity, as to the Historical part of it, while they Deny any Faith in it, as of Necessity to Salvation but place all the Efficacy, upon their Mad Supposition of His Inward and Eter­nal Flesh, Blood, and Bones; Broken, Slain, Buri­ed, Rising again, Ascending, and coming, to Judgment, within them; And thus Elude All the Articles of our Faith!

G. Whitchead, in his Truth defending the Qua­kers An. 1659. p. 67. plainly Denies, that we are Redeemed by the Human Blood of Christ. And says, That that Scripture 1 Pet. 1.19. is Perverted when taken in that sense, and averrs that the Apostle there, Doth not tell of Human Blood to Redeem them with; for (says he) Human is Earthly. What Blood is it then which Redeems Us? He go's on to tell in the next words, But Christ whose Blood is Spiritual is Lord from Heaven &c. And then he Asks, Was that Human Blood, which Christ saith, except a Man Drink, he hath no Life in him; and which Cleansed the Saints from all Sin, who were Flesh of Christ's Flesh, and Bone of His Bone? G. W. [Page 101]means that this cou'd not be the outward-Flesh: But that it was the Eternal and Spiritual Flesh before spoke of; Which the Quakers suppose that they have within them; and this is it which they call their Light within. But I will Answer this Quere of G. Whitehead's because I believe he ask'd it thro' Ignorance, and that many Qua­kers are Deluded by it. Therefore I say, That it was Human Blood of which Christ said Except a man drink of it &c. But the Figure lies in the word Drink, not that we were literally to Drink the very Material Blood of Christ; but to Feed upon it in our Hearts, by Faith. i. e. in the Satisfaction and Atonement thereby made to God for our Sins. But to put the Figure upon the Blood, as if that were only Figurative, and not True, Real, Material and Human Blood which Christ offer'd for us; but a Notional, Spiritual, which is not Real Blood, this is the Fandamental Error of the Quakers, and which overturns the whole Christian Faith.

And now what do's it signifie to bring Quo­tations out of the Quaker Books, which speak of the Blood of Christ, and bear witness to it, while they mean not Real or Human Blood, of our Nature, but only the Inward Spiritual Life of Christ in our Hearts; And do not Distinguish this at all from His Blood? As G. W. says, in the same Book before Quoted Truth defend­ing &c. p. 63. Whose (Christ's) Blood is not differ­ing from His Life, which Redeemeth from sin, as thou Imaginest, says he to his opponent, Christo­pher Wade, who having said, as G. W. Quotes him, That our Blessed Saviour did Instruct men to lay fast hold of, and to abide in such a Faith which [Page 102]Confideth in Himself, being Without Men. G. W. Replies p. 65. That's Contrary to the Apostles Doctrin— And the Saints Faith stood in the Power of God, which was In them. Again (ibid.) G. W. opposes this of C. Wade's, which he Quotes, That the true Christ doth by infallible Ar­guments prove Himself not to be a Spirit. i. e. not a meer Spirit, as in the next page G. W. Quotes him. And G. W. gives the like An­swer to this, which is (says he) Quite against the Apostles Doctrin, who Preach'd Christ In them, the Hope of Glory, and a Quickening Spirit. That Christ is a Spirit, and Ever was, no Christian Doubts: But that He has not likewise a Body, not from Eternity, as Quakers and Muggletonians madly Dream; but an Human Body, of our Na­ture, which He took into His own Nature, in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin, and will for Ever Retain United in His Person, true God and Man; and therefore is not now a meer Spirit; as before His Incarnation, none can De­ny, but the Grossest of Hereticks. And G. W. here Denies it, and says, That to affirm Christ not to be a meer Spirit is contrary to the Apo­stles Doctrin, who Preach'd Christ In them. No Christian denies but that Christ, by His Blessed Spirit and Influence do's Dwell in the Hearts of Believers; But therefore to Deny the De­monstration which Christ gave Luk. xxiv. 39. That He was not a Spirit, but had true Flesh and Bones, is such a Degree of sottish Infatua­tion, as has Possest none amongst us but these Miserable Quakers. Why else did G. W. op­pose C. Wade for urging this Scripture, in Proof that Christ was not a Spirit, but had a [Page 103] True, Real, Human Body? G. Whitehead's mean­ing was (as before shew'd p. 18.) that the Person who then Appear'd to the Apostles was not the Christ. No, but only a Vail or Garment of Bor­row'd Flesh and Blood which He Wore: And by which the Quakers expect no Justification, but only by their own Works, wrought In them by the Spirit.

Thus ibid. p. 62. G. Whitehead brings in C. Wade saying thus, That God doth totally exclude works, whether wrought by Men, or by any Spirit in man whatsoever, for Mens Justification. He do's not Exclude Works, as being a Neces­sary Effect of Faith, and as Requir'd by God, and without which, when Possible, true Faith can­not be; nor can men, otherwise, be made Par­takers of the Benefit and Purchase made for Us by the Obedience and Death of Christ: But that our works, tho' wrought in us by the Ope­ration of the Holy Spirit (as all our Good Works are) yet must not come in for any share of the Merit and Satisfaction for Sin, and our Justification thereby;Psal. xlix. 8. For it Cost more to Redeem our Souls, so that we must let that alone for Ever. Our Works, tho' necessary to Qualifie us, and make us Susceptible of that Justification which Christ hath Purchased for us by His Blood, yet are they Totally Excluded from being any Part of the Meritorious or Procuring Cause of our Justification. And to this G. Whitehead's An­swer is, This is a Doctrin of the Devil. The same Answer, He and Will. Penn Repeated in their Serious Apologie. Printed An. 1671. (to shew they Alter not) p. 148. to those who objected to them, That they Deny'd Justification [Page 104]by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in His own Person for us, wholly without us, and there­fore Deny the Lord that bought us. To which their Answer is in these words. And indeed this we Deny, and Boldly affirm it, In the Name of the Lord, To be the Doctrin of Devils, and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption, which do's now De­luge the whole World. It makes ones Hair stand on End, to Hear such outragious Blasphemy a­gainst the very Heart and Foundation of the Christian Religion! Against which the Cursed Spirit do's thus Gnash his Teeth, to see his Chief Principle Attackt of making men trust, for their Justification and Salvation, to what is wrought in their Hearts, by the Spirit of God, as they suppose, for which they oft mistake (as in the Present Case) the most Venemous Sug­gestions of the Devil.

Now if the Quaker method of Contrary Testi­monies wou'd be allow'd,See 2d Part. Sect. ii. N. 3. they might Easily get off from all this, by what Will. Penn has wrote (in Point blank Contradiction to what is a­bove Quoted) in his Primitive Christianity, Printed, 1696. p. 79. where he owns Justifica­tion, only for the sake of the Death and Sufferings of Christ; And nothing we can do (says he) though by the Operation of the Holy Spirit, being able to Cancel old Debts, or wipe out old Scores. You see, he says, here, Though by the Operation of the Holy Spirit, so that, by this, All that is wrought in the Quakers, by their Light within, is De­clar'd Insufficient to their Salvation, without something else, even the Death and Sufferings of the outward Christ. Unless Mr. Penn will say, That he Meant not this of the outward Christ but of the Death and Sufferings of [Page 105]their Light within; which I suppose he will not venture upon, because it wou'd be so Gross a Sophistication as he wou'd be asham'd of; and Disparage any thing he cou'd say hereafter; for it wou'd be to Declare, that none must know his meaning. Therefore I will not sup­pose any such thing, but that he Intends sin­cerely as he speaks. But then, that Great Point of the Quakers is given up, upon which G. Keith was Pronounc'd an Heretick by a Publick Quaker Meeting at Philidelphia An. 1692.See Here­sie and Hatred by G. K. giving an Account of this. And that by Authority of a Sentence out of a Book of Will. Penn's, call'd the Christian Quaker, where he said, that The Talent is in its self sufficient. i. e. as these Quakers Expounded it, That the Light within was sufficient (to Salvation) without any thing else. For that was the Dispute. And G. Keith was Accus'd for Heresie in Prea­ching Two Christs, because he Preach'd the Ne­cessity of Faith in a Christ without Us, now in Heaven, which they, who knew of no Christ but their Light within, thought a Preaching of Two Christs, and a Denying the sufficiency of their Light within, without Faith in an outward Christ.

Their turn­ing the Death and Sufferings of Christ into an Allegorie and a Type.IX. G. W. p. 29. Answers the Charge of their Allegorizing the Death and Sufferings of Christ, into an Inward shedding of Spiritual Blood &c. thus; he says, they do not turn the Death and Sufferings of Christ, into a meer Allegory, as if ther had been no such thing in Reality, both out­wardly and Literally. No. It was never Charg'd upon them. But this is the Charge against them, That they Place the Merit and Satisfacti­on not in the outward Sufferings of Christ, but in the Inward Sufferings &c. of their Light with­in. [Page 106]And to this they do not Answer. This is mere Dodging. And shews their Guilt.

But he says Secondly, p. 30. That they do hold an Allegorical Meaning in Christ's outward Blood, and Passion. And there is His Spiritual Blood (says he) now if ther be an Allegorie in His outward Blood, then His outward Blood is an Allegorie: And the Inward Blood is the Sub­stance or Principal; and the Merit and Satisfac­tion lies in That. That is the Mysterie, of which Christ's outward Sufferings were but the History, or Facile Representations, as they Express it. See Sat. Dis. Sect. i. N. xii. p. 15, 16. And this, is, and has been our sincere Belief and Persuasion. says G. W. ibid.

He Answers in the same page to the Objecti­on of making their Light within the Archi-Type, of which the outward Christ was but the Type or Figure; He Denies none of the Proofs brought for it. See Sn. Sect. x. p. 129. &c. But he wou'd Play the Critick, he means by Archi-Type the Chief of Principal Type; and their not mak­ing the Light within any Type at all, but the Substance, consequently, he thinks he has come off Cleverly, that they do not make it the Archi-Type. But his Skill has Fail'd him, for by Archi-Type is not meant any Type at all; but that thing to which all the Types do Refer, and which is Represented by them. Thus the Legal Sacrifices were Types, of Christ; and Christ the Archi-Type; not as G. W. wou'd have it, that He was the Chief-Type of Himself. And hence the Quakers making the outward-Christ a Type of their Light within, gives That the Prefe­rence, and makes Christ Inferior to It. (See [Page 107] Sat. Dis. Sect. 2. N. v. p. 34). Will he say the Light-within is an Allegorie? if not, then, in his sense of it, he plainly Prefers it to Christ: And makes Christ, His Sacrifice and outward Blood to Refer to It. He Confesses while he Denies! He wou'd avoid the Charge of making Christ's out­ward Blood an Allegorie, and yet he Expresly calls it an Allegorie; i. e. that it has an Allego­rical Meaning; for that is the only way that any thing can be call'd an Allegorie. But what the Quakers call the Spiritual Blood of Christ, they will not let that be an Allegorie, or have any thing else to Refer to, for then it wou'd not be the Chief and Principal.

