The Quakers quibbles in three parts : first set forth in an expostulatory epistle to Will. Pfnn [i.e. Penn] concerning the late meeting held to Barbycan between the Baptists and the Quakers, also the pretended prophet Lod. Muggleton and the Quakers compared : the second part, in reply to a quibbling answer to G. Whiteheads, entituled The Quakers plainness ... : the third part, being a continuation of their quibbles ... / by the same indifferent pen.

The Quakers quibbles in three parts : first set forth in an expostulatory epistle to Will. Pfnn [i.e. Penn] concerning the late meeting held to Barbycan between the Baptists and the Quakers, also the pretended prophet Lod. Muggleton and the Quakers compared : the second part, in reply to a quibbling answer to G. Whiteheads, entituled The Quakers plainness ... : the third part, being a continuation of their quibbles ... / by the same indifferent pen.

Table of contents

[1]

Title page

Title page

THE Quakers Quibbles: OR, AN EPISTLE TO William Penn.

Postſcript.

THE QUAKERS AND THE Muggletonians Compared.

§

[2]

Title page

THE CONTENTS,

§

ERRATA.

The Second Part OF THE Quakers-Quibbles.

The Introduction containing ſome remarks on G.W's Preface and his Treatiſe in General.

SECT. I. Wherein the Author clears himſelf of thoſe ſelf-Contradictions, that G.W. charges him with; and the Anſwerer charged with ſeveral ſelf-Contradictions, or Inconſiſtencies.

SECT. II. In Reply to his ſecond Section, wherein is ſet forth the QUAKERS QUIBBLES, EQUIVOCATIONS, and CONFUSIONS about the [Chriſt of God,] [his Manhood,] [his Humane-Nature,] [his Perſon,] [his Body,] [and his Fleſh.]

SECT. III. In Reply to his third Section ſhewing G.W's and the Quakers Ignorance, of the true Spirits Evidence, who deny the Gift of Tongues, Prophecy, Signs, &c. to be ſuch.

SECT. IV. In Reply to his fourth Section, ſhewing the Compariſon betwixt the QUAKERS and MUGGLETON to be both Juſt, Rational, Honeſt and Neceſſary.

SECT. V. In Reply to his fifth Section, about SABELLIUS and the Agreement of the Quakers Doctrine with his touching the three Perſons.

AN ADVERTISEMENT TO G. Whitehead, W. Penn, and the QUAKERS.

THE Quakers Character OF THE QUAKERS QUIBBLES.

§

[3]

Title page

TO THE Free Spirited Impartial READER.

THE CONTENTS.

The Third Part OF THE QUAKERS QUIBBLES.

SECT. I. The Quakers Quibbles concerning Quaking and Trembling, and Diſcerning the Lord's Voyce.

SECT. II. The Quakers Quibbles about Set-days and Set-places.

SECT. III. The Quakers Quibbles about Forms and the Church.

SECT. IV. The Quakers Quibbles about Fleſh being Silent.

SECT. V. The Quakers Quibbles about the Anoyntting.

SECT. VI. The Quakers Quibbles about the Spirit.

SECT. VII. The Quakers Quibbles and Hypocriſie in their Doctrine about Scholar-ſhip and Languages, with reference to their own Practices.

SECT. VIII. The Quakers Quibbles and Hypocriſie in their Doctrine about Punching People, and Haling them out of Aſſemblies, with reference to their own Practices now.

SECT. IX. The Quakers Quibbles and Hypocriſie in their former Practice of Diſturbing of Miniſters in Pariſh-Churches, with reference to their Practice now.

SECT. X. The Quakers Quibbles about the Holy Scriptures.

The Concluſion.

Sam. Fiſher Tranſpos'd.

Here Follows THE QUAKING, QUIBBLING ANSWERER Turned to A SLIGHT TIMEROUS REVILER: OR, Remarks on G.W's. Slight ſilly Sheet, ſtyl'd, The Timerous Reviler Sleighted; Given forth by the ſaid G.W. as a Reprehenſion (for want of an Anſwer) to the Second Part of the Quakers Quibbles.

For the Author of the Book, Entituled, The Second Part of the Quakers Quibles. To be left with Francis Smith, the Book-ſeller, to be Conveyed, as above-ſaid.

To Mr. George Whitehead, Theſe. To be left for him at Mr. Francis Smith's, Book-ſeller, at the Elephant and Caſtle, near the Exchange in Cornhil, London.

Remarks on G.W's. Sheet, &c.

SECT. I. Of G.W's. Title, and his Falſe Suggeſtion therein; Which runs thus; The Timerous Reviler Sleighted, being a brief Reprehenſion of a Scornful Pamphlet, Styled, The Second Part of the Quakers Quibbles, Subſcribed by the Name of Thomas Thompſon, but (by ſome) ſuſpected to be the Author of the two Pamphlets, the one Entituled, The Spirit of the Quakers Tryed, the other, Controverſie Ended, &c.

SECT. II. About the Author's NAME and LETTER.

SECT. III. Of Socianiſm▪ and the Divinity of Chriſt, which the Quakers own.

SECT. IV. Of Scornful Reflections.

SECT. V. Of the Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit, and of Prophecy.

SECT. VI. Of the Manifeſtation of the Spirit.

SECT. VII. Of the Gift of Diſcerning of Spirits.

SECT. VIII. Of Ʋnbelievers, Muggleton, &c.

SECT. IX. Of the Quakers Art of DIRECTING the INTENTION, ſometimes directly Contrary to their Expreſs words, and ſometimes quite beſide their true, proper, common, and Ordinary import and Signification.

Poſt-ſcript.

§

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

THE QUAKERS QUIBBLES, IN THREE PARTS.

Firſt ſet forth in an EXPOSTƲLATORY EPISTLE to WILL. PFNN, Concerning the late Meeting held in Barbycan between the BAPTISTS and the QƲAKERS. ALSO The Pretended Prophet, LOD, MƲGGLETON, and the Quakers Compared.

The Second Part, In Reply to a QƲIBBLING Anſwer of G. WHITEHEADS, Entituled, The Quakers Plainneſs, Wherein many more of their Quibbles and Equivocations are manifeſted, the Compariſon between them and Muggleton juſtified; their Jeſuitical Shifts, Evaſives, Confidence, and Grand Myſtery in Directing the Intention, Adverted.

The Third Part, Being a Continuation of their Quibbles, Equivocations, Riddles, Rounds, and Confuſions, in Ten more particulars. With ſome Remarks on G.W's. Slight Sheet, and a farther Account of their Myſtery in Directing the Intention.

By the ſame Indifferent Pen.

London, Printed for F. Smith at the Elephant and Caſtle, in Cornhill. 1675.

§

[Page]

[Page]

The Quakers Quibbles, Set forth in an Expoſtulatory Epiſtle TO William Penn: Concerning the laſt Meeting held in Barbican the 9th of Octob. 1674. BETWEEN The Baptiſts and Quakers.

ALSO The Pretended Prophet and laſt Witneſs Lodowick Muggleton And the Quakers Compared and Conſidered.

By an Indifferent Penn.

Job 13.6, 7.

Hear now my Reaſonings, and hearken to the Pleadings of my Lips. Will you ſpeak wickedly for God? and talk deceitfully for him?

Job 6.25.

How forcible are right Words? But what doth your arguing reprove?

LONDON, Printed for Francis Smith, at the Elephant and Caſtle near the Royal Exchange in Corhil, 1674.

THE Quakers Quibbles: OR, AN EPISTLE TO William Penn.

[Page]

[Page]

SIR,

I Being one of the Auditors, and ſo often appealed unto by thee ſomtimes to do thee Right and Juſtice; at other-times by ſeveral Applications thou waſt pleaſed to make in thy Diſcourſes, both to thy Friends and friendly Auditors; I am preſſed in mind to acquaint thee with my Sentiment and Obſervations this way, (that ſo thy Appeal might not be idle) not having the conveniency nor admittance to do it there.

In the firſt place, I do really own that thou haſt a Voluble Tongue, a ſtrong Voice and clear, a grateful Utterance, and I believe good Lungs; [Page] that thou art to be commended for an excellent Rhetorician, and a fluent Tongue; and ſo was Cicero: But all this as it made not him, ſo it will not prove thee, a Chriſtian; and therefore as thou didſt not deny him to be Wiſer than thee, ſo it was not over-needful for thee to Query whether he was Better; ſince ſomtimes thou canſt tells us, that All Men are enlightned with a Saving Light, which Light is Chriſt in them, and ſo conſequently Cicero might be a Chriſtian as well as thee, if he was a Man; and yet when thou thoughteſt it would ſerve thy turn, thou couldſt call him ignominiouſly Heathen as others do: But this rather deſerves the name of playing Faſt and Looſe than Quibbling.

Fine Words may catch Fools, and may take with them that ſee no further than th'outſide, and let ſuch be taken if they pleaſe; But any that are able to diſtinguiſh betwixt Words, and the true Sence of them, and is willing ſeriouſly to conſider of them, can never be in danger; and for others they are worthy to be deceived. I have heard as plauſible a Harangue, as eloquent an Oration from a Jeſuite, wherein he painted the poor Proteſtants in ſuch Colours, that he ſet them forth to his Auditors more like ſome ſtrange Monſters, than Men indued with Senſe or Reaſon; [Page] but yet I cannot believe the Jeſuites ever the better Chriſtians for that.

Hadſt thou had this Gift of a fluent Tongue and a good Voice meerly by thy turning Quaker, (and not partly Natural, and partly acquired at Our Schools, which now proudly thou contemneſt) then ſhould I more highly eſteem of it, and that would more Convince me of the Truth of thy Chriſtianity, than all the Arguments I heard that day from thee, or could ever hear from thy Friends.

The Members of the True Church in the Apoſtles time, had the GIFT OF TONGƲES immediately inſpired into them, upon their becoming Chriſtians, without acquiring it by Study: And if thou canſt ſhew me one in thy Church that hath ſuch a Acts 10.44, &c. While Peter yet ſpake theſe words, the Holy Ghoſt fell on all them which heard the Word, and they of the Circumciſion which believed were aſtoniſhed, as many as came with Pe [...], becauſe [...]t on the Gentiles alſo was poured out the Gift of the Holy Ghoſt; For they heard them ſpeak with Tongues, and magnifie God: Then anſwered Peter, Can any Man forbid Water, that theſe ſhould not be Baptized, which have received the Holy Ghoſt as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the Name of the Lord. And that this was common, ſee Acts 19.6. When Paul h [...]d laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghoſt came on them, and they ſpake with Tongues and propheſied, and all the Men were about twelve. 2 Cor. 12.12, 13. Truly the Signs of an Apoſtle were wrought among you in all patience, in Signs and Wonders, and mighty Deeds. For what is it wherein ye were Inferior to other Churches? Gift or Gifts given him upon his Converſion to thy Way, it would put a clear difference betwixt thee and the Baptiſts, and here thou wouldſt go beyond them; But now I cannot ſee wherein thou exceedeſt them in any (truly) Spiritual Gift.

[Page]One ſuch Teſtimony, if true, in thy Church, would Confute the Baptiſts, and Convince thy Auditors, more than a hundred ſuch days Diſputings as thy laſt was.

But alas! for ought I can learn, Thy Friends, thy Church is as low, poor, naked and deſtitute herein as the Baptiſts Churches; They in this Matter like Thee, and Thou like them; The want of which (it is not improbable) may be one Reaſon, why you thus Oppoſe and Contradict one another; One ſaying he hath a Viſion, and th'other a Dream from the Lord; One that it is Revealed by the Spirit within, and the other without, when the Iſa, 29.11, 12. And the Viſion of all is become unto you as the words of a Book that is Sealed, which Men deliver to one that is Learned, ſaying, Read this I pray thee, and he ſaith, I cannot, for it is Sealed. A [...] the Book is delivered to him that is not learned, ſaying, Read this I pray thee, and he ſaith I am not learned. Mica 3.6, 7. Therefore night ſhall be unto you, that ye ſhall not have a Viſion, and it ſhall be dark unto you, that ye ſhall not Divine, and the Sun ſhall go down over the Prophets, and the day ſhall b [...] dark over them; Then ſhall the Seers be aſhamed, and the Di [...]iners Confounded, yea they ſhall all cover their Lips, for there is no anſwer of God; ſee Pſal. 34.9. Ezek. 13.6, 7. Viſion may be ſealed up from you both: and thus whilſt you are both in the Dark, you Wrangle and Fight, Confute and Con [...]und one another to little purpoſe.

[Page]But what do fine Words without Charity, or Shew without Subſtance avail, when good St. Paul ſays, Though I ſpeak with the Tongues of Men and of Angels, and have not Charity, I am become as ſounding Braſs, or a tinkling Cymbal? And whether in thy Words thou ſhewedſt not more Wrath and Rancour, than Love or Charity, all might eaſily ſee.

Eloquent Harangues are accounted by the ſaid Apoſtle no better than the inticing Words of Man's Wiſdom, and it was but a Mark of the Falſe Teachers of Old; and therefore Epheſ. 4.14. The Apoſtle gives good advice, That we henceforth be no more Children toſſed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of Doctrine, by the ſleight of Men, and cunning Craftineſs, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

Now thou haſt the Words of Man's Wiſdom, 1 Cor. 2, 4, 5. My Speech and my Preaching (ſays the true Apoſtle) was not with inticing Words of Mans Wiſdom, But in demonſtration of the Spirit, and of Power, &c. But wher's the Demonſtration of the Spirit with thee in Power and Mighty Signs?

St. Paul ſaid, when he preached to the Corinthians, He did not come unto them in Excellency of Speech, 1 Cor. 2.1. It is no new thing for a Mountebank or a Stage-player to have a grateful Utterance, a fluent Tongue, and perform in Words as bravely.

But I cannot more commend thee [Page] for thy Rhetorick, than I muſt diſcommend thee for thy Logick; for thou did not ſhew thy ſelf more quick in the one, than dull and ſluggiſh in th'other: When thou cameſt to the Reaſoning and Diſputative Part, how many ſhuffles and put-offs? how many pittiful Evaſions and poor Shifts didſt thou make? how many delays? how much loſs of time? I was not only aſhamed to ſee and hear it, but admired thy ſelf and Friends did not bluſh at it, to ſee you make your Selves and Party ſo Ridiculous in the Eyes of Others: What Railing inſtead of Reaſoning! what Clamour! what Noiſe! what Tautologies! what Diſorder! what Diſcord and Confuſion!

2 Tim. 2.24, 25 The Servant of the Lord muſt not ſtrive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekneſs inſtructing thoſe that oppoſe themſelves, if God peradventure will give them Repentance. See Gal. 6.1. and Phil. 4.5. No Argument to me more fully proved you to be no Chriſtians, than your unchriſtian Carriage in that Meeting; Where was the Chriſtian Moderation, the old and pure Chriſtian frame of Spirit in meekneſs and gentleneſs? What was, nay, what is poſſible to be vain-jangling, if that was not? Is it not ſtrange, that you ſhould be no wiſer than to give a Challenge, (or Solemn Offer) and give occaſion for thouſands of People to meet together, and that to the hazard of their Limbs and Lives, only to be Witneſſes of your Folly, Immoderation, Rancor, Malice, Obſtinacy, Confidence, Unreaſonableneſs, not to ſay Madneſs?

[Page]For my own part I came thither thinking to have heard ſome Sober and Rational Arguings unto Edification and Clearing of the Truth,See 1 Tim. 1.5, 6. & 2 Tim. 2.16, 17, 18. Shun prophane and vain Bablings, for they will increaſe unto more ungodlineſs, and their Word wil eat as doth a Canker, of whom is Hymeneus and Philetus, who concerning the Truth have Erred, ſaying, That the Reſurrection is paſt already, and overthrow the Faith of ſome. but I profeſs I have oft heard more Reaſon and leſs Railing at Billings-gate: Is this think you for your praiſe, or the Commendation of your Way, to make your ſelves thus ridiculous?

I would fain know of thee, if thou art not in ſome degree ſenſible of it, aſhamed and ſorry for it? Doth thy Conſcience tell thee it was like a Chriſtian Meeting, or the Diſpute carried on thy part in a Chriſtian-like manner, when thou waſt tranſported with ſo much paſſion, and the Diſcourſes ſo confuſed and diſorderly, thou many times ſpeaking when thy Opponents were ſpeaking; ſometimes thee and George Whitehead, and at other times thee and Mr. Keith ſpeaking together, and then crying out to your Auditors, to Hear, Hear, when they could neither hear you, nor you all underſtand one the other?

To what end did you appoint a Meeting, if when you c [...]me there you reſolved not to argue nor anſwer in plainneſs (except in your own Way and [Page] Will) any Queſtion that ſhould be asked you concerning the Hope that was in you, with meekneſs and fear, according to the Apoſtles expreſs Injunction?

1 Pet. 3.15. But ſanctifie the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an anſwer to every man that asketh you a Reaſon of the hope that is in you, with meekneſs and fear [reverence.]If thou waſt guided by the Spirit of God indeed, as thou pretendeſt, what needeſt thou to have ſhuffled and boggled ſo at one ſingle Queſtion? And if thou waſt indeed infallible, what needeſt thou to be afraid (or evaded) giving an anſwer to poor Men that are fallible? And if thou art indeed a ſober Chriſtian, why didſt thou not in plainneſs and ſingleneſs (as your old Phraſe ſometimes was) anſwer directly to the Queſtion, which they cryed ſo often to thee to anſwer, and thou promiſedſt more than once thou wouldſt? Doſt thou neither regard others Words, nor thy Own?

Sir, I do declare to thee, That I was not intereſſed in the Diſpute any otherwiſe than as an Auditor, and that I do not know whether I ever ſaw Thomas Hicks before that day, neither did I ever ſpeak to him, nor any from him, and therefore do conceive my ſelf to be the more impartial, having no undue Intereſt, Reaſon, or Occaſion to make me partial, or byaſs me more one way than another, for favour or reſpect of Perſons o [...] [...]arties; Yet I muſt needs in love tell thee, that according to the [Page] beſt of my underſtanding, Thou and thy Friends did not there deal fairly, candidly, or Chriſtianly in ſeveral particulars:

1. In that when T. Hicks had ſaid, that moſt of the Particulars he would prove, thou took'ſt the words out of his Mouth before he had made an end of his Sentence, and cryedſt out, oh then it ſeems he owns he cannot prove them all, or words to that effect; whereas if thou hadſt given him leave, as he told thee afterwards, Moſt of them he would prove from thy Principles, and the reſt by Teſtimonies: and ſo here by thy haſte, to expreſs it in thy own Language, thou madeſt thy ſelf the Author of a Lye, and deal'ſt not Chriſtianly; and therein thou ſhewedſt thy ſelf not only a Fool but Ʋnjuſt; for thou oughteſt to have heard the Matter out, before thou hadſt paſſed Sentence: and thus all might ſee how Solomon's Proverb was true of thee; He that anſwereth a Matter [Hebr. returneth a word] before he heareth it, it is folly and ſhame unto him, Prov. 18.13.

2. In that thou trifledſt away ſo much precious time, and cauſed your Auditors to loſe theirs, to the grand diſguſt of many, if not moſt of them, before thou wouldſt be brought to agree the Diſpute of that Particular which was moſt important; which [Page] to many was Argument enough that ye were loath and unwilling to come to it; and thou hadſt a ſhift for that too, ſaying, Thou wouldſt go over the whole Book, &c. as if thou didſt not well know, at leaſt gueſs, That it was not likely then thou ſhouldſt come to it at all that Meeting, and ſo hadſt rather ſpin out thy Own and Auditors time about frivolous Things and petty Stories, and yet at laſt didſt agree to it. What reaſon is there that all Men muſt diſpute in thy Method, or according to thy Will? Were not the Terms mutually agreed on before? If not, it had been ſober Wiſdom to have done it, and in default to have condeſcended to the Judgment of the Auditors. Was it not a ſhameful thing, that all the ſence of ſo many hours Diſpute may be put into leſs than half a ſheet of Paper, and that in a great meaſure through your Refractorineſs or Impertinencies?

3. In that there was three or four of you that ſpake, three of you very much by turns, and ſomtimes more than one of you together at a time; and when thou ſat down, George Whitehead ſtood up to aſſiſt thee, and then Keith, and ſo round and round again; and yet if Jer. Ives or another did begin to ſpeak, ye would cry out Hicks, Hicks, Hicks, it is him we will hear; [Page] when as (if I am not miſinformed) in the conditions of the Diſputation, thou or thy Friends agreed Hicks might have two or three Perſons of his own chuſing, and you the like of your Election: If ſo, Then waſt thou faithful and juſt to thy Agreement? Or if not ſo, waſt thou then reaſonable in thy ſelf, to oppoſe thy ſelf with three men beſides againſt one? Or didſt thou intend he might have them with him, but thou to command them ſilence, or at beſt not hear them or anſwer them; take which way thou wilt, it was not fair: Beſides, canſt thou indeed judg that the Nature of all Men is of a-like ſtrength, or that T. Hicks's Nature was ſo ſtrong, as able to hold out ſpeaking and reaſoning againſt three or four? If ſo, I think thy Conſcience may be as large as a Fryars Sleeve: But it ſeems with you it is no matter what, how foul or unreaſonable ſoever, ſo it may but make for the Quakers Victory or Advantage: This I think was not fair dealing.

4. In that when thy Friends have ſo often diſowned and denyed Diſtinctions, Thou and thy Friends ſhould then anſwer by Diſtinction, and ſay, Our Friends Words are to be underſtood with this Diſtinction, of Chriſt in reſpect of his Godhead, or Chriſt [Page] in his Excellency, whereas there's no ſuch Diſtinction ſet down by your Friend, or in your Friends Book: And indeed if your Friends Words have not deceived me, you own nothing but the Divine Nature to be Chriſt; and then, How could any ſuch Diſtinction take place, if it had been there, ſo as to make your Friend mean (directly contrary to his own words) That Chriſt was ſeen with Carnal Eyes? Is not this then one of your Quibbles? For although thereby you make your Friend's words to be double, with two faces, to ſay one thing and mean another, Yet your own Principles concerning the Chriſt, obſtructs you abſolutely from clearing them, or proving Hicks a Forger in that Particular: Neither can that Diſtinction ſerve you, except you will alter your Principle, and hold that there are two Natures, which are both united in One Perſon, The Chriſt, which yet I do not underſtand you are free to do.

Might not Tho. Hicks then rather have ſaid in thy own language, Thou art a Forger, and haſt forged this Diſtinction, and ſuch a ſilly one as is impoſſible to hold good, if thy Principle touching The Chriſt hold true? Canſt thou be ignorant that this was only an Evaſion, or no better than a Quibble? Conſider with thy ſelf, and Thou [Page] mayeſt ſee how eaſily it is ſeen through.

5. In that when upon the Real Occaſion of this thy Diſtinction, the Queſtion was askt thee, Whether Chriſt's Humane Nature was a part of Chriſt? Or, Whether the Body that was ſeen with Carnal (or Corporeal) Eyes, and heard with Carnal (or Corporeal) Ears was the Chriſt? Thou ſo long refuſedſt to anſwer; when if only innocency had been in thee, plain-heartedneſs, and Chriſtian ſimplicity, thou mighteſt have done it in one word or two; but inſtead thereof, I believe thou madeſt above a thouſand, and them to no purpoſe but to evade an Anſwer, (contrary to your former Rule, Let your Yea, be yea, and your Nay, nay; for whatſoever is more cometh of evil); One while thou wouldſt tell us that which was not askt nor deſired of thee, That the Body in Scripture was ſomtimes called Chriſt, and yet all the endeavours could not bring thee to ſay (that I could hear) that, That Body was Chriſt; Here's another of thy Quibbles: Is it not a pritty one, that thou ſhouldſt tell us, that ſometimes the Scripture calls the Body (or the Humane Nature) Chriſt, and yet doſt not believe that it is indeed what the Scripture calls it? The Word Chriſt is ſomtimes applied in Scripture, [Page] to Chriſt's Body of Fleſh and Blood, that was born of the Virgin Mary, and yet thou wilt not, or dareſt not own that Body to be Chriſt, or Chriſt that Body: Oh horrible Perverſion! Oh fine Quibbler! Oh ſtrange Chriſtian!

But for all thou wouldſt hide thy ſelf by ſuch ſubtile Expreſſions, thou art eaſily diſcerned by any that will be any thing conſiderate, and not captivate their underſtandings; Another time thou wouldſt tell us, That thou believeſt Chriſt to be God over all, Bleſſed for ever, of the Seed of Abraham, &c. But was this direct to the Queſtion?

1 C [...]r. 14. [...]. So likewiſe you, exc [...]pt ye utter by the tongue words ſignificant, or eaſ [...]e to be und [...]ſtood, how ſhall it be k [...]wn wh [...]t is [...]? for ye ſhall ſpeak into the Air.Then thou wouldſt ask them Queſtions, before thou hadſt anſwered theirs which was firſt propoſed, which me thinks was not fair. Then thou wouldſt riſe up and promiſe to give a direct Anſwer to the Queſtion, and yet gave none that I could hear or underſtand to be plain; and ſo thou didſt two or three times, thy Paſſion, or the Intereſt of thy Party ſo far tranſporting thee, that thou didſt not mind thy Word: Then the Auditors themſelves requeſted thee over and over again to Anſwer. Doſt thou think this was like a Chriſtian to run out about a [Page] whole hour thus, not only wearying your Auditors, but fruſtrating their Expectations, and manifeſting either your own weakneſs, folly, or obſtinacy and unreaſonableneſs, till many of them were conſtrained to cry out, Away, away Quakers, or Anſwer.

Pray Sir deal faithfully and plainly in the thing, Why didſt thou not anſwer it? Or couldſt thou not anſwer it? Doubtleſs thou couldſt, if thou hadſt not feared giving ſome advantage thereby to thy Oppoſites; was not this the thing? Or was it becauſe thou wouldſt keep any of thy own Friends ſtill in the Dark concerning this? Or wouldſt thou have thy Doctrine in this Particular remain a deep Myſtery and unintelligible ſtill? If ſo, why didſt thou not deal honeſtly, and tell us ſo plainly? Or are you not agreed amongst your ſelves about this?

What makes thee go about to uſe Words ſo ſubtilly, that might ſeem to make us think, thou believeſt one thing, when indeed thou knoweſt, that you, or many of your Friends believe quite contrary?

Is this fair or honeſt dealing for thee to endeavour to blind our Eyes, or deceive our Underſtanding, be we either Simple or Learned?

[Page]Or if perhaps thou art of a different mind from ſome of thy Friends in this Particular, (as it is reported thou haſt brought them off from ſome ridiculous Fancies) Why wouldſt thou not honeſtly tell us ſo? Or art thou aſhamed to declare freely and plainly the bottom and whole of the Doctrine thou holdeſt, in ſo high a Concern, as of Chriſt's Perſon?

You are Charged with, and thy and thy Friends Speeches and Writings give me to underſtand, that you Quakers hold this Doctrine concerning the Chriſt of God.

1. That the And ſome of the Quakers quibble as much about the word Body, as thou doſt about the word Chriſt, not being willing to own that Chriſt hath any other Body now then his Church, from Col. 1.24. or ſometimes, then the Bodies of the Saints, from Epheſ. 5.30. miſtaken. Body of Chriſt is not, nor was, the true Chriſt, but the Spirit in that Body.

2. That the Spirit in that Body, was none other but God the Father; and ſo the Father is the Son, and the Son the Father in very deed, and only nomically diſtinct, (and ſo, God the Chriſt of himſelf, and Chriſt the God of himſelf; ſomewhat like as Muggleton does [Page] in this particular, if my memory fail me not).

3. That the True Chriſt is not a Perſon without us, and ſo was not viſible to Corporal eyes.

4. And ſo of neceſſity you muſt hold, that Chriſt died not, but only the Body that he aſſumed for a time, or that was prepared for him, was laid down again. For how is it poſſible for you to Believe really that Christ died, when you hold that Christ is only God, and God is and ever was immortal, and ſo could not die?

Now either thou and thy Friends do hold theſe Doctrines, or the contrary: if either I or others have miſtaken you herein, through your own Friends ill expreſſing themſelves; or if you have ſince changed your Opinion in this particular, what hurt can there be, and why ſhouldſt thou be ſo nice, to inform us truly, honeſtly, and plainly like a Chriſtian? And if thou doſt hold them, what's the Reaſon thou art unwilling to own it?

[Page]Therefore I requeſt, I pray, I earneſtly deſire thee (if thou haſt any love for the Truth, or for Men) to tell me, or the World, the plain truth herein; if not, I muſt ſtill conclude thou dealeſt not fair nor candidly, like a reaſonable Man or a Chriſtian, or willing plainly to vindicate thy Religion.

6. In this, that when thou ſhouldeſt have Replyed, like a ſober Diſputant, to the Anſwer that Jeremy Ives gave to ſhew the invalidity and falſhood of thy Diſtinction, inſtead thereof, thou evadeſt doing of it by Circumlocutions one while, and by Addreſſes to the Auditors another: and ſometimes by giving way to another of thy Friends to begin a Diſcourſe of ſome new Matter, or to raiſe ſome new Queſtion, before the former was ended, the better to ſhift off the old, or bring it in Oblivion, confounding the Minds of your Auditors with other Words; I cannot ſo well call this a Quibble, as a baſe old way of Evaſion and Shifting: Do you think that we do not know this to be no new Device? but ſorry I was to ſee you uſe it.

Truly Sir, I cannot but own Jer. Ives's Anſwer to your Diſtinction to be very good and pertinent; and doubtleſs [Page] if you had not found it ſo too, you would have Replyed to it; but I found all your mouths ſtopt as to that.

His words as I remember were theſe, or to this effect, That then I, or any Man might ſay, by the ſame Reaſon, that Will. Penn, or Geo. Whitehead was never ſeen with Bodily or Carnal Eyes, becauſe the Excellency and better part of them, viz. their Souls was never ſeen, though their Bodies be ſeen, which is not the Man. Now what an abſurdity would this be? And yet is it not the ſame that you ſaid then concerning Chriſt's being ſeen and not ſeen, and thereby over-ſhooting your ſelf, obliged Geo. Whitehead to make a long Diſcourſe to bring you off as handſomly as he could from a Contradiction: But ſince you did not detect the irrationality of this Anſwer and Similitude at the Meeting, I ſhould be glad to ſee it from you any-where elſe, in words that are rational and intelligible.

7. In that, Thou firſt crydeſt out thy ſelf, (as the Proverb is, ſtop Thief) When thou hadſt firſt made a great noiſe and ſtir, then thou appealedſt to thy Auditors for Juſtice, and to hear thy Anſwer; whereas thy Self and Friends were then the moſt guilty a [...]d greateſt Offenders in that kin [...], in making [Page] a clamor and pudder without giving us a direct Anſwer.

What need was there for thee to cry out to thy Auditors to hear thy Anſwer, when we could hear none from thee, though we had ſtood waiting and gaping well-nigh an hour for nothing elſe; I ſay, I cannot apprehend this to be fair and candid Dealing, either with thy Oppoſites or Auditors, but rather a neat trick of crying Whore firſt, as they ſay, at beſt but idle ſuperfluous vain words, which become not a Chriſtian, ſuch an one as thou profeſſed thy ſelf to be.

Really Sir, I do admire that you ſhould or would carry your ſelves ſo, as to get a name of obſtinate, unreaſonable, and diſorderly Men: I was told before-hand that you would never Diſpute either ſoberly or rationally, in any due Order or Method; and notwithſtanding you are ſtill confident and ready to appoint Diſputes and Conferences, Yet when you come to it, you muſt have your own Will for a Law, and your own Way impoſed upon your Opponents, or elſe you will not Diſpute; So that you give too much occaſion to Perſons to think and judg you a perverſe Generation, obſtinately confident, and confidently obſtinate, [Page] without Order or Rule, Rime or Reaſon, Wiſe only in your own conceits, whom Solomon Characteriſes Fools, and ſo fit for no Man to Diſpute With, except ſome of Muggleton's Diſciples, guilty of the ſame perverſe and unreaſonable Humour with you, even to the making your ſelves Ridiculous, no ſmall Teſtimony whereof this laſt Meeting proved. Why may you impoſe on others, and they not upon you?

8.Titus 3.2, 3. To ſpeak evil of no man, to be no Brawlers, but gentle, ſhewing all meekneſs unto all men; For we our ſelves alſo were ſometimes fooliſh, diſobedient, deceived, &c. I will crave leave to mention one thing more at this preſent of my obſerving, and that is thy ſo oft uſing the groſs word of Lying, and Forgery, and Lyar and Forger, eſpecially in thy Books againſt Tho. Hicks, that it will hardly ſtand with good Manners; ſuch Language to be ſo common and frequent, me thinks ſutes not well with a well-civilized Man, much leſs with a good Chriſtian; and what does it ſignifie, To ſay it is a — Lye, that is neither an Anſwer nor an Argument; Therefore in love I ſhould adviſe thee to leave off all ſuch Billings gate-Rhetorick, and groſs Language, it being more fit for Scolds that are Duckt, then to be uſed in Conferences or Writings amongſt thoſe that own themſelves Chriſtians, at leaſt ſo very frequently. But if that be one way of Confutation, [Page]then it will be no hard thing to Confute all thy Writings.

'Tis pitty ſo Learned a Perſon as thy ſelf ſhould be ſo linkt to a Party, or blinded with Paſſion to Eclipſe the more noble part of thy Reaſon, by being engaged with ſuch a People, and having received their Principles, thereby thinkeſt thy ſelf obliged now to maintain them, though therein thou makeſt thy ſelf Pedantick.

Time and Experience may convince thee better, though I cannot hope nor expect to do it, believing that when ſomewhat of the height of thy Fancy, and the heat of thy Brain is ſpent and abated, thou wilt be calmer and wiſer, and that is all the Hurt I wiſh thee; In the interim I only deſire thee to conſider of this, if not now, yet hereafter when thou art cool. For the heat of the Diſpute having ſo diſtempered the Humors in thee, and raiſed thy Spirit, I cannot promiſe my ſelf much preſent good ſucceſs as to thee herein, though I have hopes it may have ſome with Others; So I Reſt,

Thy Friend in plainneſs, Thomas Thompſon.

Postſcript.

[Page]

I Hinted in the fifth Particular i'th Margent, That ſome of the Quakers quibble as much about the Word [Body] as the Word [Chriſt], as appears by what one of them told me, That the Church of Chriſt is his Body; and when I anſwer'd him, That was only figuratively, or by way of Alluſion, that as all the natural Members compacted together and united to the Head, make a Natural Body; Rom. 12.5. So the Church being knit together by One Profeſſion and Baptiſm as Members of a Body, become united by Faith to Chriſt as their Head, and ſo the Church is by way of ſimilitude and metaphorically called the Body of Chriſt, but no otherwiſe that I underſtood; What then, ſays the Quaker, Wilt thou make Chriſt a Monſter, and ſay he has two Bodies? or words to that effect. Now then after the ſame manner of Reaſoning and Quibbling, I may as well ſay Mr. Keith in the Diſpute, by his Diſtinction, made three Chriſts, when he told us more than once,

[Page]That Chriſt was

Moſt properly taken for the Godhead (or Divine Nature)

Leſs properly for the Manhood (or Humane Nature).

And leaſt properly of all for the Carkaſs.

Now after this rate may not one ſay, That the Quaker ſays, There are three Chriſts in Scripture;

A moſt proper Chriſt.

And a leſs proper Chriſt.

And a Chriſt leaſt proper.

And that with as much truth, as for them to affirm Chriſt would be a Monſter on the account above?

For what can be thought not only more diſtinct, but abſolutely Different, Then

The Godhead, Eternal God,

The Manhood, Living Man.

A Carkaſs, a Dead Body.

Study it as long as ye will.

And further by this, Mr. Keith and thou muſt underſtand and mean, Either

That theſe Three are Three Chriſts, in Three diſtinct Perſons.

[Page] Or that theſe Three are but One Chriſt, in One diſtinct Perſon.

Or that theſe Three are indeed No Chriſt at all, in No diſtinct Perſon.

And when thou haſt plainly and honeſtly, declared this, then we ſhall eaſily diſcern your Quibbling, or underſtand your Meaning better; in the mean time for your condemning uſing Diſtinctions in others, and yet uſing them your ſelves, you fall under the Apoſtles Sentence and Condemnation, Rom. 2.1. Therefore thou art inexcuſable Oh Man, whoſoever thou art that judgeſt, for wherein thou judgeſt another, thou condemneſt thy ſelf, for thou that judgeſt doſt the ſame things.

In the beginning of this Epiſtle Intimated to thee, the Gifts and the Power of the Spirit indeed, that the Chriſtians, the members of the true Church in the Apoſtles days, were Gifted with, viz. Such as were viſible and demonſtrable to others, and for the proof quoted ſeveral Scriptures, which I thought fit to alledg, That thou might ſeriouſly Conſider (and I leave it to the Conſideration of all ſober and truely underſtanding men) When thou comeſt to Condemn or Correct the Baptiſt Church, or and Church, with deſign to ſet up thy [Page] own as the true Church, Whether thou oughtſt not to prove and Demonſtrate thy Church to be truer then their Church which thou Condemneſt as falſe, or Ʋnchriſtian, or Antichriſtian; and that thou oughteſt to pretend to and bring ſomething for Proof thereof, which they, nor no falſe Church can pretend to, and produce as thou doeſt? Is not this equitable, juſt and rational, agreeing to common Juſtice and Equity, and according to the ſound underſtanding of all men? Nay and is it not what the true Chriſtian Church had, and could and did on all neceſſary occaſions Demonſtrate? Otherwiſe ſuppoſe it be granted, theirs to be falſe, that will not prove thine to be true: Thine may be falſe alſo: But if proving theirs alone to be miſtaken or Falſe, would prove another Church to be true, the Romaniſts and all the Churches in the World might then as well by this prove theirs reſpectively to be true, as you yours.

To make this yet more plain (it being worthy thine and every mans ſerious thoughts) I will give thee an Inſtance or two, As for Example.

Here are great Conteſts and Diſputes betwixt the Baptiſts and your Church: the Baptiſts ſay we are true Chriſtians, and you Quakers are not: The Quakers [Page] ſay we are the true Chriſtians, and our way is the true way, and you Baptiſts are not: Now I and thouſands of poor Souls beſides, would willingly know which of you two are undoubtedly in the Right, and which of you indeed are falſe and pretenders only.

If any of thy Friends ſhall tell me, We are in the Truth, and therefore we are the true Church; Thou knoweſt in thy Conſcience, that is ſo far from an Anſwer, that it is only a ſhameful begging of the Queſtion: For the Baptiſts they pretend as much that they are in the Truth, as thou doſt, and it is yet to be decided betwixt you; ſo that that is ſtill the Queſtion. If thou ſayeſt the Light within me will teſtifie to thy Way, I profeſs really, I have minded and inquired of the Light within me what it ſays in that Particular, and it teſtifies no ſuch thing. If thou ſayeſt it is Demonſtrable by the Effects and Fruits: very well, I have inquired into that alſo, and I find none among You, but what may be found amongſt the Baptiſts alſo, Except it be keeping on the Hat, and ſaying Thou and Thee, &c. which alſo the Baptiſts, or any others, may and can do if they pleaſe as well as you.

[Page]Or if thy Friends ſhould tell me, That ye have the Spirit, and are in the Power of God; ſo ſay the Baptiſts that they have: And wherein does the Power of God, or the Spirit ſhew it ſelf more in you, than in them? If thou ſhouldſt ſay it is Within, but does not Demonſtrate it ſelf Outwardly; Why then, do you trouble the Minds of People! Can you not let it keep in its place in every one where you ſay it is! and then thereby thou wouldſt acknowledg the Baptiſts to be Externally as good Chriſtians as your ſelves; and ſo may be Internally for ought thou canſt ſee, if it cannot demonſtrate it ſelf outwardly. So that here I profeſs in the fear of God, I ſee no real diſcriminating Character that Demonſtrates you to be either truer or better than they; if thou canſt ſhew any, I ſhall be glad to ſee it.

Another Inſtance is this (in a higher nature at your own doors alſo, viz. In Mr. Maggleton and his Diſciples: Why ſhouldſt thou or thy Friends be believed more than Muggleton, or an Impoſtor?

THE QUAKERS AND THE Muggletonians Compared.

[Page]

1. MƲggleton ſays, He hath received a Commiſſion from Heaven; and ſo do the Quakers that they have; and both much about the ſame time; but of the two I think Muggleton's pretence was the firſt and ancienter.

2. Muggleton ſaith he had it by Divine Revelation; and ſo do the Quakers that they had it.

3. Muggleton ſaith, He hath (or is inſpired by) the Spirit of God, and ſo do the Quakers that they are.

4. Muggleton pretends to Infallibility, and ſo do the Quakers.

5. Muggleton ſays, He is one of the two Witneſſes ſpoken of in the 11th Chapter of the Revelations, that God hath given Power to Propheſie; and [Page] the Quaker they ſay, They are the true Witneſſes to the Light, and have received Power to Preach the Everlaſting G [...]ſpel, to Propheſie, &c. or to the ſame effect.

6. Muggleton denies that the Father and Son are two diſtinct Perſons, and ſo do the Quakers.

7. Muggleton pretends to, and produces Scripture, and yet doth not really own it for the Rule of Faith and Practice; and ſo do the Quakers.

8. And all this Muggleton aſſert [...] with the higheſt Confidence imaginable, as great as it is poſſible for the Quakers to aſſert theirs.

9. Muggleton hath ſeveral Diſciples and Followers that Believe him, and are Convinced of the Truth of wha [...] he aſſerts, as a Seal of his Miniſtry▪ and ſo have the Quakers ſeveral Followers that are Convinced and believe them; which they ſay are a Seal o [...] their Miniſtry.

10. And yet for all this, Muggleton Curſes and Damns the Quakers, and that by the Heavenly Power and Commiſion he pretends to have received▪ And the Quakers Judg and Damn Muggleton, and that by the Light, th [...] Heavenly Power and Commiſſion they pre [...]end is Revealed to them.

See the Book Intituled the Quaker [...] Neck broken, writ by Muggleton, and anſwered by G.F.

[Page]Now then Conſider, Is it not highly neceſſary one ſhould know which of theſe two be the Impoſtors, or whether (ſince they both pretend with ſuch Confidence, and yet both Damn one another, and all others that Contradict them) both of them may not be Impoſtors, for it is poſſible?

What canſt or doſt thou produce or pretend to more than Muggleton does; Surely it will be a ſtrange piece of Confidence for you to Claim Credence from People, if you cannot produce ſomething Conſiderable, beyond ſuch (as your ſelves own to be) a GRAND IMPOSTOR, and a DECEIVER.