Now the Quakers, in this (as in other things) have lighted upon the Direct Contrary to the Truth; for whatever it may be which they Dream by Spiritual Blood, that can be only Alle­gorical to the outward and Real Blood. For let me ask, whether the Blood of a Spirit, or the Blood of Light, i. e. of their Light within, be not an Allegorical Expression? But they will have the outward Blood of an Humane Body to pass for an Allegorie. For all that is spoken of the Blood of Christ in Scripture (says G. W. ibid.) is not to be taken only in a Literal Sense. Here is an only again, to put us off from knowing of his Meaning. Not only in a Literal Sense! (The Jesuits are but Dunces to these Quakers, for Plainness and Sincerity!) If the Efficacy and Merits of the Blood of Christ do Extend to any Spiritual Effects, by Faith in Him, His Death and the Satisfaction thereby Made for our Sins, then G. W. thinks to come off by his word only, that the Blood of Christ is not to be taken [Page 108] only in a Literal Sense: And then it must be an Allegorie! And so he has gain'd his Point. But (George!) all this do's not make it an Alle­gorie, nor hinder all that is spoken of the Blood of Christ in Scripture to be taken in a Literal Sense, and (notwithstanding of Thy only) I will say only in a Literal Sense: for outward Blood is only out­ward Blood, and not Spiritual Blood: And its having Spiritual Effects, do's, in no ways, hin­der its being only outward Blood: nor do's it make such Blood to be any Allegorie at all, un­less, as the Blood of the Legal Sacrifices, it have Respect to another Blood more Worthy and Effica­cious than it self: for Allegorie, in this Dispute, means the same as Type or Figure. Thus Gal. iv. 24, Isaac and Ishmael, Sarah and Hagar are call'd an Allegorie, because they were a Type or Figure of the Two Covenants. And thus it is that the Qua­kers wou'd have the outward Christ to be an Alle­gorie, Sc. of what they call the Inward Christ or Light within; which they make the Archi-Type, and so of more Worth and Dignity than the outward Christ, and consequently the Merit and Satisfaction by which we are sav'd to be Referr'd to That, and not to the outward Christ, who was but the Allegory, Type, or Figure of It. And this totally throws off the outward Christ from having any Share or Parcel in our Re­demption, more than the Blood of those Bulls and Goats which were Sacrific'd under the Law; for the Quakers make the outward Blood of Christ to be but a Type, as these; tho a nearer Type than these: But All is to be Referr'd into the Archi-Type, which they make to be the Light within. When the Archi-Type comes, All Types of it do va­nish, and become of no more Effect at all: Nay, it [Page 100]is a Sin to use them any more, for that is an Implicit Denying of the Archi-Types being come: And hence it is, that the Quakers are so Enrag'd against laying any stress upon the outward Christ, His Death or Sufferings without us; which they say (as before Quoted) need not now be Preach'd, because they are not to be again. i. e. They are Past; but the Archi-Type, the Light within Re­mains, which is Sufficient of it self, and without any thing else. i. e. without the outward Death of a Christ without Ʋs. For this Inward Christ, the Light within was always, before the Incar­nation of the outward Christ; And before that (say the Quakers) did shed its Spiritual Blood &c. which was Sufficient to Save us: And that there­fore ther was no need of the outward Christ's coming at all: as now the stress is not to be laid upon it, but upon the Light within, which is Sufficient without It. This is the true Qua­ker Doctrin. But how the outward Christ cou'd be a Type of the Inward Christ or Light within, which was Before Him, the Quakers are left to Explain; for a Type must be Before that of which it is the Type, else it were not a Type, which is a Fore-runner of it. But Contradictions are no Novelties with them.

G. W. falls again upon this Topick, p. 39. And takes a new way, thus says he, We know not what Author he has for this Charge, as if none of their Authors had been Quoted in the Sn. where Sect. x. the Reader will find Quotations sufficient, all of which G. W. passes over in this Confident manner, of which I have taken notice already. But, in this same place where he makes this Excuse, he do's himself Confess what is Charg'd upon them: for he says Expresly, That Christ's outward Blood and Water which flow'd out of [Page 110] His Side, had an Allegorical Signification, even (says he) of the Spiritual Blood and Water of Life &c. Now (as before is said) having an Allegorical signification, is all that makes any thing to be an Allegorie. And making the out­ward Body and Blood of Christ to be an Allegorie, that makes it but a Type or Figure; and Plain­ly gives the Preference to whatever they Fancie by Inward Body and Blood. The Question being put to George Fox, in these words, Whether Christ in the Flesh be a Figure or not? He An­swers in his Saul's Errand. p. 14. His Flesh is a Figure. And p. 8. It being objected against Richard Hubberthorn, that he had wrote, in these words, That Christ's coming in the Flesh, was But a Figure. G. Fox Defends that saying, thus, Christ, in his People, is the Substance of all Figures-but as He is held forth in the Scripture-Letter, with­out them, and in the Flesh without them, He is their Example or Figure, which is both one, that the same things might be fullfill'd in Them, that was in Christ Jesus. Here he says that Example and Figure are both one. For he Understood not Words or the Sense of them; therefore you must take his Meaning, as he Expresses it, and by Example mean Figure. And here you see he makes a Di­stinction betwixt Christ in His People, and as in the Flesh without them. The first is that Spiri­tual Flesh before spoke of, or their Light within: the Second is the outward Christ Jesus. The first he makes the Substance and no Figure: but the Second he Expresly calls a Figure. And of what is it the Figure? He tells, of the same things to be fulfill'd in Them, that was in Christ Jesus. That is the Atonement and Satisfaction which Christ made for Sin was not the outward shed­ding [Page 111]of His Blood, but the shedding of the Spi­ritual Blood Inwardly: And that this is Per­form'd in Them, as it was in Christ; And that the Atonement and Satisfaction is made in Them, and The same in Them that was in Christ. This Inward Atonement they make the Great Mystery, of which Christ's outward Sufferings were but the History, as Mr. Penn expresses it, in his Rejoin­der to John Faldo. p. 336. That these Transactions i. e. of Christ's outward Sufferings were as so ma­ny Facile Representations of what is to be Ac­complish'd In Man. (See Sat. Dis. Sect. i. N. xii. p. 15, 16.) Now, Reader, these Quotations out of G. Fox's Sauls Errand are Produc'd (a­mong many others) in the Sn. yet G. Whitehead crys, We know not what Author he has for this Charge.

Ther is another Little Author which G. W. has Forgot (it were well for him if he cou'd) who Answers to the same Objection that was put to G. Fox, six years after the Answer before Quoted given to it by G. F. in his Saul's Errand, which was Printed An. 1653. But G. Whitehead's Truth defending the Quakers was Printed An. 1659. where p. 20. he Answers to the same objection, which he sets down in these words, Did Richard Hubberthorn well in writing That Christ's Coming in the Flesh was but a Figure? And his Answer is Delicious! which therefore I will set down every word of it, and is as follows. Ans. Cou'd Christ have been said to have been Transfigured if his Coming in the Flesh had not been a Figure or Example till his Glory was Revealed? And hast thou not read that he was the Express Figure of his Fathers Sub­stance? [Page 112] instead of whih its translated Image &c. This &c. is not but here as if ther were any More in his Answer, of which this is every word, and ends with an &c. as I have set it down, lest G. W. might have a Secret-Reserve in that (who never writes without one) and Ac­cuse me of False-Quotation, in leaving any thing out; after the Manner of his Appendix, as you will see hereafter in the Second Part. Sect. ii. N. 6. But now as to this Answer. Here G. W. do's not Deny that his Friend Hubberthorn had wrote thus. Or, that this was the Current Doctrin of the Quakers, and Justify'd by them. No, he owns all that, and go's on to Justify it, as Fox had done before him, and he had Six Years time after Fox had Answer'd, to have Consider'd of it. But the Quakers Doctrin is the same it was from the Beginning! for Truth is one and Changes not! But the Wit sometimes may. Of which G. W. here gives a noble Turn. He proves, That Christ was but a Figure, be­cause He was Transfigured! This Punn looks as if it had been stolen out of Cambridge Jests. And I cou'd forgive George to Exert this Size of his Wit, were it not in Serious Matters. But to Pretend, That this was Written from the Spirit of Truth in George Whitehead and Geo. Fox the younger, as it is said on the Title-Page of this Book; And p. 7. That it is of as Great Authority as the Scriptures, and Greater, this puts it past a Jest, and ought to be Animadverted up­on as a most Outragious Blasphemy. And shews moreover the Mad Delusion of these Quakers, that they are out of their Wits, and their Brains turn'd by an Enthusiastical Distraction. For, as [Page 113]before has been shewn, the meaning of the word Figure in this Dispute, is a Type or Shadow, whether Christ was a Type or Figure of something else? i. e. of the Light within Ʋs. And to Prove this, by the Figure, that is, the Shape or outward Appearance of His Bo­dy and Raiment being Chang'd in His Transfi­guration upon the Mount, if these Men believe themselves, is such a Portion of Ignorance as sets them not out of the Rank of Children: But their thinking it to be Divine Inspira­tion, makes them Mad-Men, and Blasphemously so. Then again, to make Figure, even in this sense that they wou'd take it, to be the same as an Example, which is Express'd in both the Answers of G. F. and G. W. this is not to know at all what they say, but to set down words at Random. For let Christs Transfigu­ration be a Figure, in whatever sense, yet how is it an Example to Ʋs? Are we to be Transfigur'd, while upon Earth, as He was up­on the Mount? And must the Cloaths we wear become White and Shining as His was then?

Who wou'd have found fault with Hubber­thorn for saying that Christ was to be an Ex­ample to Us? Tho' the word But cou'd not have past even there. To say that Christs coming in the Flesh was But an Example, as if it had been Intended for nothing else! And nei­ther G. F. nor G. W. find any fault with this But of Hubberthorn's, tho' it was objected; but Justify Hubberthorn in the whole. For it is the very Quaker Doctrin. viz. That the Birth, Sufferings, and Death of Christ, are but Types [Page 114]or Examples of all those things to be Per­form'd more Eminently within Ʋs; what Christ Did or Suffer'd Outwardly, they make but the History and even Facile Representations (as before has been said) of what was to be Accomplish'd in Man. Where the Atonement and Satisfaction for Sin is made, by the Birth, Sufferings, &c. of the Light within, and not by any thing which Christ suffer'd Outwardly for Us. For that we must Suffer the same our selves, even Eternal Burnings, and are Justify'd only by what We suffer, or the Light suffers In us; And not by the Sufferings of any Christ without Ʋs, as before shewn. p. 61. And this Rege­neration wrought by the Light in our Hearts, they make to be a greater Mystery than the Incarnation of Christ, and His taking our Flesh up­on Him in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin; who (according to them) was But a Type or Exam­ple of their Virgin Hearts, where the True Christ is Born, &c.

But G. W. has another Text for his Figure, it is Heb. i. 3. where Christ is said to be The Express Image of His (Fathers) Person. Which G. W. will have render'd thus, The Express Figure of his Fathers substance. He gives no Reason for the Fault he finds with our Tran­slation. Yet, I suppose, he gave all he had. But however, what use can he make of it? That Christ was the Figure or Example of His Fathers Substance? what is the Example of a Substance? And was Christ an Example to His Father? Alas poor Quakers! Every thing goes wrong with them! But Pursue this Antidoie. G. W. says p. 39. That the Quakers do own that Christ's outward Blood is a Part of [Page 115]His Sacrifice. But (George) what Part is it? this was put in but to Amuse. And by what is said above, if it be a Type, tho' the Chief Type, it can be no Part of the Sacrifice or Atonement: for, let me ask thee (George) Is not the Light within sufficient without some­thing else? was ther no Atonement before Jesus suffer'd under Pontius Pilate? or was it the Vertue of that Death and Sacrifice of Jesus which did ope­rate backward to those before Him, by Faith in Him who was to Come? or was ther then another Atonement before He came? if so, was not that Atonement Perfect? then the outward Blood was no Part of it. Or were ther Two Atonements? was that First, which the Quakers suppose made by the Heavenly Body, which, as G. Fox says, was Crucified when Adam fell, was that Per­fect and Sufficient? If so, what needed Another? was the other which follow'd 4000 years after, any Part of it? And if not a Part then, how is it a Part now? But, George, thy Light and Life p. 55. has been before Quoted, p. 97. where thou opposes, the outward Blood of Christ, being Any way Meritorious to Salvation. Yet here thou allows it us as a Part of the Sacrifice, Great wits have short Memories.

G. W. in the same p. 39. offers two migh­ty Arguments, why the Quakers do not make Christ without but the History, and the Light within the Mystery or Substance. First Argument. The Quakers make him (Christ) no otherwise than the Father has Appointed and made Him to be. This was strong! And, in favour to George, I pass it without any Reply. Second Argument. He (Christ) as in Himself, is the Substance of all [Page 116]Shadows, and the fulness of Light and Life. Who Doubts it George? But what Christ do'st thee mean? Thee say'st, As in Himself, did'st thee not mean by this, The Light within? yea ve­rily! then thy meaning is, that the Light within is the Substance of all Shadows. And this is the very thing that is Charg'd upon thee and thy fellow Quakers. Why did'st thee not say that the outward Jesus of Nazareth who was Nail'd to the Cross was the Substance of all Shadows? That wou'd have been speaking Plain. But that was none of thy meaning. But by this Dodging way which thy Sincerity uses, we see thy meaning plain enough.

1. Their Spi­ritual Bo­dy of Christ which they Suppose He [...]d from Eternity. And their Denial of his now Human Body in Heaven.X. Yet they have a Salvo even for this (tho' full of more Contradictions) for (as before shewn p. 13. &c.) they have a Notion of a Body which Christ had all along, before His Incarnation: And which sort of Body they now allow him to have in Heaven, but not that Body which He took of the B. Virgin, in which He Suffer'd, Dy'd, and Rose again. And by the help of this Private Notion of a Body, they Deceive many People, who know it not, in their Confession to the Body of Christ now in Heaven, as if they meant the same Body that we do; which they do not; but they mean it only of that Spiritual Body, of the Second Adam's Nature, as they Phrase it, which they say Christ or the Light had before the First Adam was Created. And they say, that this Body of Christ is within them, as well as His Spirit. Indeed they are here in a monstrous Confusion, [Page 117]for by this Body, they mean the Spirit, and by a Spiritual Body they mean nothing but Spirit. However this serves them to Dodge and De­cieve others. It was to meet with them in this, that the First and the Sixth Quaeres, of those given to their Yearly Meeting. 1695. were fram'd. viz. Do you believe in a Christ without you, Now in Heaven? And Quaer. 6. Is Christ now at this Day, and for Ever to come, Truly and Really a Man, in true and Proper Human Nature, without all other Men? But in their Pretended Answer to these Quaeres, they wave Answering Directly, and leave out the words without us, and without all other Men, and the word Human, upon which the Chief stress was laid, because they do believe that this Notional Body of Christ is within them, as well as His Spirit: Therefore they wou'd not Answer to this. And, tho' this was again Prest upon them, in the Conclusion of the Sn. and they were told of all this Dodging, and this was put upon them, as a Criterion to Clear themselves; and therefore they were Desir'd to begin their An­swer to the Sn. with a Plain and Direct Ans. Yea, or Nay to these Two short Queres. Yet no Provocation can bring them to it. They will not yet Answer to it; for it Discovers the Heart of their Cause. It wou'd totally overthrow their Ancient Testimonies, wherein they Deny, That Christ hath now a Body of Flesh and Bones Circumscript or Limited in that Hea­ven which is Above, and out of Every Man on Earth. These are the words of John Whitehead, in his Quakers Refuge Printed 1673. p. 40. [Page 118]And p. 41. he says that they are in the Error who wou'd Limit it to a Particular Place, and out of every Man on Earth. for (says he) The Spirit and Body of Christ is not Divided; but wheresoever the Spirit and Life of Christ is, it is in the Body of Christ. This shews plainly what they mean. That the Bo­dy of Christ is not Now a Body Circumscript or Limited to any Place (and consequently it is no Body at all, for that is Inseperable from a Body) but that it is wheresoever His Spirit is, and that it is within them, and not without all other Men. Thus Edward Burough being De­manded, in these Positive Terms, Is that very man, with that very Body, within you, Yea, or Nay? And this he do's not at all Deny, but Answers in the Affirmative. p. 149. of his works. The very Christ of God is within us. You must take the meaning of these men by Con­sidering that to which they Answer; and which they oppose: for in a Limited sense, Christ, by His Holy Spirit and Influences, is within us; and Christ is The very Christ; so that ther is a sense in which that Expression (tho' offensive in the wording of it) may be admit­ted: But then when we consider that which they Oppose, or to which they Answer, the meaning appears Plain. for why wou'd they Oppose what they thought Orthodox?

And this is the method by which we must understand G. Fox's Great Mystery, which is a Pretended Answer to 108 Books and Disputes against the Quakers. For G. Fox's own words are [...]eldom either Sense or English; and he Miserably [Page 119] Mis-Quotes and Mistakes their words whom he writes against; sometimes it appears to be on Purpose, and sometimes out of Pure want of Ʋnderstanding: Half Knave, and Half Fool! But by Reading those Books which he opposes, you may Discover what he wou'd be at. Instan­ces of this, out of Number, can be given. Which, if any think it worth the while, are Ready to be Produc'd.

But to the Subject we are upon. The first Book he Answers in his Great Mystery, is of one of the then Ministers Mr. Sam. Eaton, call'd The Quakers Confuted. Printed. A. D. 1654. where p. 12. Mr. Eaton makes as full a Confession as can be to the Inward Presense and Operation of Christ, by His Spirit in the Hearts of Believers. And therein (says he) they have Him: But they have not Christ in Flesh, or the Flesh of Christ dwelling in them; for that was taken up into Heaven, and will there be Con­tain'd, till the Restitution of All things. This G. Fox opposes in his Great Mystery p. 3. And Quotes thus much of his words, with the Page. But the Saints have not Christ in the Flesh. p. 12. And opposes this, as Contrary to Christ and the Apostles Doctrin; who said they were of His Flesh and of his Bone — and they that have His Flesh, have it in them. This shews in what sense he Understood these Scrip­tures; and what his Notion was of the Flesh of Christ. viz. That it was now at this time, in all Believers: and so not any Literal Flesh, but some Imagination or other that they have of Spi­ritual Flesh; which they think that God Himself has, and Christ or the Light had from all Eternity; [Page 120]so nothing of outward Human Flesh or Nature. Tho' if you take the word Human as it may be Deriv'd from Homo a Man, thus they will allow that Christ has a True Human Body, and Ever had from Eternity, that is, a True and Real Manhood. In this sense it is said be­fore p. 11. l. 8. that they allow the Body which they say Christ had from Eternity to be an Human Body. For ther is no other word in Latin whereby to Express the Nature of Man, but Humanitas, whence we use the word Humanity to mean the same as Manhood.

But if you Derive the word Human from Humus the Ground or Earth, of which Man was Made, in this sense the Quakers Deny that Christ had an Human Body from Eternity; or indeed while He was upon the Earth. For which I Refer you back to p. 19, 20. where you will find this Artfully Distinguish'd by the Quakers. But we will now go on to see the further Salvos that the Present Antidote affords in this Case.

Their De­nyal that Christ had any Human or Created richer Soul or Body, while upon Earth.2. G. W. Skips to p. 38. And takes up this Argument again, where he Pretends to An­swer the objection of the Quakers making the Body of Jesus only a Vaile or Garment, wherein Christ or the word Dwelt; but that He took not that Body into His own Person, so as to be Hyposta­tycally United to it.

And to this, he says. p. 38. We are to seek herein, as not knowing where the Quakers say these things. Yet Answers not, or Names one of the many Proofs which are brought for this. (See Sn. Sect. x.) This wou'd be very Provoking, but that I am us'd to it; for it is his Con­stant [Page 121]Method. Yet in the Excuse he makes for it, he Confesses enough, to shew that the Quakers are Guilty herein. For, says he, Tho' His Flesh is call'd the Vail, yet it was that he own'd as His own Body, being also call'd the Body of Jesus, which was not a Fantastical but a Real Body. Here is putting in things they are not Accused of, that they may seem to vindicate themselves in something. They are not Accused for saying that the Body of Jesus was a Fantastical, or not a Real Body; but that it was not Truly, that is, Hypostatically the Body of Christ, only a Vail or Garment wherein He Dwelt: And, in that sense, it was His Body, as a Man's Cloak or Garment is his Garment; and so it was that (as G. W. says) which Christ owned as his own Body; being also (adds he) called the Body of Jesus. i. e. in some other sense than it was the Body of Christ. That is, It was the True, Proper, and Natural Body of the Man Jesus: But it was the Body of Christ, only as He Dwelt in it, in the Body of that man Jesus, as G. W. thinks He do's in the Body of George Whitehead. Otherwise it cou'd not be call'd the Body of Christ, and also (as G. W. here) the Body of Jesus. This must make Jesus and Christ to be Two Persons. For Example, if I shou'd say the Body of George, which is also the Body of Whitehead, this wou'd either be Non-sense; or else it must Divide George from Whitehead, and make the Body to belong to George in one sense, and to Whitehead in another.