Our Saviour the True Chriſt ſaid,John 5.31, and 36. If I bear witneſs of my Self, my witneſs is not true: But I have greater Witneſs than that of John, &c. The ſame Works that I do, bear witneſs of Me, that the Father hath ſent Me.

If I do not the Works of my Father,John 10.37. believe me not.

If I had not done among them the Works which none other Man did,15.24. they had not had Sin.

Ye Men of Iſrael, hear theſe words,Acts 2.22. Jeſus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God among you, by Miracles, and Wonders, and Signs, which God did by him in the midſt of you, as ye your ſelves alſo know.

Let all the Houſe of Iſrael know [Page] aſſuredly, 36. That God hath made that Same Jeſus, whom ye have Crucified, both Lord and Chriſt.

Heb. 2.3, 4.How ſhall we eſcape if we neglect ſo great Salvation, which at the firſt began to be ſpoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him, God alſo bearing them Witneſs, both with Signs and Wonders, and with divers Miracles and Gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, according to his own Will?

Sir, Doſt thou think thy ſelf more worthy of Credit, than Jeſus Chriſt? Or that your Miniſters ought to be believed on eaſier terms, than Chriſt and his Miniſters were, you bringing to us New Doctrines and New Revelations? Some of which yet are not ſuch New Diſcoveries from Heaven manifeſt by the Light within as pretended, being in truth but the old Fancies of Sabellius (manifeſted by him without) reviv'd and new vamp't, not heard of till long after Chriſt, and then quickly exploded the Church about 1400 years ago, as any one that can read may ſee in the Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtories.

It may be thou mayſt inquire what I am, that writes thus plainly to thee; thou mayſt anſwer thy ſelf I am a Man, becauſe I Speak or Write, and heard thee Diſcourſe the Language of Men; [Page] and ſo conſequently thou muſt Judg me One that hath the Light within me.

If thou wouldſt know what I am not, I'le aſſure thee I am neither Baptiſt nor Quaker, nor ever was, though I have had a love for both, and have ſtill for many amongſt you, whom I hope are innocent as to theſe Myſteriou [...] Subtilties and Quibbles of your Leaders; But ſuch Ridiculous doings as in th'aforeſaid Meeting does rather leſſen than increaſe it.

If thou deſireſt to know why I Expoſtulate with thee unknown; I anſwer, 'Tis becauſe I was one of thy abuſed Auditors, thou ſpending ſo much time to ſo little purpoſe, to the hazard of Mens Lives; and becauſe I think thou haſt need of a Faithful Monitor; If I am miſtaken therein, do not blame my Charity, nor yet my plain dealing with thee in this Epiſtle.

If thou demandeſt why I print it, 'Tis becauſe I would have others ſee it, that they might receive benefit by it as well as thee:Prov. 27.5. & 15.32. Remembring what Solomon ſays, Open Rebuke is better than ſecret Love.

And becauſe I would have thee anſwer it in Print, that ſo Others may judg as well as I, whether thou wilt deal any fairer, more ſoberly in plainneſs and ſimplicity, and Godly ſincerity [Page] with me, than thou haſt done with others.

If I have miſtaken thee or any of thy Friends, I aſſure thee it is not willingly; and if thou ſheweſt me honeſtly wherein without Railing and ill Language, I'le beg thy excuſe and thank thee for it, I not pretending to Infallibility, my Opinion being ſtill, ſo long as we are Men in this condition, Humanum eſt errare, notwithſtanding what Spiritual-Pride, Self-Conceit, or Melancholy-Fancies may ſuggeſt to diſtempered Brains, or weak Heads, whoſe Affections may be ſtronger than their Reaſons.

FINIS.

§

[Page]

Mr. Smith,

I Have thought fit to write this to thee, to let thee know, That if thou art willing to Print this Epiſtle thou mayest; if not, return it by this Bearer. But if thou dost Print it, I deſire thee to take care, before thou publiſh any of them, to ſend one to Mr. Pen, or to his Lodging, which I preſume thou knowest, or may eaſily know, for I do not know where it is.

I am (though unknown) Thy Friend Thomas Tompſon.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

THE SECOND PART OF THE QUAKERS QUIBBLES, Set forth In a Reply to a Quibbling pretended Anſwer of G. Whiteheads, Intituled the Quakers Plainneſs &c. WHEREIN, Many more of their Quibbles and Equivocations are manifeſted.

Alſo the Compariſon betwixt the pretended Prophet Muggleton and the Quakers Juſtified; to be True, Rational, and neceſſary: Whereunto is added an Advertiſement to Mr. W. Penn, George Whitehead, and the Quakers. TOUCHING Their Jeſuitical ſhifts, Evaſions, and unparallel'd CONFIDENCE; Their grand Myſtery of directing the intention: with their Pope-like Power to Sanctify and unſanctify words.

By the ſame indifferent Penn.

Job. 21.34.

How then comfort ye me in vain, ſeeing in your anſwers there remaineth falſhood.

LONDON, Printed for F. Smith at the Elephant and Caſtle in Cornhil near the Royal-Exchange, 1675.

THE CONTENTS,

[Page]

THE Epiſtle to the Ʋnprejudiced Reader, demonſtrating how G.W. hath with his own hands deſtroyed his own Cauſe, and pluckt up by the Roots, the grand Principles of the Quakers Religion.

The Introduction being ſome Remarks on G.W's Preface, and his Treatiſe in general,

SECT. I. Wherein the Author clears himſelf of ſelf-contradiction and charges G.W. with ſeveral Self-contradictions or Inconſiſtences & new Quibbles.

SECT. II. Setting forth the Quakers Quibbles, Equivocations and Confuſions about JESUS CHRIST, his Manhood, his humane Nature, his Perſon, his Body, and his Fleſh.

SECT. III. Demonſtrating the Quakers Quibbles about, and Ignorance of the True SPIRITS Evidence and Demonſtration, who deny the Gift of Tongues, and Signs, &c. As alſo of the Quakers Miracles, and Pope JOAN.

SECT. IV. Juſtifying the Compariſon betwixt Muggleton and the Quakers, to be both true, rational, honeſt and neceſſary.

SECT. V. Touching Sabellius and the Agreement of the Quakers Doctrine, with his touching the three Perſons, notwithſtanding their Quibbling.

An ADVERTISEMENT to George Whitehead W. Penn and the Quakers, Touching,

I. Their JESUITICAL Shifts and Evaſions in anſwering their Opponents Books.

II. Their unparallel'd Confidence in their Vindications of their grand Prophet G. Fox's Falſities, and Nonſence.

III. Their grand Myſtery of DIRECTING the INTENTION in matter of Blaſphemy.

IV. Their POPE-like Power to Sanctify and unſanctify words at their Pleaſure.

The Quakers Character of the Quakers Quibbles.

§

[Page]

George Whitehead in his Quakers-Plainneſs,

P. 14. Speaking of certain true Gifts of the Spirit, which were Spiritual-Gifts, and Evidence indeed, ſays thus, ‘And what if God will not beſtow ſuch Gifts and ſigns NOW, muſt we therefore be no Chriſtians?’

P. 71. Speaking of the Titles that the Quakers uſe to give to, and write on ſome of their Books ſays thus, ‘Such Titles therefore have been not STRICTLY, but FIGURATIVELY placed upon ſome Books.’

Quis non ridet? Qui non videt ſuo ſe jugulavit gladio.

Unprejudiced Readers,

IT is no ſmall thing but well worthy of your ſerious taking notice, that G.W. being by many reputed ſo cloſe, ſo cunning and crafty a Man (as no doubt, but that in ſome things he is) yet ſhould be ſo far infatuated and over-ſho [...]t himſelf here; as to let fall from his Penn, and publiſh in Print to the World, two ſuch Sentences, the one by way of Interrogation, and the other of Poſition: Which if duly weighed and applied abſolutely deſtroys his own Cauſe, and anſwers himſelf (in effect) in all he writes: Argumentum ad hominem.

[Page]The firſt by way of Interrogation, effectually enervates, and plucks up by the very Roots the whole of the Quakers Religion.

1. For put the Caſe, the Diſpute be about immediate Revelation from God, which the Quakers aſſert as one of their grand Principles, and deny others to be true Chriſtians, that have it not: Why, G.W's words will as well ſerve for an Anſwer againſt himſelf. What if God will not beſtow ſuch Gifts now, (as immediate Revelation) muſt we therefore be no Chriſtians?

2. So as to Divine Inſpiration now immediately by the Spirit, as the Apoſtles had. Why G. What if God will not beſtow ſuch gifts and ſigns now, muſt we therefore be no Chriſtians?

3. So as to being ſent and Commiſſioned by God, and called by the Spirit to Propheſy and Preach the Goſpel as the Apoſtles indeed were in the Primitive Church, and the Quakers now pretend to.

Why alas George! What if God will not beſtow ſuch Gifts and Signs now? Muſt we therefore be no Chriſtians?

4. So for the Light within, which the Quakers ſo much talk of and pretend to, as their great Principle; What if God will not beſtow ſuch Gifts and Light now, muſt we therefore be no Chriſtians?

5. So for their Doctrine of Infallibility: What if God will not beſtow ſuch a Gift now, muſt we therefore be no Chriſtians?

6. So for their Doctrine and Pretence of the Gift of diſcerning of Spirits: What if God will not beſtow ſuch a Gift now, Muſt we therefore be no Chriſtians?

And thus you ſee, how by this Queſtion he cuts the throat of all their own Pretenſions, and ſhakes the very foundation of his own and the Quakers Religion.

‘BƲT can any be ſo ignorant as to think that God will inſpire, call, ſend by Commiſſion, perſons immediately, and give no ſuch Gifts or Signs, that may diſtinguiſh them from others, whereby we may certainly know they are ſo inſpired, call'd Commiſſioned, and ſent; and not Pretenders only?’

The ſecond by way of Poſition, puts ſuch an Anſwer into the Mouths of George Whitehead's and the Quakers Opponents, that if they pleaſe to make uſe of it in like manner as G.W. himſelf hath done, He, nor all the Quakers in England, can never be able either to conf [...]te or confound their Adverſaries. For let W.P. or George himſelf, object what they can againſt them, let them but have, and take the like Liberty as G.W. himſelf [...]ath here done, which they cannot refuſe to others, they uſing it themſelves; without the greateſt injuſtice and unreaſonableneſs (not to ſay [Page] impudence) and it will be impoſſible for the Quakers to fix any thing upon them: let them but ſay (as why may they not as well as the Quakers, if they have but ſo much confidence) ſuch titles or words are not ſtrictly but figuratively placed in or on our Books And all's done. And therefore here I think, I might on this ground of the Quakers (if they will have that to be admitted) undertake to do Mr. Hicks that ſervice Gratis, and G.W. alſo, (though I never promiſed it to one or other, nor was deſired by either of them to do it) as to anſwer all G.W's ſecond part of the Quakers Plainneſs, or at leaſt to enervate the chief ſinews of it, only uſing of George's own words, Mutatis Mutandis. As for example, how ſilly is it for thee G.W. to take exceptions againſt the Title of his Book (and that was one of the chiefeſt matters of the Charge at the firſt, till the Anabaptiſts had pretty handſomly handled you and beat you off from that, by producing a Book or Books of your own Friends, who writ after the ſame manner;) A DIALOGUE betwixt a Chriſtian and a Quaker: why cannot T. Hicks tell thee (like as thou thy ſelf art ſo ſilly in thy own caſe to tell him) that ſuch a Title was not STRICTLY but FIGURATIVELY placed on his Book? and then for all the reſt of his words, wherein W.P. and thou chargeſt him with Forging, and Forgeries, Slanders and Lies; Thou haſt here taught him a ſhort way to the wood, and ſo may Anſwer thee if he pleaſe, all in few words. Such Titles, ſuch words or ſayings, are not ſtrictly, but figuratively placed and put down in his Dialogues: and thus George himſelf hath taken the pains to anſwer and confute himſelf, and hath with one blaſt of his mouth, blown away thoſe diſmal great charges of Lies and Forgeries laid on his Adverſaries. Oh! kind-natured Man! But I dare ſay it was againſt his intention, only he could not tell how to clear his Friends otherwiſe (from other Mens charge of Blaſphemy) viz. for preferring their pittiful Pamphlets to the Holy Scriptures; and ſo by ſhunning one Rock, he hath ſplit himſelf on another.

I am of the Opinion that when T. Hicks comes to underſtand this, he will ſay that he is as much beholden to G.W. for making his way ſo eaſie by this one Sentence as by any advice twenty of his Friends could give him.

Now I would not have any Quaker miſtake me, and ſay I deny all figures, for I own that there are ſome Metaphors in the Scriptures and that ſome Parables are therein written, which muſt neceſſarily be interpreted Metaphorically and Figuratively; but this I deny, that therefore the whole Scripture is a Figure, or all of it to be figuratively interpretted. This I only hint, on purpoſe [Page] to prevent the Quakers miſtake who when they pleaſe I find will wilfully miſtake others if they think they can make any advantage by it though never ſo baſe: But this I ſay,

1. That the Quakers have excluded themſelves from uſing of Figures, they having ſo long and ſo often witneſſed that all Figures were ended, and they were come to the end of all Figures, and were come to Chriſt the Light, which was the ſubſtance and the end of all Figures.

2. That if notwithſtanding the Quakers (in contradiction to themſelves) will take the Liberty to make uſe of Figures, in their words and writings, and the Interpretation of them, then they cannot (without groſs injuſtice and impudent partiality) deny to others the ſame liberty and the uſe of the ſame thing they take themſelves, and ſo the matter will hold good all along. The Apoſtle ſays, Rom. 14. and 22. Happy is he that condemneth not himſelf, in that thing which he alloweth.

And thus, Courteous Readers, you ſee, that G.W. hath furniſhed ſuch weapons for his Adverſary. That if he will but make uſe of them as he may, he muſt mortally wound the Cauſe of G.W. and all the Quakers. And thus G.W's Diſcourſe in ſo many Pages may be effectually enervated in theſe few lines. Now this being ſo, I cannot but foreſee (though I pretend not to be any ſuch Prophet as the Quakers do) that the Quaker will wind and twine, kick and winch, flatter and flutter to extricate himſelf out of this Net and Fetters which he hath ſo (ingeniouſly) caught and lockt himſelf in. But I think now he hath put himſelf there, I ſhall be able to hold the Leviathan, and the more Rope I give him, the leſs danger. (But ſtill I intend to keep him faſt).

I cannot but expect there will be great pulling and drawing here by the Quakers to Wiredraw, Draw-in, or draw-back; theſe words again. Surely ſome curious mincing and mangling we muſt expect about this good time; Now ſome new-invented QUAKERS QUIRK or QUIBBLE might ſerve at a dead lift, to extenuate, divide, diſtinguiſh, or extinguiſh it into Atomes. What can they find better now than a Jeſuitical equivocation? But if they ſerved ſeven years at Rome for it, yet 'tis a Queſtion whether it will quit their coſt; for G.W. knows (it ſeems) it is a ſcornful fellow he hath to deal withal; that will believe no more of the Quakers pretences than other mens, without BETTER PROOF. 'Tis ten to one if the more they flutter, they do not more be-fetter themſelves; they cannot thus dance in in a Net, but ſome Body will ſee them, and they are as eaſily ſeen through as they boaſt they can ſee through others.

[Page] G. Fox in the Epiſtle before G.W's Divin. of Chriſt, hath theſe words [We Charge thee, ſhew us a verſe in Scripture that ſpeaks ſuch Language, and where one word may be put for another by Metalepſis? and ſo leave People in doubts and Queſtions.]

Thou mayſt ſee, Courteous Reader, the intent of this Epiſtle is not to praiſe or commend the following Diſcourſe to thee, let it ſpeak for it ſelf, and as thou findeſt, ſo Judg; but not without throughly conſidering of it, laying aſide all Partiality and private Intereſt to particular Sects; otherwiſe if thou art byaſſed either to the Quakers or Baptiſts, or any other, more than to Reaſon and Truth it ſelf, it will prove the more difficult for thee to Judg aright, For the firſt thing a Man muſt do (according to wiſe Charon's advice) that would find Wiſdom and embrace the Truth, is to diſingage himſelf and diſcharge his underſtanding of all his former (and prejudicate) Opinions; yea, though in themſelves ſome of them may be true, and take no more of them up again, than what he ſhall find ſure evidence, good Authority, or ſound Reaſon for: and as to the reſt, I have for many years thought it better either to ſuſpend ones judgment, or to acknowledg ones fallibility or Ignorance, till better and certainer evidence preſents; than vainly to dogmatize and proudly to pretend a certain knowledg of things or principles where we have not ſo clear and undoubted evidence, as if we ſhould (ſo weakly) think, that our own fancies and meer pretences muſt indeed be or ſerve for reaſon and evidence to all others, eſpecially if it be well conſidered how ſtrong & ſtrange impreſſion [...] that one humour in Men's Bodies, viz. melancholly alone, will ſometimes make in peoples fancies & imaginations, which humor many think was very predominant among the Quakers at their firſt coming up, and may be yet among ſome of them though others of them are grown pretty Jolly, and will take a Cup of the Creature as other Men may do in a Civil way to refreſh their hearts:

Therefore to conclude, if any will Judg with ſound Judgment they ought to lay aſide all Prejudicate Opinions they have received, either by Education or otherwiſe; and ſo if you ſhall think good, you may pleaſe to read on, and I ſhall ſubſcribe,

Your true Friend, Thomas Thompſon.

ERRATA.

[Page]

READER,

THE Authors Diſtance not admitting him to attend the Preſs, there hath happened ſome ſmall faults and omiſſions of Interlined words, the moſt material of which he intreats thee in the firſt place to correct with a Pen. p. 3. l. 4. dele no, l. 5. r. ſhalt. p. 13. l. 33. r. give. p. 17. l. 6. r. however. p. 28. l. 7. r. Quakers. p. 35. l. 1. f. may, r. ſhould. p. 36. l. 18. r. as hath Eſſentially. p. 37. l. 26. r. ſome of themſelves. p. 49. l. 31. ad 20th. p. 52. l. 29. f. Sign, r. Signs. ſee p. 51. l. 6. f. Prophecy, r Miracles. p. 54. l. 10. r. pay andrad. p. 55. l. 30. r. Call. p. 60. l. 21. add 8th. p. 61. l. 18. r this oppoſers. p. 64. l. 29. dele can. and add () p. 66. l. 10. add () p. 67. l. 10. r. this (ſo called) p. 81. l. 21. r. Quakers in their conceits. p. 86. l. 24. f. may be, r. not be. p. 87. l. 6. f. Plumbs, r. Plums. p. 93. l. 5. f. this, r. this in it ſelf.

The Second Part OF THE Quakers-Quibbles.

[Page]

The Introduction containing ſome remarks on G.W's Preface and his Treatiſe in General.

WHereas the Author of the Pamphlet (Geo. Whitehead) pretends to Anſwer an Epiſtle directed to Will. Penn, ſtiled, THE QUAKERS-QUIBBLES, and therein to demonſtrate the QUAKERS-PLAINNESS; I find he doth no [...]hing [...]eſs, but inſtead thereof, hath ſet forth many more QUIBBLES of his own, and the Quakers; as I [...]hall preſently evince to you: So that if any Perſon ſhould have doubted, when only they ſaw them ſet forth in my Epiſtle; Surely they cannot now, that ſo eminent a Quaker himſelf hath publiſhed a New Edition of Quibbles and Quirks too.

And whereas G.W. would appear a very plain meek and moderate Man, ſtiling himſelf and the Quakers [US HIS [Gods] PEOPLE] and though he be a Quaker, yet would make you believe (if you would be no wiſer) he is a more impartial-Man to his own Sect, than that indifferent Perſon, which is neither Baptiſt nor Quaker (who writ the QUIBBLES): But now to uſe his own words, (which ſerve better againſt him, than for him) let the ſerious Reader conſider, and judg [Page] of this man's Moderation and Ingenuity; wh [...] in his pretended Anſwer, inſtead of impartially relating matters of Fact (for others to judge of) all along bears upon the Baptiſts and me, with hard Language, Taunts, and Quibbles: comparing [...] and them to Papiſts and Jeſuites, as if we had ſerved ſeven years at Rome; calling us a Stingy Generation of Hypocrites and Apoſtates; ſtyling my Epiſtle Abuſive▪ a very partial and ſcornful Pamphlet, accuſing me with Injuſtice, Wickedneſs, a dark Spirit, Canting, Quibbles, deceitful Dealing, and Hypocritical Pretences; abſurd, unjuſt, partial, ſcornfully aggravated, ſcandalous and wicked; ſavouring of meer Ignorance and Envie; Idle Quibbling and envious Canting; Irreverent Quibbling, Socinian-like; Faithleſs Demands▪ being in the Unbelief; A partial and ſelf-contradictory Pen, ſmiting in the dark, envious, and unjuſt; with falſhoods, traducing, and Canting-Language, &c. By which one may perceive, the Man has learned to Cant, for in his Book you have this Canting-Quibbles, Envious Canting, and Canting Language; and much more of the like Nature.

How now Quakers! Is this your impartial plain Man? Is this one of your US GOD'S PEOPLE? As though your Sect ALONE, had a Patent to be God's People; Or is it not an Impropriation? Can you think he hath well palliated-matters, either with indifferency, moderation, or impartiality between us? or that ſuch work will make a Pacification or end the Controverſie? No, No. Such deceitful dealing, & Hypocritical pretences, will ſtand you in no ſtead. And yet I muſt think he hath dealt kindly with me too, that he hath not been pleaſed to afford me ſome of his, and his friends Old Language of Conjurer, Sorcerer, Blaſphemer,[Page]Serpent, Sott, and thou Reprobate, thou Dragon, thou Antichriſt, thou accurſed, thou Cain, thou dead Beaſt, thou art unredeemed from thy vain Converſation, and ſo art not juſtified, [...], nor never ſhalt be. Oh! thou dark Beaſt and Conjurer; with much more which Ed. Burroughs did uſe in the compaſs of about three Leaves; the like I never heard in my Life before, from one Man: And what think you, ſhould be the occaſion of all this; no more but a Miniſters ſending or propoſing twenty Queſtions to him, whereas he and they have put hundreds and hundreds of Queſtions to others. I am of the Opinion, that any ſober Man which ſhall read this, would hardly think it credible, but that he may ſee it in Ed. Burroughs work pa. 29. and ſo on. And Reader, that thou mayeſt know that George Whitehead himſelf hath been no ill Proficient in this Quaking School of Quakers Complements (and by the way note theſe are the men that are offended at uſing the word Sir or Sirs) I will give you but a taſte, only what you may find in a leaf and two lines more, in one of his Books; I dare affirm you will ſay it's proof enough and too much for a thouſand leaves of any ſober man's! The Book is intituled ISHMAEL AND HIS MOTHER CAST OUT INTO THE WILDERNESS among the Wild Beaſts of the ſame Nature, in Anſwer to Mr. Towneſend Miniſter in Norwich, ſet forth by G. Whitehead and three other Quakers, which they ſay, was GIVEN FORTH FROM THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IN THEM; p. 11, 12. THOU PRIEST OF BAAL, FOR THAT IS THY NAME; thy lies are made manifeſt: ſham [...] covers thy face; THOU FULL OF ROTTENNESS▪ and moſt FILTHY Dreams, THOU BLIND SOT, SEE thy Confuſion. They that are not ſtark blind may[Page]ſee thy Rottenneſs and thy Foundation, to be in t [...] m [...]re and dirt, and may ſee Thee to be a SENSLES [...] NATURAL BRUIT-BEAST; Who with thy li [...] art MADE to be taken and DESTROYED. OH THOU BLASPHEMER, and Slanderer of the Ju [...] when wilt thou ceaſe from thy LIES and BLASPHEMY — Prieſt, to conclude thy filthy rotten ſtuff, th [...] ſayeſt they that make not the Word of God the Rule f [...] their Actions, are led either by their own Fancies, or t [...] Devils Temptations, or both. Thou PRIEST TOWN [...] END, art here laid open; & thou art uncovered, and he [...] thou art found to be a denier of the Word and Rule, an [...] Foundation; and thou art led by thy Dreams, and Fa [...] cies, and thy Foundation is in the Duſt & THOU AR [...] RESERVED IN EVERLASTING CHAINS ƲNDER DARKNESS, FOR EVERLASTIN [...] FIRE. And here thou in all theſe thy Lies, AR [...] SHUTOUT FROM GOD, and all the Children [...] God, among the DOGS and SORCERERS, and TH [...] LAKE IS THY PORTION, which is the portion [...] all Lyers. THUS have we returned a FƲLL Anſwer unto thy ſenſeleſs ſtuff, &c. Pag. 10. THO [...] BLIND BEAST — Thou that ſayeſt that th [...] SCRIPTURES REVEAL GOD, THOƲ ART A LYAR.

Theſe are his words, and much more (which I a [...] weary of Tranſcribing) in two Pages, and two line [...] only; and the reſt of the Book is much of the ſame ſort: And what do you think all this was for, that ſhould be ſo high a Provocation? Only, the Miniſters ſaying that the Scripture was our Rule ſo long as we live on Earth, or to that effect.

Now for G. Whitehead and his fellows, to entitle and Father on the HOLY GHOST, ſuch Beaſtly [Page] rotten ſtuff on SUCH AN OCCASION, and ſay, that this their rayling curſing and damning a man everlaſtingly, for ſuch a cauſe, was given forth by the SPIRIT OF GOD, as they audaciouſly do, how nigh it borders on BLASPHEMY INDEED, I leave the ſerious Reader to Judg; and conſider, whether theſe Fruits do not more reſemble thoſe of the FLESH, than them of the RIGHT SPIRIT; do but compare them with the notes the Apoſtle gives you, Gal. 5.19, &c.

Let the Quakers at other times make what fair pretences they will, By their Fruits you ſhall know them, and our Saviour ſaith, out of the abundance of the heart the mouth ſpeaketh.

This was not done in haſte, only on a ſuddain ſurpriſe of paſſion (which might have been the more excuſable) or upon the higheſt provocation; but upon ſuch deliberation as Men uſe to take in writing of Books, and upon a Conſultation and Approbation of three or four Quakers together, UPON NO OTHER OCCASION THAN WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD, which ſeems ſo abominably groſs, that I am doubtful while I am writing, my Reader may ſuſpect it; and ſome Quakers pretend, I have wronged G. Whitehead, Wherefore that all doubtful perſons may be ſatisfied that I have not wronged them, it's my intention (if conveniently I can) to procure the Bookſeller to let G. Whitehead's Book be ſhown at the Shop for their ſatisfaction. If this be their Spiritual Heavenly Doctrine, their immediate Revelation, and infallible Inſpiration, God preſerve me from it, and from ſpiritual pride; and keep me humble and little in my own eyes, ſtill to confeſs my fallibility, whil'ſt it pleaſes him we ſhould be in [Page] this ſtate and condition. Poſſibly one may find th [...] worſt of the Rabble, the very dregs and wickedneſs o [...] the World, INSPIR'D with ſuch-like RAILING and damning language upon ſlight occaſions: But hardly any where elſe, that I know of, except among the Quakers, or Muggletonians, who have uſed it ſo frequently as if they took the greateſt Pride in it: As though they think themſelves ſet over all others to to judg and damn them in a ſerious manner at their pleaſure. If I ſhould believe ſuch a curſing damning Spirit in the Quakers to be the Spirit of God, then on the ſame ground, I muſt believe Muggleton's Spirit to be the Spirit of God; for his is likewiſe a curſing damning Spirit, to ſuch as oppoſe him. But in this reſpect Muggletons ſpirit is the more charitable of the two, that he curſes only the Miniſters, and ſuch as pretend they have a Commiſſion to be teachers; But the people that hear them, he ſays, may be ſaved i [...] they do not perſonally oppoſe him or his Commiſſion. Then judg, ſober Reader, where you think the [...] malicious Spirit reigns moſt now? which is the beſt language, and which ſort of Complements is unfitteſt to be uſed among civil perſons and ſober Chriſtians? Oh! that men ſhould ſtrain at ſuch a term as Sir, and yet can open their black mouths in ſuch foul terms, and Titles as you have heard.

Now if all this (which is my chief aim herein) will not bring them to Repentance for, nor perſwade them to leave off, ſuch cenſuring and hard-ſpeeches, or ſham [...] them out of the ſo common and frequent uſe of it; to thoſe that ſee not ground ſufficient to believe them, I do here let them know, from henceforward, I ſhall nor tye my ſelf up, from uſing ſuch a Liberty of Speech as I ſhall judg meet; however I'le endeavour to uſe as little [Page] as conveniently I can (not being over-fond of it) I being ſtill of opinion that to tell a Man he lies, is no good Anſwer nor Argument, & that the frequent uſe of it (as the Quakers do) becoms not a well-civiliz'd man overmuch

Where he begins to his unprejudiced-Reader, p. 3. his words are General, and will ſerve the baptiſts turn, or another Profeſſion as well as, if not better, than his: They can write this againſt thee G.W. and thy Friends, viz. [If the TRUTH could have been overcome by falſhood, or buried under reproaches, or ſtopt with Popular Cla [...]ors, or undermined by the ſecret Combinations of its Adverſaries, or ſuppreſt by Injuſtice or Partiality; I confeſs theſe implacable and envious Men, who are chiefly concerned againſt us, would have had the day; and their Iniquity been triumphant, and remained uncontroulable. But ſuch their Weapons and Engines, have not prevailed, nor ever ſhall effect the Enemies Deſigns againſt God's Cauſe or Heritage; Had they been Men of Tender Conſcience, or reſpected the Honour of Religion more than Intereſt and Popular fame, they would not have given us occaſion for theſe publique Conteſts, neither by abetting a manifeſt Forger, nor by lying Pamphlets or falſe Relations, that they ſo frequently bring forth, and cauſe to be ſpread againſt us: But their hard Hearts, their fretful ſtriving Spirits vent forth their Envy, and declare their Spleen and i [...]-will towards us, only that they want Power to effect their Revenge upon us: to evince this, I could give divers Inſtances, that an Inveterate Perſecuting Spirit hath long been, and yet lives and works in divers of theſe Quakers, Teachers and Leaders.]

They can if they pleaſe, call you as you do them, a ſtingie Generation of Hypocrites and Apoſtates, many [Page] of you having (as they ſay) been but Apoſtates from their Church, and they can tell you, that many ſuch of late do buſie themſelves, and take Counſel together like malicious incendiaries againſt them: But that God will bring their Counſel to naught, and ſcatter the proud in their Imaginations; And that they have a ſecret ſadneſs and ſorrow of Spirit, becauſe of the great loſs, declenſion, and Apoſtacy, that divers even of theſe Quakers are fallen into. Oh! the former Zeal, Religion, tenderneſs of Conſcience, &c. But now at one that is a Quaker himſelf hath plainly told you, The old Serpent is got up into you again, and you are run into the World, and the faſhions and delights thereof again, and that you are run into outward forms, and have loſt the Spirit and the power that once you enjoyed, and now you are become as Worldly, Proud, and Covetous, as ſome others are. As to your Sufferings, if you would have me guided by that meerly, then I muſt abundantly prefer the Church of England, and Reformed Churches beyond-Sea; Nay and the Churches in Poland, to be in the Truth, before yours; for that all their Sufferings for Religion, have been more and eminenter, than yours, in ſeveral reſpects: Firſt, in the extremity of the puniſhment and ſufferings themſelves; how many of the Church of England (which you have ſo much condemned) have expir'd in the flames for the defence, and Teſtimony of their Religion! how many ſtrange, cruel tortures, and bloody maſſacres, have they had, which I did not ever hear that you have ſufferred in ſuch a degree! Though I could heartily, with all my Soul wiſh, that you had not ſuffered ſo much, as heretofore you have done. 2. In reſpect to the number of ſufferers, how many thouſands, and ten thouſands, Butchered at a [Page] time! you only had ſome few happened to dye in Priſon, which yet I wiſh might have been prevented. 3. In reſpect of duration and continuance for many years. Yours but for a ſhort time, and bleſſed be God that hath inclined the heart of our King to mercy. Thus you ſee clearly, that in this Proof or Evidence, the reformed Churches beyond the Seas, and the Church of England doth far exceed you. As for W.P's ſincere-heartedneſs, p. 5. I have not much to ſay for it; 'tis likely, I may have ſomewhat to ſay againſt it if occaſion be offered; but as for his Zeal I am apt enough to believe, that it ſometimes outruns his knowledg. But why might not this ſincere-hearted, and Zealous Man, W.P. Anſwer this Epiſtle, it being particularly directed to him? could any perſon do it better than one that was ſincere-hearted, and Zealous too? If W.P. had Anſwered it, and he indeed ſo ſincere-hearted as G.W. pretends, I ſhould have been glad of it; for then he had ſaved me much of this labour which G.W. hath put me to, by reaſon of his unſincerity, and double-heartedneſs, in his pretended Anſwer; Or did G.W. Anſwer it, that ſo he might ſet out the praiſe of W.P? Becauſe it was not ſo convenient for W.P. to commend himſelf in his own Perſon, as it was hinted of Hickeringel. But it ſeems (W.G. ſays) I thought m [...]t (whether he means the Man George, or the Light within, I know not,) to write that brief Tract though it be not directed to me] Well George, ſince I could not have an Anſwer from W.P. it ſeems I muſt be contented with ſuch an Anſwer as thou wilt give me. Or, doſt thou only intend to Practice here, as I obſerve thou didſt in the late Diſpute? firſt endeavour to throw off all by Circumlocutions and Evaſive words; and if that will not [Page] nor do, then W.P. to come in either ope [...]ly, or covertly to thy relief: We ſhall ſee whether this will be the ſequel of thy undertaking and Anſwer, and not that ſincere hearted Man, to whom it was directed; and ſo I perceive I am like but to have an inſincere Anſwer.

[We find the ſaid Pamphlet ſubſcribed with the Na [...] Thomas Thomſon. Whether this be the real Author's Name (ſays he) ſome queſtion. But he doth not tell us who queſtioned it, though the Book-ſeller will tell you if you queſtion him, That G.VV. himſelf, & others of the Quakers have ſo much, and often queſtioned him about it (as if they had had ſome power of the POPISH INQUISITION) that he could not be quiet for them (they more than once gathering a Multitude of People about his Shop) by their crying, BRING OUT THE MAN, BRING OUT THE MAN TO US, LET US SEE HIS FACE. Why George, what wouldſt thou do with him? I aſſure thee he hath a Noſe in his Face, as well as any Quaker hath: What if the Author, inſtead of Th [...]. Thomſon had ſubſcribed M.A. could not VV.P. have joyned N. (after VV.L's way of Addition) and then have read it thus, A MAN? But ſince thy friends ſo MAGISTERIALLY commanded this poor Man (the Author of that moderate Epiſtle) to be brought forth to them, 'tis happy for him that thou art ſo ignorant (for all thy boaſting Revelations) and that thy Light leaves thee in ſo much darkneſs of the Author, that thou canſt not tell (when thou readeſt it,) whether it is the real Author's Name or no; for if he had been brought forth at the QUAKERS MANDAMUS, he could not tell what QUAKERS SPIRITUAL-COURT, might have been erected for him; neither could he have hoped to have faired better [Page] there than in the POPISH INQUISITION, if you had but as much power: But bleſſed be the Lord that as yet you have not. It appears the Author did not only believe, but now experiments to be true what he wrote, viz. That he had ground to queſtion, whether your pretending to Inſpiration, and immediate Revelation, was not only a bare pretence, and ſelf-confidence, without having ANY MORE to ſhow for it than OTHERS had? Otherwiſe, if what your great Prophet Ed. Burroughs ſaid, be true, tha [...] the Spirit of Chriſt gives infallib [...]lity of Judgment, and diſcerning into all caſes and things; and that he had believed you had had it, he could then never have imagined you ſhould at all have doubted, but have been infallibly aſſured, whether that Epiſtle was writ by the perſon that ſubſcribed it or not. But what if it happen that you are not acquainted perſonally with the Author, are there not a thouſand, and a thouſand, that you do not perſonally know? Is the Author or his Book ever the worſe or better for that? ſurely no.

Suppoſe, the Author be a private perſon, and is not ambitious to ſeek the publick applauſe of Men, what haſt thou to ſay to it? What if he dwells fifty or ſixty Miles from London, or that his occaſions call him to Cheſter, Ireland, or any other remote place? Muſt he come up to London of neceſſity to be gazed upon by the Quakers? is this reaſonable think you? What does my perſon ſignifie to the merit of the Cauſe? that's that which they ought to mind, if they were ingenuouſly Honeſt, and not my perſon: Whatſoever that may be to the reputation of an Opinion, I am ſure it is nothing to the TRUTH of it, that ſuch or ſuch a Man holds it; as one of the Church of England [Page] hath rationally ſaid (whom doubtleſs the Quakers muſt acknowledg to be an indifferent perſon, and not intereſſed in the late diſputes); and therefore it ſeems very abſurd, and ridiculous in any Argument to meddle with that, which nothing concerns the Queſtion: Beſides, no Cauſe ſtands in need of ſuch mean and un [...]anly Artifices, but ſuch an one as is extreamly baffled, yea deſperate; and even then are they (ſays he) the worſt Arguments in the World to ſupport it; for quick-ſighted men, will ſee through the Duſt they endeavour to raiſe, and thoſe that are duller will be apt to ſuſpect from their being ſo angry and waſpiſh that they have but a bad matter to manage. I wiſh the men that I have now to deal with, were arrived to this degree of perfection, that they had ſo much ligh [...] and rationality, as even one of that Church (which they have condemned as being in the dark) to their ſhame doth ſee and declare.

But to return, at laſt it ſeems, George hath hit on't when he tells you [What-ever he be, he writes like a confident Controuler of W.P. and the Quakers, and would ſeem to be ſome body] pag. 6th. Well ſaid George, a thouſand to one elſe, but that he was ſome body, except he was all Spirit, and no Body, which I am apt to think George himſelf is no, tas much as he pretends to the Spirit. [I! But he writes like a Confident Controuler of W.P. and the Quakers.] And why is VV.P. ſuch a Gent. that he may not be upon any Terms controuled? Or the Quakers ſuch ingroſſers of confidence that none may uſe it but themſelves? What's VV.P. a Pope or a Prince that he muſt not be controuled? Oh! daring ſome Body that preſumes ſo much. What, controul VV.P. what controul the Quakers! And which is worſt yet, [Page] I find Geo [...]ge is a little angry (for want of other matter) that ſome of the Anabaptiſts have commended it for an ingenuous piece] How! Is that poſſible? to be ingenuous and yet controul VV.P.? how can any Quaker admit of that? But ſays George (another of the moſt material things he hath to find fault withal) his Complement of SIR, and THOU SIR, and THOU, as alſo, Mountebank Fool, &c. with much more ſuch Language to VV.P. looks but oddly; a ſtrange way of Complementing (ſays G.)! from ſuch a Perſon as would be thought a Moderator.] Now Reader whether this be even or odd, I have not reckoned up, but I think it was very oddly done of G.VV. to expreſs himſelf no evener; for here the Man is pleaſed to find fault wi [...]h the word THOU, as well as thou Sir. When ſurely he forgets that one of his great Prophets (G.F. and others) thought the Quakers ſuch Shuttle-Cocks as that they had need of ſo large a a Battledoor for to learn them, HOW MAN THOU'D GOD, and GOD THOU'D MAN. Oh pure Language! Is not this Spiritual-Doctrine think you? Such as the Quakers are likely to be ſent with, and Commiſſioned from Heaven about? And yet now are theſe Quakers ſo faced about, that one may not thou VV.P. without being worthy of Reproof; whether this be folly or Pride, I leave others to enquire. But, ſays G.VV. [a ſtrange way of Complementing!], viz. Sir, and thou Sir, &c.] well, well, G. gives us hopes then that he will ſet up a new and better way of Complementing? For here he doth not deny Complements, or the way of complementing, only gives you to underſtand that mine is a ſtrange way, and looks but oddly; but yet if G. had not forgot himſelf, it's neither ſo odd nor ſtrange but that the Apoſtles [Page] uſed it, Acts 14.14, and 15. Now what wilt thou ſay that Paul and Barnabas uſed a ſtrange way of Complementing here? If ſo, when thou ſet's up School, and I find I have need to learn, I'le come to thee; in the mean time I hope thou wilt hold me excuſed. Yet I charge thee to Anſwer if thou canſt, whether the word SIR, is a Complement, & if the Apoſtles did not uſe it? See Joh. 20.15. But ſee how theſe Men can when they pleaſe, ſtrain at Gnats, and ſwallow Camels. To ſay, Sir, is dangerous, but to call a Man, Sott, and blind Beaſt, is with them Religious, and pure Language. As for the Word Mountebank, I did not ſay VV.P. was one; but I ſaid & ſay again, that 'tis no new thing for a Mountebank or Stage-Player to have a grateful utterance, or fluent Tongue, &c. and ſo, that being a natural or an acquired gift in VV.P. proves not him to be any more immediately inſpired, than it will ſo prove a Mountebank or Stage-player, and do thou deny it if thou canſt. But whoever the Author be (G. hath it over once more) his work will further declare what dark ſpirit it came from, and that it much reſembles that of a Prejudiced angry ANABAPTIST, only diſguiſed, &c.] This ſurely ſhould be G's Maſterpiece, though he does not know mens Bodies, yet he knows their Spirits; yet I wonder how the Man ſhould come acquainted with dark Spirits, I thinking he had pretended to have no Converſe but with Spirits of Light. However, I can and do aſſure him, he is miſtaken, and as ignorant of one as he confeſſes himſelf of the other; I denying all prejudiced angry Anabaptiſts Spirits, as much as he lawfully does or can do. As to this pretended Anſwer in General, I do further obſerve that he craftily all along takes me for a Baptiſt, or would jumble me with them whether [Page] I will or no (though I did ſo ingenuouſly profeſs to VV.P. and the World in my Epiſtle, that I was none, nay never was) which he does wilfully, that ſo he might in like manner jumble his Anſwer, and ſo inſtead of Anſwering me, as at firſt he pretended, he palpably and deceitfully evades it, and ſhuffles me off, ſometimes to, and ſometimes with the Anabaptiſts; and this I and you muſt it ſeems take for the Quakers plainneſs. Now how he could poſſibly think that I, or if I, that all other underſtanding Readers, would be ſo fob'd off, I cannot imagine: As Dark as I am, I am clear enough ſighted to ſee that, and ſo ſome think I had no need to make a Reply, becauſe he hath wrote almoſt nothing in Anſwer to me, but talks to the Baptiſts: Oh poor ſhift! Oh pittiful ſhuffle! ſeen through as it runs through thy Book with half an eye! Yet, however that G. might have no occaſion vainly to boaſt, of his Quibbling undertaking the QUAKERS-QUIBBLES, I ſhall endeavour to enlighten him where he is wilfully blind, and ſhew him where his real Fallacy is inſtead of Pretended Plainneſs. And to take that falſe Cover from him, and vindicate the baptiſts as to their Innocency in that particular; and for further ſatisfaction to all People, I do hereby declare once more, and affirm, as in the preſence of God, That no Baptiſt, or Anabaptiſt ſo called, did ſee that my Epiſtle to W.P. till after [...] had writ it; nor had I any of their Advice or Counſel for the writing of it, or in the writing of it, as G.W. would maliciouſly & falſly inſi [...] ate to the abuſe of them and me, and the world beſides▪ I ſay if this be the Quakers-plainneſs, it is neither Chriſtian-plainneſs nor honeſty. But I being one of the Auditors at the Meeting, and really obſerving, (as I told VV.P. in my apprehenſion) a great deal of [Page] unfairneſs, ſubtilty, and Quibbling in the words and carriage of VV.P. G.VV. and G.K. it came into my heart to ſignifie as much in an Epiſtle to VV.P. not out of Pride, Envy, or Malice, but in Sobriety, and Love, (yet faithfully) to admoniſh him; and becauſe I was plain and down-right with them, in telling them of their unreaſonableneſs in ſome particulars, and my deſire of being informed in Truth and plainneſs (without Railing or Quibbling) of their Doctrines in others, Oh how they Cenſure my Epiſtle and me! But I value it not for that I am aſſured from a better and higher Authority than theirs, THAT THE CURSE CAUSELESS SHALL NOT COME.

SECT. I. Wherein the Author clears himſelf of thoſe ſelf-Contradictions, that G.W. charges him with; and the Anſwerer charged with ſeveral ſelf-Contradictions, or Inconſiſtencies.

IN His Firſt Section he is pleaſed to accuſe me, with theſe four things, p. 9.

1. Partiality,

2. Confuſion,

3. Hypocriſy,

4. Envy.

But makes not good one of them: now if alone to accuſe would make a Man Guilty, who ſhall, nay [Page] who can be innocent? As to the Firſt, G.VV. acquits me himſelf, p. 14. where he ſays I have condemned the Baptiſts as well as them, for wrangling and fighting in the Dark, &c. And yet if the Baptiſts promote the ſaid Epiſtle, as ſuch an ingenious or excellent piece, 'tis more than I deſire of them; however, thereby they ſhew more of Ingenuity, in Commending a Piece, or owning it may be Ingenious, notwithſtanding it reproves them, than you are willing to ſhew, becauſe it reproves you; who are hardly got ſo far as to be willing to own any thing for excellent, that reproves or condemns you: So here's your own partiality demonſtrated more than mine. As to the Second, of Confuſion and ſelf-contradictions, He is ſo kind to nominate but four Particulars; he might as well have pretended, there had been forty-four, for who could hinder him? But ſince the number he finds is ſo ſmall, I thank him for eaſing me, for if he had made ten times as many, they might have been as impertinent and falſe, and have put me to the more trouble to blow away the duſt he would raiſe, to hinder my Readers Eye-ſight.

I have heard ſay, That this man hath ſuch a rare Art of making Men contradict themſelves, that if one ſhould but ſay a Groat at one time, & four pence at another, he would go nigh to make his ſilly Diſciples believe that the Man had contradicted himſelf; and much after the ſame rate it fares with me, as I ſhall now clear to you.

1. The firſt ſelf-contradiction he charges me with, p. 11, is, Between my commending W.P. for an excellent Rhetorician, and fluent Tongue, and ſo was Cicero; and yet telling them, you give occaſion to perſons to think and judg you a perverſe Generation without Order or Rule, Rime, or Reaſon: ſays he, was Cicero ſuch an one then?

[Page] Reply. Does it follow, That if one ſays VV.P. be like Cicero in one thing, that therefore he and all the Quakers are, (or that I ſaid they are) like Cicero in all things? no ſurely; let him ſhew me ſuch a word: Again in p. 6. I ſpake of a particular perſon, viz. VV.P. and a particular Act, and in p. 25. I ſpake of the Quakers carriage generally, and then did but ſay, you gave occaſion to perſons to think and judg you ſo: I never had ſuch high thoughts of the Quakers in general, as to think them fit to be compared to Cicero in many things, and where's now the Contradiction? Here nothing remains but one of the Quakers-Quibbles. So this I note for the firſt Quibble, of his New Edition.

2. The ſecond he Charges me with, p. 11. is for ſaying, If W.P. had this Gift of a fluent Tongue and good Voyce, meerly by turning Quaker, it would more convince me of the Truth of W.P's. Chriſtianity, than all the Arguments I heard that day from him: and my confeſſing, that St. Paul ſaith, Though I ſpeak with the Tongues of Men and Angels, and have not Charity, I am become as ſounding Braſs or a tinkling Cymbal.

Reply. If there be any contradiction here, it muſt be in G.W's. Brain, and not in my Words; For I do ſtill ſay, That the Gift of Tongues immediately inſpired into thoſe of the True Church, upon their becoming Chriſtians, (which was the Gift I ſpake of p. 7. in expreſs words, without acquiring it by Study) was a certain Proof of Chriſtianity, yea (and I do now ſay) ſo diſcriminating, that I do not know, that ever we find in the whole Scripture, any others, but only Chriſtians, that were indued with that Gift by immediate Power and Inſpiration of the Holy Spirit. And accordingly the Apoſtle Peter took [Page] it for a ſufficient and undeniable ſign of their Belief and Chriſtianity, who had received this Gift, upon his Preaching Chriſt Jeſus to them, and thereupon commanded them to be Baptized, Acts 10.44. &c. They which Believed, were aſtoniſhed, as many as came with PETER, becauſe that on the GENTILES ALSO, was poured out the GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST, for they heard them SPEAK WITH TONGUES: Then Anſwered Peter, CAN ANY MAN FORBID WATER, That theſe ſhould not be Baptized, which have received the HOLY GHOST AS WELL AS WE? And he commanded them to be Baptized in the Name of the Lord. And do thou G. deny it (againſt this plain Teſtimony of Scripture) or make the Apoſtle Paul to Contradict the Apoſtle Peter here, if thy Conſcience can ſerve thee. Therefore G. thou art ſo far from proving this a Contradiction, that thou haſt committed a great miſtake, in ſaying, That the GIFT of Tongues is not a certain proof of Chriſtianity: wherefore conſider, what thou haſt (it's poſſible, only) raſhly and haſtily aſſerted, and be not aſhamed to confeſs thy Error. But on the other hand, though I owned SUCH A GIFT (as before mentioned, p. 7. of my Epiſtle) would be a good Proof to me, of W.P's Chriſtianity: Yet I do not, nor never did own, that Men ſpeaking never ſo MANY, nor ſo EXCELLENT Tongues by ACQUISITION AND STUDY, (much leſs that any of W.P's. Plauſible Orations or fine Harangues,) was a certain Proof of Chriſtianity, no, nor any Proof at all; and thoſe were the fine words without Charity I ſpake of p. 9. and where's then the Contradiction? Surely in G. his own Fancy; This being natural, mediate and acquired[Page]by Study, but the other Spiritual, and a Gift immediate from God at an Inſtant. And although it is not to be doubted, but that the Apoſtle Paul had learned to ſpeak l [...]ke an Orator, and more Tongues than one by Study, before his becoming a Chriſtian, he being brought up a Scholar; yet ſuppoſe it be granted, that he ſpeaks (1 Cor. 13.1.) of the Gift of Tongues he had immediately, he doth not ſay any ſuch thing, as that it is no certain proof of Chriſtianity to OTHERS; nay, ſo far from it, that in Chap. 14. v. 22. he aſſerts, Tongues are for a ſign to them that Believe not, that is, chiefly to them; (and in the Quakers ſence, ſuch are we, who do not believe them:) But that Charity which he ſpeaks of, is a Proof of his, or a mans SINCERITY BEFORE GOD, that he did make uſe and imploy thoſe GIFTS really in LOVE TO GOD AND HIS CHURCH, for the Planting and edifying of it, and not to any by, and baſe ends; which if he ſhould, it would profit him nothing v. 3. it would ſignifie nothing to his own Salvation, though poſſibly it might to others ▪ much like to this you have it expreſſed again by the Apoſtle in Chap. 9. v. 27. But I keep under my Body, and bring it into ſubjection; leſt that by any means, when I have PREACHED to OTHERS, I MY SELF ſhould be a CAST AWAY. So that TONGUES IMMEDIATELY inſpired by the Holy Spirit are a SIGN and PROOF to others of Chriſtianity, wherever that Gift was or is found; and CHARITY is a SIGN and PROOF of a man's ſincerity before God, and of his SINCERE LOVE TO GOD AND HIS BRETHREN in his Exerciſe of that GIFT OF TONGUES, and other miraculous G [...]fts which God hath given him for the planting and edifying of his Church. But what's all [Page] this to W.P. who alas is ſo far from having THAT CHARITY and SINCERITY in the Ʋſe and Exerciſe of thoſe ſpiritual Gifts of Tongues and Miracles, for the love and benefit of the Church, that HE hath NONE OF THOSE GIFTS TO USE OR EXERCISE AT ALL? And where's now the contradiction? therefore I muſt note this for G.W's ſecond Quibble.

The Apostles were to ſtay at Jeruſalem till they were endued with power from on high, viz. with tha [...] Spirit whereby they were enabled to ſpeak with Tongues, being to Preach the Goſpel to all Nations, and not only to thoſe that underſtood only the vulgar Tongue of the Jewes. But W.P. or ſeveral of the Quakers Prophets have been ſent to Preach the Goſpel (as they pretend) to Peoples and Countrys that did not underſtand their Language, particularly G. Fox to America, (where he as I have heard) ſent for at once, an Emperor and two Kings) to Preach to the Indians in Engliſh, which they underſtood no [...]. Thus have theſe Prophets rendered themſelves more Barbarous than thoſe Barbarians to whom they Preached. Had not men the Light within them in the Apoſtles time as much as now? If the Light within is now a ſufficient evidence of the Truth of the Goſpel, why not then alſo? why ſhould the Apoſtles, Peter and Paul have need of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghoſt then? and the Apoſtles George and William in theſe days have no need of them at all?

3. He charges this as a ſelf-contradiction, For ſaying thou madeſt thy ſelf the Author of a Lye, and ſhewedſt thy ſelf not only a Fool, but unjuſt; and yet that I hint for W.P. to ſay, It is a Lye, is neither Anſwer nor Argument; and therefore in Love I ſhould [Page]adviſe him to leave off ſuch Billinſgate Rhetorick.

Reply. Oh excellent Artiſt! He leaves out part of my words, and then tells me I have contradicted my ſelf: For theſe words [TO EXPRESS IT IN THY OWN LANGUAGE] he deceitfully leaves out; which I did in my very writing the Epiſtle think of, and put in on purpoſe to prevent any ſuch miſtake; for thereby I gave W.P. plainly to underſtand, that it was his Language and none of mine; I did expreſs it in his Language and not my own; that ſo he might be the more ſenſible of it.

Now George, call to mind thy own words, p. 68. But if you take this kind of unfair Curtailing, which deſtroys the ſence—is this your Care and Juſtice? would you be thus ſerved, both to wrong me, and abuſe the World or your Reader? And ſee how out of thine own mouth thou haſt Condemned thy ſelf, both as a partial and ſelf-contradictory Pen.

In his 3d. Sect. pa. 27, and 28. He is up with it again, as if the man was ſo taken with talking about Lying, Forgery, &c. as that then only he was in his natural Element; and rather than he would not make me to contradict my ſelf (becauſe in the Margent I quoted the Apoſtles words, Titus 3.2, 3. Speak evil of no Man, be no Brawlers,) he will adventure to make the Apoſtle contradict or be inconſiſtext with himſelf on that ground; for in the very ſame Epiſtle Cap. 1.12. the Apoſtle ſays of the Cretians, That a Prophet of their own ſaid, the Cretians are always Lyars, Evil Beaſts, Slow Bellies; This w [...]tneſs is true.

And yet to go round again, p. 29. in vindication of W.P. he can tell you the Scripture proves ſuch [Page]Language, and cites Pſal. 52.3. &c.

Reply. what does the Scripture prove ſuch Language for W.P. and not for others? Or wilt thou blame others for what thou ſayeſt the Scripture proves? But where does the Scripture commend the ſo frequent uſe of it, as you make of it? And where does the Scripture prove the uſe of it at all on ſuch Occaſions, as many times you uſe it on? The Scripture commends Wine, and Timothy is commanded to uſe a little with his Water, but yet uſing too much of it may be vitious, and that was it I condemned in W.P. viz. uſing ſuch language ſo frequently, and inſtead of Arguments, or a better Anſwer to his Adverſaries. But that G.W. may take a liberty to ſay any thing, though never ſo palpably falſe, appears in p. 29. where he ſays, [That it ſeems it is the Language, Lyer, and Forger, &c. that I find faults with, and not the Application thereof.]

Reply. That's a miſtake alſo, for that was the very thing I found fault with, viz. the ſo very frequent uſing or applying it to your Adverſaries; for thus are my words, p. 25. I will crave leave to mention one thing more of my obſerving; and that is, thy ſo oft uſing the groſs word of Lying and Forgery, and Lyar, and Forger; eſpecially in thy Books againſt T.H. that it will hardly ſtand with good manners; ſuch Language to be SO COMMON and FREQUENT, methinks ſutes not well, &c. Which words I ſhould think ſtill were civil and moderate enough, if they were not prejudiced againſt all that is againſt them. Wherefore this I note for G.W's. third Quibble: beſides a double falſhood, firſt in leaving out part of my words, and ſecondly, ſaying I did not find fault with the Application of it which I did.

[Page]4. In the laſt place, he would make this a ſelf-contradiction, viz. my ſaying, PERHAPS W.P. i [...] of a different mind from ſome of his friends, as it i [...] reported, &c. And my ſpeaking of W.P's being engaged with ſuch a People, and having received their Principles.

Reply. Is it poſſible that ever any man that's ſober and in his Wits, could have the Confidence to publiſh his own ignorance ſo, as to call that a ſelf-Contradiction, when he himſelf acknowledges, I ſay but PERHAPS, and neither affirm nor deny any thing poſitively, and how then can this be a contradiction? and yet my words run more full, if it can be, p. 20. Or IF PERHAPS thou art of a different mind from ſome of thy friends in THIS PARTICULAR, why would'ſt thou not honeſtly tell us ſo? And beſides, if I had laid it down poſitively (whereas you ſee I did it otherwiſe) yet would it not have proved a Contradiction: For W.P. might have received the Quakers Principles at one time, and yet afterwards come to vary in ſome one particular, though not in all: and I believe I can prove if there be occaſion, that moſt of the Quakers themſelves, have changed, or varyed in ſome of their Principles or Practices, from what they at firſt Practiſed and gave forth. Now I do admire with what face G.W. can Print ſuch ſtuff as this, and I do ſpeak ſeriouſly, I cannot imagine how he can ſatisfy his Conſcience in dealing ſo deceitfully, as he muſt needs know he does here with me, if he knows any thing: Is it poſſible that theſe words [IF PERHAPS] ſhould be one Member of a Contradiction, as I writ it? How can I poſſibly think, he can be a Man truly fearing God, that makes no Conſcience of dealing thus unfairly, and repreſenting [Page] things ſo falſly to his Reader by perverting the ſence of my words? which I leave every Reader to Judg of, whether this be the Quakers-plainneſs, detecting Fallacy, and not rather, The Quakers Fallacy perverting plainneſs; and this therefore I note as his fourth Quibble.

And now I hope G.W. will not ſay it is Forgery, or Slander, if they are charged as he relates p. 77. That the Quakers endeavour to Render their Adverſaries as Ridiculous as they can, and to make their Friends believe they do nothing but contradict themſelves. But I have this further to ſay for my ſelf, That if I had indeed committed a miſtake, or contradicted my ſelf, I had that to plead for my excuſe, which G.W. commends me for, p. 44. that my opinion is, H [...]manum eſt errare, and that would have born me out, I honeſtly and ingeniouſly telling him and the World, That I pretended to no ſuch infallibillity, as the Quakers do.

And now having thus fully cleared my ſelf, I ſhall try G.W. if he be not more guilty of what he accuſes me, viz. ſelf-contradictions, or at leaſt, Inconſiſtences with himſelf, and whether this man that pretends to Infallibility, be any more infallible than others, viz. 1. What G.W. ſays p. 19. That they cannot deviate from Scripture-Language in their Creed, and they muſt tell us, that until we bring them plain Scripture that ſaith, the Human Nature is the Chriſt, they muſt rather patiently bear our cenſure, &c. Now this I humbly conceive to be inconſiſtent with what G.W. ſays, (but one page before, viz. p. 18.) Have we not plainly and often confeſt alſo, That the Divine Nature or Word cloathed with the moſt Holy manhood —was and is the Chriſt. For I do not find theſe [Page] words [cloathed with the moſt Holy Manhood] to be Scripture-Language, and yet G.W. p. 18. admits them in his Creed, neither do they bring any plain Scripture that ſaith ſo, and yet they believe it, or confeſs it, if G.W. ſays true. 2. Where G.W. ſays p. 20. Whether Chriſts Humane Nature, be a part of Chriſt, as it was not a Queſtion in Scripture-Phraſe or Language, ſo it was as abruptly and ſillily obtruded. And yet p. 22, 23, and 25. he propoſes ſeveral Queſtions, which are not in Scripture-Phraſe or Language, viz. [I ask you if ANY MORE of Chriſt PROPERLY dyed than the Body? Do you hold that his Soul, Spirit or Divinity dyed? and p. 44. And if he was the Son of God, and ſo Chriſt before his Incarnation or aſſuming Fleſh? And many more too long to tranſcribe. 3. His blaming me p. 10. for comparing W.P. to a Jeſuite, and yet p. 31. He does the ſame by me, in theſe words [Our preſent oppoſers do argue as exactly like the Jeſuites and Papiſts againſt the Protestants, as if they had ſerved ſeven years at Rome.

Reader, Judg you if G. hath not now out-done me, and in that very thing for which yet he accuſes me. 4. His blaming me p. 10. for uſing hard Language and groſs Words, and yet all along his Pamphlet he uſes the ſame Language or worſe, as p. 6, 7, &c. Dark Spirit, ſilly Drollery, a Stingy Generation of Hypocrites, and Apoſtates, Wicked, Abſurd and Unjuſt, Canting-Language, Envious Canting, &c. Now is he not herein Inconſiſtent with himſelf, and accuſes that in another, which he allows in himſelf; and ſo condemns himſelf.

G.W. p. 13, 14. Comes to ſpeak of the gift of Tongues immediately inſpired, which I told W.P. [Page] if he had, as the Primitive-Church had, would more convince me, and confute the Baptiſts, than a hundred ſuch days Diſputing: But inſtead of making an Anſwer to me, or ſhewing that W.P. or ſo much as any one member of his Church hath ſuch a gift, he falls to asking Queſtions of the Baptiſts. Is this ſome of the Quakers plainneſs? of which you ſhall hear more in the third Section, he having there reaſſumed the Anſwering it again.

G.W. p. 16. As for two of us ſpeaking together at a time, and crying hear, hear, ſays, that was to hear him that was to ſpeak] Yea, but you cryed out and ſpoke much more than thoſe two words, and the thing I found fault with, p. 11. as diſorderly, was W.P. ſpeaking, when his Opponents were ſpeaking, and thy and his, or G.K's. ſometimes making Diſcourſes together, and at other times one after another, and ſo confounding your Diſcourſes on purpoſe to evade, inſtead of diſputing in a Regular way; and yet when another went to ſpeak for Tho. Hicks, Mr. Penn or his friends cryed out, Hicks, Hicks, Hicks, it is him we will hear; and this I charged upon W.P. as both diſorderly, unfair, and unreaſonable; and let him get off of it, if he can, for thou ſayeſt nothing to bring him off.

Whereas, G.W. p. 16. ſaith further, That it is ſuppoſed, that [...]igh a 100 of the Baptiſts would clamour together, and make a hideous noyſe, and Bawling, to ſtop him that was about to ſpeak.] 'Tis very probable this in ſome meaſure might be true, but whether the number of nigh a hundred Baptiſts, that I cannot ſay; And juſt ſo I do witneſs the Quakers did in their Turns, ſeveral of them ſtanding by me that owned themſelves Quakers, and Bawled out after [Page] the ſame manner: And can it be evil in the Baptiſts▪ and good in the Quakers? And when-as G.W. ſays, they did not ſhuffle or boggle at one ſingle Queſtion out of fear, but becauſe it was not W.P's place then to Anſwer Interrogations and unſcriptural-Queſtions] a poor ſhift indeed! Who ſhall be Judges of that beſides the Quakers? Thou G.W. art no proper Judg in it. The Queſtion was grounded on their Charge of your being no Chriſtians, and occaſioned by W.P's own abſurd diſtinction, as I writ him. But then as to the matter of Fact, you here grant, you did ſo far boggle, as to make ſome intermiſſion before an Anſwer was given.

And as to W.P. taking the words out of T.H's. mouth, or Anſwering before T.H. made an end of his ſpeech, W.P. ſaying, That then he owned he could not prove them all, or to that effect.

G.VV. himſelf p. 17, 28. cannot but own the matter of Fact, it was ſo palpable, only he would fain palliate it, by ſaying, that many apprehended T.H. made a ſtop,] What then? G. (ſuppoſing that which yet others deny, that he made any other ſtop, than what is uſual to make a mans words intelligible) wouldſt thou not give a Man Breath, or leave to fetch his Breath? do you not know that the uſual Practice amongſt Diſputants that will be either fair or honeſt is, to ask, Haſt thou ſaid? Or have you done? Is this all? And then truly to repeat the Argument. But inſtead of all this, W.P. lay upon the Catch, and as it happened, by his raſhneſs Catcht himſelf; and this I apprehended as unfair dealing. And what G.W. ſays further, is yet worſe, viz. p. 17. [That VV.P. did not inſiſt on the matter] For indeed he might well be aſhamed to inſiſt on it, he finding [Page] he had been too nimble, and ſpoke that of T.H. which in the Event proved falſe, viz. then he owns he cannot prove them all, or to that effect, whereas T.H. owned no ſuch thing. And ſuppoſe, that what you charged T.H. with had been true, to wit, that he had abuſed you; will that excuſe you for abuſing him? and muſt VV.P. ſay a thing of him that was ƲNTRƲE, and then afterwards think it enough to ſay, he did not inſiſt on it, and not honeſtly acknowledg his miſtake, Error or Falſhood? No ſurely, and thus you have a full Reply to his firſt Section of Quibbles.

SECT. II. In Reply to his ſecond Section, wherein is ſet forth the QUAKERS QUIBBLES, EQUIVOCATIONS, and CONFUSIONS about the [Chriſt of God,] [his Manhood,] [his Humane-Nature,] [his Perſon,] [his Body,] [and his Fleſh.]

G.W. p. 18.THat we have denied diſtinctions, is falſe; For true and reaſonable ones we deny not.]

1. Reply. If this mans own words, had not ſaved me the Labour, I would have proved it, That they have denyed Diſtinctions: For if he ſays true, And reaſonable ones they deny not, then certainly he grants, tha [...] falſe and irrational diſtinctions they do deny, and ſo would make my words [Page] good: (being laid down indefinitely by me:) and thus this great man hath done two things at once, both made good what I ſaid, and implyed a contradiction to himſelf, when he ſays it is falſe, that they have denyed Diſtinctions, which if true, then they have owned falſe or irrational ones, as well as true and reaſonable ones; but for further Proof, ſee G.W's own words, if you will believe him, quoted at the end of this Section▪ And yet I ſhall put G.VV. to another task as hard as this, by deſiring him to aſſign by what Rule he knows thoſe Diſtinctions are true, and reaſonable which he eſteems or calls ſo.

For that diſtinction which VV.P. uſed, I ſaid was abſurd (p. 16.) conſidering and with reſpect to the Quakers Principles of the Chriſt; and G.W. lets that alone, being ſo wiſe as to ſay nothing particularly to it, ſo as to clear it. For if the body was not the Chriſt nor any eſſential part of Chriſt, (as the Quakers own it was not) how could VV.P's diſtinction imply, as it ſhould do, if it anſwered the Objection rightly without Quibbling: THAT THE CHRIST WAS SEEN WITH CARNAL EYES.

For if the perſon which they did ſee with their Bodily eyes was not the Chriſt, I do not know how they ſhould ſee the Light within, (as they call it,) or the Deity with their bodily eyes, and ſo ſtill then according to the Quakers Doctrine, the Chriſt was never ſeen with Carnal (or Bodily) eyes, and VV.P's Diſtinction deceitful only and abſurd.

G.VV. p. 18. acknowledges, that they have plainly and often confeſt, That the DIVINE NATURE or Word, cloathed with the MOST HOLY MANHOOD, and as having taken Fleſh of the Seed of Abraham, was and is the Chriſt: Yet, ſays he, we [Page]muſt own, that if he was the Son of God, BEFORE he took Fleſh, he was Chriſt. And in p. 19. he grants, he doth not own the Humane Nature is the Chriſt, for want of Plain Scripture that ſaith ſo; and ſays ſome do conſcientiouſly ſcruple it, and pretend it is a deviating from Scripture-Language, which they cannot do in their Creed.]

2. Reply. What a pretty medly of Hypocriſie, Quibbling, and Confuſion here is, I will now ſhew you.

For Hypocriſie, how palpable is it, in that they pretend they conſcientiouſly ſcruple owning in their Creed, THAT THE HUMANE NATURE IS THE CHRIST, becauſe, it is a Deviating from Scripture-Language, and they pretend they find no plain Scripture that ſays ſo; when yet at the ſame time, they tell you, they have often confeſſed that the DIVINE NATURE, or Word as CLOATHED with the moſt HOLY MANHOOD— is and was the Chriſt; and this they do without ſcruple of Conſcience; And yet there's no plain Scripture that I know of, that ſays ſo, yea, and it is a Deviating from Scripture-Language; for where can they ſhew me this Language in Scripture [CLOATHED WITH THE HOLY MANHOOD,] or ſuch a word there as [MANHOOD,] and until they have done that, I muſt charge them with HIPOCRISY, and their pretended Scruples to be nothing but pretences and DECEIT.

3. As to their Quibbling, herein it plainly appears, that to blind the eyes of the ſimple, they ſometimes pretend as in p. 18. to own the Holy Manhood to be Chriſt. And yet p. 19. Deny the Humane Nature to be Chriſt. By the firſt they would ſeem as if they owned the Humane Nature to be Chriſt, when-as [Page] indeed they utterly deny it, as you may ſee by the Latter.

But ſince they own, the Divine Nature Cloathed with the moſt Holy Manhood, and as having taken Fleſh of the Seed of Abraham, not only was, but is the Chriſt; and yet ſay that the Light which is in every Man is the Chriſt, I conſidered with my ſelf, whether this moſt holy Manhood was in every Man, and the Manhood was the Light in every Man, or a part of that Light? Taking theſe words in their proper and common ſignification among us Engliſh Men, but ſo I could not find it conſiſtent with their Doctrine of the LIGHT WITHIN; and therefore would it not appear a pretty Quibble, if ſome of them do mean by MANHOOD; not MAN really, and eſſentially, but only a GARMENT, or a certain quality, as Power, Fortitude, or Valour? So when they confeſs Chriſt Cloathed with the moſt Holy Manhood, they mean Chriſt was Cloathed with the moſt Holy Power, Valour &c. or Cloathed with a Garment? Or elſe, if they deny this, they muſt confute their other Principle of the Light within every Man being the Chriſt, or ſpeak as abſurdly ▪ if they ſay Chriſt's Manhood, as he is really and eſſentially Man, is within every Man.

4. And then I further enquire of the Quakers; Whether the moſt Holy Manhood be indeed the Chriſt or a real part of Chriſt? And whether the Fleſh that Chriſt took of the Seed of Abraham (ſince AS SUCH, G.VV. ſometimes, viz. p. 18. confeſſes he IS the Chriſt) be, or can be the Chriſt, the Light, or a part of that Light, which at other times the Quakers ſay is in every Man? Or will they ſay, that Chriſt's Fleſh, which he took of the Seed of Abraham, is in every Man, or is it another Chriſt? See their confuſions and abſurdities.

[Page]5. And when they ſay [before Christ took Fleſh] let them deal plainly with us, and tell us WHEN Chriſt FIRST took Fleſh, and whether they do not Believe he took Fleſh BEFORE he was Conceived and Born of the Virgin Mary? and what plain Scripture they have that ſaith ſo?

And if Chriſt took Fleſh BEFORE, whether it was Real Fleſh, and what ſort, and whether h [...]s Fleſh that was born of the Virgin Mary was the ſame, or had Chriſt at the time of his Birth, two different ſorts of Fleſh, not Figuratively, but Really and Properly ſo called? and all this will ſhew their Confuſion, and the Ridiculouſneſs of their Fancies; for by I. Pennington's Queſtion p. 20. it ſeems the Quakers do hold, that CHRIST's OWN FLESH, BLOOD AND BONES are of an ETERNAL NATURE; And that the FLESH AND BLOOD which Chriſt took of OUR NATURE was only OUR GARMENT, and ſo of an EARTHLY PERISHING NATURE. And thus would make Chriſt's Fleſh Blood and Bones to be GOD, for nothing can be of an ETERNAL NATURE, but GOD. Monſtrum Horrendum! hear O Heavens! and hearken O Earth! What can be either Confuſion or Equivocation in the World, (not to ſay worſe of i [...]) if this be not!

6thly. G.W. pag. 19. and in ſeveral other places, ſays, The Quakers muſt have not only Plain Scripture, but Expreſs Scripture, viz. Scripture that ſaith ſo, or elſe they cannot admit it into their Creed.

So in G.F. and J. Stubb's Epiſtle before G.W's Book, intituled The Divinity of Chriſt: Their very firſt Words are, [Whether do the Scriptures ſpeak [Page] of three Perſons in the God-head — in theſe expreſs words? Let us ſee where it is written, Come d [...] not Shuffle, for we are reſolved that the Scriptures ſhall buffet you about, and that you ſhall be whipped abo [...] with the Rule: Give us Plain Scripture for it without adding, or diminiſhing, or ſhuffling. We charge you Presbyterians, to give us Printed Scriptures for theſe following Words, and let us ſee in wha [...] Chapter and verſe they are Printed, viz. Concrete, Abſtract, Relative, &c. and ſo in this manner they ar [...] giving Names to CHRIST and God, beſides the Rul [...] of Scripture, &c. And ſo they run on with it, over and over again.]

But now ſince they Impoſe, Command, and Charge others at this Rate, and not only ſo, but alſo pretend that they cannot admit of any thing in their Creed, but what they have plain and expreſs Scripture that ſaith ſo. How Reaſonable and Juſt is it to Charge them, and accordingly I do here Charge them, to produce where it is written in Scripture in theſe expreſs words, [The Divine Nature, or Word Cloathed with the moſt Holy Manhood, was and is th [...] Chriſt,] which they have admitted into their Creed: Let us ſee in what Chapter and Verſe it is Printed? So p. 24. The diſtinction of Father and Son, is Real in the Divine Relation, known as Co-workers in the Order and Degrees:] Where's Chap. and Verſe for theſe words?

Come G.W. Come (Quakers) ſhew me, or any other, the Chapter and Verſe, where theſe words are written, [viz. Manhood, entire Manhood, the moſt Holy Manhood, Divine Relations, Co-workers in the Order and Degrees?] Or henceforward be aſhamed of your ſilly doings, and ſuch ridiculous [Page]ſcribbling: I might think W.P. may yet have ſo much Ingenuity left in him, as that he would be aſhamed of it when I conſider his Learning; but that his undertaking to vindicate G.F. for notorious falſhoods and nonſence (evident to mens Eyes and Senſes and) againſt his own ſenſes and ocular demonſtration, makes me much to doubt it; ſee Contr. ended, p. 39. being ſorry to ſee that ſo ingenuous a Man, as W.P. once was, ſhould Sacrifice his own Senſes, Reaſon, Honour and Reputation, to keep up the Credit of ſuch a Man as G.F. who hath written in many things ſo ridiculouſly (that it's impoſſible for any Man to vindicate him, without making himſelf more ridiculous) and by his Tautologies and incoherency a ſober Man would take him to be Craz'd: witneſs his Profeſſors Catechiſm, Teſtimony of the True Light, and his Primmer for the Scholars and Doctors of Europe.

And which is yet more, G. I have this to add, That I do not think, Tho [...], nor all the Quakers in England, can bring Expreſs Scripture for that which is your Firſt and Grand Principle of all; wh [...]ch you talk of ſo much above all, viz. The Light of Chriſt within every Man, or Chriſt the Light within every Man] Now to ſpeak in G.F. and J. Stubb's words, I charge you (Qu [...]kers) Let us ſee where the Scripture ſpeaks thus, in theſe [...]xpreſs words; Let us ſee where it is written, come do not Shuffle, for we are reſolved that the Scriptures ſhall buffet you (Quakers) about, and that you ſhall be whipped about with the Rule. Give us plain Scripture for it without ſhuffling, adding or diminiſhing: I charge you (QUAKERS) to give us Printed Scriptures for all theſe foregoing words, and let us ſee in what Chapter [Page]and Verſe they are Printed:] and if they do that, I think I may promiſe them to turn Quaker preſently.

But beſides this, their Hypocriſie herein is more groſs; For to what end (except to deceive) ſhould they pretend that they cannot own this or that in the [...] Creed, if it be not expreſſed in plain Scripture, whe [...] they have ſo often, and ſo plainly avowed, That th [...] Scripture is not their Rule, either for Faith or Pr [...] ctice? But now for the Proteſtants to call for plai [...]-Scripture is but according to their Principle, becauſ [...] they own it for their Rule.

7. So again, p. 19. G.W. confeſſes that JESUS CHRIST is MAN: one at firſt view might think h [...] ſpoke well, ſo he does, if he did but mean truly wh [...] he ſpeaks; But that you may plainly ſee he doth not and may ſee what kind of Man he means, in the ſam [...] Page he gives you to underſtand, that it is ſuch [...] Man as hath not HUMANE NATURE, and p. 24 ſuch a Man as is not a Perſon without us: and wh [...] kind of Man think you muſt or can this be? Is no [...] this a fine Quibble Judg you? That this their Equivocation may appear more plain, even to the Capacit [...] of the Vulgar, conſider, That when the Quaker [...] ſay, that Jeſus Chriſt is Man, They muſt mea [...] either That he is truly and ſubſtantially a Man, a created Body and Soul, or that he is an Imaginary and Fictitious one only.

If the firſt, then they muſt own he is a diſtinct Perſon, & ha [...]h (as eſſential to him) Humane Nature, For to be a Man, is to have the Nature of Man, and every ſubſtantial Man is a diſtinct Perſon. But this they deny of Chriſt, & therefore they do not mean he is ſuch a Man. If the other, viz. an Imaginary or Fictitious Man, let them ſay ſo if they dare, and conſider how Blaſphemous [Page] it would be, and what horrible Conſequences would follow thereon: And therefore to go round again (let the Quakers equivocate as much as they will) they muſt hold that indeed Chriſt is not Man, or elſe fall into the BLASPHEMY or Abſurdity abovementioned. In plainneſs G. is Jeſus Chriſt a Man and not a Perſon? Seeing thou doſt define a Perſon to be a MAN, &c. In the Introduction of thy Book intituled the Divinity of Chriſt. What meaneſt thou by the word MAN? A Created Body and Soul, or ſome uncreated thing? Now G. uſe plainneſs and honeſty in this particular if there be any in thee: or whoever he be that undertakes to Anſwer for thee. Generally all Men in the World, that uſe the Term Man as properly an Engliſh word, underſtand by it, a PERSON, or a RATIONAL CREATURE diſtinct from all other Men, one that is in ſome certain Place, and cannot be in diſtinct Places at the ſame time, that hath in reſpect of his Body, Dimenſions of Length Breadth, and Depth, that is viſible, one that began to exiſt at a certain time, one that hath a head and a body ſo cloſely united, that when-ever they two are ſevered, the Man ceaſes to be; But the Quakers, they ſeem to mean quite another thing by the term MAN: ſometimes one thing, and ſometimes another; I believe themſelves know not well what. By the term MAN, Do you not mean one that is not a Perſon or Rational Creature, but Fleſh, Blood, and Bones of an eternal Nature. (J.P's. Qu. p. 20.) an infinite Soul? One whoſe Fleſh is, and he is in a multitude of Men and Women in diſtant Countreys at the ſame inſtant of time? Myſt. p. 68. Chriſt aſcend p. 18. One that is not in Heaven, as a place to live in remote from Men that live on Earth? Spir. of Truth p. 12. Chriſt [Page] aſcen. p. 21. one that is not VISIBLE? Chriſt aſcend. p. 37. one that beg [...]n not to be, for he was eternal? one that is as far remote from his Body, as Heaven is from Earth, and yet lives? See Quak. Plainneſs, p. 23. In fine it ſeems Jeſus Chriſt is a Man whoſe Glorious Body in Heaven is not a Humane [or Man's] Body, ſee the ſame p. 23. and doth not the Quaker uſe now admirable Plainneſs in his Confeſſion of Faith in Scripture-Language? Doth Europe or America afford ſuch Equivocation?

8. G.W. p. 19. ſays further, That Chriſt's Body of Fleſh and Blood, that was born of the VIRGIN-MARY, and that ſuffered, was Crucifyed, Dye++d, and Roſe again the third day, is called the Body of Jeſus. But yet G. thou wilt not ſay, nor own, That that Living Body is Jeſus; or that BODY is ſo much as a part of Jeſus. Conſider this, ſerious Reader, here's ſtill the Quakers Quibble, and a clear proof of the Quakers Myſtery, whereby their poor unwary Hearers are deluded and deceived.

So they will ſay, the ſeventh day of the week called Saturday, and the eleventh Month called January, and the Scripture called the word of God, and the Writing or Declaration of Matthew called the Goſpel of St. Matthew, and abundance the like.

Which yet they do not one whit the more Believe it for Truth, for ſaying it is called ſo; But Believe quite the Contrary, as they believe the Scripture is not the Word of God, though it may be called ſo: ſo they can ſay (by their Equivocation) The Body that was born of the Virgin Mary, is called in Scripture, the Body of Jeſus, and yet will not own that Body, either to be a part of Jeſus; or do believe it to be that Jeſus [Page] which the Scripture calls it. And here I appeal to all ſober and underſtanding People in England to Judg, if ever they heard ſuch Quibbling before (as the Quakers here uſe) about CHRIST JESUS: and this they are conſtrained [...]o do, To maintain that firſt Principle they have took up, The Light within; for if they ſhould own that living Body of Fleſh and Blood that was born of the Virgin Mary and that was Crucified and dyed, to be JESUS and the CHRIST, then they foreſee, they ſhould confound, that their Beloved Principle. The Light within every Man. For how can that Man or Body of Fleſh Bone, and Blood, that was born of the Virgin Mary, be in every Man; and alſo upon this Ground, They deny that Perſon, that Man that was born of the Virgin Mary to be the Chriſt; Becauſe they cannot tell how to make tha [...] very Perſon and Man to be in every Man, and in all Perſons, and ſo rather than forego their Principle of the Light within, They will adventure to faſhion and form to themſelves, a new Jeſus and a New Chriſt, and have hid it and kept it as much as they could in a Myſtery, and in Dark ſayings, as long as they might, till at laſt being preſſed by many Conteſts and Diſputes they have been forced to diſcover it.

And now, Dear Friends and Country-Men, give me leave to tell you that though I do not remember that I ever poſitively ſaid, That the Quakers were no Chriſtians, yet I have much and often doubted in my ſelf, and do ſtill, whether they can (according to their Principles) be true Chriſtians: ſince they do not own nor believe that Man, nor that living Body that was born of the Virgin Mary to be the Jeſus and the Chriſt, and ſo do not believe, that the Chriſt inde [...]d[Page]dyed, and if Chriſt did not indeed Dy, he did n [...]t indeed riſe again. Nay though they own that the Scriptures call that living Body, Chriſt and Jeſus, yet they give us at the ſame time to underſtand, They do not Believe nor own it to be what they themſelves ſay the Scripture calls it, and ſo ſet up another Chriſt, than what the Scripture call's Chriſt, and declares to us to be the true Chriſt, and Meſſiah of the World. And for this Reaſon, and out of this Godly-Jealouſy and Fear, (and not out of Envy and wicked malic [...] as they pretend) it is, that I cannot own them, but have thus oppoſed them: And let all People conſider it, weigh it well, and take heed; It is not for nothing, or yet a ſl [...]ght matter only, that I ſet forth their Quibbles; But for their ſetting up another Chriſt, or another kind of Chriſt, than the Scripture holds forth and calls the Chriſt, to wit, that Perſon, Man, or living Body, that was born of the Virgin MARY: and what can be of a higher Nature or more dangerous in the Chriſtian Religion, than for any to ſet up any other Chriſt, or any other Perſon or thing for Chriſt?

9. What pla [...]ner words is it poſſible to invent, that are intelligible to Mankind, than are uſed about this matter in Scripture, if Men would not be wilfully Blind as to give you an Inſtance or two, Acts 2.22, 23. Ye Men of Iſrael 'hear theſe words, Jeſus of Nazareth, A Man, approved of God among you, by Miracles and Wonders and Signs, which God did by him in the midſt of you, as ye your ſelves alſo know, HIM, being delivered by the determinate counſel and foreknowledg of God, ye have taken and by wicked hands have Crucified and Slain, v. 36. Let all the Houſe of Iſrael know aſſuredly, That God hath made [Page]that ſame Jeſus whom ye have Crucifyed both LORD and Chriſt obſerve the Apoſtle ſays, that ſame Jeſus, viz. Jeſus of Nazareth A Man, God hath made both Lord and Chriſt, and if that ſame, then no other: and again, that ſame Jeſus, whom the Men of Iſrael had taken, and by wicked hands did Crucify and Slay! That ſame Jeſus, (and not any thing elſe) hath God made both Lord and Chriſt: Now, it was not the Light within, that the Men of Iſrael took, and by wicked hands Crucified, Hang'd on a Tree and Slew; But it was that Man, that Perſon, that Body that was born of the Virgin Mary, Jeſus of Nazareth, that the Jews took, and by wicked hands Crucified and Hang'd on a Tree. So it appears as plain (as any thing in the World can be by words made Plain) that that ſame Man, that Body, or that Perſon which was born of the Virgin Mary, Jeſus of Nazareth is he which God hath made both LORD and CHRIST and not the Light within every Man, nor any other thing.