[Page 122]It is told before p. 17, 18. How nicely G. W. do's Distinguish between Consisting and Having; and tho' he Allow'd that Christ once Had a Body, that is in His Possession, as a man Hath an House or a Cloak: yet G. W. positively De­nies That Christ did Consist of Human Flesh and Blood. And if so, Then He was never Truly and Really a Man: only such in Appearance and False-shew. Which overthrows the whole Foundation of the Christian Faith. And is an Abominable Heresie long since Condemn'd by the Catholick Church, as I have elsewhere shewn: And that the Quakers have Lick'd it up, as they wou'd Pretend, by Inspiration; which if so, was most Certainly from the Devil the Father of Lies. But let us see more of them. Richard Hubberthorn in his works, Printed. 1663. a­mong several Queres which he puts against Christ's being a Creature, or having any Created Nature in Him, do's Demand. p. 49. and 50. When was that Christ Created, which you say must as a Creature Judge the World? And if in Mary's time, who was Judge of the World till then? Was not the Person of Christ Jesus before the World was? And when had the Man Christ Jesus his Beginning, if you can Declare it? How is Christ the only be­gotten Son of God, if He be a Creature, or how can God beget a Creature? And if the whole Person of Christ was not before the Earthly Adam, how was the Creation made by Him? Or how can He be of the Nature of fallen Adam, and not Earthly and Defiled? And is the Flesh of Christ Heavenly or Earthly? Or is He Christ without His Flesh? i. e. He had always an Heavenly Flesh, and that He has still: But never took Flesh of [Page 123] Adam's Nature; for then they think He must have been Defil'd. As if He cou'd not take the Nature without the Defilement, which was but Accidental to it. George Fox in his Great Mystery. p. 99. sets down this Principle, of the Professors (as he calls them) That Christ hath a Humane Reasonable Soul. And he Disputes against it, and Battels it as a Gross Error. For (says he) Is not a Human Soul, Earthly? for you say that Christ had a Human Soul, and is not Human, Earthly? And hath a Human Body, and is not a Human Body, an Earthly Bo­dy? was not the first man of the Earth, Earthly, and had an Human Body; the Second man, the Lord from Heaven? This is the Heavenly Body and Flesh which they suppose Christ had from Eternity. But here, and in many other Places, they Deny Christ to have either Human Body or Soul, or to be a Man, otherwise than, as they say, He was Man before the Creation. This being Urg'd against them by John Bun­yan Minister of Bedford, who, in his Gospel-Truths Opened Sect. 18. takes pains to prove that the Christ who was Born of the Virgin was the true Saviour, and then Infers. p. 652 of his works in these words. How are they then Deceived who own Christ no otherwise than as He was before the world began— For in their owning of Him thus, and no otherwise, they do directly Deny Him to be come in the Flesh, and are of that Anti-Christian Party which John Speaks of. 1. Joh. iv. 3. Edw. Burrough Answers this Book of Bunyan's, and coming to this Passage, p. 142. of his works, he Repeats Bunyan's, words thus. How are they Deceived who own Christ no other­wise, [Page 124]than as He was before the world began &c. And instead of Clearing the Quakers from this Objection, or Disowning it to be a Principle of the Quakers, he stands by it, and pretends to give Reasons for it, as, Christ the same Yesterday, to Day, and for Ever. And that Christ was be­fore Abraham &c. And falls upon Bunyan for his Grievous Ignorance, in not Apprehending this Quaker-Mystery, as he words it thus, To own Him (Christ) as He was before the world was, for Salvation. But that was not the Questi­on. Bunyan's words, even as Repeated by Burrough, are not against owning Christ as He was before the World was (for that Bunyan and all Christians own) but against owning Him so, And No otherwise. i. e. Not as having taken Flesh, in time, of the B. Virgin, having Suffer'd, and Dy'd for us: for in that Respect, and not only as He was before the World was, Bunyan Contends that He was our Savi­our. And Burrough opposing him in this, shews plainly what they mean viz. That Christ has now no other Flesh or Manhood than what He had before the World was; and that He is not our Saviour upon account of that Flesh of Jesus, which He Borrow'd as a Vail to shrowd Himself in for a time, or for what that Body suffer'd; but that He is our Saviour only as He was before the World was; and as they say that He is Inwardly now in their Hearts, in His Heavenly Flesh and Blood, which he had from Eternity. And the whole Merit and Atonement for Sin they place in the Inward Shedding of this Spiritual Blood in their Hearts; which they call the Sufferings of Christ, yes and [Page 125]of His Manhood too, of His Body and His Flesh! thus Bantering Mankind, while they Mean nothing of this of that Visible Body, in which He Appear'd, in the Days of Pontius Pilat, and which was Nail'd to the Cross; but of the In­visible Body, Flesh, Blood, and Bones of the God­head. The Arch-Enemy having Taught them this Damnable Heresie, and thereby put the Grossest of Darkness for Light, and Defrauded them of whole Christianity, the Faith in the outward Jesus; and what He did and suffer'd outwardly for Us; tho' it be Inwardly Appre­hended and Apply'd by Faith, which is the Gift of God. He of His Infinit Mercy Grant it at length to these Miserably Deluded Souls. For they yet stick fast in this Root of Bitterness, and Bond of Iniquity. As you may see in a Book lately Publish'd by one of themselves, but who has, with others, happily Discover'd the most Gross of their Heresies, this is one Daniel Leeds in America, his Book is Intitul'd News of a Trumpet Sounding in the Wilderness, Printed at New-York. An. 1697. And some Numbers of them are sent over hither. There, at the Conclusion of the Preface, he tells of the Doctrin which is, at Present, Preach'd among the Quakers in America. One Preach'd thus (says he) It is the work of the Devil to cause People that have Profest the Appearance of Christ in the Heart, to Respect the Person without them, Another Preached thus. I am Grieved that any, that have Profest the Light, shou'd now direct the Minds of People to Respect him, as he is now in Heaven above the Clouds. Truly Friends, it is Delusion▪ Another Preach'd thus. There is that wou'd [Page 126]have Flesh added in the Creed, but let them take it that will. I believe the Lord will give them his Plagues and Torments with it. Of this, a Quaker there, one Abraham Hulings complain­ed; and gave in a Paper, with the above cited Quotations, under his hand, to the Qua­kers Church at Burlington, desiring them to cen­sure this Doctrin. But they wou'd not. On the contrary they Exccommunicated, or Disown'd (as they Phrase it) this Hulings, for opposing this Doctrin. Moreover, says Dan. Leeds ‘there is one John Humphrey, a Preacher near Phi­lidelphia, that writes a Letter against G. Keith and his Friends, wherein he has this Expression, I am Grieved to hear some say, they ex­pect to be Justify'd by that Blood that was shed at Jerusalem. In Justification of which Passage, he writes in another Letter thus. His (Christs) own words will clear me from your Aspersion. Joh. 6.63. It is the Spirit that Quickneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing. So He himself ascribes the work of Mans Salvation and Sanctification, not to the Flesh that Suf­fer'd; but to the Spirit that Quickned: Not to the Blood that was shed at Jerusa­lem, but unto that Flesh and Blood which was Spiritual, &c. of this False Doctrin G. K. complain'd to the Quarterly Meeting at Phila­delphia, but no Answer cou'd he have, nor no Blame nor Condemnation must pass against their Brother John Humphrey for this False Do­ctrin; tho' it's near Six years since these Let­ters were Writ.’ Thus far Dan. Leeds. As to the Quakers mis-understanding of this, and o­ther Texs in the 6th. of St. John, it is Recti­fy'd [Page 127]before p. 101. this Text. ver. 63. is an Explanation of ver. 53. viz. That it was Christ's Literal Flesh of which He spoke: but He cor­rected the Gross Conception of Eating it Li­terally; in which sense it wou'd not have Pro­fited any who had Eat it: But the Spiritual-Eating of it, by Faith, is that which Quickneth. but the Quakers put the Figure and the Alle­gorie upon the Flesh, as if it were not the Outward Flesh of Christ of which He spoke, but an Inward and Allegorical Flesh, by which they mean what they call their Light within: And so Enervat and Evacuat the Whole Foun­dation of the Christian Faith. Dan. Leeds In­forms Us, That in America the Quakers had heard, that their Brethren in England, particu­larly at London, where most Notice has been taken of the Late Controversies with them, had begun, of Late, to Preach of an outward Christ, and of His Death and Sufferings. But this is only to Amuse. For, as has been said, they are not Charg'd with Denying the Mat­ter of Fact, that Jesus of Nazareth did Suffer, as is Recorded of Him, in the H. Gospel: And which they now Preach, to make themselves Appear to be Christians: But who ever heard them Preach of Faith in Him, His outward Suffe­rings and Death, as of any Necessity to Salva­tion? This only is the Christian Faith. The other, of an Historical Belief that He did Suffer, is no more than what Jews and Mahometans do Confess; And which the very Devils do Believe, and Tremble. And no more have the Quakers yet Preached. But they think that a Great Deal; and are brought to [Page 128]it, with mere Force. For, till of late, the outward Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth was sel­dom or never so much as mention'd in any of their. Meetings, unless to Revile and cast Dirt upon Him. To give it as a Mark of False Ministers, Will. Smith's Primmer. p. 8. Gr. My­stery. p. 250. to Preach Christ without, and bid People believe in Him, as He is in Heaven a­bove. Nay as a Proof of their being Possest with the Devil, as G. Fox Blasphemes, The De­vil was in thee (says he to a Christian) Thou say'st thou art Saved by Christ without thee, and so hast Recorded thy self to be a Reprobate.

But tho' the Quaker Preachers in London, to stop the Cry against them, have of late, sub­mitted to Mention the outward Christ, with some seeming Respect: Yet, in the Country, where they have less Politicks, and more Ho­nesty, they cannot be brought even to that, as you may see in Sat. Dis. Glean. Sect. vi. N. 4. p. 94. And there are later Instances, which G. Keith met with in a Progress he made last Summer, by Invitation from some Qua­kers, who begin to open their Eyes, in Hun­tington-shire, and other Places thereabouts, where, tho' kindly Receiv'd, and the Doctrin he Preach'd of Faith in the Lord Jesus of Nazareth, and what He Did and Suffer'd for us, well En­tertain'd and Listen'd to by several of the Sincere tho' Deluded among the Quakers: Yet it was a New Doctrin to them: And ther were others who violently oppos'd this Do­ctrin, particularly of the Quaker both He and She-Preachers; one of which at St. Ives in Hun­ington-shire, ask'd him what Christ he Preached? He said, The Man Jesus of Nazareth, who was [Page 129]Born of the Virgin, Nail'd to the Cross, &c. She askt, what was become of him? G. K. said, That He was gone into Heaven. What (said she) that Heaven above our Heads? Pointing upwards. Which she Ridicul'd: And said she knew no Christ or Heaven but within her self. Thank'd God, That she had Bread in her own House, and Water in her own Cestern: And did not believe that ther was any thing without her cou'd do her any Good. And upbraided G. K. that he cou'd not be content with the Ancient Doctrin of Friends, of Faith in the Light within, as alone sufficient to Salvation; and ask'd him, if now he wou'd have any thing else? Or wou'd he make himself Wiser than all the Friends who had gone before? And to the like purpose.

A He-Preacher at Charteres in the Isle of Ely, being askt by G. K. What he suppos'd was become of that Body which Christ took of our Nature? Answered, That He left it behind Him when He Rose from the Dead. And he Profess'd to Believe in no other Christ, but only his Light within. G. K. met with several the like Instances in that Journey: Which I will not here Repeat, because we may have them, per­haps, in Reasonable time from himself. And these which I have mention'd are sufficient to shew, that however some at London wou'd Gloss it, the Quaker Faith is not Grounded upon our Lord Jesus of Nazareth, but upon their Light within, which they will sometimes so call, to Elude the world: And as they Be­lieve not that Christ took our Nature Truly and Really into His own Person, while He was upon the Earth; but only as a Cloak or Vaile [Page 130]to put about Him, for a time; so they think that He has now, ever since His Ascension, quite laid aside and thrown off that Vaile of our Nature; and that He has nothing at all of it now in Heaven: But that He subsists there only in that Heavenly Humanity, Flesh, Blood, and Bones which they suppose He had from Eternity.

And this being their Faith, they must needs think the Common Christ of all Christians, as a True and Real Man, subsisting in our Na­ture, now and for ever to come in Heaven, to be False and a Lye; and consequently to be an Idol, and our Worship of Him to be I­dolatry: And as a necessary Consequence of this, they must Hate and Detest our Christ; they must Curse Him, and Renounce Him; as they have done, which I come next to shew. And yet, at the same time they Pretend to Worship the same Christ with us: And pro­duce their Testimonies to Christ, thereby In­tending to make us Believe as if they were true Christians, because they use the word Christ and Jesus, as we do, but not in the same Sense; which they know right well in their own Consciences: Yet, in their Quaker Plainess and Sincerity, they wou'd thus Put upon us! They Differ from us in the Object of our Faith, and not only in the Manner of our Worship, which Difference ther may be, and ther is a­mong Christians; they Worship not the same Christ with us: For otherwise, if they only thought us Faulty in the Manner of our Wor­ship, why wou [...]d they, for that, Curse and Damn [Page 131]our Christ Himself, call Him an Imagined God, and Ʋtterly Deny Him? But to the Proof.

Their Blas­phemous Contempt of Christ.3. The Quakers having thus Transfer'd the whole Merit towards our Salvation, from the outward Christ, to their Light within. They have set up these Two, as Inconsistancies, as Ut­ter Enemies to one another. Which they must be, upon the Quaker Notion. For Both can­not be the Object of Faith: And since Both are made so, the one, by All Christians; the other, by the Quakers; one of them must be a False God, by the same Necessity, that the other is the True God. Therefore the Quakers, tho' in Gross Dissimulation with the World, they wou'd seem to speak Honourably of our Blessed Lord, yet they mean it not of Him, but of what they call their Light-within, as has been Sufficiently shewn.

But, on the other hand, when they speak Plainly of Him, They Deny Him, they Renounce Him: Nay they Curse and Damn Him, as a False Christ, a False God. They send the whole Three Persons of the Holy and Ever B. Trinity into the Lake, and the Pit, as shewn in the Second Part, p. 38. &c. And Boldly and Blas­phemously say, That the Lord Jesus whom we Profess is Accursed. ibid. p. Edward Burrough p. 101. of his works, calls that Christ to whom we Pray, an Idol God, and a Dead God.

Josiah Coale, of High Renown among the Quakers, in his Works, Collected and Reprin­ted An. 1671. opposing one John Newman, for saying If ther be no Personal being of Christ, then ther is no Christ to Exercise Faith in. Answers p. 336. By this kind of Arguments of [Page 132]J. N. if Faith be Exercis'd in a Personal Being of Christ, it's Exercis'd upon Fancie and Ima­gination, Which is very True; for a Personal Being of Christ is not Scripture. Here he makes a Per­sonal Being of Christ to be nothing else but Fancie and Imagination, and consequently no Object of Faith. These works of Jos. Coale have Prefix'd High Testimonies and Elogiums from George Fox, G. Whithead, and from Will. Penn. Wherein ther are Multitudes of the like Blasphemies.

Having thus made a Personal Being of Christ now in Heaven to be nothing else but an Ima­gination of Christians, it follows, That the Qua­kers do think Him to be an Imagined God, as they say Expresly, in The Sword of the Lord drawn. p. 5. And here (say they) Sottish Minds, your Imagined God beyond the Stars, and your Carnal Christ—is utterly Deny'd, and Testify'd against by the Light which comes from Christ. So that, by this, the Personal Christ of Christians in Heaven, is an Imagined God, and a Carnal Christ, who is Ʋtterly Deny'd and Testify'd against, by the Quakers Christ, I have before Quoted G. W. in his Light and Life. p. 54. Ridiculing of the Christians, for your Boasting (says he) of your God and Christ at a Distance above the Clouds, Stars, and Firmament. I Repeat it here, to shew the Harmony of the Quakers, in the same Stile and Sense. In the same page of The Sword before Quoted, the Quakers add, That this Christ the man of God, is God and Man in one Person, it is a Lye — And as for this Po­sition, That Christ being the only God and Man in one Person, Remains for Ever a Distinct Per­son from all Saints and Angels, notwithstanding their [Page 133] Ʋnion and Communion with Him, the Quaker An­swer is, your words are Ʋtterly Deny'd and De­tested, and your Distinctions are Abominable. The Spiritual Ʋnion and Communion with Christ, was Allow'd to the Quakers: But that will not serve. They will have no such Person as Christ, but only the Light within, which is not a Person. And G. Fox, as before Quoted says, The Devil is in them, who Expect to be Saved by a Christ without them: tho' they Acknow­ledge, That it cannot be without the Operation of His H. Spirit within them; as the Person fully own'd whom he oppos'd. But no Mat­ter for that. They will have no outward Christ at all. And they make it a Mark of False Mi­nisters to Preach of Faith in an outward Christ. Will. Penn Says (of which I have often Minded him) That the Person who suffer'd upon the Cross was Properly the Son of God, we Ʋtterly Deny. And in his Sandy Foundation. p. 20. he calls Him a Finit and Impotent Creature.

Will. Bayly, in his works. p. 307. says, what was his (Christ's) Person, being mean and Con­temptible, to them (His Diciples) more than ano­ther Person? And p. 600. &c. He vehemently opposes the Outward and Visible Christ to be the Saviour. He says, The Apostles, did not Preach a Visible Christ with Flesh and Bones: And he asks, who was Enoch's Saviour and the Pro­phets, who were before that Visible Flesh and Bones was? Then he Ridicules those, in the Quaker-Language before Mention'd, who Preach a Vi­sible Man with Flesh and Bones, at a Great Di­stance from all People, Above, where the Sun, Moon, and Stars are. And p. 24, 25. Whosoe­ver [Page 134]Preacheth, or causeth People to Believe their Saviour is without them, and that the Carnal Eye may behold His Glory, who is to be Revea­led — I say, whosoever Preacheth to People of a Saviour without them — and of a Kingdom without them — I charge all such, in the Name of the most High God, To be Horrible Blasphemers, and Ministers and Messangers of the Devil. He adds, by way of Amusement, while the Light of Christ condemns them within, and while the Kingdom of God Suffereth violence within them. For even then, and then Chiefly, is the Faith in the outward Christ to be Preached to them, to Re­claim and Convert them. O no, say the Qua­kers, the outward Person of Christ is not the Mediator, or the Lamb of God, who takes away Sin: but only the Light in the Heart, for Christ is not any Person, See Sn. p. 140. and Sat. Dis. p. [...]3. &c. but only a Principle or Quality in the Heart. As Will. Penn says, What is Christ but Meekness, Justice, Mercy &c. who then can deny a Meek man to be a Christi­an? And W. Bayly here p. 38. Humility and Meekness in the Heart of God's Child, is a Medi­ator — it is the Lamb of God, that taketh away the Sin. And this the Quakers do worship, as Christ in them. G. Fox falls upon those. that are not worshiping Him (Christ) In them. Gr. Myst. p. 55. But for the outward Christ, and His Sufferings the Quakers Despise them to that Degree, That they Prefer their own Sufferings to them. They say, that Their Sufferings are Greater, and more Ʋnjust than the Sufferings of Christ. See Sn. p. 134.135. &c. That the Blood of Christ was no More than the Blood of another Saint. Nay they make it not so much as the Blood of a Quaker. For of Christ's [Page 135] Blood they say, Can outward Blood Cleanse the Conscience? &c. as we have heard. But of the Quakers Blood they say,The Guil­ty Cove­red Cler­gy. Man Ʋnvail'd. p. 17. An. 1657. That those who shed it cou'd not be Purg'd from that Guilt, but by The Same Blood (of the Quakers) which they so Cruelly shed. I desire any Quaker to shew such a Term of Respect to the Blood of Christ, which was shed upon the Cross, in all the writings of the Quakers. No. That cannot be done. But, on the Contrary, The outward Christ, and His Blood was that at which they Levell'd all their Venomous Darts. They set up the Doctrin of Perfection in themselves, say They are Free from Sin, and therefore, from Repentance. But they will not allow that Pre­rogative to our B. Lord. It is told Sect. xiii. how R. Hubberthorn calls his opponent a Lyar and a Slanderer, for saying, That Christ Himself was not Capable of Repentance; and says, He was Capable of Repentance. Which cou'd not be, without being Capable of Sinning. For we are not to Repent of Good. But see how Differently some of them Treat James Naylor: They say of Him, That he Made himself of no Reputation, Hidden things brought to Light. p. 37. An. 1678. yea Sin, that Knew none. Yet I cannot think they will say, That Christ had Sin. But their Malice to Christ is, because the Christians do Worship Him; Which Transports the Evil Spirit that Possesses them, beyond all Rules of Sense or Reason. In a Paper of Queres of some Quakers about Cambridge An. 1655. Subscrib'd by Thomas Biddal, they say thus to the Chri­stians there. The Great Delusion, Sorcery, and Bewitched Doctrin that you are under, of these Bewitching Simon Magus Sorcerers, which have [Page 136]put you upon a Christ Crucify'd without you, not­withstanding you and the Rest, are in your Filthi­ness, and First Nature. This is there said to be Written from the Spirit of the Lord, and that The Lord Reveal'd this by His Spirit in them. These Queres are Printed by one Thom. Moore in his Antidote against the Spreading Infections of the Spirit of Anti-Christ. An. 1655. p. 68. &c. And pretended to be Answer'd by G. Fox in his Gr. Myst. p. 132. &c. but no notice is taken of this Passage. Which G. F. do's not Deny. As for that Softning stroke at the end of this Quotation, Notwithstanding you and the Rest, are in your Filthiness, it has been Answer'd al­ready, to be no Reason against Preaching of the Crucifi'd Jesus; but rather on the Contrary, as the Best Remedy against Sin.