Luke 24.39. Behold my Hands and my Feet, that it is I my ſelf; handle me and ſee, For a Spirit hath not Fleſh and Bones, as ye ſee me have, and when he had thus ſpoken, he ſhewed them his hands and his feet. John 20.24, 25. But Thomas one of the twelve called Dydimus was not with them when Jeſus came, The other Diſciples therefore ſaid unto him, we have ſeen the Lord: but he ſaid unto them, Except I ſhall ſee in his hands the Print of the Nails, and put my finger into the Print of the Nails, and thruſt my hand into his ſide, I will not believe. v. 26, 27, 28. And after eight days, again his Diſciples were within, and Thomas with them: Then came Jeſus, the door being ſhut, and ſtood in the midſt, and ſaid, Peace be [Page]unto you. Then ſaith he to Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands, and reach hither thy hand, and thruſt it into my ſide, and be not faithleſs, but believing. And Thomas anſwered, and ſaid unto him, my Lord, and my God, v. 31. But theſe are written that ye might believe that Jeſus is the Chriſt the Son of God, and that believing ye might have Life through his Name. What Jeſus? even That Jeſus, that ſame Perſon that was not within but without Thomas, who had the Print of material nails in his hands, that Thomas put his finger in, is the Chriſt the Son of God.

Now, G.W. Anſwer me in plainneſs once, if thou wilt be ſo honeſt, Was this Jeſus (that the Apoſtle ſays here, we are to believe is the Chriſt the Son of God,) without Thomas, then when he put his finger into the Print of the Nails? Or was it only Acted within Thomas his Body? And hath the Light within (which thou owneſt for thy Jeſus) any Print of Material Nails or hands, properly ſo called, of fleſh and bone, as this Jeſus had which is the true CHRIST? ſee alſo Math, 1.1. with verſe 16▪ and Heb. 2.14.

10. G.W. p. 20. takes notice of Jer. Ives great Queſtion, as he calls it, Whether Chriſt's Humane Nature was a part of Chriſt? But he gives no Anſwer to it, but gives it the go-by, by ſaying it was not a Queſtion in Scripture-Phraſe: But that could be no good Anſwer from thee, becauſe thou thy ſelf doſt, and haſt asked many Queſtions which are not in Scripture-Phraſe: and beſides, that can be but a ſilly pretence no better than a Shuffle from thee, becauſe thou doſt not own the Scripture, or Scripture-Phraſe to be the Rule of thy Faith: Therefore Quibble no more about it, but Anſwer it.

11. Then p. 21, 22, 23. G.W. inſtead of Anſwering [Page] my Epiſtle, as he pretends in his Title, put [...] many new Queſtions to the Baptiſts, and prays them to agree upon a conſiſtent Creed amongſt themſelves, and ſo ſlily gives me the go-by, to which I need only ſay this, That I am of the Opinion, it may be [...] eaſy for the Baptiſts to form a Creed wherein they are all agreed, as it is for the Quakers to Form a Creed wherein they & their writings do all agree: Let the Quakers do this themſelves which they require of others.

Further, I dare adventure to ſay, that let a Baptiſt or ſome other Perſon, give but three Texts of Scripture to be interpreted, or put but three Queſtions to ſix Quakers, all apart, and let them anſwer apart, and that there ſhall not three of the ſix Quakers alike, give the ſame Anſwer or Interpretation thereto, either in form or ſubſtance, notwithſtanding their pretended inſpiration and unity.

12. Pag. 23. G.W. ſays, That though the meer Body of Jeſus, was not the ENTIRE Chriſt, yet the Name Chriſt is ſometimes given to the Body, though not ſo properly, as to the whole Man Chriſt.]

Reply. But thou-wilt not own that the meer Body was part of Chriſt; ſo far art thou from owning it to be the entire Chriſt, and though they acknowledg the Scripture calls the Body Chriſt, yet they are ſo obſtinate in their own conceits, that they will not believe it is what the Scripture calls it, but thus will be wiſe above what's written. Oh deceit! you think the Body ſo far from being the entire Chriſt, that you will not allow it to be any part of him, but ſuch as a Garment is that is none at all.

13. Pag. 23, 24. G.W. ſays, That the Diſtinction of Father and Son, is not only Nominal, but Real, &c.] How then doth G.F. ſay, Myſt. p. [Page] 142. Christ is not diſtinct from the Father, and that they are all one, p. 99? will G.W. and the Quakers Condemn thoſe ſayings and diſclaim them? till then they are Quibblers and Equivocators. G.W. p. 24. and alſo known as Co-workers in the order and degrees of Manifeſtation and diſcovery. And yet G.W. himſelf when he writ againſt a Baptiſt, for ſaying [now as he was God, he was Co-Creator with the Father] Then he condemned it as nonſence, ſaying, What nonſence and UNSCRIPTURAL-LANGUAGE, is this, to tell of God being Co-CREATOR with the Father, or that God had Glory with God? DOES NOT THIS IMPLY TWO GODS, AND THAT GOD HAD A FATHER? ſays G.W. The Light and Life, &c. p. 47.] Oh excellent George! what difference between Co-Workers, and Co-Creators? Do ye not moſt frequently and importunely charge your Socinians with the horrible Crime of denying that Jeſus Chriſt made or created the World? And yet is there any Socinian, nay Jew, or Turk, that will deny that one God (whom we call the Father of Jeſus Chriſt) made the World? And thou ſayeſt it's nonſence to tell of God [or Chriſt as God] being Co-Creator with the Father: oh diſingenuous Man, that endeavours to get repute to your ſelves by Reviling others with that very thing whereof your ſelves are guilty! And the ground of your Reproach is, that you can equivocate, and they cannot.

14. G.W. p. 24. ſays, That the Diſtinction of Father and Son is not only nominal but real.

Now then let him if he can anſwer and confute his ſincere-hearted and Zealous Brother W.P. in his Sandy-Foundation, p. 13.

[Page] Mr. Pen's Argument is this, ‘Since the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God (which their Opinion neceſſitates them to confeſs) THEN UNLESS the Father, Son, and Spirit ARE THREE DISTINCT NOTHINGS, they muſt be THREE DISTINCT SUBSTANCES, and Conſequently THREE DISTINCT GODS.]’ Now G. if this Diſtinction of thine, does not make them DISTINCT SUBSTANCES, thy Brother Penn tells thee they are DISTINCT NOTHINGS. Reconcile this if thou canſt, and agree amongſt your ſelves upon a Creed before you go about to Correct others.

15. G.W. p. 24. further ſays, We own that the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, as alſo that the SON IS THE MIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, the Prince of Peace. But they do not own any ſuch ſeparation between God and Chriſt as theſe words [the Chriſt of himſelf and the God of himſelf] do imply Socinian-like] For this, let his Brother W.P. Socinian-like Anſwer him, and ſee what he makes of ſuch Doctrine as G.W. here teaches, and let G.W. refute his Brother Penn's Argument. Sandy Foundation p. 14. he proves the Ridiculouſneſs and irrationality of ſuch an Opinion, by this Argument, viz. ‘If that the ONLY God is the FATHER, and CHRIST be that ONLY God, then is CHRIST the FATHER: So if that ONE GOD be the SON: and the Spirit that one God, then is the Spirit the SON, and ſo round, nor is it poſſible to ſtop ſays he.’ And this he brings many Arguments to prove to be both an irrational and a Ridiculous Opinion, and yet now is this the very Opinion of G.W. and other Quakers, viz. That Chriſt, or the Son, is the Father, as you [Page] ſee G.W's words above do confeſs. Now let us know which of theſe two Brethren the Quakers will own to be wrong: For according to theſe words it is impoſſible they can be both right: and let us know in Plainneſs (if there be any ſuch thing now left among the Quakers) whether W.P. will own his own Argument, or whether thou G.W. wilt diſclaim him or it, or thy own word [...]; For they are as contrary as Yea, and Nay.

16. G.W. p. 24. Confeſſes, that the Title of Perſon without us, is un-ſcriptural, and too low to give to the CHRIST [or the Son], and yet his Brother W.P. in his Sandy Foundation p. 15. could give the Title of Perſon to Chriſt or the Son: theſe are his words, Who (ſpeaking of the SON) ſo many hundred years ſince in PERSON teſtified the Vertue of it. Now then G. thou muſt ſay Chriſt is a Perſon within us, or elſe diſclaim and diſown W.P. for giving ſuch an unſcriptual and too low a Title, to Chriſt the Son; if not, doſt thou not diſſemble? and did not W.P. ſpeak of a Perſon without us, as his words [who ſo many hundred years ſince teſtified] do evince plainly enough?

17. The Quakers being charged, that according to their Principle, They cannot and do not Believe that CHRIST INDEED DYED; G.W. does not deny it, but asks the Baptiſts, If any more of Chriſt properly dyed than the Body? Do you hold that his Soul Spirit or Divinity dyed? If not, the Charge is fooliſh and ſilly.

Reply. No G. the Charge is not fooliſh nor ſilly; for as I underſtand the Baptiſts hold that the living Body that was born of the Virgin Mary is Chriſt, and that that dyed, and ſo believe that Chriſt indeed dyed: But [Page] you Quakers not Believing ſo, if you Believe that indeed the Chriſt dyed, you muſt Believe his Spirit or his Divinity Dyed, for that only you hold is THE CHRIST, and then are you like Reeve and Muggleton who have Blaſphemouſly ſaid that the Godhead d [...]d, and thus is thy Charge turn'd upon thy own head; and thy Queſt. proves fooliſh and ſilly, For how canſt thou ask if any more of Chriſt than the Body dyed, when thou doſt not Believe the Body to be Chriſt, or any real or eſſential PART OF CHRIST: Thus whilſt you own the Body not to be the Chriſt, nor a real part of the Chriſt, you muſt own that not the Chriſt nor any real part of Chriſt dyed; ſince you agree, only the Body dyed, and the Body of Jeſus was not the Chriſt, ſay you, nor any eſſential real part of Chriſt, that you will own.

18. As to Jer. Ives Anſwer to their Diſtinction, it ſeemed to me pertinent enough to manifeſt their fallacy and folly; and ſo it doth ſtill for ought G.W. hath told me as yet to the contrary; and I cannot without offering violence to my underſtanding be ſo much taken with G's Reply which is on this wiſe p. 26. It's not improbable, that if we had made ſuch a compariſon, you Baptiſts would have cryed out, oh Blaſphemy!

This is an improbable or an improper Reply indeed; It's more probable W.P. could have told G.W. (if he did not know it) that he had learnt in the Schools, that may-bee's, can be anſwered with may not bee's, and ſo this might be ſufficient for that: But,

1. What if the Baptiſts would not in ſuch a caſe, have Cryed out, Oh Blaſphemy! where's thy Anſwer then George?

2. Or, what if the Baptiſts ſhould, and the Quakers ſhould not, in ſuch a Caſe, Cry out oh Blaſphemy! [Page] as thou doſt not affirm it is Blaſphemy; where's thy Anſwer then George?

3. Or, what if there be no ſuch compariſon made as thou pretendeſt is implyed, (as ſure I am there is not) viz the name of Chriſt, to be no more excellent than the name of George or William? Where's then thy Anſwer George? And where's now thy oh Ignorance in the Abſtract? one may well enough ſee it in the Concrete, viz. in G.W. when thou ſetteſt down thy Reply, thou, immediately ſays oh Ignorance in the Abſtract! now, if thou meaneſt (as it may be ſo taken) that the words of thy Reply is ſuch, I ſhall not trouble my ſelf to ſay much againſt it; But if thou ſpeakeſt it of me or the Baptiſts, by thy uſing that word Abſtract, thou ſheweſt thy own Ignorance and want of Learning (not well underſtanding the word Abſtract,) which againſt the next time thou writeſt for W.P he may inform thee, and teach thee ſo much Logick; Ignorance in the Abſtract Qualitatem notat nulli ſubjecto inhaerentem, and ſo not in me; Ask thy Brother P. elſe: Beſides, how thou wilt Anſwer for this word Abſtract before your Prophet G.F. I know not, for in the Epiſtle before one of thy own Books (Divin. of Chriſt:) he condemns that word, as well as others, as coming from our old Logical and Philoſophical Books, and yet behold here a Quaker uſes it, oh what ſelf-contradicting and diſſembling Men are they!

And as for the excellency thou now pretendeſt to own, in the name of Chriſt, one may ſee it to be but Hypocriſy uſed for evaſion-ſake only, by what your friend John Crook ſays of the name Chriſt and Jeſus. Principles of Truth p. 12.

[Page] [Without this Vertue, [viz. The Arm of God] CHRIST and JESUS are but empty names. We believe and know, by his Grace in our hearts, that as his name JESUS without Vertue and Power, is but an empty word, &c p. 11. But the name which ſaves, is the power and arm of God, that brings Salvation from Sin, &c.] Pray how much more excellent does the Quaker here make the name JESƲS, than the name GEORGE or WILLIAM? Are they? Can they be leſs excellent than empty words? Oh the Hypocriſy of theſe Men! to ſay no worſe.

19. I ſaid the Quakers Quibbled as much about the word Body as the word Chriſt, and G.W. inſtead of denying it, hath confirmed it, p. 29. For though it be Scripture-Language, That the Body is one and hath many Members, and in another place, That the Church of Chriſt is his Body: yet it will not therefore follow, nor is it according to Scripture-Language, That Chriſt had NO OTHER Body than his Church, for had he not a Body, that was born of the Virgin MARY? or was the Church viz. all the Saints in the World born of the Virgin M [...]ry? Or had the Body of Chriſt that was born of the Virgin Mary (the eſpouſed Wife of Joſeph) no other members (as Arms, Hands, Legs, &c.) but only the Saints? would not this be rare Divinity! When Thomas put his finger into the Print of the nails in the hands of Jeſus, and put his hand into his ſide, was that then the Church, that Thomas put his hand and finger into? Oh excellent Quakeriſm!

Pag. 30. G.W. would ſlily give the go-by, to my diſcourſe about Mr. Keith's diſtinction, of making three Chriſts, by taking no notice upon what I grounded the Objection, viz. Now after this rate, or [Page] by the ſame manner of Reaſoning and Quibbling, may not one ſay that G.K. makes three Chriſts in Scripture, and that with as much Truth as for any of them to affirm Chriſt would be a Monſter, by ſaying he hath two Bodies? But this he ſlides by, not Anſwering a word to it: Is this the Qu [...]kers plainneſs? Is it not indeed a Plain ſhuffle? But come George: come back again, take notice what it is thou haſt to Anſwer, and then Anſwer it, Shufflle me no Shufflles, nor Quibble me no more ſuch Quibbles: neither doth G. tell me (which I alſo prayed W.P. honeſtly and plainly to do) whether G.K. meant,

That theſe three were three Chriſts, in three diſtinct Perſons?

Or that theſe three [and not any thing leſs than theſe three] were one Chriſt, in one diſtinct Perſon?

Or whether theſe three are no Chriſt at all, in no diſtinct Perſon.

Let G.W. Remember his own words in his Introduction to his Divinity of Chriſt [We judg that ſuch expreſſions and words as the Holy Ghoſt taught the true Apoſtles and holy men mentioned in Scripture, are moſt meet to ſpeak of God and Chriſt, and not the words of man's wiſdom, or humane Inventions, and deviſed Diſtinctions ſince the Apoſtles days] — nor in Philoſophical terms and nice School-Diſtinctions derived from heatheniſh Metaphiſicks,] and now tell me G. whether this of thy Brother Keiths, is not a deviſed Diſtinction ſince the Apoſtles? And whether G. thou haſt not condemned thy Brother K's Diſtinction? Where is there ſuch an expreſſion in the Scripture, as Proper, leaſt Proper, &c. are not theſe Philoſophical Terms?

SECT. III. In Reply to his third Section ſhewing G.W's and the Quakers Ignorance, of the true Spirits Evidence, who deny the Gift of Tongues, Prophecy, Signs, &c. to be ſuch.

[Page]

1. IN my Epiſtle to W.P. p. 8. I minded him of the Apoſtle Paul's words, 2 Cor. 12.12, 13. Truly the SIGNS of an Apoſtle were wrought AMONG YOU in all Patience in SIGNS and WONDERS and MIGHTY DEEDS. For what is it wherein ye were INFERIOR to other Churches?

Here was a Church indeed that had the Spirits evidenee, and here was an Apoſtle indeed that had Divine Revelation, the Gift of Prophecying & Tongues, and Interpretation of Scripture: ſuch an Apoſtle was one, who indeed was not of Men, neither by Man, but ſent by Jeſus Chriſt, and God the Father, who raiſed him from the dead, Gal. 1.1. But no ſuch Apoſtles nor Friends of the Miniſtry can I find amongſt the Quakers, who yet pretend to be Apoſtles, not of Men, nor by Man, but immediately ſent by God, and pretend to have the ſame Spirit, Calling and Power that the Apoſtle Paul had. And yet alas do [Page] not EVIDENCE it any MORE than OTHERS do, who pretend to it, with as much Confidence as themſelves: Nay, and ſo far are they from that, that I do not ſee they are able to produce any MORE or give any better Demonſtration of it, than thoſe who do not pretend at all immediately to it: and therefore I told W.P. if he had had the GIFT OF TONGUES given him by the SPIRIT IMMEDIATELY upon his turning QUAKER: Or if he could ſhew but ONE in all his Church, that had ſuch a ſpiritual Gift or Gifts upon his Converſion to their way, it would put a clear difference betwixt them and the Baptiſts Churches; and herein would the Quakers plainly then exceed and excel them: and that one ſuch Teſtimony (if true) in the Quakers Church would more confute the Anabaptiſts and Convince their Auditors, than a hundred ſuch days brawling diſputes, where the Quakers ſhew'd no more POWER OF THE SPIRIT than their Adverſaries; only fenced with words as well as they could, as their wits would ſerve them beſt to Diſtinguiſh, Evade, or Anſwer. And therefore I told W.P. I found his Church as Poor and Low as the Baptiſts whom yet they condemned. I finding he had the words of Man's Wiſdom in making plauſible Orations, but askt him, Where was the Demonſtration of the Spirit in Power and Sign? 1 Cor. 2.4, 5.

2. Now at this I find George is put to a great loſs, ſaying p. 14. What if God will not beſtow ſuch Gifts and Signs now? Being afraid to ſay, God will, and yet not daring to ſay, God will not, what George, art thou in a Maze? Is not this Scripture-Phraſe? Is not this according to Scripture-Language, 1 Cor. 4.19, 20. I will know, not the Speech of them that are puffed up, but the Power; For the Kingdom of God [Page]is not in Word but in Power; ſee alſo Revel. 2.2. And is not this according to your own Language, G. Foxes Epiſtle before thy Book Divin. of Chriſt, have you the ſame Power and Spirit, that gave forth the Scriptures? And ſuch miraculous Gifts are no more than what we find teſtifyed to have been and remained in the Chriſtian-Church about two hundred or three hundred years after Chriſt. Irenaeus who lived one hundred and eighty years after Chriſt, affirmeth that in his time the working of Miracles, the Raiſing of the Dead, the caſting out of Devils, healing of the ſick by laying on of hands, and Propheſying, were in being; and that ſome that were ſo raiſed from the dead, remained among them alive long after, Niceph. Eccles. Hiſt. Tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 13. Tertullian and Cyprian (which laſt lived till above 250 years after Chriſt) do both make mention of the ordinary caſting out of Devils, and challenged the Heathen to come and ſee it.

3. But ſays he p. 31. this is very ſtrange, But what then George? It is not more ſtrange than true? And I ſay, Is it not very ſtrange, that you will pretend to the Power and the Spirit, and talk of being ſent immediately by God, as Paul was, and have a D [...] vine Commiſſion to Propheſie, and yet cannot bring any Evidence to prove it more than Others? And inſtead of Producing one ſuch Apoſtle, Prophet or Miniſter in thy Church, the beſt thing (which yet alas is bad enough) thou canſt ſay for thy ſelf, Oh! our oppoſers do argue as juſt like the Papiſts and Jeſuites, as if they had ſerved ſeven years at Rome.

Reply. Ah Quibbler! this will not ſerve thy turn above all Perſons, for who Argues more like a Papiſt or Jeſuite than your ſelves about proving the Scriptures[Page]not to be the Rule of your Faith? Who uſes the Jeſuites Arguments to prove good works the meritorious cauſe of our Juſtification more than you?

Was it not one of the moſt eminent and learnedſt Men that ever you had amongſt you, that poſitively aſſerts THE SCRIPTURE TO BE A NOSE OF WAX, yea, and ſays it is CAPABLE of being NO OTHER? Sam. Fiſher Additional Appendix, p. 21. And is not this the Jeſuites Phraſe in terminis? And none but Papiſts (except your ſelves) uſe it, Andrad. Orth. Explic. lib. 2. p. 104. What had S. Fiſher ſerved ſeven years at Rome? Nay, I can ſhew you and others may ſee if they mind it, that almoſt all the Arguments that Mr. Fiſher uſes to prove the Scripture is not the Rule of Faith, are the very ſame that the Papiſts and Jeſuites have uſed theſe hundred years; and ſo G.F. in the Epiſtle before thy ſaid Book, ſays, where doth the Scripture ſay that it ſelf is the Word of God? Juſt ſo do the Papiſts Argue. What now George? Is the Argument the better or the worſe, becauſe the Jeſuites have uſed it? Doſt thou think in thy Conſcience this is a good Anſwer? You can ſometimes tell us that the Papiſts may uſe good Arguments, and ſo the Jeſuites make uſe of the Scriptures, yet never the worſe for that; nay do but ſee how thou haſt Anſwered this matter thy ſelf, in thy own Book, Divin. of Chriſt, p. 38. It is but a mean way of Arguing to accuſe or miſcal any for owning any Truth, that any ſort (if they do err in ſome things) do hold; for by that way, I may as well be reckoned a Papiſt, a Jew, or a Turk, &c.]

How now George, and yet doſt thou uſe this mean way of Arguing againſt me? For ſhame do not forget thy ſelf and ſhuffle backwards and forwards [Page] thus, but uſe ſome Conſcienc [...] in thy Scribling! if thou haſt any tenderneſs and plainneſs in thee, lay thy hand upon thy Mouth.

4. But further I'le tell thee, that I have oft uſed this Argument againſt the Papiſts, and to chuſe, would uſe it before any other; and the firſt and beſt thing (as I verily think) that I could uſe, if I was to Diſpute with a Ieſuite, ſhould be to put him to the Proof of his Church, and its Infallibility; That's their firſt Principle and their Foundation, and without doubt any perſon that will make Tryal, ſhall find it beſt there to begin with them; and it is but equitable, juſt, and reaſonable, that if they ſay or propoſe their Church to be infallible and the only true Church, that they ſhould firſt prove it to be ſo; and there would I begin with a Quaker, it being both neceſſary and reaſonable. Wherefore this is ſo far from being only a Jeſuite's Argument, that I am of the Opinion, there can be no better way of Arguing againſt them: I need no better Authority, than the Example of worthy Mr. Chillingw [...]rth, and I would adviſe all people to go that way to work with the Quakers, their main Principles being eaſily reduced in effect to thoſe of the Church of Rome, and thoſe Arguments that prove effectual againſt one, may as effectually ſerve againſt the other. Take but THEIR LIGHT WITHIN for the POPE, and their INFALLIBILITY (which now of late is run out of particular perſons into that) OF THE BODY, for the CHURCH, and the buſineſs is done. For as the Papiſts calls it the CHURCH, ſo the Quakers now call their CHURCH the BODY, the BODY of Friends. So here's only the difference of words, and who-ever diſcreetly conſiders this, and makes uſe of it, will doubtleſs find [Page] the eaſe and Benefit of it, in Diſputing with a Papiſt or a Quaker: I have already ſhew'd it to be both neceſſary and equitable.

Now Reader, canſt thou think this was a good or ſufficient Anſwer from G.W. alas it is a ſign he was hard put to it, that he could find no better Evaſion!

5. Then he ſays p. 31, and 32. the Baptiſts produce no ſuch ſigns, and I ſo told him before; that I found them both a like poor and low in this reſpect, (ſo far as I knew with certainty,) and hereby then he grants, that he ſtands upon no better ground than the Baptiſt-Churches, why then will be condemn them, ſince they have, if not better, yet as good, demonſtrations as the Quakers for ought yet appears? But beſides, the Baptiſts here have this to ſay for themſelves, they do not pretend to immediate Divine Revelations, and ſuch inſpirations, nor to a Gift of Infallibility, nor yet to any ſuch immediate Commiſſion from Heaven, as the Quakers do, and therefore no wonder if they hold, there's no need of Miracles or Signs, to Evidence or prove that which they do not pretend to: Wherefore George is at a loſs and beſide the b [...]ſineſs here by thinking to Anſwer me, by Quotations out of the Baptiſts Books: for what's all this to the Quakers, who do pretend to immediate Divine Revelations, and Inſpirations as the Apoſtles had, to a gift of infallibility, and to an immediate Commiſſion from Heaven, to go forth as Prophets, Apoſtles, &c, What, becauſe the Baptiſts that pretend not to this, need bring no Miracles to prove that which they lay no Claim to, muſt therefore the Quakers who do lay Claim to all this, be believed that [...]hey have it without giving us any viſible Evidence, Sign, or Demonſtration that they ſo have it [Page] indeed? only their bare word, a very good one! as If I ſhould lay Claim to an Eſtate, and yet need bring no more Evidence to prove my Title, than all other Perſons that lay no Claim, nor pretend to it at all.

But yet this is not all; For I find there are three ſorts of Perſons now in the World, that do in a more eminent manner pretend a Title, and lay all Claim to infallibility, a Divine Commiſſion, and a power or Gift of the Right Interpretation of Scripture; viz.

The Papiſts (or the Church of Rome)

The Quakers (or their Friends of the Miniſtry, or Body)

The Muggletonians, (or their Prophet)

Here the Quakers have two grand Competitors which lay Claim to what they pretend to, How will they do here, TO EVINCE THAT THEY HAVE IT MORE THAN THE OTHER, the leaſt of which viz. Muggleton ſeems to ſtand upon even ground with the Quakers; but the Papiſts ſeem to have a grand advantage above them, for they produce a claim of above a thouſand years ſtanding, whereas the Quaker's is but an Up-ſtart: Beſides, they pretend to be in poſſeſſion of it, and how the Quakers will diſpoſſeſs them I cannot tell, ſince they have now left going to Rome, and I hear no more of Divine Comm [...]ſſions they receive to convert the Pope of late years. Now George, Thou hadſt dealt honeſtly and plainly, if thou hadſt told me this, and this is it which is both Rational and neceſſary if thou expecteſt or claimeſt credence before them; and this I expect of thee.

‘For it is not enough to ſay, Thou art in the Truth, and they are in Error and Blaſphemy; for they ſay that of thee,’ and this I told W.P. that he knew [Page]in his Conſcience was but a ſhameful begging of the Queſtion: For why ſhouldſt thou be believed on THY BARE SAY-SO, more than they? And this is ſo honeſt G. that it is according to thy own arguing with me: p. 41. ſayeſt thou, as if they were all bound to believe his Accuſations on his bare word; ſo ſay I, are we all (or any) bound to believe thy Pretenſions, and thy Commiſſion from Heaven upon thy bare word, or if not upon thy bare word, upon what then? Anſwer this George plainly.

6. Pag. 32. G. would mince the matter if he could, ſaying, Now as we have not this way impoſed our Faith upon our Oppoſers, ſo we ſhall not thus impoſe upon this Man or the Baptiſts. But deſire he and they may ſeek and try further.

Reply. Thanks to thee for nothing George; Thou and thy Friends have been UNCHRISTIANING of of us theſe twenty years, and UNCHURCHING all the Churches in England and Europe, calling the Prieſts and Profeſſors of all ſorts, all the abominable names that you could invent; and now truly when you are queſtioned your ſelves, and find that notwithſtanding all your boaſting pretences and Braggadocio's, you can produce NO MORE than others, whom you have condemned and unchriſtianed, oh truely then thou ſayeſt, we ſhall not thus impoſe our Faith upon the Baptiſts, or this Man: Pray tell us which way thou wilt impoſe it; or what way doſt thou propoſe for a Diſcrimination, and a Rule to try you by, ſince you have diſowned the SCRIPTURES fit for that? ſee S. Fiſher, Addit. Append. p. 21. which Tranſcriptions and Tranſlations WERE THEY NEVER SO CERTAIN and intire by Anſwering to the firſt Original Copies, yet are not CAPABLE (to be to [Page]all Men) any other than a Leſbian Rule, or Noſe of Wax, &c.

If you ſay the SPIRIT ſhall be the Rule to try you, The Papiſts and Muggleton ſay you have it not, but each of them are as certain as you they have it, therefore it will be abſolutely requiſite for you to Evince and give ſome ſuch Demonſtration that you have the Spirit, which neither they nor others can give, before you can be tryed by that; becauſe that is the queſtion, whether you have the SPIRIT and the POWER OF GOD or no, MORE than others.

7. And then let me tell George: That if he could Demonſtrate it this way, it would not be, nay it could not be any Impoſing upon me; if G.W. did viſibly Evidence and demonſtrate to me, by Power and mighty Deeds, that he had indeed that Power and Spirit that he ſays he hath: Therefore thou talkeſt deceitfully as if that would be an Impoſing; But now yours is impoſing, when you condemn Men for not-believing that you have immediate Revelations, or in that you aſſert and would have us believe, you are MORE inſpired than other Men, or other Societies and Bodies of Chriſtians. And you tell us you have the Spirit and are in the Truth MORE than others whom you Condemn as falſe, and yet you produce NOTHING except YOUR BARE SAY-SO, MORE than others, who SAY SO of themſelves as you do of your ſelves. Now here's the IMPOSING; you pretend you are Infallible, and yet produce no more or other effects of your Infallibility, than other Men can or do: Nay on the contrary the ſame effects of Fallibility are evident among you, as among others; and yet if any deny it in you, you Cenſure [Page]and Curſe them for not believing you, and this is your way of Impoſing.

And you Quakers ſay you are immediately ſent of God, and commiſſioned from God to deliver ſuch or ſuch a Meſſage or Curſe, and that this, and that is given forth by the Holy Ghoſt in you, or from the Spirit: and yet you ſhew no more certainty to prove to us, and for us infallibly to build our Faith on, that you are ſo ſent, and SO Commiſſioned from God, than Muggleton does or other Churches, which yet your ſelves ſay, ARE NOT SENT OF GOD nor Commiſſioned by him.

Now here's impoſing upon Mens beliefs, and this I ſay you are guilty of, yea, and moſt eminently guilty of, next to Muggleton or the Pope, of any Perſon or People I know; and this is the thing George, thou ſhouldſt have Anſwered, if thou hadſt Anſwered me to the purpoſe and main bent of my Epiſtle to W.P.; But this thou pittifully evadeſt and ſl [...]ly wouldſt ſlide from.

But now, ſince you pretend to ſuch high things, if you had the viſible Spiritual Gifts that were amongſt the true Primitive Churches and Apoſtles to evidence and demonſtrate the Truth of what now you ONLY SAY and pretend, I ſhould never (nor I ſuppoſe any Man in his wits) call or eſteem it any impoſing on my Faith: But the other is ſo indeed as I have ſhew'd you, and therefore G. I would take thee by the hand, and lead thee back again, praying thee not to ſhuff [...]e and Cut alſo, but Anſwer this, and not that which I never deſired of thee, nor W.P. That's the very thing I found fault with you before, viz. That you would Anſwer to that which was not askt you, inſtead of returning Anſwer to that which was; and yet ſtill [Page] thus thou ſerveſt me, but it will not do. For my deſign is, that I may know you better, what Real Power, Evidence and Authority you have BEYOND others, that ſo I may have a good Foundation for my Faith, and give Credit to it and you: Or that for want of it, you may be brought to a better fight of your ſelves, and ſee your nakedneſs and Poverty, (though you ſay (as the Church of Laodic [...]a) that you are rich) and ſo may learn to be humble, and not Cenſure others, except you can better evidence your own.

9. And yet why wilt thou ſay, you have not impoſed thus your Faith on others? Was not, and hath not your Language been ſuch as this? viz. It's true, that Timothy, Titus, and others, WHO HAD GIFTS IN THEM for the Miniſtry, were approved by Paul and others of the Primitive Elders for the work, but this is no Proof that theſe oppoſers, Miniſters, are either ſo gifted or approved, G.W. Enthuſiaſm above Atheiſm, p. 5.] And ſo ſay I, neither is it any Proof that the QUAKERS MINISTERS are SO GIFTED or APPROVED; and the Words before-cited of G.F. before thy own Book: Have you the SAME POWER and SPIRIT that gav [...] forth the Scriptures?

G.W. Wilt thou believe thy own words? Then ſee thy Anſwer to Mr. Richard Baxters two ſheets for the Miniſtry, p. 16. We never underſtood that they that ſet up theſe Prieſt [...], were called as Peter, or Paul, or the Elders, who had Power to lay on the hands, that the HOLY GHOST FELL ON THE PARTY ON WHOM THEY LAID ON THE [...]R HANDS] and ſhew me any ONE of thy MINISTERS CALLED SO George.

[Page]G.F. To all People in all C [...]riſtendom ſays thus, p. 2. All Sects —have the words of the Apoſtles, but out of the Power and Life.

A Paper ſent forth into the World from the Quakers, p. 5. [We are againſt— the Paſtors that NOW STEAL the words of the Prophets, of Chriſt and his Apoſtles] W.P. Reaſon againſt Railing, p. 115. Many may run into the Practice of ſeveral outward things, mentioned in the Scriptures to have been the practice of Saints in former Ages, and yet not be led into the Truth, for all that is but will-worſhip, Imitation, and unwarrantable.]

And all this I may ſay againſt you, which you have ſaid againſt others, and if they were good then, why not ſtill? For you have but the Names and Images of things, you have got the words uſed in Scripture, [the Power] and the [Spirit] [the Gifts of the Spirit,] the Demonstration of the Spirit and Power] But alas where is the thing it ſelf, viz. the viſible Power and Gifts of the Spirit, the Demonstration of the Spirit that the true Apostles had, and the Scripture ſpeaks of? To this George can poorly ſay, what if God will not beſtow ſuch Gifts now? why then, George, I ſay thou haſt them not, only haſt ſtolen the words out of the Scriptures, thou haſt got the Name, the Image and words, as thou ſayeſt the Baptists and others have done: but alas, art as barren of the Gifts themſelves as they are, only art got into a Form, but denyeſt the True power of God and Demonſtration of the Spirit in Signs and mighty Deeds.

10. Pa. 33. G.W. hath this further to ſay, That he doubts not but where the Spirit of God lives and Rules, it will manifeſt it ſelf by its Fruits, for it is [Page]ſelf-evidencing, and that they have a record in Heaven, and alſo in many Conſciences of the bleſſed Power of God with them and in them.]

Reply. And cannot the Baptiſts ſay all this, nay, and do not they many times? They can ſay th [...]y have a Record in Heaven, and in many Conſciences alſo, who believe them; and pray tell me G. how thou wilt get up to Heaven to ſearch the Record there and diſprove them? Did one ever hear ſuch ſilly ſtuff as this man writes? did he indeed think to ſhufflle it off with ſuch ridiculous words as theſe. I could tell the Quakers that ſome of them have a Record ſomewhere elſe, bebeſides the Court of Heaven, viz. in the Court of Chancery for Swearing or Oaths.

I told W.P. That if his Church be the True, and the Baptiſts Church falſe, (rightly to convince others thereof upon good and infallible grounds) he muſt pretend to, and produce ſome ſuch diſcriminating Evidence or Sign for Proof thereof, which the Baptiſts nor no falſe Church could in like manner produce, as he doth. I pray'd W.P. to ſhew wherein the POWER of GOD or the SPIRIT DEMONSTRATED it ſelf MORE in the Quakers than the Baptiſts, or a falſe Church? And that he muſt do, & ſay ſomething for his Church (if he would ſay any thing to purpoſe) which they could not do and ſay for theirs as an Evidence or Demonſtration thereof; and that this was NO MORE than what the true Primitive Church had, and could, and did on all neceſſary occaſions viſibly produce and Demonſtrate. Now what does the Quibbler Anſwer to all this, he ſays nothing but what the Baptiſts can or do ſay, that they have a Record in Heaven, and in many Conſciences alſo, and that they doubt not but where the Spirit of God Lives and Rules it will manifeſt[Page]it ſelf, for it is ſelf-Evidencing: Then by that Rule the Quakers ſhould not have the Spirit of God, at beſt, no more than others have; becauſe it does not manifeſt it ſelf in them more than in others.

11. P. 33. ſays G.W. This ſeems to be a hard task,] and I believe ſo indeed, and too hard for all the Quakers, though I was ſo reaſonable as to demand but one ſuch Teſtimony or Gift in all their Churches, and they never read of any Chriſtian-Church in Holy Scripture, that had not ſome and many ſuch Gifts. Yet G. undertakes to ſay, that it is no difficult matter for W.P. and many more to produce or demonſtrate ſome ſuch effects of that living Teſtimony, preſence and power of God among us, as no falſe Church CAN PRODUCE: although herein neither W.P. nor any of us will ADMIT OF PREJUDICED and ENVIOUS SPIRITS to be our JUDGES or WITNESSES in th [...]ſe matters.]

Reply. Bravely ſaid George, if it were as well done; but for all thy boaſting, that not only W.P. but many more among you could; yet the poor Man, does not dare produce, or ſo much as name one of them: is not this excellent? What muſt all Men believe it, becauſe thou ſaieſt it? Is IPSE DIXIT come to Town, and the Quakers bare word all the Evidence they have or can produce?

‘Now it would have been a great piece of this Quakers-plainneſs, if he had produced one or two of thoſe effects, only, which he boaſts he [...], (and no Church which he Condemns for falſe) can produce. I charge him to do it, if he will not prove himſelf a MEER PRETENDER and VAIN-BOASTER ſpeaking high ſwelling words, like them in Jude.’ But this Man is very timerous I [Page] I perceive he would do it with Caution enough, though ſo ſilly, that he makes himſelf Ridiculous by it. 1. Where did the Apoſtles or the Churches ever make ſuch a Proviſo in their producing the Teſtimony and Power of God? Did they not do it before all, and in the preſence of Envious and malicious Spirits as well as others, and left them to judg as it had operation upon them? And 2. May not the Baptiſts ſay ſo, and make this Proviſo as well as you, that they will not admit of prejudiced and envious Spirits to be their Judges or Witneſſes in theſe matters? and then no doubt, they will be able to produce as many ſuch effects as the Quakers: Oh ſilly and abſurd! But 3. well G. produce thoſe effects, and that Power thou talkeſt of in W.P. however, and I am contented with thee for this time, that you ſhall not admit of Envious, or Prejudiced Spirits to Judg of it; but produce it, that others may behold it, though not Judg of it: or wilt thou ſay, that there's not one perſon in all England (except Quakers) but what are Envious and Prejudiced Spirits? Poor Evaſion!

12. As for them which thou ſayſt in whoſe Conſciences there is a Record, many of which were gathered out from Baptiſts and other Churches. They ſay ſuch are but Apoſtates from their Church, and ſome ſuch you have had in your Church (which you call Apoſtates) when they leave you, and go to other Churches, ſo that all this is nothing for proof of the thing; nay ſeveral of your grand Prophets (ſo once eſteemed among ſome of you for true Prophets of the Lord) did and have left you, Witneſs CHARLES BAYLY, JOHN PARROT, &c. and the Baptiſts have gathered amongſt them ſeveral out of other Churches as well as you: and what then? The [Page] Baptiſts may tell you, that if the Quakers ſee no ſuch thing amongſt them, as the Bleſſed Operation and effect of the Power and Miniſtry of Chriſt Jeſus, That is becauſe the Quakers have not honeſtly made Tryal, b [...]t ſtood in Prejudice and gainſaying, as many did againſt Chriſt, the Apoſtles and Primitive Church of old, and what can the Quakers ſay to it, ONLY DENY IT and ſo may the Baptiſts. Beſides, the Baptiſt. Churches have this to ſay for themſelves, which you have not, (being you have denied and diſowned it) viz. They own the Holy Scriptures for the Rule of their Faith and Practice; and pretend to no ſuch extraordinary immediate Inſpirations and Revelations as you do.

13. But above all, you ought not, you cannot, in good Conſcience, complain againſt others for Queſtioning whether you are Chriſtians, you having firſt not only Queſtioned others, but pronounced them all, both Miniſters and People, and Profeſſors alſo, unchriſtian. See G.F. Profeſſors Catechiſm, his very firſt words, are, come you UNCHRISTIANS, let us talk with you, &c. Therefore look at home and rebuke your ſelves firſt for this.

14. And whereas G.W. p. 34. ſays, That a fooliſh and Adulterous Generation ſeek a Sign: 'Tis true, our Saviour did ſo upbraid the Jews and might very well, they having had Sign upon Sign, & Miracle upon Miracle wrought by our SAVIOUR amongſt them, and ſuch mighty Deeds almoſt innumerable, wrought before them; and yet to cry out for more, when they ſaw ſo many from him, was fooliſh: but what is this to the Quakers, who have not wrought one true Miracle, nor produced ſo much as ONE ſuch Sign (notwithſtanding all their Pretences) among us, that ever [Page] I heard of? muſt we therefore be a fooliſh Generation that ask a Sign of them to prove ſuch their pretences? No ſurely, it follows not, I am certain, from that Text: and yet notwithſtanding that the Jews were ſuch an Adulterous Generation, and had had ſo many Miracles wrought among them: yet Jeſus Chriſt ſaid, they ſhould have one Sign more, and that was doubtleſs the greatest Miracle and Sign of all: By this Text then, if the Quakers will ſtick cloſe to it, they may lawfully give this Adulterous Generation one Sign, and that's all I ask of them.

15. And thus G.W. ſays amiſs, when he talks as if I did not acknowledg the ſufficiency of the Spirits Evidence and Teaching: for I do fully acknowledg it▪ where it APPEARS indeed to be (and do more fully own it than yet the Quakers ſeem to do (who are loath to own Real Miracles and the Gift of Tongues to be a certain EVIDENCE of the SPIRIT) ‘But muſt I therefore own that to be the Spirits Evidence which every one calls ſo? or will G.W. himſelf acknowledg it ſo? I dare ſay not, why; then it remains that G.W. & others muſt Evidence to us, That that is indeed the Spirits-Evidence, which they call ſo, Before that either he or they can juſtly call us UNBELIEVERS, or accuſe us for not owning the ſufficiency of the Spirits-Evidence; and this G.W. and all the Quakers in England muſt confeſs, or elſe I may as juſtly accuſe them, for not acknowledging the ſufficiency of the Spirits Evidence and Teaching in the Church of Rome, or in Muggleton, and let them clear themſelves of it if they can.’

16. Now ſince the Quakers will not produce any of their Miracles, I would not have them angry with me, if I ſhould produce one or two; that are [Page] the likelieſt that I know of, if that which they ſay be true. I never found any upon Record in their own Writings, except this may be Recorded for one: viz. in G.F's Profeſſors Catechiſm, p. 13.