But the Quakers sometimes Pretend, That by their Preaching against the outward Christ, they only mean to oppose those, who Totally Exclude, the Sanctifying Graces of His H. Spi­rit within Ʋs. But this is a most Horrible False Pretence, against their own Consciences; for they know that ther were none such who Oppos'd them. And all those Books that I have seen, to which G. Fox Answers in his Gr. Myst. are Particularly Large and Full upon that Point. This Moore, p. 32. Says That Je­sus, who is Personally Absent from the Believer, is Dwelling in the Believers Heart, by Faith of and in Him, and so the Father, in and through Christ. Which G. Fox Opposes. p. 135. And will have the very Person of Christ in Believers. Another, one Ra. Farmer wrote against the Quakers, in the same year 1655. a Book which [Page 137]he Intitul'd Mysterie. Babylon the Great &c. where in his Preface, he Explains himself thus. Though God, and Christ, and Scriptures, and Or­dinancies be; and be never so Glorious and Excellent, yet if they be not In thee, in their Life and Pow­er and Efficaciously Reforming and Conforming Vir­tue, they are to thee as if they were not at all, or Worse: But whenever they shall be in thee; let the Measures and Degrees be never so High, they will and must also be Without thee, and shall never be Indistinctly the Same with thee. This he Prosecutes further in his Book p. 26. and speaks against such a Notion of God and Christ within, as to make Void the Efficacy of His out­ward Sufferings at Jerusalem. And this too G. Fox Opposes in his Gr. Myst. p. 173. I could give a Multitude of such Instances. I am the Larger upon this, because it is the only Fig-Leaf the Quakers have left to Cover their Hel­lish Heresie, in their Contempt and Blasphemy which they Spue out against our B. Saviour, His Precious Death and Passion for our Redemp­tion.

Let me take this Place, to answer the Last Effort of the Quakers, upon this Head; and which being sufficiently Cleared, leaves their Cursed Heresie Naked and Expos'd to the Abhor­rence of All Christians.

The Quakers are told of this their Artifice, in Sat. Dis. Sect. 1. N. ix. p. 12. To. which G. W. Replies in this Antidote p. 210. 211. And Repeats the Charge against them thus. To my Adversaries confidently Asserting (says he) That J. Faldo, nor any other did ever oppose this, That they shou'd Preach Only the Incarnati­on [Page 138]and Sufferings of Christ at Jerusalem i. e. without Freaching likewise the Inward operations of His Spirit in our Hearts. And that if Will. Penn, or Thom. Elwood cannot Name one single Man, much less any of those Communions which he Disputes against, that ever thought Christ's out­ward Appearance wou'd save them, without His Inward Appearance, in their Consciences, then a­gainst whom have they Disputed? The Objection being thus stated (wherein I take no Notice of his misplacing some words, to hurt both the Sense and the English) he Answers thus. Yes I can Name one Single Man, whom he has Vindicated against Us. (in G. K's behalf) who has both thought and said as much as, That Christ's outward Appearance and Sufferings has saved them, without his Appearance or Work in them; And that is the said Rob. Gordon; And it's Char­ged against him, among his many other Corrupt Doctrins, by G. Keith. in My and his Book, En­tituled, The Nature of Christianity. p. 70. 71. Artic. 1. That Christ without Us upon the Cross, hath already subdued all things, finished Transgression, Made an end of Sin, abolish'd Condemnation and Death.

Art. 8. That Redemption, Justification, were finished and Completed in the Cru­cify'd Body of Christ for Us, not in our Per­sons.

Art. 12. That Redemption and all things are wrought, Purchas'd for Us, without the help of any thing to be wrought in Us.

[Page 139] So that here was one Man (i. e. R. G. and too many more) that laid the whole stress and work of Mans Salvation, Only upon Christ's outward Appearance and Suffering, without His Inward Appearance and Operations by His Spirit in Ʋs.

I have given G. W's words at large, because upon this Depends the whole Cause of Qua­kerism. Therefore I will Examin them Fully and Fairly.

But first, let me take notice of the Mo­desty of the Quaker-stile. In My and His Book says G. W. It founds Harsh in English, because, so Ʋnusual. But G. W. wou'd not Give Place to G. K. He Reserves His Dignity! And Comon Civility is an Heresie among the Quakers.

But now to our Work. And first, I ob­serve, That G. W. has left out, in the Arti­cles he Quotes out of His and G. K's Book, the pages in R. Gordon's Book, call'd A Testi­mony to the true Saviour, to which their Nature of Christianity is in Answer. For there the Pages of R. G's book are Quoted after Each Article. Which was wisely done of G. W. That none might know where to find the Quotations, unless they wou'd have Recourse to G. W's Nature of Christianity, which not one of a Thousand knows where to find. It was Printed An. 1671. and now hardly to be Got. And G. W. not only leaves out the Pages, but do's not so much as Name that Book of R. G's out of which they are taken, that his Reader might be left Sufficiently in the Dark. And that he had Good Reason so to do, will soon [Page 140]Appear. To These Articles here Quoted, these pages of R. G's Testimony are added in The Nature of Christianity. viz. p. 3. 4. 5. 20. And whoever will Read these, will see R. G. fully Clear himself from this Imputation cast upon him; and that he had given no Ground at all for these Objections made against him.

P. 4. and 5. he makes Two great Gospel Truths. The first, God manifest in the Flesh of Christ, whereby Christ became our H. Priest in the Flesh, therein to offer up himself, the one Perfect Sacri­fice, Sufficient Atonement, the Compleat Peace-Offering, Once for Ever, not often, and in Eve­ry Generation, and in Many Bodies (as the Qua­kers say he Dayly offers Himself in their Bodies) but in One Body, by one Offering, not in our Per­sons, or Within Ʋs (which is the Exact Qua­ker Notion) but in His Crucifi'd Body without Ʋs, and before any Good wrought in Ʋs; whereby He hath already subdued all things, finished Trans­gression, made an end of Sin, Abolished Condem­nation and Death; and so hath for Ever, as our Head, in Himself compleated the work of our Redemption and Reconciliation with God for Ʋs; God thereby commending His Love towards Ʋs, that, while we were yet Sinners, Christ Dyed for Ʋs, when we were Enemies, we were Reconciled to God, by the Death of his Son,

The other Truth is the Mystery of Christ, by His Spirit, Dwelling in His Saints, called in the H. Scripture, Christ within you; whereby God works In Us, through Faith in Christ, the Fruit [Page 141]and Effect of the work already wrought by Christ, in His Crucifi'd Body, for Ʋs, without Ʋs.

And then he tells that for which he Repre­hends the Quakers, viz. That they Pretend so much zeal for this Mysterie of Christ within, the Operations and Actings of the Spirit of God in themselves, That they Deny the Mysterie of God in the Flesh of Christ, as a Matter of no Necessity to them, as to Redemption, Reconciliati­on and Justification; Reckoning to Accomplish this, in their own Bodies, Each for himself, thro' Obe­dience to the Law or Light in his Conscience: which Light they call Christ, Redeemer, and on­ly Saviour; without Respect to the true Christ, and our only Saviour, Jesus Christ of Nazareth and Redemption already wrought and Accomplished for Ʋs, in His Crucifi'd Body. Thus Plainly do's R. G. Express himself, Giving full Testimony to Christ within, Dwelling in our Hearts by Faith: But Disputes only against that Quaker Heresie, of Placing the Sacrifice and Atonement for Sin, in the offering up of this Light within, Perform'd in their Hearts; and throwing off the Sacrifice and Atonement made by the offering which Christ made of Himself for Us, upon the Cross, as of no Efficacy to our Salvation. This is it, for which the Quakers so violent­ly oppose him, and which G. W. here calls Corrupt Dectrin.

And observe, That in the 12 Art. above Quoted, R. G's words are Recited Imperfect; for after the last words here put down. viz. without the help of any thing to be wrought in us, ther follows in R. G's words p. 20. so as to Atone with God for Ʋs. which Explains his [Page 142]Meaning, and is most Orthodox viz. That no­thing Perform'd In us, is the Atonement or Sa­tisfaction for our Sins. But this, in no ways, Hinders, or Denies the Necessity of the Inward Presence, and Operations of his H. Spirit, to Sancti­fie our Hearts; whereby only that Atonement Perform'd by Christ, in His own Body, with­out Ʋs, is Apply'd, and Made Effectual to Us. Which R. G. over and over again, not only Asserts, but Zealously Contends for it.

Now let the Reader Judge, whether G. W. has found an Instance in R. G. of one who Asserted, That Christ's outward Appearance and Sufferings, wou'd save any, without His Appearance and Work in them? The doing Right to R. G. is not the Matter. I shou'd not have Detain'd the Reader so long, meerly for that. But, by this it is very Evident, That the Quakers have all along oppos'd the Christian Doctrin, and Rejected all Faith, in our Lord Jesus of Nazareth, as to our Redemption or Salvation, by His Death and Sacrifice of our Sins upon the Cross. Why else did they Oppose (and that so Vehemently) those who Preached this Doctrin: and who also own'd the Inward Presence and operations of Christ, by His B. Spirit in our Hearts; not only as Beneficial, but Absolutely Necessary towards our Salvation; and without which, That the outward Sufferings of Christ, and all His Ordinances, wou'd be to us, as if they were not at all, or Worse, as before Quoted? Why did G. Fox, G. Whitehead, and all the Qua­kers oppose this? They have Nothing left to say, But that those whom they Oppos'd did Deny the Inward opperations of Christ in the [Page 143] Heart and that in this only they did oppose them, Which being most False; and they not being able to Produce one Single Person, who did Oppose them In this; shews what that was wherein they did Oppose them. Or if they cou'd find such a Single Person, why did they oppose Others, who had sufficiently Explain'd themselves In this, such as these before Nam'd? Why did they call These Devils, Anti-Christi­ans, Sorcerers, for Preaching of Faith in Jesus of Nazareth? Why did they Belch out, in Fu­ry, such Spitefull and Blasphemous Contempt, as before Quoted, against the Person of our B. Lord Jesus? Why did they call Him Accursed! Let them hear the Apostle, That no Man Spea­king by the Spirit of God, calleth Jesus Accursed: 1 Cor. xii.3. And that no Man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Therefore till they come, not only to say, but to Believe this, they may be sure, That it is not the Spirit of Christ, but of Anti-Christ by which they are Acted. And they cannot Truly Believe this, without not only being willing, but in an High Degree Zealous, to Confess, Retract, and Condemn, the Above Quoted, and all other their vile Con­tempts, and Outrages against our B. Lord and only Saviour Jesus Christ.

I cou'd bring Multitudes of Quotations to the same Purpose of these before Produc'd, be sides what are offer'd in the Sn, to which G. W. has not answer'd: which we may easily suppose he wou'd have done, if he cou'd have found any thing tolerable to have said to them: And till he, or some other of the Quakers, shall think fit to Answer to these, [Page 144]it is needless to Cloy the Reader with more; These being sufficient to let him see into the Depth of the Quaker Heresies, and Clear his way from their Little Subtleties with which they use to Hide and Cover them.

G. W's. Immethodical way has carry'd me from p. 30. of his Antid. to p. 38. because both speak of the same thing, and I wou'd save Repetitions: for which Reason I must pass all he says from p. 30. to 35. which is a going over and over the same again and again; Denying the Charge, but not Answering of the Proofs.

Their Contempt of the Ho­ly Scrip­tures.XI. He comes p. 35. to the Charge against them of Contemning the Holy Scriptures, call­ing them Beastly-ware, Death, Dust, and Ser­pents-meat, &c. He cou'd not, nor do's he De­ny the Quotations where these names are gi­ven to the Holy Scriptures, for the Quaker Books and Pages are Particularly set down. Yet he most Impudently Denies that they have call'd the Scriptures by such Names. Tho' per­haps (says he p. 36.) making a Trade upon Scripture, or Preaching for Hire or Moncy, hath been so call'd by some or other. Here is a Per­haps, and a some or other to throw us off a­gain! And to make us believe, that such Names were never given to the Scriptures, but only to the making a Trade of them. For which I must Desire the Reader to look a­gain into the Quotations in the Sn. and he will there see what a Guilty and utterly False Excuse and Put off this is. For these Names are given to the Holy Scriptures, to Matthew, [Page 145]Mark, Luke, and John. So that his Perhaps is most Certainly; and most Certainly G. W. knew it to be so, tho' he, with a Quaker Sincerity and Plainess, wou'd have it only pass for a Perhaps. And for his some or other, as if he knew not who it was that said any such thing, ther is mention made before of a Passage, and it is Quoted in the Sn. p. 342 of the First Edit. (it is p. 110. of the Third Edit.) of one George Whitehead, in his serious Apology. p 49. where he says, that what is spoken by the Spirit of Truth in any. (i. e. of the Quakers,) is of as Great Authority as the Scrip­tures and Chapters are, and Greater. Mark that (George!) of Greater Authority than the Scrip­tures! so that, by this, all Thy Preachments, and of others Thy Quakers, which you say are spoken by the Spirit of Truth, are not on­ly of as Great, but (George!) of Greater Au­thority than the Holy Scriptures. And what more Vile Contempt cou'd be put upon those Sacred Oracles than to compare them to the most Sensless and Blasphemous Ramblements that ever came out of the Mouths of Men! Nay, to Prefer these and all their Cursed and Furi­ous Venome, and Beastly Nastiness (see Sn. Sect. xvii.) to the Holy Scriptures of God! Now (George) are The Scriptures, only the Preach­ing for Hire! when you Question whether the First Pen-man of the Scripture was Moses or Hermes, whether ther are not many words con­tained in the Scriptures, which were not spoken by Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, whether some words were not spoken by the Grand Impostor; some by False Prophets, and yet True; and some [Page 146]by. True Prophets, and yet False, &c. And thy own Excuse for all this, that this was meant only against some Parts of the Scriptures, as in Sn. p. 86. Was all this only against Preaching for Hire? When G. Fox said in his Gr. Myste­ry. p. 302. That the Scripture is not the ground of Faith. That the Scriptures being outward Writings, Paper and Ink is not Infallible, nor is not Divine. And p. 246. when he says of the H. Scriptures, that They are not the word of God. And in his News coming out of the North. p. 39. where he argues against those who Plead for the Scriptures, he says Hebrew, Greek, and Latin is your Original—you say that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John is the Gospel, which is Carnal &c. was this only Preaching for Hire? Now (George) be Asham'd and Blush (if Thou Canst) and Confess and Retract (if Thou be'st a Christian) all your Horrid Contempt and Blasphemy against the H. Scriptures of God; and Preferring all your own Gross Delusions before Them, which are your Life. Deut. xxxii. 47.

This is all that G. W. says to this Point. And yet in his Contents he Intituls this, The Quakers clear'd from Calumnies, in that Point. This is the Clearing! But some Read the Contents of Books, who Read not the Books: And such must think, that something Materi­al is Perform'd, where so much is Promis'd. And such only can be Satisfi'd with this and o­ther Quaker Answers and Defences. See more, upon this Head of the H. Scriptures, in Sect. xiv. xv. xvi.

Their Con­forming and Trans­forming to Every Turn.XII. He comes, in the next place, p. 37. to answer their Conforming and Transforming to every Change and Turn of Government that [Page 147]happen'd in their times: and brings a witty Distinction, he says they did not Change, In point of Worship, Principle, Faith or Discipline. This they borrow'd from the Church of Rome, which only, with the Quakers, pretend to Infalli­bility: And when Press'd with their many Rebel­lions and Treasons, which they have Rais'd and Fo­mented; their Hypocrisies and Dissimulations, Breach of Faith, and other Immoralities of their Popes &c. then they come in with the Distinction, which G. W. here uses, That their Infallibility stands ne­vertheless Firm and Sure, that is, as to Mat­ters of Faith. Of the Difference betwixt the Pretensions of the Church of Rome and the Quakers to this Distinction it is spoke to in the Sn. Sect. vi. n. 1. And I shall have occa­sion hereafter to speak further of their Infalli­bility: only, for the Present, let us take No­tice, That here G. W. owns all the Quaker-Treasons and Rebellions, their Trimming, Confor­ming, Transforming &c. still as the Cards turn'd. Moreover their Cursing and Damning the King and all the Loyal Party: their Encouraging the Rebels and Ʋsurpers of England to shed more Blood, and carry Slaughter and Destruction into other Countries, throughout all Europe, and even to the Ends of the Earth. And all this, not only as their own Advice or Direction; But as the Immediate Command of God, and Given forth in His Name, and by His Authority. As is shewn at Large in the Sn. Sect. xviii. How­ever what cares G. W. for all this! they are Safe as to Worship, Principle &c! But in the same Sect. it is shewn, That after the Restau­ration. 1660. the Quakers did quite Alter and [Page 148] Change their Principle, as to Fighting; or else they Ly'd. So that here is Changing of Prin­ciples too (George) And many other Principles besides this, even quite thro' all or most of your points of Doctrin; which, of Late, you wou'd Chop and Change and Face about from your Ancient Testimonies, they being Discover'd past Defence. But never the less Infallible for all this! What signifies a Lying, Cursing, Dam­ning, Blasphemous, Traiterous, and Nasty Infalli­bility, so it be Infallible Still! so Worship, so Principles be sound! tho' this Infallibility is their Main Principle!

But Infallibility is not the Article we are now upon. It is the Quakers Changeability, and Ʋnconstancy; and from hence, as G. W. quotes the Improvement made of it in the Sn. p. 285. (it is p. 227. of the Third Edit.) Judge whether these be sound Principl'd men, that can Turn, Conforme, and Transform to every Change according to the Times, whether these be fit men to Teach People? Now do's not the Reader think that these are the words of the Sn. spo­ken of the Quakers? which I thought (because they are truly applicable to them) till I turn'd to the Place, and there I found, That they are the very words of a Declaration of the Quakers, after the King came home 1660 (only Recited in the Sn.) and they Pointed them against the Presbytcrians and other Dissenters who had been Trimmers under the several Ʋsurpations; and therefore urg'd against them that they were not sit to be Admitted as Tea­chers of others, who had been so Ʋnconstant and Wavering themselves.

[Page 149]But to shew how Cursorily G. W. Read o­ver the Sn. if ever he Read it All (he was soon weary of it) he thought that these words, which he Repeats out of the Sn, had been spoken against the Quakers: and therefore he crys out upon them (ut Supra. p. 37.) These are still Deceitful and Envious Suggestions. Thus handsomly giving himself a Box on th' Ear; for the Deceit and Envy are the Quakers, be­ing their own words. Well! Really this George is Excellent Company! He cannot hear an Ill word said, but he must apply it to the Qua­kers. Guilty Conscience! Like the man, who hearing some cry out a Whore in the street, ask'd how they came to abuse his Wife. But these are still Deceitful and Envyous Suggesti­ons! Therefore (George) come along with me to the Next.