And is not the POPE the MOTHER of all your obſerving of Days, Saints days as you call them?

According to this it ſeems G.F. their Grand Prophet, Converted a MAN into a WOMAN, and that a POPE too! which if true, muſt needs be a Miracle; and that it was not the Printers fault, his next words aſſured me, [And is not SHE your Example, and not the Scripture?] And again in another place in the ſame Page [is not the POPE the MOTHER?] Then I conſidered what Pope this was, whether it might not be Pope-JOAN, that did firſt Inſtitute Saints Days, and ſo G.F. the Prophet by a ſtrange impulſe ſpeak more Truth than he thought of: But my Authors aſſure me, 'twas not Pope-JOAN; but that it was a MAN-Pope, and the name Pope ſignifieth as much as FATHER; and yet for all this, G.F. hath turned the HE, into a SHE, and Converted the MAN into a WOMAN; & yet this is the Man that hath helpt to ſet out a whole Book in Folio, ſhewing the ſinfulneſs and impurity of ſaying you and not thou, to one in the ſingular. What a Prophet? What a Scholar is this? that cannot tell the MASCULINE Gender from the FEMININE? was he (can any one think) skill'd in ſo many Languages as he hath ſet his Name to, that does not write true Engliſh?

17. The other thing which I ſhall leave to your own Judgments, whether it be a Miracle or not, is what is Recorded of them in the Court of Chancery, THAT THE QUAKERS CAN TAKE AN [Page]OATH, AND YET NOT SWEAR AT ALL; If this be ſo, ſome think it muſt be miraculous: That they cannot ſwear, that they ſwear not at all, is their Principle; That ſeveral of them have taken Oaths and have been ſworn in Chancery, is upon Record in that Court, as Jer. Ives hath ſatisfied the World by Certificates, in his Queſtions for the Quakers; and yet the Quakers ſtill ſay, they did not Swear nor take an Oath, which if true, muſt be won [...]erful at leaſt. But theſe are not ſuch Miracles and Evidence as lie neceſſarily incumbent on the Quakers, to produce for the better Evidence and Proof of what they ſay and pretend to, and therefore I ſhall ſay no more of it here, but refer them to produce ſuch Evidence as will indeed prove them to be ſent of God to go forth as Apostles, Prophets, &c. more than all others, and be ſatisfactory in Anſwer to the foregoing Particulars.

SECT. IV. In Reply to his fourth Section, ſhewing the Compariſon betwixt the QUAKERS and MUGGLETON to be both Juſt, Rational, Honeſt and Neceſſary.

G.W. P. 35. TO compare Muggleton and them (he ſays) is both Idle, Quibbling and Envious Canting: What if W.P. does not pretend to more than [Page]Muggleton does, will it therefore follow, the Quakers are Impoſtors, or like him, who holds many Blaſphemies? The Baptiſts may be aſhamed of ſuch groſs and abuſive Inſinuations as theſe.]

Reply. Stay George, be not ſo hot, run not ſo faſt, give me leave to call thee back again, and tell thee, that if the Compariſon in my Epiſtle was any abuſe, that it was not the Baptiſts that did it, but I; and therefore if ſo, I am to bear the blame of it: But neither they nor I need to be aſhamed of doing it, that I ſee as I ſhall now ſhew you; and if you had exerciſed a good Conſcience you might have ſeen it your ſelf and ſpared me the Labour.

1. Then I ſay, That if W.P. does not pretend to more than Muggleton, yet if he or the Quakers pretend to have received immediately a Commiſſion from Heaven, and Divine Revelations, and inſpired by the Spirit of God to go forth as Apoſtles, Prophets, &c. as Muggleton does, and yet he be an Impoſtor as he is, then if the Quakers can produce no more for theirs than Muggleton does for his, it will follow, that the Quakers are alſo Impoſtors: And do thou Anſwer it if thou canſt, and ſo thou haſt thy idle Quibbling and envious Canting return'd on thy ſelf.

2. And for thy accuſing Muggleton with Blaſphemies, it is as certain that he accuſes you with Blaſphemies, and many others have condemned you alſo as holding apparent Blaſphemies: then by this thou art as well condemned as Muggleton is condemned by thee, ſo that this will be no Proof; and beſides; How wilt thou evidence to others, That all what thou ſayeſt and calleſt Blaſphemy, is ſuch indeed? or doeſt thou think thy bare word is ſufficient for all others [Page]to give Credence to and build their Faith on? ſo that here the doubt and Queſtion will remain ſtill.

3. I am verily perſwaded in my heart, that many Quakers have cenſured ſeveral Doctrines for Blaſphemy, (which yet are not truly ſo) as if they had the Romiſh Authority, and every one of them a Pope within him.

Take an Inſtance out of G.W. himſelf, Iſhmael, p. 9. For a Man's ſaying, That it is all one to ſay the Scripture ſaith, and God ſaith:] G. calls him, thou Blaſphemous Beaſt, doſt thou make no difference between the Scripture and God? —here let all that reads this, ſee thy Blaſphemy: Now George, let me ask thee, if a Man ſhould affirm, it is all one to ſay thy Book Iſhmael ſaith, and the Spirit of God ſaith, whether this would be Blaſphemy? (ſince, in thy Title Page thou aſſerts, it was given forth from the Spirit of the Lord in us,) and was not that given forth by Scripture, Writing, or Speech? If thou ſayeſt no, then thou haſt condemned the Man wrongfully, unleſs thou wilt ſay that that Book of yours was given forth more, by the Spirit of the Lord, than the Holy Scriptures are: If thou ſayeſt yes, it is Blaſphemy, then thou proveſt thy ſelf a Blaſphemer by Intitling that, as given forth by the Spirit of the Lord in you, which he did not ſay, and give forth.

4. Wouldſt thou not think it very hard and unjuſt, if one ſhould accuſe the Quakers of Blaſphemy, for ſaying, That the Church of Chriſt is his Body, and that there is but one Spirit and one Body, which is the Church, and ſo deny that Chriſt hath any other Body, than that whereof the Saints are Members and united to him, as thou talkeſt to this purpoſe? p. 29. Now ſome look upon this as Blaſphemous, wouldſt thou not ſay [Page] it is very hard and uncharitable? and why, becauſe this is according to Scripture-Language ſayeſt thou: And yet thou haſt accuſed Muggleton, p. 37. as a Blaſphemer and Impoſtor for holding this Blaſphemous Doctrine; That the Soul of Man dies or is Mortal. Now may not Muggleton tell thee, [...]at the Scripture ſaith in expreſs words, The Soul that ſinneth it ſhall die, Ezek. 18.20. God ſhall deliver my Soul from the Power of the Grave, Pſal. 49.15. Thou haſt delivered my Soul from Death, Pſal. 56.13. Thou haſt delivered my Soul from the loweſt Grave, Pſal. 86.13. Keep back his Soul from the Pit: his Soul draweth nigh to the Grave, Job. 33.18, 22, 28, 30. Then ſaith he unto them, My Soul is exceeding ſorrowful even unto Death, Matth. 26.38. ſpake of the Reſurrection of CHRIST, that his Soul was not left in Hell [or the Grave,] Acts 2.31. Is not this Scripture? Is not this according to Scripture-Language? Thus then thou condemneſt ſomething as Blaſphemy, which is according to Scripture-Language, and ſo it ſeems it is all one to thee, be it according to Scripture-Language or not; thou joyneſt them all together as alike falſe and Blaſphemous. Beſides there is no Proteſtant Church in Europe that I know of, but what can approve the third Doctrine in thy 37. pag. (which thou calleſt Blaſphemous) for True, in the indefinite Terms thou haſt expreſſed it, viz. That the Soul of Man is Mortal, i. e. Subject to the ſecond Death, if not Redeemed.

And becauſe G.W. hath a Multiplying-Glaſs when he writes againſt his oppoſers, he hath made here (to lengthen them out) eight ſeveral Doctrines, which indeed can be reckoned but one or two in effect or much the ſame: and as for thoſe other Blaſphemous [Page] Doctrines of Muggleton reſpecting the Godhead Life, and that the Godhead died; thou G. according to thy Principles muſt hold ſo too, or elſe thou muſt run into another Blaſphemy; by holding that THE CHRIST INDEED did NOT DIE, only put off HIS GARMENT with which thou ſayeſt he was Cloathed, but was not THE CHRIST nor no Real part of HIM. And therefore upon this account your Predeceſſors, (who held much the ſame Doctrine with you concerning the TRINITY of PERSONS,) found a neceſſity on them to hold that the FATHER Died, as Muggleton does, and therefore were called PATROPASSIANS; for without that they found they could not Really believe, that THE CHRIST HIMSELF DIED, and this Dilemma (if not Blaſphemy) the Quakers are got into; and if the Quakers did not come very near this Blaſphemous Doctrine of Muggleton, What is the meaning of Iſaac Pennington's words, Queſt. p. 20. But he [CHRIST] is of an Eternal Nature, and his Fleſh and Blood and Bones are of his Nature, [that is, then, his Fleſh, Blood and Bones are Eternal; and ſo muſt be GOD, for nothing is of an Eternal Nature, but GOD] and now let the Reader Judg how far this falls ſhort of Muggleton's Blaſphemy; and let them clear themſelves of it if they can, ſo that it appears, this is only a Pitiful begging the Queſtion ſtill, betwixt the Impoſtor Muggleton and you, which cannot be granted you by Muggleton, nor yet by others, without your producing better evidence: for you ſee he can ſpeak according to Scripture-Language as well as you, when he hath a mind to it.

[Page]5. Whereas thou ſayeſt the compariſon is unjuſt and wicked, Thou doſt not ſo much as Inſtance any one particular of the ten, that is unjuſt or falſe: But thou wilfully miſtakes me, when thou inſinuates, as if I did baſely deſign by the Compariſon to make others believe, that the Quakers were Muggletonians or the Muggletonians Quakers: No, that was never my intent, but thy own perverſion, on purpoſe to Evade and ſhuffle it off where thou foundſt it lay too heavi [...] upon thy Shoulders; neither canſt thou find any ſuch word in all my Epiſtle, but well to the contrary, as the tenth particular witneſſeth, That the Quakers Condemn Muggleton, and Muggleton damn's the Quakers; therefore any Man might ſee (except G. who is wilfully blind) that I never thought them all one or alike in all things, and G. might have ſpared all his needleſs labour to ſet down wherein the Quakers differ from Muggleton in other Doctrines, but that the poor Man could eaſier do that, than Anſwer what I demanded of W.P. But this is the old Shift that I have formerly told them of, they uſed in the Diſpute, Anſwer that which was never askt them, to give the go-by and evade Anſwering what is askt, and thus he ſerves me here.

‘The thing that I demanded of W.P. was this; in my Epiſt. p. 32, 33. Why ſhouldſt thou or thy Friends be believed MORE than Muggleton or an Impoſtor? Since Muggleton ſays he hath received a Commiſſion from Heaven, that he had it by Divine Revelation to go forth as a Prophet, &c. That he is inſpired by the Spirit of God, and is infallible, &c. and ſo ſay the Quakers that they have. And again, in my p. 35. Is it not highly neceſſary one ſhould know which of theſe are the Impoſtors? Or whether [Page] (ſince they both are ſuch confident Pretenders) they may not both be Impoſtors? What canſt or doſt thou produce or pretend to more than Muggleton does? Surely it will be a ſtrange piece of Confidence for you to claim Credence from People, if you cannot produce ſomething conſiderable beyond ſuch (as your ſelves own to be) a GRAND IMPOSTOR and a DECEIVER.’ But very deceitfully G. gives the go-by to all this, which was the only thing in Queſtion, and yet calls his Treatiſe an Anſwer to my Epiſtle: Is it poſſible, that the Quakers that pr [...]tend ſo much, ſhould be Men of no better Conſcience? How can any look upon ſuch to be tender, and Men fearing God, and hating deceit and falſhood? Is this think you for the Credit or Commendation of your way? will ſuch unfair dealing, ſhifting and ſhuffling of Anſwers, convince the Baptiſts or me, or any other ſober and diſcreet Men that you are immediately ſent and Commiſſioned for to go forth as Apoſtles and Prophets from the moſt Holy God? No ſurely. Doſt thou call this the Quakers-plainneſs, detecting Fallacy? It is the Quakers own Fallacy it then detects. Let thy own Conſcience (if thou haſt any that is not hardned) Judg, and let all intelligent Readers Judg. ‘This is then the thing that I did, and do ſtill demand of thee, Why ſhouldſt thou or thy Friends be believed more than Muggleton or an Impoſtor, that thou ſpeakeſt immediately from the ſpirit of God, and that thou haſt a Commiſſion from Heaven, and he not? What canſt or doſt thou produce, ſay or pretend to more than Muggleton does, whom yet your ſelves ſay is AN Impoſtor and a Deceiver.’

6. Inſtead of that G.W. p. 36. weakly tells me, that ſome of the Baptiſts have denied the Father and [Page]Son to be two diſtinct Perſons, and then cites Hicks Dialogue, p. 9. What's this in Anſwer to my Epiſtle? And yet for ought I underſtand, he hath falſly accuſed Mr. Hicks therein; for on the Contrary, he doth expreſly own the Father and Son to be two diſtinct Perſons; and then G. would baſely come off, by ſaying, wherein they Imply the Father and Son to be one Perſon without us; whereas I do not find one ſuch word in all T.H.'s Dialogues, and I dare ſay the thought never entred into his heart: but what falſhood will not this Man uſe? Not regarding either his own Honour or Reputation, nor that of his Religion (which yet he pretends to) whilſt he defends it by ſuch baſe means: To accuſe a Man poſitively, and then when he comes to prove it, he doth but barely ſay it is implied, when indeed it is not implied; and I know not why my Teſtimony ſhould not be as good as G.W's.

7. G.W. p. 36. What if Quakers pretend to theſe viz. that they have received a Commiſſion from Heaven, that they had it by Divine Revelation, that they are inſpired by the Spirit of God, that they are infallible? Says he, the Apoſtles and true Church did not only pretend to, but experience the ſame, does it therefore follow that they muſt be compared with the Muggletonians and be deemed Impoſtors?

Reply. That ever any Man in his wits ſhould make himſelf ſo Ridiculous in Print, as G.W. here does! For, 1. Becauſe the Apoſtles and true Church did pretend to theſe things, and did EXPERIENCE the SAME, and could viſibly demonſtrate them, and ſo were no Impoſtors nor like Muggleton: Muſt th [...]refore the Quakers and Muggleton who pretend to theſe things, but do not experience the ſame, nor can viſibly demonſtrate them as the true Apoſtles [Page] did, be no Impoſtors? on the contrary it directly follows, that the Quakers and Muggleton pretending to theſe things, and not experiencing the ſame, nor viſibly Demonſtrating them as the true Apoſtles did, are Impoſtors; and get off of it, if you can.

2. Cannot Muggleton alſo ſay, what if he as led by the Spirit of Truth pretend to theſe things, the Apoſtles and true Church did not only pretend to, but experienced the ſame, does it therefore follow that he muſt be compared with, and deemed an Impoſtor? What Anſwer wouldſt thou make to Muggleton? Take the ſame to thy ſelf and thou wilt be Anſwered.

8. And thus haſt thou made thy ſelf Ridiculous, and thy deceit and Hypocriſie apparent to others; and therefore George ſince thou haſt undertaken for thy Brother Penn to Anſwer my Epiſtle, I will not let thee go free ſo, no no, I cannot be ſatisfied with thy ſhuffles and ſuch poor Shifts. I intend now not to leave thee, till thou haſt indeed Anſwered to the MATTER in Diſpute, or made thy own Folly and vain-boaſting, manifeſt to all Men of ſound underſtanding; ſtill aſſerting, That it is a ſtrange piece of Confidence for you to cenſure and condemn others, or to claim Credence from People, if you cannot produce ſomething conſiderable BEYOND ſuch (as your ſelves own to be) a GRAND IMPOSTOR and a DECEIVER.

And I do ſtill demand of you, What can or do you produce, ſay and pretend to, more than Muggleton does? ‘Or why ſhouldſt thou in particular, G.W. be believed MORE than Muggleton or an Impoſtor, in thy Pretences of having Received an Immediate Commiſſion and Miniſtry from Heaven, Infallibility and immediate Inſpirations from the Spirit of God, to go forth as an Apoſtle, or a Prophet?’ And this [Page] lies at thy door ſtill, notwithſtanding all thy pittiful Evaſions and deceitful equivocations And this is ſufficient for thy fourth Section.

SECT. V. In Reply to his fifth Section, about SABELLIUS and the Agreement of the Quakers Doctrine with his touching the three Perſons.

G.W. P. 41. Tells me, that becauſe I did not lay down particularly what thoſe old exploded Fancies of Sabellius were, I am ſmiting at them in the dark.

Reply. Is not this indeed Ingenious? I writ my Epiſtle to W.P. who is generally known to be a Scholar, and a Man of Learning, and could not well be thought ſo Ignorant, or of ſo little Reading, as not to know who Sabellius was, and what his Opinions which were exploded; therefore it was altogether needleſs for me to lay down what I concluded he knew as well as my ſelf. But now a Man who is unlearned, or no good Scholar, comes in his Ignorance, and undertakes to Scribble me an Anſwer, and for want of ſo much Light and Learning in himſelf accuſes me of ſmiting at them in the Dark.

2. To Inform this Man and enlighten his dark mind in this particular: I underſtand that Sabellius was one who denied there was a Trinity of Perſons he denied there were three perſons, ſaying all three were [Page]one, Epip. haer [...]ſ. 62. Aug. lib. haer. [as the Quakers now do] And ſo confound the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, and impiouſly imagined three Names in one thing and in one Perſon, therefore not without Cauſe we forbid them the Church, &c. Soc. Schol. lib. 2.

Theſe and the like were the Exploded Fancies that were long ſince revealed by SABELLIUS without, rather than by the Light within; and ſuch-like are now the Quakers Fancies which they pretend are revealed to them by the Light within, notwithſtanding all their plauſible Quibbles and equivocating pretences ſometimes to the contrary, as is manifeſted in this foregoing Diſcourſe.

3. G.W. p. 42, 43. inſtead of anſwering my Epiſtle tells me, that ſome of the Baptiſts have denied the Divinity of Chriſt.

Reply. Quid hoc ad rem? I never requeſted that of him or W.P. I matter no more what ſome of the Baptiſts hold, than what ſome of the Quakers do hold: But it ſeems G. found it much eaſier for him to ſet down what Doctrines ſome of the Baptiſts have held, than to prove and make good ſuch Doctrines as himſelf holds. If he hath any thing to ſay to the Baptiſts, it is likely enough they may be able to Anſwer for themſelves, as well as he can for himſelf if not better, becauſe they own the Holy Scriptures to be their Rule, and not their own Spirit or Fancy within. But if not, what's all this to me? I am no Baptiſts, and ſo I told W.P. before; Therefore this is no better than a Quibbling Evaſion in lieu of an Anſwer.

4. G.W, p. 44. ſeemeth to like the Cloſe of my Epiſtle better than the reſt. It's well if any thing (that's not a Quakers) can pleaſe him. I aſſure him [Page] I thought on it at the beginning of that and this alſo & do wiſh that he h [...]d been ſo ingenious as to have conſidered of it in his Anſwer, and that he would honeſtly confeſs with me humanum eſt Errare rather than only to commend it as ſome kind of Ingenuity in another; and I believe the ſame humility and ſubmiſſiveneſs may become him and all the Quakers as well, and better than high and empty pretences without greater proof.

I have all along purpoſely avoided forming the Arguments into Syllogiſms, and uſed this plain way of diſcourſe, that ſo it might the better ſuit with the Capacities of the Vulgar and be the more beneficial to the underſtandings of ſuch well-meaning perſons, who yet notwithſtanding, may not be well acquainted with a Syllogiſtical method, neither underſtand rightly what Mood and figure are no more than Hebrew or Arabick, and therefore can be no competent Judges thereof, when they read it in that Form.

Now no Quaker ought to (or can honeſtly upon his own Principles) blame me for what I have Writ, becauſe they ſay, every man hath the Light within him, and ought to Act according to that light within himſelf, which I have here done; and I can ſeriouſly tell them, that the Light and Spirit within me beareth Witneſs to it: and then although the Quakers ſhould think amiſs of it, or ſay it is bad, yet how could I help it, according to their principle, teaching me, That that ought to be my grand Rule to ſquare all my Actions by? And would they have me diſobey tha [...]? Or have a better Light than I can have? or would they have me attempt to Invalidate the Light within me, or Gods Immutable and abſolute D [...]cree, within? which would be a great Impiety but to think of, they [Page] they ſhould either Change their Creed, in [...]cular, or ſeem leſs concerned at what I have be [...] now thus writ, it being confeſſedly a Duty: her [...] hope will the Quakers blame me for arguing [...] it being no worſe way of arguing than what [...] Pen hath thought good to uſe againſt twenty [...] Learned Divines, p. 22. nor can the Quakers tell [...] upon their own Principles without Blaſphemy (which yet ſome of them have been ſo weak as to do) that the Light within me is Da [...]kneſs; for they ſay that the Light within every Man is Chriſt, and Chriſt is God, and GOD and CHRIST, I am ſure are not, nor can be Darkneſs.

In ſhort, I do truly profeſs that I have done nothing herein, but with a good Conſcience, and an honeſt Deſign. 1. With a good Conſcience, I not having either wilfully or knowingly wronged the Quakers in any one particular, and if unwillingly there ſhould happen any miſtake to be committed by me (as poſſibly there may be, conſidering the weakneſs that all men are ſubject unto (unleſs Quakers) & Ber [...]ardus non videt omnia) which yet I think there will none appear, I having uſed the greateſt Care and Circ [...]mſpection that my occaſions and time would give me leave, to prevent all: however I have that freedom of mind, that I ſhould not be aſhamed honeſtly to acknowledg it in Print and beg their excuſe for it. If they would be ſo Ingenious with me, and acknowledg the wrong that G.W. hath done me (as well as himſelf) in his pretended Anſwer. 2. With an honest Deſign, it being plainly to inform and Caution others to prevent their being deluded with ſuch vain pretences, and high ſwelling words amongſt the Quakers, when it doth not appear they have any thing in reality [Page] [...]g them, MORE than many other Chur [...] [...]e, but a great deal leſs in many things, and [...] the Quakers (if it may be) into a better ſenſe [...] ſight of themſelves: that they may conſider their [...] Poverty, nakedneſs, weakneſs and formality, [...]withſtanding all their vain boaſting, and high pre [...]ences of Revelations more than others; and might be ſhamed out of their unm [...]aſurable Confidence and quibbling equivocations. The Quakers ſay they have the Spirit with meaſure; but [...]t is certain many of their leaders have Confidence without meaſure. I ſhall conclude with this ſerious Expoſtulation (of the Pſalmiſt) to them, Pſal. 4.2. Oh ye Sons of Men, how long will ye turn my Glory into ſhame! how long will ye love vanity, and ſeek after Leaſing? Selah! And my Prayer ſhall be that of t [...]e Apoſtles, 2 Theſ. 3.2. That we may be delivered from [abſurd] UNREASONABLE and WICKED Men.

Many more of their QUIBBLES I could (and may if I think there is neceſſary occaſion) intimate to you and them; but having herein exceeded the brevity I firſt intended I will now forbear, and if they pleaſe to return an Anſwer to this, in plainneſs INDEED, ſingleneſs of heart and honeſty, without RAILING EQUIVOCATIONS, or MENTAL RESERVATIONS, to the particular and very MATTERS in queſtion, (without BEGGING the queſtion) I ſhall take it candidly and receive it kindly; but if inſtead thereof, they ſhall revile, huff, or Hector, I ſhall the l [...]ſs value and regard it.

AN ADVERTISEMENT TO G. Whitehead, W. Penn, and the QUAKERS.

[Page]

1. TO prevent any more of your needleſs Scribbling and that neither the World nor my ſelf be peſtered and troubled with ſuch ſtuff ſo little to the purpoſe for the future, but that if we have any Anſwer, it may be AD REM, plain indeed and more ſatisfactory, I do here before hand give you, or any other that may undertake for you, NOTICE, That if any of you do, (or pretend to) make a Return to this my Reply, and inſtead of ſpeaking directly to THE THING that I have objected againſt you (and which G.W. hath undertaken to Anſwer, and ſo is ingaged thereby to do it, ſince it yet remains undone) you make Anſwer to SOMEWHAT ELSE, that I never mentioned nor deſired of you: Or if in lieu of Anſwering to THE MATTER in direct and plain Terms, either by affirmative or negative Procations, you ſhall propoſe NEW QUESTIONS before the former are decided already by you undertaken, which can be only deſignedly and deceitfully to draw us away from [Page] the MATTER in hand, (Both which ſhifting evaſions, G.W. hath all along uſed, as I have already often hinted to him, and acquainted the World,) that then I ſhall look upon all SUCH WORK to be no SATISFACTORY or PLAIN ANSWER, but a MEER EVASION and SENSELESS SCRIBBLING; yea, and I ſhall take it to be a manifeſt Sign of the DESPERATE weakneſs and baffling of your CAUSE, if you are ſtill conſtrained to uſe ſuch mean and baſe Artifices and pittiful Shifts to EVADE an Anſwer notwithſtanding you are NOW forewarned to AVOID them: And ſo ſhall▪ look upon my ſelf not much (if at all) concerned in any ſuch like pretended and Evaſive Anſwer, as I have (I hope) ſufficiently demonſtrated this of G.W's to be hardly worth a Man's time to take notice of, (it being in the Judgment of many underſtanding and Judicious Perſons, no more a real Anſwer to me and the main intent of my Epiſtle, than if he had in effect ſaid juſt nothing) except to ſhew the VANITY and FOLLY of it to prevent (if any thing will do it) their TRIFLING ſo for the future.

2. As once again to inſtance (becauſe I would beat it into their heads, though not ſo, as they beat (or pinch) perſons out of their meetings) I told Mr. Penn, that he had the words of man's wiſdom indeed, but did ask him where the Demonſtration of the Spirit was with him in POWER and mighty Signs; and told him that if he could ſhew but ONE in his Church that had ſuch Spiritual Gifts upon his turning Quaker, as was immediately inſpired into thoſe Members of the true Church in the Apoſtles times, upon their becoming Chriſtians, it would put a clear difference betwixt them and the Baptiſts, and herein then they would EXCEED [Page] the Baptiſts, but now they did not.

Now what is G.W's. Anſwer to me in this, he does not ſay, It is true, nor dares affirm it is falſe; nor does he produce ONE ſuch in his Church, nor yet plainly and honeſtly ſay, he cannot: now any one of theſe had been a plain Anſwer, For that was it he pretended in his Title, viz. the Quakers plainneſs, &c. But inſtead thereof, (alas nothing, but asks NEW QUESTIONS, viz. What if God will not beſtow ſuch Gifts and Signs now? And who is it can tell G's meaning or Anſwer in theſe words? does he mean God will, or God will not? I challenge him to ſay if he dares, negatively, That God will not-now beſtow ſuch gifts on his Church, or if he had rather, Poſitively, That God will now, and yet ſurely one of them he muſt mean; but how ſhall another Man know which, for if I ſhould ſay he means affirmatively, he may ſay nay, I do not ſay, God will now; and if I ſay negatively, he may ſay nay, I only queried it, but did not ſay, God will not now.

Now then let all unbyaſſed Readers Judg, how this then can be either a C [...]rtain or Plain Anſwer: this is like indeed the Quakers Plainneſs; for here's Equivocation and the Quakers Quibble ſtill, yea and another Queſtion, What ſay you Baptiſts to this Propoſal? And yet another, muſt this conclude the Controverſy? nay, and one more, Who then ſhall eſcap [...] your Cenſure? nay and another upon that, Have not the Jeſuites in this wiſe Argued? And two or three more ſuch Queſtions, p. 13, 14. I would fain know of any ſober Man in his right Wits, whether this be a plain Anſwer, or any Anſwer at all to me? he ſpeaking to the Baptiſts and asking Queſtions of them, that's nothing to me.

[Page]3. And ſo about Muggleton, when the thing I requeſted of Mr. Penn, was, Why he or his friends ſhould be believed MORE than Muggleton or an Impoſtor? and what he could ſay, pretend to, and produce more than Muggleton or an Impoſtor could ſay, pretend to, and produce as he did? They both pretending an immediate Commiſſion from Heaven and to be true Prophets, &c. G.W. does not once go about to ſhew me why, nor wherefore, nor does ſo much as SAY or produce ONE thing which Muggleton or an Impoſtor cannot: no, not a word, but instead of that tells me, Muggleton and the Quakers are not one, and that he hol [...]s many Blaſphemous Doctrines which they do not, and that they had writ againſt him.

Who ever doubted of this? I did not, I knew it all very well before, and therefore did not ask Mr. Penn any ſuch thing; and I can as well tell G.W. that Muggleton hath writ againſt the Quakers, will that prove him to be no Impoſtor? If not, why ſhould their writing againſt him prove them no Impoſtors? And if Muggleton holds Blaſphemous Doctrines, will it therefore follow, that the Quakers may not hold Blaſphemous Doctrines, and ſo m [...]y be Impoſtors alſo? no ſurely: the Quakers may be Impoſtors, notwithſtanding Muggleton's holding Blaſphemous Doctrines. One would think the Quakers ſhould be aſhamed of their ſo ſilly Arguing, 'tis a ſign they ſtand but upon a Sandy Foundation when they have no other and better Arguments to produce for themſelves. But I did not, nor do yet know what Demonſtrative Evidence and Reaſon you can give, why you ſhould be Believed MORE than the Baptiſts, or lookt upon by any, to be a truer Church than they, nay nor yet, why [Page] your pretended Commiſſion from Heaven ſhould be Credited MORE than Muggletons: and therefore I prayed W.P. to tell me that. Now can any man think this of G.W. to be a plain and ſatisfactory Anſwer to that: As if when I talk of REASONS, G.W. he preſently thinks of PLUMBS, and much at that rate he Anſwers me: Oh ſtrange Quakeriſm! That it ſhould ſometimes bereave men both of their Conſciences and Wits at once! And yet make them ſo ſtrangely confident as to appear wilfully blind (if not impudent) in ſuch their palpable Evaſions, and notorious Equivocations, in the face of the World.

4. My Epiſtle was but very ſhort, and let it be remembred it was Expoſtulatory, and yet G.W, in his Plainneſs, gives the Plain go-by, to one whole Paragraph in it, viz. the third in p. 14, and 15. where I expoſtulated and demanded of W.P. if he was faithful, and juſt to his Agreement, or if he was Reaſonable in himſelf, to oppoſe with three men beſides againſt one, &c. He takes not the leaſt notice of it, and p. 16. I inquired of W.P. whe [...]her T. Hicks might not then ſay in W.P's own Language, Thou art a Forger, and haſt forged this Diſtinction for thy Friend, it not being ſet down in thy own Friends Book: and that it was ſuch a ſilly Diſtinction as was impoſſible to hold good, if the Quakers Principle touching the Chriſt hold true: and many more ſuch Expoſtulations that G.W. ſays not one word to, and yet this it ſeems I muſt take for an Anſwer and the Quakers-Plainneſs▪ (& it is very likely moſt of their poor Diſciples take it as SUCH, and willingly believe it upon the Credit of their Leaders, or the bare Report of ſome of their Friends as if it was ſo indeed, without ever reading it judiciouſly and examining it throughly: Ah poor [Page] d [...]ceived and deluded Souls!) THEREFORE that you may not pretend Ignorance, nor unneceſſarily imploy your ſelves to no purpoſe, except it be to EVADE AN ANSWER, whilſt you hypocritically pretend to GIVE ONE: which will but Evince your Cauſe to be foul and deſperate that needs ſuch a Cloak to hide it, (which yet you have worn now Thredbare by your ſo often uſing it in your Anſwers to other men's Books) I have thought good here to give you NOTICE of it, and acquaint you what will be honeſt, plain, and ſatisfactory, but that ſuch Shifts and Quibbles as you have already uſed, are not, will not, nor can be ſo.

5. After all I have already ſaid, I freely declare, I ſtand almoſt aſtonied at the Prodigious CONFIDENCE of the Leading Quakers (of the Foxonian Tribe) audacious Attempts in ſuch Evaſive Replies to their Opponents, daubed over (to beguile the ſimple-hearted or deceived Quakers) with ſeeming Vindications, when their dreadful accuſing Conſciences (if not abſolutely ſeared) at the ſame time cannot but tell them how greatly the ſincerer ſort of Quakers have been burthen [...]d, yea grievouſly afflicted theſe many years, (under the ſence of Guilt that reſts on thoſe called the BODY) I may ſay even to the higheſt Degree of Perplexity, witneſs, J.P. W.M. J.O. W.G. T.M. M.S. T.F. J.F. M.P. A.M. with many more; and although ſome of them may have tr [...]ckled under the TYRANNICAL power of this BODY (ſo called) i. e. their Church (though it be indeed Principally, but of G. Foxes Building) yet their Conſciences cannot but bear Witneſs to what I have ſaid in this Reſpect. Here's all that can be ſaid in favour of ſuch wicked Practices, that it ſeems they [Page] muſt by Decree (to uphold their Cauſe as long as they can) ſet SOMETHING forth in Print as an Anſwer, or that bears the Title of an Anſwer, to all that comes out againſt them.

6. It muſt be a very ſtrong and notorious Deluſion, theſe Leading-Quakers are under, if they do not ſee themſelves manifeſtly Guilty of Abominable Equivocations and Quibbling in the greateſt matters of Faith and Religion controverted between them and others: Inſomuch, that notwithſtanding their now loud pretences of profeſſing Chriſt, according to the Holy Scriptures (ſo long as they do not nor will diſclaim their For [...]er Profeſſions to the Contrary, and their former abuſes, put upon the Scriptures) and notwithſtanding their loud Clamors againſt the Socinians, as denying the Divinity of Chriſt; yet themſelves muſt know, that they deny CHRIST to be either God or Man in the ſence that Chriſtians acknowledg him to be ſo, ſee Conteſt for Chriſtianity, p. 115, 116, 117. and Controv. ended, p. 44. to 54. And conſequently they Introduce into the profeſſion of Religion and the Scriptures ſuch Equivocations and ambiguous Quibbling, as Renders the moſt Religious Confeſſions, Profound Deceits, and the Words of God Recorded in Scripture, no better than a Noſe of Wax, moſt dangerous and falſe.

7. There are five or ſix little Books that do very ingeniouſly and fully ſet forth and give an accompt of the Deceit, Impoſtures, intolerable Pride, Hypocriſy, and Tyranny, with the Popiſh Principles and vile Practices of ſome of your Leaders and Miniſters of the Foxonian party, chiefly in Matters of Fact, which are viſible to the Eyes and ſubject to the Senſes of Men, viz.

The Spirit of the Quakers tryed,

Controverſy ended,

The Spirit of the Hat,

Tyranny and Hypocriſy detected,

Queſtions for the Quakers,

to which may be added

The Quakers Spiritual-Court.

The which, or ſome of them at leaſt, I ſhould adviſe all Perſons Judiciouſly to peruſe, that would be infor [...]ed concerning them: For notwithſtanding that the Quakers have Printed ſomething that bears the Name of Anſwers, I do ſeriouſly think and hereby advertiſe them, that thoſe Books are IN EFFECT as much un-anſwered as if they had not writ twenty lines about it, for indeed what theſe Quakers have writ in Reply, is but ABOUT it, not TO it. They beat about the Buſh and that's all, they make the greateſt noiſe like the Lapwing, when indeed they are fartheſt off.

What ſhall I ſay to your poor pittiful, ſlight, ſhifting evaſive and equivocating Replies to theſe Books? What ſhall I ſay to that heavy Charge of TYRANNY and HYPOCRISY exhibited againſt you in the Book bearing that Title?

What ſhall I ſay to that equal, juſt, and fair Proffer made to you therein? and your not-accepting of it? p. 49. and Title-Page. 'Tis offered over and over again to the Quakers: ‘To refer the Judgment of matters of Fact to the verdict of twelve impartial and honeſt men, EQUALLY to be choſen, and that in caſe the Quakers & the others ſhould not agree in the choice of the Perſons; it was propoſed, that the Ʋmpirage ſhould be referred to the LORD-MAJOR of London [Page] or any Alderman on the Bench, or to any one of twenty Common Council-men, and if the Quakers would put it to this juſt honeſt and fair Iſſue, that they ſhould ſignifie it in writing, and leave it with Francis Smith Bookseller (dwelling in Cornhil) and they ſhould find their Accuſers ready to comply therewith.’

Now, why dare and do you not thus adventure the Tryal of it? And why will W.P. notwithſtanding Cry out for Proof, and exclaim that you are horribly belied and ſlandered; and that they are all Lies, Slanders and Forgeries, (and this is the chiefeſt part of your Anſwers:) If they are ſo indeed, or ye Quakers ſo innocent therein as you would pretend, nothing could poſſibly more honour and advantage the Quakers and their Cauſe here, as clearly to Evince it and have this Judged for them by honeſt and impartial Men on both ſides; and it being only matter of Fact, ſuch men are capable to judg of it: for ſhame then W.P. and ye Quakers do not any more cry out Groſs Lies, Slanders and Forgeries, till you have agreed to this fair propoſe, and have had the matters indifferently heard, as ſo long profferred you, and it be proved ſo: what will ye thus decline the Proof and Tryal, and yet exclaim as wronged? oh unreaſonable!

8. What ſhall I ſay? What can be ſaid to ſuch Men? What can be expected from them? Or who (that is not infatuated) can believe them or approve of their Confidence, whereby they make themſelves ridiculous, and manifeſt to the world, that ſome of them have neither tender Conſciences nor ſhame in them, to ſtand in things with ſuch perverſeneſs of Spirit (not to ſay Impudence) againſt not only Common Senſe [Page] and REASON, But OCULAR DEMONSTRATION, ſaying any thing Backwards or Forwards as they pleaſe, and that without Bluſhing: I will name but three Inſtances now.

1. Witneſs thoſe many Texts of Scripture perverted, [...]ltered, changed, and corrupted by G. Fox, when he charges others with falſhood, corrupting and perverting the Scriptures, for doing the like or leſs as is ſet forth in ſeveral particulars in the Spirit of the Quakers tryed, where in ſome places G. Fox puts THEM for HIM, Col. 3.10. Conſcience for Thoughts, Rom. 2.15. he puts Chriſt's Belly for the Believers Belly, John 7.38. puts another perſon into the Text, John 10.29. Leaves out the SPIRIT, in 1 Cor. 2.10. puts IT for WE, in 2 Cor. 2.16. IS for WAS, in 2 Cor. 5.19. Leaves out the word WILFULLY, in Heb. 10.26. puts ſpeaking for Prophecying, 1 Cor. 14.31. &c. Now as that Author ſays well, any one that can but Read and underſtand Engliſh, and knows that A is not B, or HIM is not THEM, or that IT is not, nor can be WE, may know that G. Fox hath committed Falſhoods, altered, changed and corrupted ſeveral Scriptures, and yet Mr. Penn hath undertaken to vindicate him in theſe matters, though againſt his own & other Mens Eyes, and yet if you will credit W. Penn, this is the Spirit of Truth, or the Truth that he vindicates.

2. Nay, let G. Fox their grand Prophet not only ſpeak the greateſt NONSENCE, but Write it and publiſh it alſo, to the World in Print; yet Mr. Penn will vindicate it and Juſtifie him alſo; G. Foxe's words are theſe, [And ſo to the word Chriſt Jeſus, him by whom the World was made before [Page]it was made] and this G. Fox ſays SEVEN times over in his Book; and another time thus, [By which the World was made before it was made] Now if any Man that underſtands Engliſh and Sence except a Quaker) will not ſay this is abſolute NONSENCE that G.F. here aſcribes to CHRIST, and not fit for any Man of Ingenuity, and that is a Schollar or regards his Credit, to vindicate, then I am wonderfully deceived and know not my Mother-Tongue; and yet if you will believe W. Penn, this is the Truth or Spirit of Truth ſtill which he vindicates, oh horrid!

3. Nay more, Write and Print BLASPHEMY, and then ſtand in it and Juſtifie it when they have done: Witneſs, Solomon Eccles (one of theſe Quaking Miniſters) in his Book, called the Quakers Challenge; he ſays of GEORGE FOX, whoſe name thou art not worthy to take into thy mouth, who is a Prophet indeed, and hath been faithful in the Lords buſineſs from the beginning. It was ſaid of CHRIST, That he was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not; SO IT MAY BE SAID OF THIS TRUE PROPHET, whom Iohn ſaid, HE WAS NOT; But thou wilt feel this Prophet one day, as heavy as a Mill-ſtone upon thee, &c.

And yet G. Whitehead undertakes to vindicate this BLASPHEMOUS SPEECH, and ſays, it is a LITTLE FAILURE in Syntax, (for ſo his Conſcience will ſerve him to call BLASPHEMY, when it is utterred and publiſhed by a QUAKER, though againſt the Lord CHRIST) ah George! canſt thou call it but a LITTLE FAILURE, is that a Truth? At the beſt, ſurely it is no leſs than a GREAT FAILURE.

[Page]9. And as for George's DIRECTION of Sol. Eccles INTENTION in G.W's. ſerious ſearch p. 58. I pray my Reader and you Quakers, but to peruſe the MYSTERY of JESUITISM, (particularly Letter ninth, Letter ſeventh, and Letter ſixth, beginning at p. 122.) and ſee whether it may not be concluded George is almoſt as good an Artiſt at it as they, or at leaſt, if he be not fit (and a towardly Youth) for their School, to teach people how to equivocate (not to ſay [...]ly) neatly, by DIRECTING the INTENTION: and if George or Solomon Eccles may direct the Intention in THIS, why not in OTHER things: And if George, why not the Jeſuites? Or if the Jeſuites, Why not George? And this being once ſet thus on foot, who hath power to ſtop it, or who can tell where it may center, except GEORGE FOX, or the POPE? For if George or SOL. may in DOCTRINALS; or Caſes of BLASPHEMY, why may not the Jeſuites in MORALS and in Caſes of THEFT, LYING and ADULTERY? I deſire you Friends ſeriouſly to weigh and conſider this, and what can certainly ſatisfy you and others herein. When the Quakers ſhall ſpeak or write one thing, and tell you themſelves they mean another, or do not intend all they ſpeak or write.

But heres the miſery on't; If Mr. Hicks or any of your Opponents do but write, A for THE, or do but ſay a DIALOGUE, and not BY WAY OF DIALOGUE, or do but ſay YOU for THOU, or the like, Oh then it is Forgery, Lies, Blaſphemous Slanders, Sinful, impure, and Corrupt: then it is not a little Failure in Syntax only, which the Law of Charity would not take notice of. But let a Quaker ſay or write that which is a hundred times worſe, nay [Page] though it be in it ſelf Blaſphemy againſt Chriſt; Yet then it is only a little Failure in Syntax, and againſt the Law of Charity to reflect on a Man, &c.

10. Upon this occaſion I could not but lament ('tis not unlikely another would have ſmiled) to ſee that G.W. in his ſerious ſearch, p. 24. hath ſuch a rare Invention (I will not ſay Black-Art) that if Jer. Ives does but ſay, if you dare appoint time and place [to diſcourſe about the Quakers Religion and Miniſters] George can and hath transform'd, (I will not ſay Conjur'd) it, into an Inſolent frothy Challenge, and like the common Hectors and Sword-men of the times. But three or four Challenges that three grand Quakers viz. G. Fox. E. Burroughs, and Sol. Eccles made, wherein the very ſame words are, and abundantly more audacious, as a Challenge at two Weapons, Name, Perſons, Time and Place, a Duel, and if you DARE, (as is worth your ſeeing more at large in J. Ives Queſt. for the Quakers) yet George's Holineſs hath Pope-like ſanctified them, and they are ſerious Challenges, on a ſerious Religious Account. Oh excellent Religion! But the other he Condemns, (as if it were Curſt with Bell, Book, and Candle) in p. 19, 20, and 23. Oh wonderful George! that hath ſuch a POWER to Sanctify and unſanctify words with a ſmall daſh of his Pen as he pleaſes.

Here I ſay is the Miſery, and this is the moſt groſs abominable Hypocriſy, unreaſonableneſs, Partiality, and uncharitableneſs that can be heard of, againſt the Light of Nature, the Light of Conſcience and the Light of Scripture: That the ſame things or ten times worſe ſhould be no faults or but little trivial ones in Quakers, and yet groſs falſhoods, horrible lies and Forgeries in other men. The Lord open your eyes, [Page] that you may firſt learn to Judg your ſelves, and Caſt the Beam out of your own eye, before you go to caſt the M [...]e out of anothers.

11. Now for your ſaying & unſaying, Backwards and forwards, I have particularly manifeſted it in this my Reply, G.F. condemning what G.W. uſes, and G.W. condemning what G.K. uſed, and W.P. condemning what G.W. Teaches, and ſometimes G.W. condemning and confuting G.W. himſelf, and ſo round and round again: But now notwithſtanding all this (conſidering what their Practices above related have been, and that they are generally ſuch) I do expect and muſt not doubt in the leaſt, but that they will have that ſtupendious Confidence, as to deny all this, (or not confeſs it,) yea, and will ſay, it is falſe and horrid Slanders, though we read it, we ſee it with our eyes, and hear it with our ears, yet our ſences muſt be all deceived; and the Quakers only in the Truth: and if any will, they may, believe them not only before (but againſt) their own Eyes, I cannot help it, neither ſhall I concern my ſelf much at it, But only to expreſs my real ſorrow for to ſee any one ſo ſtrangely deluded.

What elſe may I? What muſt I? nay what can I expect from ſuch Men, that have in this manner ſo often declared themſelves in Print already, who can undertake to vindicate falſhoods and nonſence, and their grand falſe Prophet G.F. and call this a vindication of the Truth, or Spirit of Truth. (Is G. Fox the Truth, or Spirit of Truth? no certainly, much leſs then, are his Falſehoods and nonſence, the Truth or Spirit of Truth) and who will vindicate ſuch words as are in themſelves no leſs than Blaſphemy, aſſerting, it may be ſaid yea, and SO ſaid of [Page] George Fox, as it was ſaid of CHRIST, That he was in the World, and the World was made by him and the World knew him not, whom John ſaid he was not: nay, and this is not only ſet down without exception; but on the contrary, a parity or likeneſs affirmed that SO it may be ſaid of this true Prophet [G. Fox:] now we believe it was truly ſaid of CHRIST.

12. ‘I doubt not but that I may with ſafety ſay, That Mr. Penn, and G. Whitehead (if either of them pleaſe) may with as much Truth, Honour and Sence, and with as little BLASPHEMY undertake to vindicate and Juſtify POOR ROBINS Poſition and Allegorical Proof, That the Moon is made of Green Cheeſe.’

‘And though this at firſt may ſeem ſtrange to ſome Perſons that may read it, yet I ſpeak it conſiderately and not raſhly, and do really think that if any Judicious Perſon does but duly weigh the one and the other, he will find it ſo;’ and yet theſe are the Pretending Divinely-Commiſſioned and Inſpired Prophets and Miniſters, and the Infallible Doctors of the only True Church; which undervalue and Condemn all the World beſides.

Surely, had they inſtead of this Arrogance and Pride, but a little Humility and Charity, it would make them quite of another mind; and thus all that will, may ſee how they RESPECT Perſons among the Quakers, and what DIVINE HONOUR, ſome of them give, and DIVINE POWER they aſcribe, to their grand Prophet George Fox.

[Page]God in his Infinite mercy, open the eyes of all ſincere-hearted (though not ſo diſcerning, yet) well-meaning Chriſtians, ‘That they may underſtand and ſee that it is abſolute FOLLY (if not MADneſs) for any one to turn from another Church to the Quakers, ſince they do produce no real or certain Diſcriminating Teſtimony and Evidence (but only their bare ſay-ſo) nor do SAY any MORE than others can, no nor yet ſo much as many other Churches in ſome things do.’

And this I leave with you and all, ſeriouſly to conſider and judiciouſly to weigh in the Ballance of true Judgment.

T.T

THE Quakers Character OF THE QUAKERS QUIBBLES.

[Page]

1. IN the firſt place, I was given to underſtand that Mr. Ed. Billing (having been at the Quakers Cabal) was firſt pleaſed to beſtow this Character on't, viz. That it was the Quibblers Quibbles, and that was Anſwer enough to it.

Reply.—Honeſt Ned hath hit the Nail o'th head: For the Quibbles I am certain were the Quakers; and thus then (by their old Friends confeſſion) the Quakers are ſtill the Quibblers. But I ſuppoſe he did not there find any of theſe Quibbles. Oh if thou couldſt but ſee my heart within, as plainly as thou ſeeſt my Face without, Thou wouldſt not deny — as I am a man, as I am an Engliſh man, as I am a Chriſtian I will—However, if this little Epiſtle be any, yet certainly, not ſuch a Quibble, as modeſt Ned B's little Paper, Printed for ſatisfaction of — There was a Quibble indeed, a grand Quibble with a witneſs, ſo loud that it was heard through the Kingdom; thus he might have been ſilent, or better Anſwered himſelf: And 'tis no ſmall Quibble of the Quakers, to own any [Page] Perſons privately, whil'ſt they pretend to diſown them publickly.

2. Thomas Taunton a Quaker, Characterized it on this wiſe, That that Pamphlet was made by a Cabal of Anabaptiſts, and was a meer Forgery, &c.

Reply. This Man I declare to be a falſe Prophet, and that his Revelation herein was a meer Forgery, (to ſpeak in his own Language) for there was not one Baptiſt or Anabaptiſt did ſee it or know any thing of it, till after it was written & delivered to the Bookſeller; as I have before declared as in the preſence of God, and therefore this Quaker was herein led by a Falſe Light, or a Falſe Spirit, and hath abuſed and wronged the Baptiſts with a matter abſolutely UNTRUE.

3. Laſtly, it paſt it ſeems the Cenſure of one Tho. Rudyard, which I heare was on this wiſe: He being ask [...], if he did not think it was an ingenious piece, anſwered No, and that he Believed a Boy of ten years old might write as Rational a thing, and that the Author deſigned to make a piece of Drollery, but not having Wit enough, brought it forth an Hermophrodite.

Reply. If T.R. thinks good, to call (his Brethren) the Quakers Quibbles, Drollery, I cannot help it, let them call him to an account for that; but I am much of T.R's mind, that their Quibbles want wit enough (though not Confidence) to make a piece of Drollery, and ſo come forth but an Hermophrodite: Witneſs T.R's own Quibbling Anſwer, to Jer. Ives ſober Requeſt, who therein Quibbled ſo finely and Drolled ſo long with Jeremy about Oaths, and being that Jeremy, &c. till at laſt he brought that Jeremy in good earneſt upon all their Backs, who hath given ſome of the [...]r Grand ones their Bellies-full [Page] of Swearing and Oaths too, in his Queſtions for the Quakers.

Now this of T.R's might be ſuch a rational and ingenious piece indeed, as it may be a Boy of ten years old might not, and yet a Boy of about thirty might Write: And I have heard that ſome of T.R's own Brethren have lookt upon it, as a very Ridiculous and ſilly thing for him to write ſo about Swearing as he did, but that he deals ſo much in it; and a Quaker may be Fool-hardy, as well as others, why not? Had I been John Oſgood, or Gerard Roberts, I would rather have given T.R. fifty pounds, than to have had my Name brought upon the Stage in ſo groſs a matter, as here T.R. by his over-ſelf-conceited-Ingenuity hath wondrous well occaſioned, to no ſmall ſhame of the Quakers.

Let Thomas Rudyard compare his Practice of SUEING people with James Naylors Doctrine [Poſſeſſion of the Living Faith, p. 7.] It was never the Faith of Chriſt to SUE, Contend, &c. and and T.R. may ſee, what an Hermophrodite-Quaker himſelf will appear.

Beſides, one might take notice here of a Quakers Belief; but let that paſs, as not being worth taking notice; For they manifeſt ſufficiently, they regard not much what they ſay or write, ſo it may but undervalue others and arrogantly lift up themſelves.

FINIS.

§

[Page]

Mr. Smith,

YOU having ſo well and carefully publiſhed the former, I have thought fit to ſend you by this Porter, & do Recommend this ſecond Part of the Quakers-Quibbles to your like Care; and deſire you to ask no Queſtions. Only I muſt requeſt this favour of you (if without too much trouble to you it may be done) That if any ſober Perſon, or Civil Quaker, ſhall ſuſpect or doubt whether I have truely cited the Quakers words out of their own Books; That if they come to you, and deſire it, you would procure ſuch of the Quakers Books as they ſhall make queſtion of (if you can find, or have them) and ſhew them at your ſhop, for their better ſatisfaction, that ſo they may believe their OWN EYES at leaſt. And that you ſend one of this ſecond Part to Mr. Whitehead, and another to Mr. Penn. So farewell,

Thy friend though unknown, T.T.

Jan. 1. 74/5.

§

§

[Page]

THE THIRD PART OF THE QUAKERS QUIBBLES. BEING A Continuation of their Quibbles, Equivocations, Riddles, Contradictions, Rounds, and Confuſions, ſet forth in ten ſeveral Particulars.

Whereunto is Added Remarks on G.W's. Slight Sheet, given forth by him as a Reprehenſion (for want of an Anſwer) to the Second Part of the QƲAKERS QƲIBBLES. With ſome further Account of their Grand Myſtery of DIRECTING the INTENTION.

By the ſame Indifferent Pen.

If [ye] Build again, the things which [ye] Deſtroyed [ye] make [your ſelves] Tranſgreſſ [...]rs,

Gal, 2.18.

Diruit, Aedificat, Mutat Quadrata Rotundis.

Erroris Mater fuit Aequivocatio ſemper.

LONDON, Printed for F. Smith at the Elephant and Caſtle in Cornhil, near the Royal Exchange. 1675.

TO THE Free Spirited Impartial READER.

[Page]

[Page]

AS it is left us upon Record in Holy Writ, that GOD at ſundry times, and in divers manners hath ſpoken unto his Prophets and People for the Salvation of Men; ſo we are thereby likewiſe aſſured, that SATHAN at ſundry times, and in divers Forms hath ſpoken to, and deceived many Souls, by pretending great Light, great Knowledge, high things in words and ſemblance, Imitating (as near as might be) the works and ways of GOD, but ſtill without that true Divine Power which enabled thoſe immediate Men of God VISIBLY to out-do all the deceiving Pretences, and Ape-like Imitations of the Devil's Inſtruments, in the ſight of all Men preſent; as Moſes's Serpent ſwallowed up all the Egyptian Sorcerers Serpents; and Paul being filled with the Holy Ghoſt, was able to over-come, and ſtrike Elymas the Sorcerer with outward Blindneſs. Now, this was IN DEED, and not in TALK only, to be in the Power, and filled with the Holy Ghoſt; and the Text ſays, Then the Deputy, [Page]when he ſaw what was done, believed.

And no ſooner had our Glorious Lord JESƲS CHRIST Viſibly Aſcended to Heaven without us, and fulfilled his great Promiſe of ſending his Holy Spirit upon his Apoſtles and Diſciples, which was in a viſible manner, enduing them with Power (not onely the Name, but the Thing) to ſpeak with Tongues, to Prophecy indeed, and to work viſible Miracles, for the Confirmation of that Word and Doctrine they Preach'd to the World, Heb. 2.4. (and this is in Scripture-Language true Spirit Baptiſm, or the Bapti [...] of the Spirit (and this is it which was for Perſons to be Baptized indeed with the Holy Spirit, as it is expreſly called, Acts 1.5) and of Fire, There appeared unto them Cloven Tongues, like as of Fire, and it ſat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghoſt.)

But Sathan (that Old Serpent, not willing to be long idle) did quickly raiſe up, even in thoſe true Apoſtles days, many Pretenders, falſe Prophets, and falſe Apoſtles, ſome of the firſt whereof. Ancient Records tell us, were called Nicolaitans and Gnoſticks, who pretended high and ſtrange Light, Knowledge, and Illumination beyond others.

And it is Obſervable of all the Forms into which Sathan Transformed himſelf, it ſeems none is, nor was more taking, than what he uſed in the true Apoſtles days, viz. Transforming himſelf into an Angel of LIGHT; and therefore no marvel if ſuch as are falſe Apoſtles, are found Transforming themſelves into the Apoſtles of Chriſt. Nor is it any great thing (as the true Apoſtle Intimates to us) if ſuch as are indeed Sathans Miniſters alſo be Transformed[Page]as the Miniſters of Righteouſneſs.

If the wicked one could play ſuch pranks and be ſo bold then, how much more may we expect and ſuſpect it now; and it is no ſtrange thing, if ſome of his Miniſters and Inſtruments now be Transformed into Angels, or Meſſengers of Light: Pretend the Light, Talk of the Light, Preach up the Light, Own the Light, Witneſs the Light, and Cry out, the Light, the Light.

And whereas a certain ſort of People lately ſprung up among us, did pretend to high Illuminations, and talkt much of the Light they walkt in above others; and of the Power, immediate Calling, and Gifts of the Spirit that they had, as in the Apoſtles time: And as they pretended to higher things than others, ſo I did ſet my ſelf more eſpecially and ſeriouſly to hear, conſider, weigh, and try them, their Doctrines and Principles, for about theſe Twenty Years. But alas, in lieu of finding any ſuch thing amongſt them, as the ſame Light, Power, and immediate Commiſſion and Gifts of the Spirit that the Apoſtles, and Apoſtolical Churches had (and which they then did pretend to, & blame others for want of) I could ſee nor hear nothing among them, but the meer Words, and bare Pretences, and taking up ſome ſuch things by Imitation, as they fan [...]ied in themſelves, and as they found the Apoſtles wrote, or the Scriptures ſpoke of, as many others do (whom yet they did once Condemn for that very thing,) yea, and in [...]tead thereof I have Obſerved the greateſt Inconſtancy, Ʋncertainty, Turn, and Change amongſt them, that I think ever was to be found among any People that pretended to ſo refined Sublime a Religion, in the ſpace of [Page] Twenty Years, and yet all this while to talk of, or pretend to INFALLIBILITY, which hath Occaſioned them (to defend themſelves from thoſe who have taken more notice of their Inconſtancy, Ʋncertainty, and Changes than they were willing ſhould be) to uſe the greateſt Quibbling, and groſſeſt Equivocations that have been uſed in Religious matters, ever ſince the Jeſuites new modell'd the Art, the better to hide it, and themſelves.

Some of their moſt Conſiderable Quibbles in their Doctrine touching that Grand Principle of our true Lord and Saviour JESƲS CHRIST, I had Occaſion given me by them, to ſet forth more particularly in my Second Treatiſe, beginning at p. 29. But my intended Brevity not permitting, and not knowing but that theſe Perſons might learn to be ſomewhat more humble, meek, moderate, and civil, when they ſhould rightly reflect on it and themſelves, then prevented me of proceeding any further therein: Yet ſince I underſtand it is very much deſired by others, and the Quakers as much to want it, they being as Confidently outragious as before (for in the midſt of all their Inconſtancies in their Practice and Doctrines I find them chiefly conſtant in theſe two things in their Practice, viz. their egregious Confidence, and their Railing, Reviling Language to others; and in that it may be truly ſaid of them, Can the Ethiophian change his skin, or the Leopard his ſpots?) wherefore here is ſet forth more of their Quibbles in ſeveral particulars, and that in ſome moſt weighty and important Points; as thoſe of the Church, the Annointing, the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Scriptures; and in other Matters which by the Quakers were at firſt made very weighty alſo, however now they [Page] are Declined from what they once Pretended.

And if that be admitted, neither themſelves nor others can have any Certainty in them, or of them, for they may pretend the Spirit leads them to this to Day, and that to Morrow, and to a third thing quite different the next Day; and they may ſay (as ſome of them have done) that they had not a clear Diſcerning of the Lord's Voyce in this thing then, nor in that thing now; and ſo they may as well pretend ſeven and ſeventeen Years hence, for it depends onely upon their bare Word to others; and thus they make their Religion as unconſtant as the Moon, and as wavering as the Wind. But how all this ſhould be, and yet the Quakers all this while pretend to INFALLIBILITY, and That ſuch their Writings and Doctrines were given forth by the Spirit of the Lord in them, though thus Contradictory, is ſuch a Quibble and Riddle, as would puzzle Oedipus himſelf (were he here) to un-riddle.

I ſhould not delight in this threatning day to be uncovering their Nakedneſs, did I not judge it a Duty to warn you (and endeavour to lead them out) of all Falſe Coverings, which in vain they would hide themſelves under in their Defiled State, rendring themſelves by ſo doing but the more Naked in the ſight of God and good men, and giving the Enemy greater Occaſion againſt them.

I have mentioned but ſome of thoſe many that might be Collected by any that does but ſeriouſly Obſerve them, and their Writings; I had a large Field to walk in: For who is it that knew them formerly, and doth not ſee their palpable and grand [Page] Alteration now, in their Geſtures, their Words, their Salutations, (for now they'l greet one in the Market-place, (which they uſe to tell us the Phariſees did) asking in the Market, How doeſt thou do?) In their Freedom in Eating and Drinking; the Furniture of their Houſes, their Cloaths, both for Faſhion and Fineneſs of the Stuff; minding the World, and the things of the World; their heaping up Riches, and particularly in their now going to Law, and having one or more Lawyers, or Attorneys of them, beſides their Swearing in our Courts, or if not, doing therein ſomething that is worſe; and almoſt in their whole Practice and Converſation, as well as in many of their Doctrines and Principles? Which if ſome abler Pen ſhould undertake to ſet forth, it might be the better, and not unneceſſary, as it is poſſible hereafter ſome one may be moved to do.

Neither I think ſhould I have done thus much, but that I find they are grown of late Years ſo exceſſive High, Proud, Imperious, Scornful, and Hardened in a ſtrange kind of Confidence and Quibbling Equivocations, beyond the bounds of Modeſty and Reaſon, that they have need of ſomething to make them ſenſible, if it may be, and better to know themſelves, that they may not thus proudly Deſpiſe, Curſe, and Condemn everlaſtingly others that are not of their Body, Church, and Way.

Certainly the Old Serpent was the firſt Equivocator, Evaſive Quibbler, and ſo the grandeſt Hypocrite that ever was, when he deceived our great Grand-Mother Eve, and it is as certain by what we ſee with our Eyes, and hear with our Ears, that he hath not yet forgot that Old Trade; no ſmall inſtances [Page] whereof, the Quakers late Practices, and many of their Pamphlets (which you will find here cited) moſt evidently appear to be.

I beſeech you therefore give me leave in the Bowels of Love and Compaſſion ſeriouſly to warn and admoniſh you (and ſuch of them as will hear) to look well to your goings, and conſider upon what it is you ſtand; whether it be not very much upon Mens bare words, or your own Fancies, or at beſt, in Naked likeneſſes, and meer Imitations, after you have been ſo long crying out againſt all Humane Traditions, Literal Imitations, making of Likeneſſes and Figures to your ſelves, of what you find was once the Condition of others, and beware of ſuch uncertain, variable, changeable Lights and Doctrines, as have no certainer baſis than Geo. Foxes Light, or Mr. Penn's Sandy Foundation. Be not High-minded, but Fear, and let the Royal Law of CHARITY continue above all, amongſt all, and I ſhall ſubſcribe my ſelf

An Ʋnfeigned deſirer of thy Souls Welfare. THOMAS THOMPSON.

THE CONTENTS.

[Page]

SECT. I. THE Quakers Quibbles about their Quaking and Trembling, and diſcerning the Lords voice.

SECT. II. Their Quibbles about Set-days, and Set places.

SECT. III. Their Quibbles about their Body (alias the Church) and Forms, as the Hat and Hand.

SECT. IV. Their Quibbles about Fleſh being Silent.

SECT. V. Their Quibbles about the Annointing.

SECT. VI. Their Quibbles about the Spirit.

SECT. VII. Their Quibbles and Hypocriſie about Scholarſhip and Languages.

SECT. VIII. Their Quibbles and Hypocriſie about punching People, and thruſting and haling them out of Meetings.

SECT. IX. Their Quibbles and Hypocriſie in their former Practice of Diſturbing of Miniſters, in Pariſh Aſſemblies, with Reference to their Practice now.

SECT. X. Their Grand Quibbles about, and groſs abuſe of the Holy Scriptures, Collected out of their Own Books.

The Concluſion.

Sam. Fiſher Tranſpos'd on the Precedent Occaſion.

Remarks on G.W's. ſlight Sheet, containing SECT. I. Of G.W's. Title, and his falſe Suggeſtion.

2. Of the Authors Name and Letter.

3. Of Socinianiſm, and the Divinity of Chriſt, which the Quakers own.

4. Of Scornful Reflections.

5. Of the Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit and Propheſie.

6. Of the Manifeſtation of the Spirit.

7. Of the Diſcerning of Spirits.

8. Of Ʋnbelievers and Muggleton, &c.

9. Of the Quakers Jeſuitical Art of Directing the Intention. G.W's. Letter to the Author, and the Author's Anſwer.

The Third Part OF THE QUAKERS QUIBBLES.

[Page]

Being a Continuation of their Quibbles, Equivocations, Contradictions, Riddles, Rounds, and Confuſions, in ſeveral particulars.

THAT Flood of Follies and Abſurdities, that Cloud of Confuſions, and Self-contradictions, which ſhatters it ſelf up and down by Plats in ſundry Showres throughout the ſundry Pages of thoſe Mens Books, every Eye that Reads them (as they there lye at a diſtance) 'tis poſſible may not ſo eaſily ſet ſight on them. Therefore I ſhall cull ſome few of them only out (for the whole Number paſſes my skill to caſt Account of) and clap them a little cloſer together, not ſo much to ſhame them, as to honour the Truth which they would ſhame. That they may be the more Ready to be Read, and apparent to the view of every Ordinary Reader, (That any, ſave ſuch, as ſeeing, will not ſee) may ſee the Sword of the Lord already laid on the Arm and Right-eye of the Idol-Prophets, [Page] to the drying up of the one, and the darkening of the other, for perverting the right way of the Lord; ſo that they ſee not the Sun of Righteouſneſs, nor yet the Moon of ſo much as Common ſenſe and Reaſon; but grope about in the miſt of their own muddy minds, ſo as to need ſome to Lead them by the Hand, and ſhew them whereabouts they are, and what a ſhaking Sandy Foundation they ſtand on. Sam. Fiſher's Addit. Appendix, [Tranſpros'd] p. 2.

SECT. I. The Quakers Quibbles concerning Quaking and Trembling, and Diſcerning the Lord's Voyce.

Sect. 1. ABout ſixteen Years ago, this was their Doctrine; A Paper ſent forth into the World from them that are ſcornfully called Quakers, p. 5. ‘Moſes, who was Judge over all Iſrael, feared, Quaked, and Trembled exceedingly: And the Son of Man was to eat his Bread, with Quaking: And Daniel the Man of God trembled, and was aſtoniſh'd. And Jeremiah, the Prophet of the Lord, all his Bones did Shake: And David, who was King, Trembled and Quaked: And Habakkuk, who was a Prophet, Trembled; his Belly ſhook, his Lips quivered. And Iſaac, in whom the Seed was called, Trembled exceedingly: And Paul, a Miniſter of Chriſt, [Page] Trembled: But they [viz. The Prieſts and Teachers] make a ſcorn of Trembling and Quaking, and ſhew themſelves ignorant, and ſtrangers to the Life and Power of God, as their Generation ever was— But the Seed of God and the Prophets, and the Servants of the Lord we own, and their Conditions we witneſs; and therefore all the Prieſts we utterly deny.’

Sam. Fiſher, in his Ruſticus ad Academicos, ſecond Exercitation, p. 18. ‘As for that Holy Duty it ſelf of Quaking and Trembling at the Word of God, which as blind a Guide, and brute a Beaſt as thou [viz. Dr. Owen] art in ſpeaking evil of what thou knoweſt, as alſo of what thou knoweſt not; thou both owneſt and acknowledgeſt the Holy Men of God were taken with of Old, when moved to utter his Word, as it came to them, (witneſs thy own words, the coming of the Word to them filled them with dread and Reverence of God, Hab. 3.16. And alſo greatly affected even their outward Man) — yet we own it (as thou in word doeſt) &c.’

And accordingly then was their Practice; it was a very frequent thing among them, almoſt in every Meeting, one might ſee One or More of them, Quaking, Shaking, and Trembling.

Sect. 2. But now to wheel about again; about Ten Years afterwards, Obſerve how the Quaker would Quibble and mince the Matter, in Patrick Livingſtone's plain and down right dealing with them that were with us, and are gone out from us, p. 10. I will here give you his own words, he being (as I underſtand) one of the Quakers Miniſtry.

[Page] ‘Now, thoſe that were with us, and are gone from us, they pretend to own the firſt coming forth, and they cry, where is the Power that was at firſt? — But here we ſee the ſubtilty of the Enemy, becauſe the mighty motions of the Bodies of Friends are ceaſed, and Friends are ſtill, cool, and quiet; therefore theſe Perſons are made to think that the ſame Power is not in Meetings; but Oh ye Fooliſh Ones, and beguiled by the Enemy! Can ye not diſcern the Times; That time, and this time? When Phyſick is given to the Body, is it not to work terribly, that it may purge the Body? And when all is purged out the Phyſick leaves working, and the Body is ſtill? Were not all the breakings and meltings, and terrible Shakings and Quakings of Friends Bodies, to purge [...]ut ſin, and to bring to ſtilneſs, coolneſs, and calmneſs of mind? — Now, when theſe terrible Shakings, Breakings, and Meltings were, they were but for a little time, and ſo were quickly gone again; and the Voyce of the Lord was not diſtinctly diſcerned there; but theſe were that thereby Sin might be purged out; and then the Cauſe of Terrible Potions was taken away, and the ſtilneſs being come, that's a durable thing, a Solid Condition; and here the Mind is brought into a CAPACITY to diſcern the Voyce of the LORD; whereas in the time of the violent Motions, the Mind was ſo hurried, and toſſed with the Rage of the Enemy, ſo that there was not a clear diſcerning what might be done, or left undone in many things.’ So far he: And what Concords here? Does not this ſound like Harp and Harrow? Let any one Obſerve how the Quakers [Page] are changed, both in their Doctrine and Practice, and yet I am almoſt of the Opinion, that the Quakers will have the Face and Confidence to deny it, though it be thus palpable to our very eyes and Senſes.

Sect. 3. P. Livingſtone, one of their Miniſters, would here Quibble indeed, mince and extenuate the Buſineſs, and yet alas, all to no purpoſe, except to render themſelves both more Ridiculous, and Hypocritical; For,

When the Quakers oppoſed the Miniſters, then Quaking and Trembling was to continue for Thouſands of Years, even from Iſaac, Moſes, &c. to our time, and the Miniſters not witneſſing in themſelves that Condition of the Holy men of God, was then by the Quakers urged as ground enough for the Miniſters utterly to be denyed. But to turn round again, when now within this ſeven Years the Foxonian Quakers are Queſtioned by other Quakers for their Quaking being CEASED among them; Oh then! [it is the ſubtilty of the ENEMY, and they cannot diſcern times, and Quaking was but for a little time, and was to purge out ſin:]

And that you may yet further ſee the Vanity of all this Quibbling, do but conſider, or let P. Livingſtone tell you if he pleaſes.

1. Whether the Son of Man's Trembling and Quaking was to purge out Sin?

2. What, had the Son of Man Sin to purge out, and the Quakers now none? Had Iſaac, Moſes, Daniel, Jeremiah, and thoſe Holy Men of God, Sin then to purge out more than the Quakers have now?

3. But how do thoſe that have within theſe ſeven [Page] Years been Converted to Quakeriſm without ſuch terrible motions of Body and Quakings as was at firſt among them? What, had they no Sin at all to purge out? Or, are they ſtill among the Quakers with their Sins unpurged?

4. Now, when theſe Terrible ſhakings were (ſays the Quaker) [The VOICE of the LORD was not diſtinctly DISCERNED there] Oh Excellent! what, did not the Son of Man, Iſaac, Moſes, Daniel, and Habakkuk, &c. before, and when they Trembled, and Quaked, diſtinctly diſcern the Voice of the Lord? Surely they dare not ſay ſo: and if they ſay they did, but the Quakers did not, then the Quakers Trembling was not like the Trembling of thoſe Prophets and Holy Men of God of Old.

5. Beſides, whereas this Quaker tells us, That when theſe Terrible Shakings were, the Voice of the Lord was not diſtinctly diſcerned. He thereby confeſſes that the Quakers THEN (notwithſtanding all their talk and high pretences) did not diſtinctly diſcern the Voice of the Lord; which I think may be a great Truth, though he hath given himſelf and Party a deſperate blow by it, which he can be never able to recover, (and I Challenge W.P. to do it, without ſhameful begging the QƲESTION, or having others to believe it on his bare word, if he can.)

‘For, if when they pretended ſo high, and to ſuch ſtrange Power among them, and had ſuch mighty motions, they themſelves now confeſs, that notwithſtanding all that, (and all their Preaching up, and confidence of the Light, Spirit, and Voice of the Lord WITHIN them,) they yet had not [Page] a diſtinct diſcerning of the Lord's Voyce, not their minds brought into ſo much as a CAPACITY to diſcern it, how can they be MORE confident, and Infallibly evidence they are MORE certain of it now? Or, why may they not be miſtaken, and miſtake the Lords Voyce now, as well as fifteen or ſixteen Years ago, or not well diſcern which, or what is the Lords Voyce? And why may they not change again and again, fifteen or ſixteen Years hence, and ſay then they had not before a diſtinct diſcerning of the Lords Voyce? If the Quakers ſay, but they know now they have it, ſo the Quakers formerly ſaid, they knew it, they felt it, they handled it, they witneſſed it IN themſelves, and yet the Quakers now ſay, they were ſo far out then, as not to have a diſtinct diſcerning of the Lords Voyce. And ſo then may the Quakers now, for all their pretences and confident talk.’

‘Let my Reader take Notice, and they Conſider, what's become of their Quaking and Shaking, their mighty Motions, and pretended Voyce of the Lord within.’

‘And I think this may be enough for Quaking, to ſhew that the preſent Quakers I deal withall have little more than the Name now, in this particular. Sic mutantur.’

SECT. II. The Quakers Quibbles about Set-days and Set-places.

[Page]

Sect. 1. PRinciples of Truth, p. 42. per E. Burroughs, We believe his True Worſhip required and accepted of him, is not by the Tradition of Men, in outward Obſervances, or Set-days, or Places, but he is Worſhipped onely in Spirit and Truth without reſpect of Times, Places, or Things. And this was (one while) the Quak [...]rs general Doctrine, that they ſhould not run, nor be enjoyned by others to come to Meetings, but as they [...]re moved of the Lord thereto, and that without that, it was but Will-Worſhip: See Principles of Truth, p. 24. & 51. Every Man ought to be left FREE as the Lord ſhall perſwade his own mind in doing, or leaving undone this or th' other practice in Religion.

Sect. 2. But to whirle about, and run round again, at other times, P. Livingſtone can tell you, Idem, p. 5. ‘It is a dark Spirit, clearneſs and FREEDOM is not in it, but it hath, and doth lead into Bondage. — And here Satan by Transforming himſelf hath obtained his End and purpoſe in ſuch, for which cauſe he firſt Transformed himſelf in the matter of the Hat and the Hand, and not coming to Meetings, until they ſhould be moved of the Lord, untill at laſt he obtained his end to get them not to come at all, and not to [Page] let them reſt therewith, but alſo made, and makes them believe lyes; as namely, that they be moved of the Lord to cry againſt Meetings, &c. And we are certain enough what that Spirit leads to in the end (for all its fair appearance) if it be followed to the end, &c.’

And who now Obſerves more their ſet-days and hours too, their firſt, and fourth days meeting, and ſet places Built on purpoſe (a [...] the Bull and Mouth, and Grace-Church-ſtreet, &c.) than the Quakers? And thus are they run into Forms as thoſe whom they once condemned, and now deny that FREEDOM they once allowed and cry'd for; which is all but a Quibble.

SECT. III. The Quakers Quibbles about Forms and the Church.

Sect. 1. THat the Quakers at firſt did cry out againſt Forms and ſeveral external Ordinances, and all Formality in Divine Worſhip and the Church of God, is ſo generally known, that I think I need not trouble the Reader with Inſtances; yet if any ſhould doubt it, ſee G. Fox Myſtery, p. 65. Paul brought the Saints off from things that a [...] ſeen, and water is ſeen, and it's Baptiſm: Here is a few words will ſerve for all.

[Page] Sect. 2. But then to go round again, when others of the Quakers Object againſt them, That taking off the Hat in prayer, and taking by the Hand are but Formal, and that by ſetting up this, Friends were ſetters up of Forms; now, hear the Quakers Quibble, P. Livingſtone, Idem, p. 12. in Anſwer to that Objection. The Form of Truth we own; that which Truth appears in, that is the Form of Truth: Friends do not chuſe a Form for the Truth, but Truth chuſeth its own Form, and moveth in it at its pleaſure. Oh Excellent! then it ſeems taking off the Hat, or taking by the Hand is the Form among the Quakers that Truth appears in, and this is the Form that the Truth chuſeth for its own; Oh rare Formaliſts!

Sect. 3. Then P. Livingſtone goes on, p. 13. ‘And we know thoſe that do the contrary, pretend what they will, it is by and in that Spirit which is oppoſite, and oppoſes the Truth of God, and its Children, and we know if they were lead by the Spirit of the Body [id eſt, the Church] they would be led to the ſame things it leads the Body, and acts the Body in, for the Body is one, though many Members, it being guided by one Life, and they agree in theſe things, and one ſtands not with the Hat on, and another with it off; nor one doth not give the Hand, and another refuſeth, which is a contradiction; but we ſee further into the thing than the Hat and Hand. We ſee and know the Spirit of Enmity in the ground — and it is truly teſtified againſt, to be that Spirit of ANTI-CHRIST, againſt CHRIST: and the Spirit of Truth in the Body [i.e. the Church] beareth this Teſtimony againſt that Spirit and them Acted [Page] by it: Oh, what Rents and Diviſions this evil Spirit hath made! How many poor ſimple Hearts have been drawn aſide by it!’ So far he.

‘Now, is not this exactly like the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome? Nay, the Quakers are got ſo far, as to ſay, Friends that ſtand in the Life, and are the Body, know that there is not, NOR CANNOT BE preſervation out of the Body [meaning the Body of Quakers] For they that are out of the Body, are out of the Faith, [...]d are not of the Body, Pat. Livingſtone, p. 20. Juſt as the Papiſts ſay there's no Salvation out of the Church: Yea, and more; that they muſt believe as the True Church (meaning the Quakers Church) Believes, or elſe poſitively they cannot be ſaved: For theſe are his expreſs words, viz. I bear my teſtimony for that People, in ſcorn called Quakers, that the Lord hath choſen them a peculiar People, above all People upon the Earth, and we are to turn to no other People, &c.’

‘And they that believe not as the true Church-Believes CANNOT BE SAVED — But this we know of an INFALLIBLE certainty, that WE being faithful in the Truth, thoſe that are gone from us are of another Spirit, and not of the Faith of the True Church.’ P. Livingſtone, p. 22, & 23. (this is like the very topſtone of Popery) and that in ſuch low and external things too, as in giving the Hand, pulling off the Hat, and coming to Quakers Meetings.

Sect. 4. ‘Is not the Hat and the Hand SEEN? Is it not a ſtrange thing, that giving the Hand, and pulling off the Hat ſhould be Ordinances to [Page] CONTINƲE in the True Church, but not Water-Baptiſm, and Material Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper? Note, Readers, I pray you; Weigh this ſeriouſly, and what their Reaſons can be, Remembring G. Fox's words at the beginning of this Section.’

Conſider well whither it is theſe Quakers are a Running, laying ſuch a Neceſſity on ſuch a Ceremonial and external thing, as giving the Hand; do they not in this of the Hand exceed the Church of Rome▪ in her impoſitions? I have Tranſcribed the more of this, that you may ſee how far the Quakers themſelves are now come to own Forms, and diſown the Spirit in particular Perſons, and are already got to the Spirit IN the Body, yea, and OF the Body of Friends: that is▪ the Spirit in and of their Church: Like as the Pope and Church of Rome; and thus you may underſtand how the Quakers are, and have been Divided amongſt themſelves, one pretending the Spirit, and others pretending the Spirit, one againſt another, and that which one calls the Spirit of Chriſt, the other Quaker calls the Spirit of Antichriſt, and that which one calls Light, the other ſays is Darkneſs, and if they will continue running round, and groping up and down in that Darkneſs, notwithſtanding this Faithful Admonition, ſo let them.

SECT. IV. The Quakers Quibbles about Fleſh being Silent.

[Page]

Sect. 1. IT is as generally known that this was at firſt the Quakers Doctrine, and they uſed to cry out to others, Ceaſe from Man, let all Fleſh be ſilent, and ſo would ſtop the Mouths of other Men and Teachers, and draw People away from hearing of others.

Sect. 2. But now, when other Quakers tell them ſo, then hear how they wheel about again, P. Livingſtone, Idem p. 14.15. You that cry, let all Fleſh be ſilent, and yet not ſilent in your ſelves, you but mock God, and belie him, he hath not bid you cry ſo, — For it is ſeen in the eternal Light, that ſuch would have the Truth ſilenc'd and its Children.

And the Prophet ſaid, Ceaſe from Man, but HE taught, or the LIFE in and by him taught, but all teaching that comes not from the LIFE, are M [...]n's teachings, that is, the Fleſh to be ſilenced: But ſuch as be taught of the Lord, and ſent of him to Publiſh his Truth, this is not to be denyed, nor is denyed by them that know its teachings in themſelves, &c.

Oh Excellent Quibbling, but pitiful begging of the Queſtion, for they ſtill take that for granted, which never was, nor can be granted them, That that onely in them is the Life and the Lords teaching which they call ſo, MORE than that in others, who oppoſe them.

[Page] Sest. 3. Thus you ſee, one while they would have us ceaſe from Man, another while (to go round) we muſt not ceaſe from Man, nor the Light and Life in the Man; another while to face about again and meet in the middle, we muſt ceaſe from the Man, but not from the Light in the Man; and one while the pretended Light in the Man is Light, and at other times 'tis Darkneſs, and all this as they (the Men, or the Life in them) fancy and pleaſe, when they pleaſe, how they pleaſe, or what they pleaſe. One while all Fleſh and Man is to be ſilent, but another time (to dance the Rounds) the Prophet (who was a Man, and Fleſh) Taught, or the Life in and by him Taught, one or the other, or both; or he knows not whether: Oh! the profound Riddles and Quibbles of theſe Quakers!

Sect. 4. ‘For that's a great Myſtery and a Riddle, that deſerves unriddling upon all Occaſions, that when a Quaker ſays, I ſay this, or, I write this, or, I Act this, or, I thought good, or, I thought meet, as G.W. ſaid (to write an Anſwer to the Quakers Quibbles,) whether he means the Man George, or the Light within, or both, or neither? And pray George be ſo favourable to thy Countrey-men and me, as to let us know when it is the Light in thee or the Fleſh, that ſpeaks or writes, when thou (or any for thee) writes again.’

SECT. V. The Quakers Quibbles about the Anoyntting.

[Page]

Sect. 1. THat the Quakers one while did moſt frequently cry out, the Anoynting which they had Received, abideth in them, and they need not that any Man teach them, but as the ſame Anoynting teaches them all things, &c. I think themſelves ſhould not have Confidence (though they have abundantly too much) to deny; and that their Doctrine was at firſt: This is the New Covenant, I will put my Laws into their Minds, and Write them in their Hearts, and they ſhall not teach every Man his Neighbour, and every Man his Brother, &c. G. Fox Teſtimony of the True Light, p. 37.

Sect. 2. But now when others among themſelves have Objected this very thing againſt them, then hear the Quibble, P. Livingſtone, p. 15. ‘Here indeed is a ſubtle Bait of the Enemy to ſtop Truths Teſtimony through them that are called to bear it, and to Publiſh it to the Nations: And ye need that no Man Teach you, but as the ſame Anoynting Teacheth you [...] all things, ſay they; But why did HE Teach both by writing and ſpeaking, who ſpake or wr [...]t theſe words? Or rather, was it not the Anoynting in him that wrote unto them, That they needed not the Teaching of Man, who was meerly Man, and was not come to the Anoynting [Page] in themſelves, but this forbids not the Anoynting to Edifie the Church — as it doth move through either Son or Daughter, and this is not Man's Teaching, but this is the Anoynting which is Truth.’

Sect. 3. Excellent ſtill, the Old begging of the Queſtion, and Quibbling; it is when they pleaſe, not the Man, but the Anoynting in the Man, that writes and Teaches, and when they (Pope-like) pleaſe; it is not the Anoynting in the Man, but the Man that Teaches or Writes: But how came this Foxonian Quaker to have this Popedome and Infallibility of Judgment MORE than theſe other Quakers? Who gave it him? hath he not arrogantly aſſumed it to himſelf? moſt certainly.