Their ma­king no Confession of Sin, or Praying for Pardon.XIII. In the Sn. p. 313. and 314. of the First Edit. (Sect. xxiii. N. vii. of the Third Edit.) it is told that the Quakers, out of their Conceit of Absolute and Senseless Perfection in themselves, do never Pray for Remission of Sin, as Supposing they have none to be Forgiven. And there is Publick Notice given in these words, If any can give Evidence, that ever he heard, at any Quaker Meeting, Remission of Sins Pray'd for, he is Desir'd, for the Vindication of the Truth, to Declare it. All this G. W. passes over. Nor do's he himself say that ever he heard the Quakers Pray for the Remission of their Sins. But he takes hold of a Charitable Prayer of the Author's for them, bemoaning the Des­perateness of their Condition, who will not so [Page 150]much as Ask, and therefore have no Promise to Receive Pardon for their Sin: Their way be­ing Blockt up by a Proud and Blind Conceit of their own Perfection, from Seeking, or so much as Wishing to Return from their Sins! Therefore Prays that Author for them, The Lord help them, and hear our Prayers for them, since they will not Pray for themselves. Of these only words G. W. takes hold: And first he (after his Christian Manner) Returns him Re­proaches for his Prayers, just Trans-versing our Saviour's Command, to Return Prayers for Re­proaches. Thus have they learned Christ! But he says that the Author of the Sn. has here­in Notoriously Belyed the Quakers, in saying that they do not Pray for themselves. Remember (George) that the Prayers which are spoke of in that Place of the Sn. are Prayers for the Remission of Sins, of these only was what above is Quo­ted Spoken: and if Thee meanest any other, Thee Dodgest George, and Actest not Sincerely, tho' very like a Quaker! Therefore we will suppose (to save thy Reputation) that Thee do'st mean by the Quakers Praying for them­selves, their Confessing of their Sins, and Pray­ing for the Forgiveness of them. And now George, tell us, Did'st Thee ever hear such Prayers in any Quaker-Meeting? Did'st Thee e­ver Pray after this fashion among the Friends? No. Thee canst not say it. How then are the Quakers Notoriously Bely'd, in saying they do not Pray for themselves, when in the same Place, it is over and over again plainly Express'd, that the Praying there spoke of is for the Re­mission of Sins, and of no other sort of Prayers; [Page 115]and the Reason given shews it, viz. That the Quakers think themselves to be Perfect, and without Sin; and therefore do not make any Confession of their Sins, or Begg Pardon for them. Now what has this to do with any other sort of Prayers? of which G. W. witting­ly and willingly Means what he says here of the Quakers Praying for themselves, when he knew that it was meant quite otherwise in the Sn. which he pretends to Answer. This he must own, Unless he can Produce Vouchers for their making Publick Confession of their Sins, and Asking Pardon for them. But since he himself (the Eldest Preacher now among them) cannot Vouch it, I think we may De­spair of any other. If ther needed further Vouchers, I cou'd Produce Many, even as Many of their Hearers as will speak the Truth. But I will give one Remarkable one which will shew that it is not Forgetfulness in them, but against their Principle. Mr. Thomas Crispe was of their Communion about 30 years, a Constant Hearer, and a Zealous Sufferer too among them. But he took offence at their never having any Confession of Sin, or Prayer for the Remission of it, in their Publick Meetings; and complain'd of it above 20 years ago. But no Rectification — No not at this Day, when they are putting a new Face upon all their Matters; But they will not be brought to this, to Confess themselves Sinners; for then they might be brought to Repentance; of which they Declare themselves Incapable. For this, among other vile Heresies, Mr. Crispe has seperated from them; of which he has given us a very Good [Page 152]Account, in Several Treaties he has wrote a­gainst the Quakers. They who were of them, must know them best. Let me give another Authority, of Daniel Leeds before mention'd, in his News of a Trumpet, Sounding in the wil­derness. &c. p. 138, 139. he Charges them, in these words. You do never in your Meetings Pray for Pardon or Forgiveness of Sin (not that I have heard in Twenty years Due Attendance) for seeing it is Christ in you that Prays, ther is no need of it, He being without Sin. Secondly, You do not Pray to Christ, because it being Christ in you that Prays, it is Absur'd for Christ to Pray to Himself. Thus you see their Practice is Uniform, all the world over: yet not Consistent with it self. For Rich. Hubberthorn p. 20. of his works, Collected and Reprinted An. 1663. Repeating this Assertion of R. Sherlock his Opponent, viz. Christ Himself was not Capable of Faith and Re­pentance. Answers, Here I Charge thee to be a Lyar and a Slanderer; for He was Capable of Faith and Repentance. Now, How Christ Himself was Capable of Repentance, who never did Sin: And yet the Quakers to be above Repentance, is left for them to Explain. Fran. Bugg, in his Picture of Quakerism. Printed. 1697. says p. 64. That he had been more than 25 years among the Quakers, and a Principal-Member, Yet never had heard any such thing among them. Moreover that he had Read the Chief of their Books (of which he there sets down a Catalogue) and tho' ther are some Prayers in them, yet nothing like Confession of Sin, or Begging for Pardon of Sin, is to be found in any of their Writings; and he Provokes them [Page 153]to shew any Quotation of this sort, out of all their Books. He names p. 68. a Book of George Whitehead's. call'd Judgment Fixed, Prin­ted. 1682 where ther is a Long Prayer of near 5 pages, beginning at p. 354. fill'd with nothing but Pharisaical Boast's of his own Perfections, and Appeals to God, with Imprecations and Re­proches upon his Adversaries: But not one sy­lable either of Confession of Sin, or Asking Mer­cy for it. I wou'd not take Bugg's word (tho' I had no cause to doubt it) lest G. W. shou'd Reproach me with trusting to his Au­thority: But I procur'd this Book of G. W's. and have it now before me, with his Long Appeal and Supplication, as he himself call's it; which contains Prayers

And now, upon the whole Matter, after all the Wriggling, and Dodging that G. W. or any of the Quakers can use, it must be Known to all the World, and without Contradiction, what sort of Christians these Quakers are, viz. such as cannot make use of The Lord's Prayer; unless, as one of their Preachers C. H. who taking occasion to Repeat it in one of his own Prayers (perhaps on Purpose) left out the Pe­tition for Forgiveness of our Trespasses, as Use­less (forsooth!) to the Quakers. It was not made for them! Nor they for it! Unless they can have Liberty to Mend it, as they have done to the Creed, and the Decalogue; All of which Articles, and Commands they have Re­duc'd [Page 154]to One, viz. Hearken to your Light within. For this, with them, is the only Rule for all Matters both of Faith and Practice.

But to see the Artifice and snare of the Devil, in which these men are Caught; They who are too Good for The Lord's Prayer, have Coppy'd exactly after the Prayer of the Pharisee Luk. xviii. 11. George Whitehead's seems to be taken word for word out of it; only En­larges it, and far Exceeds that Pharisee in High Pride and valuing of His own Worthiness! The Pharisee only Thanked God, That he was not as other men are, Extortioners, Ʋnjust, Adul­terers, that he Fasted, and Gave Tythes of All That he did Possess. These all were Duties In­cumbent upon all; and the Neglect of which had been a Sin in any. But that is nothing to George Whitehead's Rant! Being Free from Sin, that is the Prerogative of every Quaker! That was a Poor Matter for the Top-Apostle! He tells God, in this Prayer, of his Extraordina­ry Gifts, for which he is so Civil as to thank Him, for his Christian Spirit, his Faith, and not only Patience but Rejoycing under all his Sufferings, for his Righteous Judgment, and for his Ʋnderstanding too (he wou'd not thank God for Nothing) and for his Zeal, which was Most of All! And that Thou hast Raised me up (Says he to God) in Defence of thy Gospel, to vindicate thy Truth &c. Thou knowest (Says he) the Integrety of my Soul before Thee—and that I have not sought to Exalt my Self, nor any Populari­ty, Party, or Interest to my Self, but only thy Glo­ry, and the Good of Souls. Thou knowest that in the first Place my Soul hath sought for Peace—Thou know­est that thou hast Endued me with a Christian Spi­rit, [Page 155]and with Faith, Patience &c. Thou hast also Endued me with the Spirit of Righteous Judgment, Ʋnderstanding &c. O my God! as I have Eyed Thee — so I Recommend to Thee, to Plead and Justifie My Cause &c. we say one Good turn Deserves another—Was ther ever such High Arrogance, and Setting forth his own Excel­lencies in the Presence of God, And to His very Face! Before whom the Holy Job said,Job. xlii. 6. I Abhor my Self, and Repent in Dust and Ashes. But he was an Ʋnderling to George Whitehead, or the Meanest Quaker! They do not Abhor, but Vaunt themselves! they scorn to Repent, for they have nothing to Repent of! They are Clean and Pure as God! who Chargeth his Angels with folly: Job iv. 18. xv. 15. See be­fore Sect. vii. p. 87. and the Heavens are not Clean in His Sight. But the Quakers Dare Reckon with Him, when He Pleases, and think they can stand the utmost Demand of His Extremest Justice; for that they owe Him Nothing! as Edw. Burrough says p. 32. of his works, That God doth not accept of any, where ther is any Failing, or who doth not Fulfil the Law, and doth not Answer every De­mand of Justice. See how Literally these Qua­kers are Describ'd, and their Fearful Condition, 1 Joh. 1.8, 9, 10. If we say that we have no Sin, we Deceive our selves, and the Truth is not in us—If we say that we have not Sinned, we make Him a Lyar. But Solomon Eccles the F [...]d­ler, and Quaker-Prophet, in his Musick-Lecture. p. 22. Returns the Lye upon St. John, if he Included himself amongst the Sinners, as he Evi­dently do's, speaking in his own Person, as well as of others, If We say— But Crowde­ro Answers with a Home Stroke, I do Affirm [Page 156](Says he) that if John had said he had been a Sinner, he had Lyed. Therefore, since all the Rest of Mankind do confess themselves to be Sinners, except the Quakers, it is not strange to sind this vile Scraper Determin thus Posi­tively, in his Quakers Challenge. p. 3. That the Quakers are in the Truth, and None but They. Here they Exclude all the World. And All the World have Reason to Exclude them. He that Confesseth and Forsaketh his Sin shall have mercy. Prov. xxviii. 13. What Mercy then can these men have, who are so far from Forsaking this their Blasphemous Pride, that they will not so much as Confess it! Pride was the First Sin, and of all others, sets us farthest off from God: And of all Pride, the Proud—Humility is the Greatest. This Hypocrytical Hu­mility is the widest Distance from the True v Christian Humility, Hates and Abhors it, and Falls upon it, wherever it meets it. See how the Quakers Insult and Triumph over Mr. Crisp for Confessing himself a Sinner, in their Rab­shakeh Rebuked. Printed 1695. Which was wrote in Answer to two Papers that Mr. Crisp (be­fore mention'd) had Publish'd against the Qua­kers, in the first of which, call'd An Essay towards the Allaying of George Fox his Spirit. p. 1. he Expresses himself thus, in a Christian Humility, in Answer to their Abuses of him, They cannot Represent me a Greater Sinner than (I thank God) I think my self to be. Upon this they fall upon him. p. 5. of the Introduction. And first, to shew their Sense or Sincerity, they wou'd make Mr. Crisp to thank God for his being a Sinner; whereas any but a Malicious [Page 157] Quaker, must have seen, at first view, that he thanks God for the Sense which He had gi­ven him of his Sins. And it wou'd be a Matter of Great Thanks-giving to the Quakers, if the like Grace of Humility were Granted unto them. Pray God, of His Mercy, Give it them; else their Salvation is without All the Promi­ses of the Gospel. But the Quakers from this Confession of Mr. Crisp's, Charge him Home, and say, that, by this, he owns all that they said against him, as to the Abusing of them and their Writings, nor is it Possible (says the Pen-man) for me to Wrong him; for let me Re­present him how I will, I cannot Represent him a Greater Sinner than he thinks himself to be, and Thanks God for it too. And says that if they shou'd Represent him to be a Whoremonger, Prophane Swearer, Drunkard, or Idolater &c. this Confessi­on of his Includes, not only all those, but all other Sins, of all sorts and kinds, how Gross soever. such Bitter Enemies are they to Confession! What sort of a Sinner wou'd they have Made St. Paul, at this Rate, from his Confession 1 Tim. 1.15. that he was the Chief of Sinners! And to Dispute against these Brutes, is a Mar­tyrdom like that of his, who was Condemn'd to Fight with less Guilty Beasts at Ephesus. But I have Undergone it, for their Good; tho' I Receive the Thanks for it of him who wou'd Rouse a Sluggard out of his Sweet Slum­ber. But some of them have been Rous'd, there­fore I Cease not my Pains to Recover more of them; at least to Prevent others from falling into their Pit of Destruction.