No Quaker can juſtly blame me, if I require ſatisfaction of them in this particular, or for asking them (to ſhew them how they run round in a Circle) about the Voyce of God, the Word, or Anoynting, and Light within them; one of their own Teachers and Learned Men having not thought it uncivil, nor abuſive to ask and publiſh the like concerning the SACRED SCRIPTƲRES (except they will be ſo hardy as to ſay now, what, or to the like purpoſe, ſome of them heretofore have not much ſtuck at, ‘That the Voyce of God and the Light IN THEMSELVES is better, higher, and more certain and infallible than the Voyce of God, and Light in the HOLY SCRIPTƲRES, and is not to be Queſtioned by others, though the Holy Scriptures may be Queſtioned by the Quakers or Papiſts;)’ you will find it in Sam. Fiſhers Addit. Appendix, p. 21. an Eminent approved Quaker, whence I take it, mutatis mutandis, viz.

[Page] ‘Tell us then, how may it be known aſſuredly, uncontroulably, infallibly (that the Scriptures, ſays Fiſher, but ſay I) that that which the Quakers call the Word, Anointing Voyce of the Lord WITHIN THEM, is at all of GOD, and not a cunning deviſed FABLE, or their own Invention and Phantaſie?’

‘If they tell us by the Teſtimony of the Spirit WITHIN which (ſay they) is onely All-ſufficient to that purpoſe, and they have the Witneſs in themſelves, the Spirit bearing Witneſs with their Spirits; Then we ask them, But by what ſhall we Try, and find aſſuredly, and infallibly, that that Teſtimony and Spirit is of GOD, and not a falſe one, that tells us (that the Scripture is of God, boldly, ſays Fiſher, but ſay I,) that that Light, Word anoynting, or Voyce WITHIN, is of GOD?’

Sect. 4. I requeſt and deſire Geo. Whitehead, ‘W [...] Pen, either, or both, or any Quaker in England to give a Viſible manifeſtation, or a Direct and demonſtrative Anſwer to this, without going round in a Circle, or baſely begging the Queſtion: If not, for ſhame let them be ſilent, and Learn to be humble, and not arrogantly Contradict and Condemn OTHERS, if they cannot ſay, and evidently produce MORE for themſelves in their Pretenſions▪ and Motions, than OTHERS do or can, that make no ſuch pretenſions; For it is not enough to ſay, that John Witneſſed the Anoynting, or the Church then enjoyed it, or the Apoſtles had it, for that John and the Apoſtles and Churches then had ſuch an Ʋnction as impowered them with many and ſeveral Excellent SPIRITƲAL [Page] Gifts; as the Gifts of Healing, the Gift of Tongues, the Gift of Prophecy by Impoſition of Hands of the Presbytery, &c. which they have not now, for all their High pretences, nor never had, that I have heard; and beſides, to ſay, that John and the Saints, and Churches of Old witneſſed it, does no more prove that the Quakers now have it, than that the Baptiſts, or ſome other Churches (which they diſown) now have it. This then is ſo far from a Proof, that it is but a ſilly Quibble.’

Sect. 5. But the Anoynting that the Lord JESƲS and the True Apoſtles had, was with [...]he Holy Ghoſt indeed, and with Power (and not the Word or Name onely of it, which is all that yet appears the Quakers have) enabling them to go about doing good, and HEALING ALL that were oppreſſed of the Devil, and curing their BODILY Diſtempers, Acts 10.38. How God Annoynted JESƲS of NAZARETH with the Holy Ghoſt, and with Power, who went [...]out doing good, HEALING all that were Oppreſſed of the Devil, for God was with him, and WE are Wineſſes, &c. But the Quakers, and the Chriſt within them, doe onely (for ought yet appears to others) go about with words and talking, but demonſtrate no more Power, than the Papiſts when they Convince, and bring over ſome Perſons to them by their Words and Doctrine, as ſometimes the Jeſuites, and ſometimes the Quakers, both do, according to the Ignorance, or weak Brains, or the private Ends and Intereſt that the Perſons they meet withal, may happen to have. Simplicibus facilè Imponitur.

SECT. VI. The Quakers Quibbles about the Spirit.

[Page]

Sect. 1. THat no Perſons in England have talked more of the Spirit, and pretended more to the Spirit, nor cryed out the Spirit, the Spirit, ſo much as the Quakers did at firſt: I ſuppoſe none that knew them, will, or can deny; and that they blamed others for calling it a private Spirit, or whining Spirit, and for ſaying that it lead them into private places, and to creep into Houſes.

Sect. 2. And yet behold the very ſame Accuſation have ſome of the Quakers took up now againſt others of them. See P. Livingſtone, Idem p. 19. ‘Now, you that are led by that private Spirit, though you pretend it to be Ʋniverſal, you draw into ſecret places, — for you abſent the Meetings of Gods People; Mark (ſays he) here is a deceitful whining Spirit, that would be counted a Sufferer, and would be counted Innocent and meek, but this is truly ſeen not to be the Spirit of Sion's Children.]’ And what was all this for, think you? but becauſe one that was of the Quakers, writ thus, Tell the Daughter of Zion, behold thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and ſitting upon an Aſs, though it be ſmitten on all hands, yet it bears it all, and ſuffers it, although it be ſmitten in the Houſe of its Friends yet grudgeth not, nor repineth.] And this is the Language, that P. Livingſtone crys out, mark, here is a deceitful-whining-Spirit.

[Page] Sect. 3. So that it appears they have Learnt of their Adverſaries; the word Whyning, and Whin [...]ing-Spirit, and thus now the Quakers cry out (as their Adverſaries did formerly againſt them) a-private-whyning-Spirit, inſtead of the pure-living-powerful-Spirit of the Lord. Here you may Obſerve, That if others (though Quakers, that own the ſame Principle with themſelves, of the Light within) pretend to the Spirit, or talk of the Spirit, Oh, then it is a dark-Spirit, a whining-Spirit, private-Spirit, the Spirit of Antichriſt: and the Spirit of the Body onely is the Spirit of Christ: See more of this in the third and fifth particular before, and thus ſtill, ſtat pro ratione voluntas, & ipſe dixit is all, and muſt be ſufficient to others, or nothing, for ought yet appears.

SECT. VII. The Quakers Quibbles and Hypocriſie in their Doctrine about Scholar-ſhip and Languages, with reference to their own Practices.

Sect. 1. ONE while this is the Quakers Doctrine, that is, when they Cry out againſt Learning in others, (becauſe they would have all People come to be ſo ſilly and Ignorant as [Page] to believe them, or not to have Learning enough to Confute them) then thus; ‘The Word, which is the Original, which the Apoſtles Preached amongſt the Hebrews, and Greeks, which was before Tongues were, and your Original; which will break all your Tongues and Original to pieces; Pilate had your Original of Hebrew, Greek, and Latine, who Crucified Chriſt: He that draws back into many Languages, as into Hebrew and Greek [...], draws back into the Naturals, and ſo draws into Confuſion. But the Miniſters of God, who Preach the Everlaſting Goſpel, which endures for ever, draw up into one Language, and ſo the Prieſts and all that Trade into Natural Languages, we ƲTTERLY deny.’ A Paper ſent forth into the World, p. 3.] and much to this effect we had formerly from them, ‘That the Light within is able ALONE to reveal to them the Truth, and maintain it againſt all others, and that they receive their Doctrine by Inward Revelations, and not by any outward means, &c.’

Sect. 2. Another while (that is, when the Quakers are either to maintain their own Principles, or confute others) then to go round again, ‘It is Lawful and good to draw back into many Natural Languages, as into Hebrew and Greek, yea, and Latine too, as G.W's Practice evinces in his Introduction to his Divinity of Chriſt, (though it is probable He underſtands as little Hebrew as G. Fox doth Greek;) and many more Natural Languages you have (and more abundantly) in W.P's. Vindication of G. Foxes Falſities, and Nonſence.’ See here according to their own Verdict, they are drawing back into the NATƲRALS, [Page] and ſo draw into CONFƲSION, and are not the Miniſters of God, who draw up into ONE Language, for they now draw down into MANY Languages, and therefore are utterly to be denyed, if Quakers themſelves may be Credited.

Sect. 3. And not onely ſo, but alſo in their Practice it is to be further Obſerved, that when any Publique Diſpute is with them appointed, notwithſtanding all their Talk and Pretences to others of Immediate Revelation, and Divine Inſpiration, and the ſufficiency ALONE of the Light within, yet they dare not truſt to that, but commonly they will have one, if not two that are Scholars, and that have been bred Scholars at our Schools; as Sam. Fiſher formerly, and G. Keith, or W. Pen, of late Years, and the like; the Diſcourſe or Diſpute is for the moſt part managed by them, and moſt commonly lyes wholly upon ſuch, whereas if their Light within every one was ALONE ſufficient, and they had it Divinely Inſpired into them by the Spirit at that very Inſtant, then any other of the Quakers might be as able to manage ſuch Diſputes as them that have been brought up Scholars at our Schools. But alas, when ſome ſuch come to the buſineſs, we have ſeen what pitiful work they have made on't, and how quickly they have been Non-pluſt for want of ſome of thoſe School-diſtinctions, that G.K. and W.P. can furniſh them withal, better than all the Light G.F. their great Prophet appears as yet to have.

Sect. 4. Yet to turn half round back again, ſee G. Foxes words, Teſtimony of the True Light, at the beginning of p. 42. It's too long and too full of Tautologies here to Tranſcribe.

[Page]But to dance the rounds, and face quite about, once more; at laſt G. Keith can tell us, and reprove Jer. Ives for Tranſgreſſing the Juſt Laws of Diſpute, by an Error called in the Schools [...], a Tranſition from one kind of Matter to another. Did G. Keith ſpeak and know this Juſt Law by immediate Inſpiration at that inſtant, ſince he aſſured us all along in that diſpute he found the Preſence of God aſſiſting him? Or had not he before learnt it at the Schools? I Challenge them to nominate but ONE Quaker (amongſt them all) that could have made that Anſwer to detect Jeremy, by the ALONE ſufficiency and Revelation of the Light within at that very Inſtant, that had not firſt heard of it from ſome others, or learnt it at School; I preſs and urge any Quaker in England to Anſwer, and Witneſs this in plainneſs, if he can: But alas, poor Men! if they would be ingenuouſly honeſt, they muſt grant they cannot, and that G. Keith did not there (and therein) ſpeak ANY MORE by immediate Revelation than others, and ſo was not Infallible in all he ſaid.

Sect. 6. However now it ſeems ou [...] [...]chools have the Just Laws of Diſpute amongſt them, by a Preſent Quakers Confeſſion; thank thee, George, thanks kindly. It is hoped W. Pen, and thee Geo. may come to bring the ſilly Quakers (off from ſome of their Old Fancies) to own more of ours, and amongſt us e're long, though to give you your due, you are come a pretty way already, and fall in ſoftly by degrees, even whilſt you pretend the Contrary, that ſo the People might not take too much notice of it.

Sect. 7. And ſome do Obſerve, that notwithſtanding all the Quakers former hideous Out-crys againſt Schools of Learning, Ʋniverſities, againſt Hamane [Page]Learning, Philoſophy, Logick, Scholaſtical Divinity and Doctrines; yet now notable Mr. Pen is framing and ſetting up, both a Formal, Scholaſtical, and Philoſophical Divinity amongſt the Quakers (whether they mind it, underſtand it, or can ſee through it or no) in his writings and Vindications of Reſolves, Decrees, Rules, or Aphoriſms, Bodies, or Syſtems of Principles and Doctrines, with Genus, Species, Proprium, accidens, & differentia in Communem, propriam, maximè propriam, formalitèr, ſimplicitèr, Relativè, Secundùm ſe & ſecùndum quid, or the like; as Subſtance, Accidents, Eſſential, and Deſcriptive, Simply▪ and Relatively, most proper, proper, and leſs proper, abſtract and Concrete, and much more of the ſame Nature, that Great Geo. Fox ſo long ſince Challenged the Scholars and Doctors of Europe about, inquiring what was their Root, Ground, and Derivation, and if they were not all begot in the Fall, or ſprang up out of Babel. See G. Foxes Primmer for the Scholars and Doctors of Europe; 'tis a pretty piece indeed! 'tis conceived worthy of Mr. Penn's Study, and I cannot think of any Body that would be ſo fit for the purpoſe, as he, to ſatisfie his great Prophet, G. Fox, in moſt of thoſe vain, ſilly, and Ridiculous Queſtions about Words and Terms in the Schools, the Ground, the Root, the Derivation, &c. of them: Why may it not be as good and profitable employ for W. Pen to Anſwer them, as for G. Fox to Ask them, Write, and Publiſh them? I ſhould think it the more profitable of the two; For now the Queſtions being without Anſwers, G. Foxes Primmer is of little Value, and leſs Uſe, except onely to ſhew the grand Prophets Whimſies, and Wind-mill in his Brain, or to Teach his ſilly Diſciples the Art of Tautologizing.

[Page]Thus you may ſee Tempora mutantur, and the Quakers run the Rounds; but yet have a care that you do not imagine but that theſe their Teachers and Leaders are immediately inſpired, and Infallible ſtill, I warrant you, as much as ever they were, but not one whit, MORE than before, or ſince they became Quakers.

Sic Diruit, aedificat, mu [...] at Quadrata Rotundis.

SECT. VIII. The Quakers Quibbles and Hypocriſie in their Doctrine about Punching People, and Haling them out of Aſſemblies, with reference to their own Practices now.

Sect. 1. ONE while (that was, when others thruſt and punch'd, and pulled the Quakers out of their Aſſemblies, Meetings, or Synagogues, for coming in and diſturbing them, then) the Quakers Doctrine was ſuch as this — ‘They profeſs Moſes, Chriſt, and the Apoſtles words, but ſee not the fulfilling of Moſes, and the Prophets, nor Chriſt's words, and Apoſtles words, ſuch as be out of the Light, that believes [that's G. Foxes Engliſh very frequent] not in it, theſe are now Haling out of the Synagogues, Priſoning, and Beating, and Perſecuting, that believe not in the Light that enlightens every Man that cometh into the World, as the Jews did out of their Temple, &c. G. Fox Teſtimony of the True Light, p. 46.’

‘Come, let us Reaſon, had not many the Scriptures, yet Haled out of the Synagogues, what think you [Page] of them? — And your Teachers have got into the chiefeſt place in the Synagogues, in the PHARISEES ſteps, and cry, take them away that are moved to come into your Synagogues to ſpeak, ſo many are knock'd down, haled out of the Synagogues, and before Magiſtrates, and caſt into Priſon; what do you differ herein from the Jews which did not believe in the Light?’ G.F. profeſſors Catechiſm, p. 6.

‘The Spirit of Chriſt doth not lead to hale out of the Synagogues, to buffet, to pluck off the Hair of the Head, to draw the blood of People in the Synagogues, &c. Idom p. 10.’ See more, p. 11. ‘Did you ever Read of any of the Saints, the Chriſtians, did uſe your Weapons, or go in your ſteps? You have brought your Names upon Record, and make them to ſtink.]’

‘But now if any Man come among them while they are ſpeaking, or when they have done, and be moved to ſpeak any thing; them of their Church, the Rude Multitude fall upon him, with Staves, Fiſts, and Punches, &c.’ A Paper ſent forth into the World, p. 6. Here they ſhew themſelves to be no Miniſters of Chriſt, and their Aſſemblies to be no Church, but in Confuſion, Idem.

Sect. 2. But now to run round again, (That is, when ſome Perſons come into the Quakers Synagogues or Aſſemblies, while they are ſpeaking, or when they have done, and be moved to ſpeak any thing, then) they will not onely tell the People, and make their ſilly Diſciples believe, That the Man is a Drunkard, but if they are queſtioned to prove it, Oh, they meant onely Spiritually Drunk, (a pretty Quibble by the way) nor onely baſely inſinuate, that he is a Diſtempered, and Diſtracted Perſon▪ but a Cain, or a Devil (as ſome ſaid of John) but that's not all; For to tack quite about: [Page] If one comes into their Aſſemblies, and be moved to ſpeak any thing, though aſſerted, as in the Na [...] of the Lord, yet if it does not pleaſe them, the Common Practice in their Meetings is now, to hunch and punch the poor Man; nay, I have ſeen them Actually lay violent Hands on ſome, and thruſt, and pull, and hale them out of their Meeting; once at the Bull and Mouth, and once in their Meeting near Wheeler-ſtreet, inſomuch that I was aſtoniſh'd at it, and could not have then believed that any ſuch thing ſhould be acted, or Suffered in a Quakers Meeting, had not my Eyes beheld it, (they having ſo much cry'd out againſt it, and been pull'd out themſelves in other Meetings) and yet I did not hear ſo much as one Quaker ſpeak againſt it, or oppoſe it, when they punch'd and thruſt, and laid violent Hands on the Man, to hale him out of their Meeting in ſuch a manner.

Sect. 3. How they struck and abuſed another Man in their Meeting, you may take the Account in Quakeriſm i [...] Paganiſm, p. 67, &c.

Sect. 4. Nay, no longer ago than in the Moneth of December laſt, a Civil Perſon that came to London out of the Countrey, and moved as (he ſaid) he hoped from the Lord to ſpeak to them, and oppoſing G.VV. in their Meeting, as I am Informed, after G. had askt him two Queſtions, and he had Anſwered them directly, and by conſent the Perſon was to ask G.VV. as many, which he did, but G. finding himſelf, as it ſeems, puzled by one of them, about Circumciſion of the Heart, the Perſon was ſo far from getting a direct Anſwer, that he onely got his SHINS BROKEN directly there amongſt them. I hope the Quakers will not have the Confidence to deny this, (but I am not ſure, conſidering that ſometimes they have denyed things as [Page] plain) The Perſon (it ſeems) p [...]lling down his stocking [...] and ſhewing his plaiſtered ſhins to them in another of the Quakers Meetings before many witneſſes; and 'tis ſaid he was hunch'd and punch'd ſo, that he was black and blew in ſeveral places on his Body; and thus the poor honeſt Man was fain to return home with BROKEN SHINS: Oh, meek, mild Quakeriſm! Your great Prophet hath Condemned you all, ſaying, ‘That ſuch things manifeſt ye are out of the Light and Life of Saints, & of true Chriſtians and that you differ not from the Jews, and are none of the Miniſters of CHRIST, nor the TRƲE Church.’

Sect. 5. And 'tis no wonder they do not whip, or Impriſon People, becauſe they have not power to do it, but you ſee that as far as they can and dare, and have power, they do, and ſuffer to be done in their Aſſemblies: And ſo it cannot be doubted, but that thoſe which will do ſo much, would do more, if they had power enough; but Bleſſed be the Lord they have it not. Beſides, I muſt tell you in this very P [...]actice of theirs they uſe ſometimes a kind of a Quibbling way: For many times they will not down right ſtrike a Man, but hunch him, & punch him, and thrust him, and crowd him, till the Man is almoſt ſtiſted amongſt them; and ſo in a ſecret way ſometimes almoſt kill him, by forcing his Breath out, becauſe it ſhould not be taken Notice of by others; though twice (as I ſaid before,) I have ſeen violent Hands laid on perſons in their Meetings; Oh ſtrange turning! Oh Hypocritical and horrid Change!

Sect. 6. One Francis Chadwel, who I underſtand Lives in London, hath felt, and Experienced this in the Quakers Meetings, not onely once, or twice, but nearer Twenty times, and h [...]th, and will Witneſs it, [Page] as I am very well informed, but I would not have publiſht it, but that I find Mr. Pen himſelf (in his own book, truly ſtyled Judas and the Jews, p. 38.) cannot deny it, but ſays, ‘He is a man of no Conſcience nor Credit, in what Relates to them, and that he hath known him groſly Guilty, both of Lying and Tipling, his aim hath been to raiſe up an envious and ſcoffing Spirit againſt them, &c. and what then?’ what of all that? ſuppoſing all this w [...]s true, Muſt you Quakers lay violent Hands on him, and be your own Judges and Ju [...]y, and Hangman too, to Execute Juſtice on him? Oh rare! is it poſſible, that this is Quakeriſm, or theſe Quakers, that houted and bawled, and diſturbed others in their Meetings? and if ſome did but thruſt and ſhove them out, though by Authority, and the Magistrates Order, Oh then, Perſecution, Perſecution, wicked Jews, &c. Do ye Quakers not demonſtrate your ſelves now to be the ſame in the Ground? Here then it is evident by Experience, that there is not onely a Perſecuting Spirit, but a Perſecuting Hand amongſt the Quak [...]rs; and as for a Perſecuting Pen and Tongue, there's none goes beyond them, if any to be compared with them for Billingſgate-Rhetorick, Reviling, Railing, and Damning their betters to the pit of Hell: Are theſe the men that once pretended to turn the other Cheek to the Smiter, and now do they ſmite others, becauſe their Enemies, as they ſuppoſe?

Sect. 7. I cannot but Obſerve how SLILY Mr. Pen raiſes an evil Report of Mr. Chadwel, ſaying, He is a Man of no Conſcience nor Credit in what Relates to them, i. e. the Quakers; he did not dare ſay, he was a man of no Conſcience nor Credit in what R [...] ted to others, becauſe then he might have been diſ [...] ved, but onely to the Quakers, they themſelves being [Page] Judges alſo; when as, you muſt note, if a man does but oppoſe the Quakers, that That is enough to make him a man of no Conſcience or Credit with them; Oh neat Quibble! pray let the Quakers name you ONE man that does oppoſe and Contradict them, that they will ſay is a Man of Good Conſcience and Credit in what Relates to them.

Who is ſo ſilly, that cannot ſee the baſeneſs of ſuch ſlie and Quibbling Suggeſtions?

Pray before I leave this Section, hear another of them, about the ſame Perſon, p, 39: Mr. Pen ſays, he had as good as confeſt, that he had been Hired by ſome Profeſſors to diſturb us, who ſees not the Quibble in the words as good as confeſt? That is, in plain Engliſh, he did not tell him ſo; neither is it at all likely; but well, on the contrary, I have heard, that ſome Years ſince a Quaker would have Hired him to have let them alone; the Story runs thus: He owed a Quaker a certain ſum of money, and the Quaker would have forgave it him, and writ, or would write him an Acquittance, as Received ſo much money of him, provided he would not diſturb them any more; Mr. Chadwel Anſwered him to this purpoſe, that if he writ he had Received ſo much money, when indeed he Received none, that would be a Lye, and he would not conſent to it. So here it ſeems Fran. Chadwel had more Conſcience than the Quaker.

Sect. 8. And beſides, the Truth of their abuſing, punching, haling, thruſting and throwing the ſaid F. Chadwel out of their meetings by main Force, depends not upon his Teſtimony alone, but there are ſome ſcores that have been Eye-witneſſes of it, that can teſtifie it. And if the Quakers can Juſtifie doing thus to one, whom themſelves ſhall alone Judge to be a man of no Conſcience [Page] nor Credit, then they may do it to another and another, and to Twenty, on the ſame Ground, and at laſt, to whom they pleaſe, as far as they dare: And▪ to be ſure none ſhall want their Judgment and Cenſure of being Forgers, Lyars, or Tiplers, Men of no Credit nor Conſcience, if they do but oppoſe them: And ſo at preſent I'le leave them, with their Apoſtatized Perſecuting Spirit, as to this particular; wiſhing they may for the Future learn more Honeſty, Humility, and the Royal Law of Charity, which never fails, and that they may put on Bowels of Compaſſion, and Lowlyneſs of mind to others; for if they ſhew Love to their own Friends onely, what are they better than the Publicans? Don't they do ſo?

SECT. IX. The Quakers Quibbles and Hypocriſie in their former Practice of Diſturbing of Miniſters in Pariſh-Churches, with reference to their Practice now.

Sect. 1. THat it was the Common Practice of the Quakers for many Years, to pretend They were ſent and moved by the Lord, and by the Spirit to come into the Pariſh-Aſſemblies to oppoſe the Miniſters, and accordingly did commonly every Moneth, and ſometimes oftner, come in and diſturb the Miniſters and Congregations, with their Meſſages, Viſions, and Revelations from the Lord, as they ſaid, is ſo generally known, that I need bring no Inſtances, and I think they will not deny it.

Sect. 2. But now ſince His MAJESTIES [Page] Happy Reſtauration and Government, I do not find but thoſe ORACLES are generally ceaſed, or at leaſt, for the moſt part; and now their Common Practice therein is altered, which ſhews either their great Hypocriſie now they think they cannot do it but with more danger, or that theſe motions were only pretences, and ſo very unreaſonable, as moſt likely they were; or if true motions from the Lord, then the Quakers have rarely, if any, of thoſe true motions from the Lord now among them, nor do grow in MORE Experience of ſuch Revelations, but are withered:

Where's G. Foxe's Lambs of CHRIST, which have been ſent forth to reprove Sin in the Gates of Cities, Markets, High-ways, and Countries? [What, are they all aſleep?] G.F's Profeſſors Cat. p. 22. What, is there no Sin to be Reproved within the Gates now, as then? What, no ſuch Meſſages from the Lord now? Oh Hypocriſie!

Sect. 3. By this it would appear, that Muggleton is the beſt Prophet of the two, and that his Sentence and Curſe hath taken hold of the Quakers, viz. Becauſe I [ſaith Muggleton] have paſſed Sentence upon the Quakers, they ſhall never grow to have more Experience in Viſion and Revelation, but ſhall wither. See G. Fox his Anſwer to Muggleton's Book, The Quakers Neck broken, p. 11.

SECT. X. The Quakers Quibbles about the Holy Scriptures.

Sect. 1. THis is a very weighty Point, Dear Friends and Countrey-men, conſider it [Page] well; you ſhall firſt hear what G.W. himſelf, and three more Quakers ſay (in Anſwer to one Sampſon Townſend, a Miniſter in Norwich) in their Book, Entituled, ISHMAEL, &c.

The Miniſters Propoſitions (which he and they oppoſed) were theſe two.

1. ‘That the Scriptures, contained in the OLD and NEW Teſtament (Commonly called the BIBLE) is the Revealed Will and Word of God.’

2. ‘That the Scripture, which is the Word of God, is the onely Foundation of our Faith, and onely Rule for our Obedience.’

Now, in their Anſwer to thi [...], I onely deſire the Reader to Obſerve the ſeveral Epithetes G.W. gives to the SCRIPTƲRE, viz. that commonly called the Bible, which ONELY the Miniſter affirmed to be the Foundation and Rule of our Faith and Obedience, as above; THIS G.W. calls NATƲ RAL and CARNAL, p. 3. ‘Obſcure ſomething without them, p. 3. Bids him prove that ever it was called by the Saints a Written Word of God, and that with theſe thy Lyes thou haſt deceived the Blind, p. 4. That which is Written is the Letter, which is DEATH and KILLETH, p. 10. Thou that ſayeſt, that the Scriptures Reveal God, thou art a Lyar, p. 10. Where did ever any of the Holy men of God, ſay, that the Scripture Converts the Soul, or makes Laws for mens thoughts, p. 11. He calls it a Lye, to ſay the Scripture is the means by which Faith is wrought, p. 11. Now, that which Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote of Chriſt could not give Life, for that is called a Declaration of thoſe things which was freely delivered among them, Luke 1.1. And that thou calleſt the Word, which is DEATH [Page] and KILLETH, as thou mayſt Read, 2 C. 3. p. 9.]’ And that which the Miniſter then called the WORD (as G.W. himſelf, and the Quakers tell you, juſt before in the ſame page) was the ſayings, and doings of our SAVIOƲR, which are frequently Recorded in the NEW TESTAMENT, and hence IT [the New Teſtament] is called the word of CHRIST, ſays he; and in the Quakers Anſwer to this, G.W. and they, tell the Miniſter [and that thou calleſt the WORD, WHICH IS DEATH, and KILLETH] Oh horrid! abominable and wicked! beſides the falſhood of it, how near to Blaſphemy is it?

Not to ſay much to his words in p. 5. where he maketh himſelf a Judge, for others to be Judged by, viz. [Let all that read theſe Scriptures Judge thee BY ME to be a Lyar.] Nor to their words in the Title Page, where they ſay [theſe their Words or Writings] were GIVEN FORTH from the SPIRIT of the Lord IN ƲS.] You may enough gheſs at it, and the Impudence of it, your ſelves. Will not the Impartial Reader now think this Book ISHMAEL a Rare Piece for the bigneſs of it, for 'tis but about three ſheets?

I muſt needs think that many Sober Readers that ſhall ſee, and duly Conſider theſe Words, will almoſt conclude it incredible, it being ſo abominably groſs, but that they may ſee it with their own Eyes, in the Quakers own Book, if they dare give Credit to their Eye-ſight, more than to the Quakers falſe Tongues; and therefore I refer all ſuch to the Book it ſelf, for better Satisfaction.

Sect. 2. Sam. Fiſher, in his Addit. Appendix, p. 21. Speaking of the Holy Scriptures, ſays, ‘Which Tranſcriptions [Page] and Tranſlations, were they never ſo certain and entire by Anſwering to the firſt Original Copies, yet are NOT CAPABLE to be (to all Men) ANY OTHER than a Lesbian Rule, or NOSE OF WAX; Foraſmuch as even where Men have them (as half the World has not) they are lyable to be wreſted and Actually twiſted Twenty ways by Interpreters, whoſe Expoſitions, Sences, and meanings, (which are as many▪ and various, as the Thoughts, Conceits, and Inventions of men are, who Comment upon them) muſt be the Rule to ſuch as can Read them neither in Hebrew and Greek, nor in their own Mother-Tongues neither.’

And further, the ſaid Sam. Fiſher, in the ſame page tells us, that He and the Quakers have put it to the Queſtion, How it may be known aſſuredly, uncontroulably, infallibly, that the Scripture is at ALL of God, and not a cunningly DEVISED FABLE and INVENTION of Men?

Do ye not think now, Impartial Readers, that the Quakers are High Honourers of Holy Scripture to uſe ſuch Terms and Language, in Querying about it, as a cunningly deviſed FABLE and INVENTION of Men? And in his very next words he gives us and the World to underſtand, that the Church and Clergy of England do but go-round (or Dance in a Circle) when they tell the Quakers and us, ‘That the Scripture may be known to be of God by the Teſtimony of the Spirit, and that we may try, and find aſſuredly that Spirit to be of God by the Scripture.’

Sect. 3. Ed. Burrough [...], p. 834. ‘The ONELY perfect Rule of [...]onſcience, in the Exerciſe to God, is the SPIRIT of Chriſt, and not any other thing.’

[Page] G.W. Again (the Queſtion being put [Do you eſteem of your ſpeakings to be of as great Authority as any Chapter in the Bible?) makes this Anſwer, in his Serious Apol. p. 49. viz. That which was ſpoken from the Spirit of Truth in ANY, [...]s of AS GREAT Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are, and GREATER, &c.

Sect. 4. W. Pen alſo, (that he for his Worthineſs and ſincerity may not Complain as left out) ſhall give in his Verdict, in his Spirit of Truth Vindicated, p. 38. Thus, the Scripture is much like the ſhadow of the True Rule, &c.] Now, all men know a ſhadow is an empty and vain thing, and the moſt uncertain thing in the World; ſometimes ſhorter, and ſometimes much longer than the Subſtance it ſelf.

Sect. 5. But now to wheel about, and run round again, though one would think no man poſſibly (that pretends to Honeſty or common Reputation) could either have the Face or Confidence to do it, having ſo rivetted and fixed the Contrary in Print, as above; nay, ſome cannot believe that any Ordinary Romancer would Publiſh it in Print with ſuch a Stupendious confidence as the Quakers have lately done) viz. G.W. Quakers Plainneſs, p. 70, 71. ‘Nor did we EVER prefer our Books before the Bible, as unjuſtly we are charged, but do prefer the Bible BEFORE ALL other Books extant in the World. Our Intention and Principle NEVER was to bring our Books in Compariſon to the Scriptures]’ No, G? Is this True? Does not thy own Conſcience ſmite thee, and fly in thy Face? Nay, is this poſſible to be true? When G.W. himſelf calls the Scri [...]ture (which the Miniſter aſſerted was the Foundation of Faith) as I have already told you, NATURAL and CARNAL, [Page] the LETTER, which is DEATH, and KILLETH: What can be worſe than Natural, Carnal, that which is Death, and Killeth? Are your Writings worſe than that? Then further, do but conſider the Titles and Epithets this very G.VV. gives to ſome of his own Books, viz. The Glory of Chriſts Light within Expelling Darkneſs. Another, The Light and LIFE of Chriſt within; well, go thy ways, GEORGE, not onely for a QUIBBLER, but an AUDACIOUS CONFIDENT: ſurely, Geo. thou hadſt not forgot, that your Book, ISHMAEL, was given forth from the SPIRIT of the Lord in you: Or did you deal therein falſely with the World? And with God too? Was any of the Holy Scriptures any more than given forth from the ſpirit of the Lord? And if that you ſay be true, I am ſure your Books muſt be EQUAL at leaſt with the Scriptures; but what need I talk of that, when Geo. himſelf aſſures me, that ſome of their Writings, or ſpeeches were GREATER? if ever the ſpirit of Truth ſpoke in any of them, it is of AS GREAT Authority (ſays he) as the SCRIPTURES and CHAPTERS are, and GREATER.

Sect. 6 And to face quite about again, G. Keith told us poſitively, That W.P. hath the Scripture as the Secondary Rule of his Faith and Practice, Narrative of the Second Diſpute, publiſhed by the Quakers themſelves, p. 57. Who doth not ſee now, that theſe men will ſay any thing? Or care not what they ſay? Mr. Pen himſelf at beſt does but ſay, The Scripture is much like the SHADOW of the true Rule (ſo far is it from being any (either Primary or Secundary) true and Subſtantial Rule to him, but onely much like the ſhadow of it, and a ſhadow is ſometimes [Page] three or four times longer or ſhorter than the Truth and Subſtance) and in that Reſpect (ſays VV.P. it may be a KIND of a Secondary Rule: Obſerve, Reader, how mincingly and Quibblingly VV.P. words it; 1. In that Reſpect [as it is much like the ſhadow.] 2. a kind of Secondary Rule, [a ſhadowy Kind, but neither the true, ſubſtantial or certain Rule,] and it all comes in with it may be ſuppoſitively; now, which of theſe two Quakers is the Quibbler? Both May be, one Muſt be.

But that is not all neither, for worſe abſurdities will ſtill follow; for if that be true which G.VV. ſaid, then that which is DEATH, and KILLETH, is A RULE of VV. Pen's Faith and Practice, and that which is Natural and carnal is A RULE of the Quakers Faith and Practice; then an obſcure ſomething without them, is A RƲLE of the Quakers Faith, and that's not all neither: But if what Sam. Fiſher ſaid, be true, then VV.P. hath a NOSE OF VVAX, for a Rule of his Faith and Practice, or one of the Quakers Rules for their Faith and Practice is no better than a Noſe of VVax. Nay, (if you will believe Sam. Fiſher himſelf) is not CAPABLE of being ANY OTHER to them that have the Scriptures, (which the Quakers have) and as to them that have them not, they can be ſurely nothing at all; not ſo much as a Noſe of VVax: And is not this an Excellent Rule (according to the Quakers own Confeſſion) that they now ſay they have, for a Rule of their Faith and Practice?

Sect. 7. I am ſorry that before I conclude, I ſhould have Occaſion given me to Tax Mr. Pen of INSINCERITY, and deceitful dealing about this matter of the Quakers Doctrine touching the Holy Scriptures, [Page] by Reading the late little Book he ſet out, Entituled, A juſt Rebuke (but more properly, a huffing Rebuke) p. 10. Thoſe very words he tells his Opponents, reflect moſt juſtly, as a juſt Rebuke on himſelf; I muſt tell him, he hath Acted with them herein far from a Man of Common Ingenuity; For, whereas W.P. aſſerts, The Quakers deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God in that ſence wherein they deny them, viz. The Word that was God, the Eſſential Word: Does not W.P. in his Conſcience know, that none of theſe Presbyterians, Independents, nor any others ever aſſerted againſt the Quakers, that the Scriptures were in that ſence the Word of God, and conſequently, is no part of the matter in Diſpute? And not onely ſo, but doth not W.P's Conſcience witneſs, that the Quakers have, and do deny the Scriptures to be the written Word of God? In which ſence thoſe men do not deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God, and the Quakers do; and therefore W.P. muſt Act againſt his Conſcience, in taxing them of being herein, far from Men of Common Ingenuity, when it is onely his own diſ-ingenuity, thus to Quibble and deceive People.

And Secondly, The like Fallacy, double dealing, and Inſincerity W.P. manifeſts in his words, about the Scripture being a Rule, as if the Quakers owned the Scripture to be a Rule in ſome things; or ſome parts of the Scripture to be a Rule to them, whereas it is manifeſt, that the Quakers have over and over again denyed the Scriptures in general, and not ſome part of it onely, to be their Rule; yea, in theſe expreſs words, The Books of the Old and New Teſtament, called the BIBLE, See the beginning of this Section.

Oh Quakers REPENT, REPENT of ſuch wickedneſs, and for ſhame leave off ſuch double [Page] hearted dealing, and moſt unparallel'd Confidence! Do not think all your Countrey-men Fools beſides your ſelves, as if they could not diſcern ſuch petty ſlights and Quibbles, and take Notice of them and you alſo, as not ſingle-hearted in them.

Sect. 8. For my Part, I never thought any man blame-worthy, nor would be he that ſhould blame any man for changing his Opinion or Judgment, if ſo be he did it upon better ground, and did not pretend to INFALLIBILITY, nor ſcorn, nor blame others for Confeſſing their Fallibility, but did Honeſtly and Ingenuouſly acknowledge that he was before miſtaken, and in an Error. But for Men to change their Opinions, either really, and yet endeavour confidently to vindicate, and juſtifie their former Abſurdities and Errors; or pretendedly onely to fawn and flatter, or curry favour with their Adverſaries, or any others of the World, and yet ſtill to pretend to Infallibility; is ſo low, abominably baſe and Hypocritical, or ſo Impudent, that it is not to be admitted by, or among any Sober and Honeſt Men. Now, whether this change, alteration, and difference in the Quakers words and Writings, Epithets, and Phraſes, about the Holy Scriptures be real, or onely Hypocritical, and Temporizing, out of deſign to blind others, and to ingratiate themſelves a little more into Peoples Affections, and good-will of the World, God and their own Conſciences beſt know; yet the laſt is much to be feared, for this Reaſon, becauſe they are ſo far from diſ-owning their former miſtakes and miſ-expreſſing themſelves, that they ſtand to vindicate and juſtifie it: But be it either way, they thereby ſhew their uncertainty, inconſtancy, and ſelf-contradictions, Confuſions, and the effects of their Fallibility.

[Page] Sect. 9. And therefore I would onely deſire G.W. to tell me honeſtly (if there be any ſuch thing left in him, or that he may return to) without Quibbling or Equivocation, or if not me, that he would acquaint his Countrey-men,

1. Whether he doth NOW Believe, That the Holy Scriptures, both of the Old and New Teſtament, commonly called the Bible, be the Letter which is Death, and Killeth, or whether they be the Letter mentioned or meant by the Apoſtle Paul in 2 Cor. 3.6.

And 2. If he do [...]h NOW believe, That were the Scriptures never ſo certain and entire, yet that they are not capable to be (to all men) any other than a Noſe of Wax?

3. And whether he, or W. Pen and the Quakers do NOW Witneſs and Believe, that the Letter of the Scripture is CARNAL?

A proper direct Anſwer is deſired and required to this, without any Quibbling or mental Reſervations, if the Quakers are indeed, what they now would pretend to the World, they are, and will manifeſt themſelves to be no Diſſemblers.

The Concluſion.

To Sum up all in ſhort, and to Conclude this Meſs and Medly of their moſt irreconcileable Contradictions, and irrecoverable Gulph of Confuſions, in which they have plunged themſelves o're Head and Ears, take it thus.

Sometimes they can call, yea, and poſitively aſſert, the Letter of the Scripture is CARNAL, and the Letter is DEATH, and KILLETH: But their own pityful Scriblings, or Books, they can call [Page] The LIGHT, and LIFE of Chriſt within, and yet (to go round again) at other times they tell us, that they prefer the Bible BEFORE all other Books extant in the World; but then (to go round again) they tell us (without excepting one) that THEIR WRITINGS and BOOKS are given forth from the immediate ETERNAL SPIRIT of God. Yet (to face about again) That their Intention and Principle NEVER WAS to bring their Books in COMPARISON with the Scriptures; but yet, to go round again, (though to their own Confuſion) the ſame man hath given us to underſtand, that what the Quakers ſpeak from the Spirit of Truth is not onely of AS GREAT Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are, but GREATER: And the Quakers can ſometimes tell us, that one might AS WELL condemn the SCRIPTURES to be BURNED, as Their WRITINGS.

But come once more to turn about [Robin Hood] W. Pen now hath the Scripture (poſitively, ſays Mr. Keith) as a Secondary Rule of Faith and Practice; and yet, to ſtep half-way back again, and Janus-like, look two ways at once, it is but much like the SHADOW of the true Rule, and in that Reſpect (as it is like a ſhadow) it may be a kind of Secondary Rule, Mr. Pen himſelf thinks, but he ſeems not certain of that neither: But to turn quite back again, if Sam. Fiſher may be believed, the Scriptures we have, ‘Though they were never ſo certain and entire, by anſwering to the firſt Original Copies▪ yet are not CAPABLE to be (to all Men) ANY OTHER than a Lesbian Rule, or Noſe of wax, ſo far are they from being either a Primary or Secondary Rule, that he ſays they are not ſo much as CAPABLE of being [Page] ANY OTHER than a Lesbian Rule; and if that be the Rule G. Keith meant his Brother Pen had for his Faith and Practice, it may be true enough, and ſo he may well agree with his late Brother Fiſher.’

But yet to give one turn more, the quondam ſincere-hearted, and Zealous man, W. Pen, (whoſe Writings many times, like ſquint-eyes (which as they ſay, look nine ways at once) would make us believe, if we were no wiſer, that notwithſtanding all this the Quakers abuſe of Scripture, that 'tis the Quakers are abuſed, and (if he does not Quibble, and deal diſingenuouſly) they do indeed own (what-ever they ſay to the contrary) the Scripture to be a Rule in ſome things; or ſome parts of the Scripture to be a Rule to them. But yet, ſays Mr. Fiſher, (to confound the Quakers, and knock all ot'h' Head at once,) They ſay truly, which ſay, that A RULE and Guide ſhould be CERTAIN, which will not deceive, and that which is VARIABLE and ALTERABLE cannot be A Perſons Rule: For it is the property of A Rule to be INVARIABLE, and the SAME at ALL times.

But that as to the Scriptures we and the Quakers now have, he tells us, This is one plain ƲNDENIABLE Truth, viz. That there are VARIOƲS Lections in the Copies of the very ORIGINAL Texts of the Scripture; this he aſſerts point blank: and not onely that they are alterable and variable, but varying and altered in abundance of places; and ſome parts, portions, and whole Books thereof LOST, and ſo is not fit nor capable to be a Rule or Foundation, as he gives us to underſtand, to cut the Throat of all, and to make ſhort work; Thus.

[Page]Sometimes 'tis Carnal, without Breath,

Sometimes the Letter, oh, 'tis Death!

Sometimes 'tis a Rule of Faith;

That's impoſſible, Fiſher ſaith:

Sometimes a Noſe of VVax, no Rule.

(They know as much, as th' Aſs or Mule)

Sometimes one way, then another,

Sometimes both ways, this and t'other;

Sometimes one o'th two, take either,

Sometimes 'twixt both Rules, but neither.

Some ſay it's this ſome that, ſome (O Riddle)

Nor this, nor that, but juſt a Quibble.

And ſo they run the Rounds, trace to and fro, and dance up and down in their dark minds about the Holy Scriptures, and their Rule of Faith; I cannot think of any thing that the Quakers Doctrine about this, better reſembles, than what their own Fiſher brings to my Hand, the (ſo called) Devils Neck verſe, which may be read upwards or downwards, backwards or forwards, which way they pleaſe, to the ſcanning whereof I at preſent leave them, wiſhing they may in time become wiſer and honeſter, and not run the round ſo, ſtill to make their Brains Giddy.

S | A | T | O | R
A | R | E | P | O
T | E | N | E | T
O | P | E | R | A
R | O | T | A | S

Sam. Fiſher Tranſpos'd.

[Page]

THus Quaker's work, who talk for ſelf,

Is tangling talk againſt it ſelf;

'Gainſt Truth a prate, a piteous Preachment

That can't make good its own Impeachment,

As Doctor REYNARD'S Doctrine does,

Who heeds not well which way he goes;

Whitehead's, Live'ſtone's, Pen's prances round

And round again in th' ſelf-ſame Ground;

It ſtaggers to and fro, and reels,

Skips up and down, and runs on wheels;

Starts aſide like ſome broken Bow,

C [...]oſſes Chriſt like Cris X Croſs i'th Row:

Who ſo can feel, in it may feel,

As 'twere a wheel within a wheel;

A Net, Ginn, Trap, a Snare's in It,

A VVhirlpool, Gulph, Bottomleſs-Pit.

Wind, Duſt, Husk, Chaff, no Stable Steeple

A Tale, that takes unſtable People,

A Toy, a Cloud, Miſt, Smoak, a Fogg,

Both Quak'riſm, and ſome Quav'ring Bogg;

A Quick ſand, a Quagmire that ſucks,

Who's in't his Feet out hardly plucks,

Himſelf who's in gets ſeldom Out,

It ſelf's more ſeldom in, than Out:

It flutters like ſome blind Night-Bat,

Now here, now there; this way, now That:

Now it is one thing, then another,

And now and then nor t' one, nor to'ther;

Sometimes it's This, ſometimes it's That,

Sometimes it's This, and This, and That:

[Page] Sometimes 'tis either this or that,

Sometimes 'tis neither this nor that:

Now this, not th' other, anon it's Either,

Then by and by, both Both, and Neither.

One while it looks like So, not No,

Another while like No, not So:

One way it ſeems or So, or No,

Another way, nor No, nor So:

Some ways it ſhews both So, and No,

So it's a meer endleſs No, and So.

[figure]

Here Follows THE QUAKING, QUIBBLING ANSWERER Turned to A SLIGHT TIMEROUS REVILER: OR, Remarks on G.W's. Slight ſilly Sheet, ſtyl'd, The Timerous Reviler Sleighted; Given forth by the ſaid G.W. as a Reprehenſion (for want of an Anſwer) to the Second Part of the Quakers Quibbles.

[Page]

COƲRTEOƲS READER,

THE Man I have here to deal withal, having neither Honeſty or Knowledge enough to give a Right Anſwer, nor Prudence enough to hold his Peace; you may (it is not unlikely) admire why I ſhould trouble my ſelf to take any Notice of ſo ſlight and ſilly a ſheet, the greateſt part whereof is ſtuff'd (according to the Quakers old Cuſtom) with nothing but bitter Railings, ſcornful Revilings, and falſe Suggeſtions, as if the Quakers were dreyn'd, and this the very dregs of their filthy Bottle; wherefore I ſhall here acquaint you with the Conſiderations that moved and conſtrained me thereto.

Firſt, That Juſtice which I found lay upon me to clear an Innocent Gentleman (and ſo far vindicate his Innocency and Reputation,) of whom, this Man hath Publiſhed in Print a moſt groſs falſe Suggeſtion.

[Page] Secondly, To undeceive the World, that I might not be falſe to the Truth, nor unjuſt to my ſelf, they having raiſed and publiſhed of me, not onely many falſe ſurmiſes, but palpable falſities.

They firſt take me for another Perſon, with whom they have had formerly ſome Conteſts, and then New Baptizing me, and dreſſing me up as they pleaſe, they throw all the dirt at Me, that they in their wicked and Malicious minds wiſh to Him, though he be a Perſon (by the faithfulleſt account I could have concerning him, I not being acquainted with him) whoſe Candor, Judgment, Parts, and Deſerts, are as far beyond G.W's. in Reality, as Geo. can Conceit himſelf beyond others, and ſo not deſerving any ſuch ill uſage at their unmannerly Pens or Tongues; but this confirms me in my Opinion, that it is much at one, and you may as ſoon expect an Ingenious, Sober, Rational Anſwer from a Scold at Billings-gate, as from a Quaker; till they change their Morals, as well as their Religion (as much as Mr. Pen could (which ſeems to be onely out of a fawning deſign) pretend to ſpeak in the behalf of poor morality, when as, it is his pretended Light and Inſpiration within, that indeed he ſo much adores.)

No ſmall Evidence whereof this Quakers pitiful ſheet demonſtrates it ſelf to be, notwithſtanding the pretended Civility and Condeſcention in his private Letter to me, yet his ſheet, which he ſince ſet forth publickly (being made up chiefly with ſo many falſe ſuſpicions, and Railings) now manifeſts that that was onely Hypocritical, or out of Deſign by fair words to deceive the Author: But alas, the Quaker was miſtaken, and Geo. was too Young; the Author had a better diſcerning (without the Quakers Gift) and underſtanding of them, than ſo, by his many Years Obſervation and Experience.

[Page]He told me in his Letter privately, He took it well from me, that I Ordered him one of my books; and in his ſheet he tells me and the World, that the ſame Book was made up much with Scoffs, Quibbles, groſs perverſions and abuſes, ſhort of all ſeriouſneſs and ſobriety, yea, manifeſt perverſions, lyes, and ſlanders.

VVhat then did he take it well from me, that I ordered him ſuch a Book with ſo many perverſions, lyes, and ſlanders, ſcoffs, Quibbles, and groſs abuſes? But as the Perverſions, Scoffs, Quibbles, and Abuſes were the Quakers that my Book ſet forth, and ſo was made up much of, it may be true enough, for I know of no ſuch Perverſions, Quibbles, &c. there, but onely the Quaker's, and there was good ſtore of Them.

Truly, Reader, ſome think the like Letter was hardly ever before ſeen to come from a Quaker, & one of their Chieftains too; ‘He aſſured me therein, he was as willing to receive INFORMATION as to give it in any thing wherein any thing ſeemed doubtful, or any miſtake is (or may be) ſuppos'd, about the Controverſies depending between us.’

Hereby then he acknowledges, he thought the Author was able to give him Information (at leaſt) in ſome of thoſe matters in Controverſie, otherwiſe it was ſilly for him to deſire that he might Diſcourſe with the Author to that purpoſe, viz. for mutual information, as he writ he did.

And did not the Quaker herein finely vail his Bonnet, that had been talking of, or pretending to INFALLIBILITY nigh theſe Twenty Years (if not above) and yet now in 1674/5. aſſures the Author (who yet had told him I pretended no ſuch Infallibility) he was as willing to Receive Information (by diſcourſing with him) as to Give it in any thing ſeeming doubtful about [Page]the Controverſies depending between us: And therefore for his better Information in thoſe very matters, I ſend him this Diſcourſe and Remarks of mine, further to try him and his reality herein: and for your better ſatisfaction you ſhall have here (verbatim as I think) his ſaid Letter, and my Reply to it.

T.T.

For the Author of the Book, Entituled, The Second Part of the Quakers Quibles.
To be left with Francis Smith, the Book-ſeller, to be Conveyed, as above-ſaid.

Friend,

I Lately Received thy Book, Entituled, The Second Part of the Quakers Quibles, and take it well from thee, that thou *Which is the moſt true and pure Language to a ſingle Perſon, to write, that thou ORDERED me, or to ſay, that you Ordered me? Are they not both alike as to the impureneſs of ſpeech: Oh ye rare Linguiſts, that write by Inſpiration? Ordered me one of them, and this is to deſire ſo much Civility from thee, as that I may have an hours Diſcourſe with thee (if thou Liveſt in, or near London) which, perhaps, may ſave us ſeveral hours writing, and prevent others of ſome charge and trouble in ſuch Books of Controverſie, and poſſibly may afford ſo much mutual Information as may tend to Peace, or at least, to a more moderate and ſerious method in managing the Controverſies between us than the tenour of thy ſaid Book ſeems to beſpeak, which for Truths ſake, and not for any popularity or Maſtery, I could (and do) deſire. And if thou wilt be pleaſed to let me know where thou Dwelleſt; or where I may conveniently meet with thee, I am willing with a Friend or two to come to thee and two or three of thy Friends, as I may have an Opportunity; for I apprehend both my ſelf, the Truth and Friends wrong'd in divers paſſages of the ſaid Book, and not onely ſo, but many ſerious and unprejudiced Readers are much diſguſted, and wearied, and their Patience too much grated upon, by ſuch kind of Method as thou haſt choſen againſt me: Yet I'le aſſure thee, I am as willing to Receive Information as to Give it, in any thing wherein any thing ſeems doubtful, or any miſtake is (or may be) ſuppos'd, [Page] about the Controverſies depending between us. So deſiring thy Anſwer if thou †If you have bad Engliſh again, I cannot help that, you have it as ſuch a School-Maſter and Dictator as G.W. ſent it me: I would not take notice of this, but that the Quakers pretend to Infallibility, and have condemned o [...]hers for bad Engliſh, or not ſpeaking it Grammatically. pleaſe, and as ſoon as may be, to what is hereby deſired, I Remain,

A Friend to thee and all Men, as bearing no ill will towards any, George Whitehead.

London, 13 th. 12 mo. 1674/5.

To Mr. George Whitehead, Theſe. To be left for him at Mr. Francis Smith's, Book-ſeller, at the Elephant and Caſtle, near the Exchange in Cornhil, London.

Mr. Whitehead,

THY Letter, Dated the 13 th. came well to my Hands, which I find to be ſo Civil and Moderate, that I Accept of it very kindly from thee, and ſhould I not return thee the like Anſwer, I muſt (to ſave thee the labour) judge my ſelf ungrateful, which is an Humour I Naturally abhor; and as this Courteous temper beſt becomes a Chriſtian Spirit, ſo I aſſure thee I have always found it more prevalent upon my Soul than any Arrogant ſelf-conceited huffing, and cenſorious damning.

As to thy deſire, for thee and two or three of thy Friends to Meet and Diſcourſe with me, 'tis a thing that poſſibly I ſhould willingly comply with; if ſome Circumſtances of my Occaſions would conveniently admit; and that by your late Practice, as I have heard, you had not already given others to ſee, and Experimentally know how FRUITLESS ſuch Meetings with you have, and do commonly prove: For if my Information fail me not, (which I have not as yet any ground to ſuſpect, I receiving it from a very ſerious and Sober Perſon,) When you had accuſed one Mr. Hedworth (a Perſon I do hereby aſſure thee, who is no more acquainted with me, than thou art) and not being able, or at leaſt willing to prove it your ſelves, you [Page] would IMPOSE upon the Gentleman, to accuſe himſelf, *It ſeems G.W. ſays (or to deny it) was added: Whether it be ſo or no, and What G.W. meant he WAS to deny, or would IMPOSE upon him to deny, I know not; but it is ſtill the ſame as to the purpoſe I brought it, viz. their IMPOSING upon others, as if they had the Power of, or would new erect among them, A HIGH COMMISSION COƲRT, for even there, their IMPOSITION was the ſame, that the Parties accuſed had the Liberty to confeſs or deny the Queſtions that were put to them. or otherwiſe you would not Diſcourſe the Matter with him, when yet you had appointed him a Meeting to that purpoſe; which ſurely Friend, thou muſt know, is not onely againſt the good Law of our Nation, but againſt the Law of Nature, and is no leſs than for you to ſet up an HIGH COMMISSION COURT, which our Prudent Governors have long ſince aboliſhed, ſeeing the unreaſonableneſs thereof; and how any of thy Friends can rationally IMPOSE ſuch Terms and Conditions on others (againſt their conſents) or elſe refuſe to Diſcourſe with them, I must confeſs I do not, nor can understand, and therefore ſhould much call my own Senſes and Judgment into Queſtion, if I ſhould but imagine to ſee any good Effect of ſuch a PRIVATE Diſcourſe with thee and thy Friends. WHEN I Conſider beſides, that ſome of you have not ſtuck PUBLICKLY in the Face of the World to aſſert (without bluſhing) ſuch ſtrange things ſometimes (as I apprehend to be) beſide the Truth, common Reaſon, yea, and contrary to our very Eye-ſight, which if you did not afterwards ſtand in, and pretend to vindicate (but did ingenuouſly own the miſtake, and candidly retract the Error,) I ſhould not yet think ſo ill of.

Therefore as I have Printed my Reply, that all who will, and can, may ſee and Judge of what I ſay; ſo I think it cannot be better than for thee to do the like, that all may ſee how Civily and fairly thou haſt, or ſhalt deal with me therein, and that was the Intent I at firſt ſignified to Mr. Pen, hoping that his Education would have been ſo prevalent with him (at leaſt as he was a Scholar) as not to write Trivially, or impertinently, nor deal unfairly by me, when he was COOL; as I apprehended he did by ſome when he was HOT in the Diſpute, which really I was then ſo Charitable as to attribute chiefly to the Motion of his Paſſion, or Party.

Whereas thou ſayeſt, Thou apprehendeſt thy Self, Friends, and Truth wronged in divers paſſages of my ſaid Book; if it ſhould prove ſo INDEED, I ſhould be heartily ſorry for it, but I proteſt ſeriouſly to thee in the dread and fear of the moſt HIGH, that I have not wronged you knowingly, and if it [Page] ſhould be Ignorantly (which yet I hope upon due Examination will not appear) I preſume thy Charity may the eaſier forgive me, as I believe my Heavenly Father will; eſpecially if it be occaſioned through thy OWN FRIENDS ill expreſſing themſelves, they then may be more blame-worthy than I.

Further, thou ſayeſt, many ſerious and unprejudiced Readers are much diſguſted and wearied, *Mr. Pen [...] Judas and the Jews is no more than a little above ſixteen ſheets in Anſwer to four and a h [...]lf, and this you muſt not doubt, but without diſguſting their Sober Readers, it being a Quakers Method See alſo hi [...] Spirit of Truth Vindicated, it is but ſeventeen ſheets in Anſwer to ſix. and their Patience too much grated upon by ſuch kind of method as I have choſen againſt thee.

As to this, be pleaſed but to conſider that they and thou muſt thank thy ſelf for that, occaſioning me ſo to do by thy dealing ſo INSINCERELY with me, and giving no real nor pertinent Anſwer when thou hadſt undertaken it, which if thou hadſt pleaſed thou mighteſt have forborn; I could not, nor did impoſe it on thee: (But ſince thou waſt pleaſed to propoſe to the World, and thoughteſt meet to undertake it. Now, it cannot but be expected, both by them and me, thou ſhouldeſt perform it more directly and candidly than as yet thou haſt done, or ingenuouſly ſay thou canſt not any more than others.)

For what Sober Perſon, that pretends to tenderneſs of Conſcience and Ingenuity, would ever endeavour to make any believe I had contradicted my ſelf, by ſaying IF PERHAPS; or that pretended to any thing of Scholar-ſhip, that would aſſert thoſe words of mine to be a Contradiction according to (your own) Mr. Keith's juſt Laws of Diſpute?

Or what Man would have accuſed me, as being in the Ʋnbelief, and not acknowledging the ſufficiency of the Spirits Evidence, for my owning Miracles, Signs, and the Gifts of Tongues immediately Inſpired by the Spirit, as ſufficient Evidence of the Spirit, which thou thy ſelf ſayeſt (p. 12.) I did propoſe as Evidence?

But if thou hadſt been pleaſed to have given me a ſincere Anſwer to the very Matter indeed at firſt, much, if not moſt of this had been prevented.

Yet pray Conſider why mine ſhould grate on the Patience of thy ſerious and unprejudiced Readers, more than thy own Book lately put forth, Entituled, A Serious Search, which is almoſt five ſheets, in Anſwer to two, proportionably I think my Reply is not ſo much.

[Page]Beſides, I have Divided my Diſcourſe into Sections, and ſet down the Contents at the beginning, that ſo if any Readers Patience ſhall not ſerve him to Read the whole, he may onely caſt his Eye on that Section he hath moſt mind to, which he may do without any great Injury, the Matter of them not depending much one upon the other.

And, Friend, for thy eaſe, if thou ſhalt think good but to give an honeſt, plain, and direct Anſwer to the twelve particulars mentioned in the ADVERTISEMENT, which is not one full ſheet, I ſhall gratis, quit thee (for the preſent) of all the reſt, upon this Condition, that thy Anſwer be plain and direct INDEED to the very Queſtion, without Equivocation, Evaſion, or begging of the Queſtion.

And in my next, if I think I have Occaſion to Rejoyn, it is now my Intention to be briefer, but then I wiſh it may not be ſharper, I generally Obſerving that Prolixity much abates the picquant Severity of ones ſtyle.

Further, I pray thy Excuſe if I do take the freedom to tell thee, that I had abundantly rather ſee a Real Anſwer to that little part of it, than a great many words to the whole, if as far from the purpoſe as the former was; and bear with me if I intreat thee to Obſerve this particular thing.

If by grating on their Patience, thou meaneſt, their waiting for it ſo long, I'le aſſure thee my ſelf was a chief Sufferer in that Reſpect, and the Printer or Book-Seller to be blamed for keeping it five or ſix weeks in hand before Finiſhing it.

To Conclude this, I'le promiſe thee, that if thou wilt forbear all Reflections, for the Future, I will alſo, and onely and meerly concern our ſelves with the Merits of the Cauſe; and this will be the beſt way I can think of, both to ſhorten the work, eaſe thee and me, and accompliſh all the Ends propounded in thy Letter, which ſhall be my chief aim, as it is my hearty deſire, if thou, or ſome of thy Friends do not divert me, ſo I Reſt,

Thy Well-wiſher, T.T.

17. Feb. 74/75.

Remarks on G.W's. Sheet, &c.

[Page]

W. Pen's Account of the INFALLIBILITY of himſelf and the Quaker's Miniſters, ‘We aſcribe not an Infallibility to Men, but to the Grace of God; and to Men, SO FAR as they are led by it; for that it certainly Teacheth, what it doth Teach, W.P's. Rebuke, p. 22.’

And are not the Miniſters of the Church of England, and the Miniſters of the Baptiſts Church, yea, and ALL the Men in the World SO FAR INFALLIBLE, as well as the Quakers? Oh Excellent Rhetorician! But poor Logician!

SECT. I. Of G.W's. Title, and his Falſe Suggeſtion therein; Which runs thus; The Timerous Reviler Sleighted, being a brief Reprehenſion of a Scornful Pamphlet, Styled, The Second Part of the Quakers Quibbles, Subſcribed by the Name of Thomas Thompſon, but (by ſome) ſuſpected to be the Author of the two Pamphlets, the one Entituled, The Spirit of the Quakers Tryed, the other, Controverſie Ended, &c.

Sect. 1. REviler] and why ſo? But becauſe I told him and the Quakers of their Railing, and demonſtrated their Ridiculous and deceitful Equivocations; let him but name to me any one word that I have uſed (that he Accounts Reviling) that he himſelf hath not uſed, or worſe, in his Writings, if [Page] he can; and till then he may with more Juſtice keep his Title to himſelf: But when theſe Men cannot bite, yet they'l bark.

Sect. 2. Sleighted] a true word; [...]or as he hath Publiſhed it, 'tis to ſay, SHIFTED, or dealt deceitfully and Craftily with; and in the Apoſtle Paul's Time, we find there were ſome ſuch, Eph. 4.14. Be no more — carryed about with every wind of Doctrine, by the ſleight of Men, and cunning Craftineſs, whereby they lye in wait to deceive.

But G. art thou no wiſer to play Hocus Pocus, and ſhift me, but that thou muſt tell me and the World of it in thy Title?

Sect. 3. But ſuppoſe his Intention is, ſlighted] (for it ſeems a Quaker can hardly ſpeak, or Print much now, without the Art of Directing the Intention, or ſpeaking by a Figure) Then we have a ſlight Title, fit for ſuch a ſlight ſilly ſheet; yet Proud and Arrogant, denoting rather the Pride of Quakers, than the Humility of Chriſtians, alias, we have a new-coyn'd Quibble for Evading an Anſwer, or an Old term for running away, and timerouſly quitting the Conteſt.

Sect. 4. Slighted, no wonder, they that have ſlighted the Proteſtant Churches beyond the Seas, ſlighted the Church of England, ſlighted 21 Learned Divines at a Clap, ſlighted all the Baptiſt's Churches, yea, and ſlighted all Teachers and Profeſſors in Europe beſides themſelves; how is it poſſible but that I muſt be ſlighted too, except I'le Baniſh my ſelf to the Indies?

They that have ſlighted the Writings, or Books of Holy SCRIPTURE, (ſo far as I have ſhewed you out of their own Books, and more particularly, G.W. himſelf, in his own words, but in the laſt precedent Section) can you reaſonably expect, they ſhould not [Page] ſlight other Mens Books, and mine too? Are theſe the Deſpiſed People, or the Deſpiſers by G.W's, own Teſtimony? What they cannot ſo well Anſwer, they pretend to ſlight; a poor ſhift: For thereby they manifeſt but their ſilly ſcorn, and diſdainful Pride and Arrogance. Though it is not yet ſix Moneths ſince, that his Brother Pen could take Notice of a ridiculous ſorry Mouſe (as he calls it) and ſo turn Mouſe-catcher; and are the Quakers thus Elevated on a ſudden?

Sect. 5. A Reprehenſion, what, for want of an Anſwer? It is indeed well known you are free enough of the firſt, however timerous as to the latter. Their Confidence, though uſually too great, yet at this time it ſeems did not ſerve them to ſay it was an Anſwer.

Sect. 6. But (by ſome) ſuſpected to be the Author of the two Pamphlets, the one Entituled, The Spirit of the Quakers tryed; the other, Controverſie ended.] VVhat, Infallible, and yet ſuſpect? How now, what, ſuſpitious, George? Other Men's Fallibility then, is as good as the Quakers ſuſpicious Infallibility: Is this your Gift of Diſcerning, and Prophecy? But that's not the worſt of it,

For the Suggeſtion is of a matter abſolutely falſe, Satan owing them a ſhame (as the Proverb goes) hath ſuggeſted a falſe thing, which the Quaker hath here Publiſhed to the VVorld, as true, to their own diſhonour and ſhame.

Beſides, this Quaker h [...]th hereby wronged me, and abuſed another Perſon (whom Mr. Pen, in his winding ſheet, ſays, is H [...]n. Hedworth by Name.)

Sect. 7. Firſt, G.W. hath here groſly wronged me in Publiſhing a Suggeſtion, and that in Print, that I was the Author of the two Books, Entituled, The Spirit of the Quakers Tryed, and Controverſie Ended; when [Page] as, I was not, nay, did not ſo much as ſee or hear of either of them, till after they were in Print. But in theſe Books, Mr. Pen hath (in the Quakers Name) declared to the VVorld there are ſeveral falſhoods, ſcandals, lyes, and Forgeries, and yet here G.W. hath endeavoured to fix and faſten them all (if any ſuch be there) upon me, as ſuggeſting, or repreſenting me to the VVorld as the Author of them.

Now, ye that are Quakers of G.W's. Church, and pretend to be the true Church of God, I will try your Truth, Honeſty, Conſcience, and Juſtice in this partic [...]lar, viz ▪ VVhether you will cauſe G.VV. to make me ſatisfaction for the Offence and wrong he hath done me (in ſpreading abroad a ſuſpition and ſuggeſtion of me, in a Matter that's abſolutely UNTRUE, and UNJUST,) in the ſame manner as he hath done it, viz. in Print; I hereby require it, and demand it of you and him as you profeſs yourſelves to be a true Church.

And that you may not ſay I am, or may be unreaſonable, I hereby Declare, that his bare acknowledgment of the wrong in Print, I ſhall accept of, as ſatisfaction.

And for your further and full aſſurance of the falſhood of the Matter, ‘I do hereby Declare, and ſolemnly Teſtifie, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HOLY GOD, That I, who did write, and was the Author of the late Books, Entituled, The Quakers Quibbles, was not the Author of the two Books, Entituled, The Spirit of the Quakers Tryed, and Controverſie Ended:’ and if there be any need, I doubt not, but that Common Juſtice will Oblige Mr. Hedworth (if called thereunto) to witneſs the ſame thing in the preſence of your Church, he being, it ſeems, [Page] better acquainted with you than I am, or deſire to be with ſuch unreaſonable, diſhoneſt, and diſ-ingenuous People, as ſome of you thus demonſtrate your ſelves to be.

And that you may not make your being unacquainted with me, any Excuſe, of not doing me Right, I ſhall here take that off before hand: For if your Miniſter, G.VV. can abuſe, and wrong me in Print by a falſe ſuggeſtion, though unacquainted with me, he may, and can as well and eaſily give me in Print the ſatisfaction required, though unacquainted with me, viz. onely acknowledge it ſo, you having it evidenced by my own ſolemn Teſtimony, and if that be doubted (though you can have no Reaſon to doubt thereof, it being the Higheſt Teſtimony that Men can give.) And you deſ [...]re further Evidence, ſignifie it to the Book-ſeller, and I preſume Mr. Hedworth will be ſo Juſt, as to clear me, he being the beſt Evidence that it is poſſible for you or any one to have to clear me in this Matter, if ſo be, he was (as Mr. Pen ſays he was) the Author of the two Books before mentioned, but is not the Author of the Quakers Quibbles. So that ye Quakers, can have no juſt Excuſe, and therefore I do again complain to you as wronged, and demand that you ſee that juſt ſatisfaction given me, that I require from G.VV. If not, I'le mark you, and declare you to the world to be Abettors and Publiſhers of falſe ſuggeſtions.

Sect. 8. Secondly, By this, G.VV. hath wronged and abuſed the ſaid Mr. Hedworth, in raiſing, or ſpreading abroad a falſe ſuggeſtion touching him, as if he was the Author of the Book, Entituled, The Second part of the Quakers Quibbles, in which Book G.VV. hath Aſſerted and publiſhed to the world there are groſs perverſions and abuſes, p. 4. Yea, manifeſt perverſions, [Page]lyes, and ſlanders, that he is chargeable with, and as yet he lyes under the Guilt of, p. 2. and ſo repreſents and ſuggeſts to the world Him to be the Author of all thoſe abuſes, lyes, and ſlanders, which in truth he is innocent of: Therefore it is hoped that Mr. Hedworth will be at leaſt ſo juſt to himſelf and his own Name, as to require ſatisfaction for ſuch wrong and injuſtice done him, when as it is another Perſon that ought to be charged with all thoſe manifeſt abuſes, lyes, and ſlanders, if any ſuch there be.

Sect. 9. ‘VVas it the Light within that led thee G.VV. to the publiſhing this ſuſpition, or not? If thou ſayeſt, not; then G. where was the Light, or thy ſincerity to it? If yes, Then thy Light leads thee to publiſh ſuggeſtions of Perſons and things that are falſe. It muſt come from a falſe Spirit, it being a falſe Suggeſtion.’

Sect. 10. I ſhould not have ſaid ſo much about this, but upon theſe two Conſiderations.

1. Becauſe theſe are the Perſons that pretend to Infallibility, and a Gift of Diſcerning MORE than others that are not of their way. ‘If G.W. had indeed a Gift of Diſcerning by the Light within, how wicked or ſilly was he not to inquire of it, whether this ſuggeſtion was true or falſe, and the ſuſpition, right or wrong, before he publiſhed it? Or if he did inquire, and the Light within him could not tell him, what is falſe, and what is true, then how doth he and his Light exceed others, or make him MORE Infallible? How evident here and plain is either this Man's wickedneſs, or vanity in his Pretenſions to a Gift of Diſcerning?’

2. Becauſe of this Man's baſe unworthineſs, and unchriſtian carriage in publiſhing ſuch a thing, when I [Page] had before in a Letter to him ſeriouſly aſſured him, that Mr. Hedworth was a Perſon no more acquainted with me than G. himſelf was; but this Man being ſo guilty himſelf, of aſſerting and writing ſo many untruths and falſhoods, he thinks others are like him, and no more to be Credited: But now let the unbyaſſed Reader ▪ Judge of it, do they think to Grace their Cauſe by ſuch doings? Where is thy Conſcience and Religion, George? Is this the Quakers Chriſtianity? Oh, ſilly Scorner, bluſh, and be aſhamed!

SECT. II. About the Author's NAME and LETTER.

Sect. 1. THE Ingenious and Impartial Reader may eaſily Conclude how he hath managed the reſt of the Work, by pu [...]g ſuch a falſe ſuggeſtion even in his Front, and that ſo baſely, and unchriſtianly: and at the ſame rate he goes on, with theſe words, Looking upon thee to be an unworthy, Cowardly, baſe Spirited Man, who ſhuffles about to hide thy ſelf: How now, Friend? What, ſuch as M.Y. ſaw through the Key-hole, or ſo as one G.W. did in the Matter of Mrs. Bat— when accuſed at T.Y's.? According to thy own way (with Mr. Danſon) this is but a Query Mr. Sleights, thou better knoweſt the Myſtery.

Sect. 2. Thou art very cautious thy Name ſhould be diſcovered.] But alas, poor Men, that are put ſo hard to it, that they are now forc'd to make uſe of ſuch ſlight ſhifts for Excuſes. For the time was when the Quakers could tell you, that even the Bleſſed Name of [Page]JESƲS and CHRIST it ſelf, without (that they call) the Power, are but EMPTY WORDS, Princip. of Truth, p. 12. And yet behold what a conſiderable thing does this Quaker now pretend to make of my Name? Oh the Folly and Hypocriſie of theſe Men! can the Knowledge of an Empty word be of ſuch weight to them? which yet they cannot tell but that they do know; to be ſure they will not own that I am in the Power; what, is this Man ſo baſe then, as to make my meer literal Name to be of more concern to them, than they have declared the meer literal Name of the Lord CHRIST to be, to them? What, wouldſt thou make thy being unacquainted with an EMPTY WORD, an Excuſe? Bluſh for ſhame!

Sect. 3. But to take that falſe Cover from him, and cut all ſhort, I do hereby tell them for a certain Truth, That my real Name is in Print as a witneſs againſt them, and my Books as a Teſtimony againſt ſeveral of their Principles, and let them either Anſwer or Confute them if they can. Though this is more than [...] [...]as Obliged, either by their Civility, or any other Law, that I know of, to tell them: what if I ſhould ask them whoſe Name is to the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, and the Acts of the Apoſtles? whoſe Name is to the Books of Judges, Kings, and Chronicles? Can the Quakers tell with all their Light uncontroulably what Men writ them? And will it not thence appear, it may be both good and honeſt enough, though a Man's Name ſhould be concealed? And neither the Man the worſe, nor his Book the worſe? (what have they to ſay againſt Paul's changing his Name?) Beſides the continual Cuſtom of many good Men amongſt us; nay, and of the Quakers themſelves ſometimes, (if they will admit themſelves to be good.) Pray, G. whoſe Name is [Page] put to that Printed Paper, Entituled, A Paper ſent forth into the World, &c. accuſing the Miniſters of the Nation, and ſeveral Teachers of many groſs things? Pray, who writ The Principles of the Quakers Defendable by Scripture? who is it, that cannot ſee now moſt ſtrange Hypocriſie in theſe Men? And what ſmall twigs they would catch at, and hang upon: any thing rather than to deal honeſtly, and give an Anſwer in plainneſs. Oh Timerous Man, what ſorrowful ſhuffling art thou fain to make uſe of!

Sect. 4. And whereas I ſaid, ſuppoſe the Author be a private Perſon, what if he Dwells fifty or ſixty miles from London, or what if the Author had ſubſcribed M.A. could not W.P. have joyned N. (according to Mr. L's. way of Addition) and then have read it a MAN; and that it was happy that their Light left them in ſo much darkneſs of the Author, that they could not tell whether it was the Author's real Name or no, when they read it; to this G.W. ſays, Haſt thou not bewrayed thy own Equivocation, and that the Author's Name is not Tho. Thompſon?

I Anſwer, no: But I have bewrayed the Quakers Folly and Vanity, and that was one part of my aim, thereby to try Experimentally whether their high boaſted Light would reveal any more to them than others, or ſtand them in stead when they had need of it▪ whereby they might know and have a DISCERNING beyond others.

But alas, Experience, (which is one of the ſureſt Maſters) now tells me, that the Quakers are as eaſily miſtaken, and do as foully deceive themſelves as other Perſons in the World do: Their Light will not ſo much as help them to know really a Man's Name when they read it, except the Perſon himſelf, or ſome [Page]other Man Reveal it to them: And thus we ſee that I or a meer man may Reveal more to them, if we pleaſe, than their Light within.

Sect. 5. Beſides, to make this Man's Folly more manifeſt; how ſilly is he to inquire about my Name, when he himſelf hath turned Baptiſt, and given me a Name, (nay, two or three) though I aſſure you falſe ones, which yet you may (if you pleaſe) take as one Evidence of the Quakers pretended Infa [...]libility, and I think as good as any they have.

Notwithſtanding this man is no wiſer than to tell me, that he hath ground to think who I am, p. 5. and yet pretends the want of that very thing, as a main Reaſon why he does not Anſwer me, Doth he not herein, not onely Quibble egregiouſly, but ingeniouſly confute himſelf?

Sect. 6. As to his Letter and my Anſwer, the Reader hath them both ſet down before, to whoſe judicious Conſideration I leave it, to be further Obſerved.

Firſt, how well the Style of G's. written Letter and his Printed ſheet agrees, ſurely by the Letter, any one may well conclude, that the pretended Civility in the former, was no better than Real Hypocriſie: what Fountain is this within G.W. that ſends forth both ſweet water and bitter? It ſeems G. put on a Sheeps Cloathing in his Letter, though he remained a VVolf inwardly, as appears by his Ravening ſheet: A Cat will be a Cat ſtill, George.

Secondly, Thereby the Reader may alſo Obſerve, how falſely, and Quakerly G.W. repreſents it, where he ſays, That I ſhuffled him off with a Letter, pretending ſome Circumſtances of my Occaſions would not conveniently admit, with ſome other TRIVIAL Allegations, ſays he, whereas they were as weighty, if [Page] not more, than any other, and thoſe Reaſons that he calls TRIVIAL, were ſo weighty Arguments as I think it is poſſible for any to be, to a Perſon that would not offer violence to his own ſenſes and underſtanding, for that was one of the Allegations I made, which he can call TRIVIAL; and now his own virulent and abuſive ſheet may Experimentally ſatisfie others, what uſage (I writ him, I was well enough ſatisfied) I muſt expect from Men of their Kidney, for if they would not ſpare to accuſe and load a man falſely with Reproaches publickly in Print, how can I or any man expect, or promiſe our ſelves, but to be dealt withal as bad (if not worſe, if it may be) in a private Meeting with them.

Sect. 7. But as to what he ſays, of my having taken many hours to write againſt them: I Reply, VV.P. hath ſpent as many, and a great many more, in writing againſt Mr. Faldo, and yet in two Letters, one after another, he could pretend, ſome Circumſtances of his Occaſions would not permit him to meet Mr. Faldo: And one of them was ſuch a Trivial one, viz. a Ceremony, that it was not at all becoming a Quaker: Shall I ſay then of VV.P. a ſtrange put off? ah poor timerous Man! But I can with Truth tell thee, Geo. that my own Houſe is above 44 Miles from London: Now then, poor Shuffler, does not thy catching at ſuch Trivial things demonſtrate that 'tis onely thy own timerouſneſs to Anſwer? Silly Quibbler, is thy ſtore of Evaſions ſo exhauſted, and VV. Pen's too, that ye have nothing left but the Dregs?

Sect. 8. But let the honeſt hearted Reader Judge, if I did not offer him fairly and Civily enough in my Letter, when I told him, that if he would give a Direct Anſwer but to one ſheet of it, I ſhould accept of it: [Page] or if that he would lay aſide all Reflections, and enter ſolely on the MERITS of the Cauſe, I would do ſo too; but no, the Gentleman did not think good, or dare adventure at that; he had rather turn Mr. Sleights.

SECT. III. Of Socianiſm▪ and the Divinity of Chriſt, which the Quakers own.

G.W. p. 5. Why haſt thou appeared ſo much then (lik [...] an Envious Socinian) for the Angry Anabaptiſts, &c?

P. 7. What, is the Socinian, or Biddlean Proſylite Offended at our confeſſing the Divinity of Chriſt, &c?

Sect. 1. CAnſt thou, G. for ſhame cry out againſt Socinians, and yet not Rebuke thy Brother Pen? Thou ſhouldſt firſt look at Home, and reprehend him: At beſt, all that thou ſayeſt againſt them, is indeed againſt him, ſo long as his Sandy Foundation ſtands, without a Recantation, beyond his ſelf contradictory weak Apology.

Shew me ſuch a word of my own, in either of my Books, if thou canſt, as is in thy Brother Pen's, ‘ƲNLESS the Father, Son, and Spirit are three diſtinct NOTHINGS, they MƲST be three diſtinct SƲBSTANCES, and conſequently, three diſtinct GODS.’ Here's a Socinian to the purpoſe, and this whilſt he was a Diſputer for, and [Page] amongſt the Quakers: Beſides, what is that whole Book of his but Socinianiſm? Look no further than the very Title Page, and he tells you it is a Refutation of the Doctrine of Juſtification from, or by an Imputative Righteouſneſs, and of Plenary ſatisfaction, &c. Shew any ſuch Socinian-like aſſertions in my Book, if thou canſt, Geo. Oh, the Folly of this Man! That he ſhould cry out againſt Socinians, and yet Cheriſh ſuch an one among them (and highly Commend him for a Sincere hearted Man too) yea, and ſeveral of the once peculiar Socinian Doctrines amongſt them: would not one think ſuch a Fellow out of his Wits, to write thus foppiſhly? But if the Quakers may hold three or four Socinian Doctrines, and not be Socinians, might not H.H. or another, hold one, and yet be no Socinian?

Sect. 2. But ſuppoſe one be a Socinian, can any judicious Perſon think it is a good Reply, or Anſwer enough to him to cry out, Oh▪ he is a Socinian, a Socinian, a Biddlean; why, truly then, at that rate, it will be Anſwer good enough to a Quaker, to cry out, he is a Quaker, a Quaker, a Quaker; and ſo then they cannot juſtly expect any more from another, and thus they ſhew us a very eaſie way how quickly to Anſwer all the Quakers.

Sect. 3. But I can tell this diſcerning Man more than yet his Light Reveals, as it ſeems, that he is moſt falſe and miſtaken in theſe his Suggeſtions: Not that I will tell him here expreſly whether I am one or no, becauſe I will leave that for a further Tryal of his Gift of Diſcerning, and of his Revelation by the Light within: But I was never Baptized into that Name, till this Quaker turned Anabaptiſt: But if I were one, why ſhould I think it any diſhonour, more than W. Pen, when [Page] he wrote his Sandy Foundation? Beſides, I can freely tell G.W. I had rather a thouſand times be one of them he calls Socinians, than ſuch a Quaker as he is. Foraſmuch as they own ſomewhat REAL in the Lord JESƲS CHRIST, and own him to be a REAL PERSON WITHOƲT ƲS. But this Quaker and others of them, make a meer PHANTASM (or FANCY) of him or his Body, as their former Preachments and Writings give me to underſtand: And accordingly ſome do not apprehend it any difficult thing to make out, that ſome of the grand Quakers, when they will ſpeak more plainly (whatever at other times they pretend) do, or did own, no other CHRIST, than what is indeed and Truth either their own FANCY, SPIRIT, or MIND within, or at beſt, the dictates of their OWN CONSCIENCE, or what ſome Men commonly call the Dictates of Conſcience, or others call Reaſon, Man's Spirit the Mind within, or the Life of Man, or cannot be well and truly differenced, diſtinguiſhed, diſcriminated from them.

And therefore they do but Quibble and Equivocate (to blind the World) when they talk of owning the DIVINITY OF CHRIST. For in Truth, ‘They own no other Divinity of Chriſt, than what is properly, or eſſentially within their OWN BODIES: Neither do they in truth and plainneſs own any other DIVINITY of Chriſt, nor any other CHRIST than what's born into the World with them, when they come forth of THEIR Mothers Wombs, or is manifeſt in THAT individual Fleſh of theirs, as their words and writings inform me:’ And what a rare DIVINITY of Chriſt is this, (think you) that the Quakers own?

[Page]It is poſſible I may declare to you a MYSTERY of the Quakers Doctrine, which you have not yet heard of, or ſo well underſtood, which their ſayings give me to underſtand, viz. ‘That CHRIST and the Divine Nature (or the Divinity of Chriſt) is as truly, properly, or really in the BODY of GEO. FOX, or the BODY of G.W. as it was in THAT BODY born of the VIRGIN MARY; and yet further, That the CHRIST manifeſt in GEO. FOX'S (or ſome Quakers) FLESH, is really, properly, and truly, CHRIST MANIFEST IN FLESH, as that CHRIST was, which was manifeſt in THAT Fleſh at Jeruſalem, Born of the VIRGIN MARY above 1600 Years ago.’

Let them directly and poſitively deny any one of theſe two if they will, and tell us, that what they ſay, is to be taken in the Grammatical ſence to avoid Quibbling Equivocation, if they dare; and 'tis very probable, you may have a moſt full proof of it, and that from their own Mouths or Pens; and therefore when they ſay, ‘That Geo. Fox is not Christ, that's but a Quibble, for they mean then by G. Fox, ONELY his Fleſh, or Body; and ſo they do likewiſe ſay, That the Body of JESƲS, or the Body called JESƲS, is not the CHRIST; and thus no wonder then, if they ſay, that Geo. Fox's Body is not the Christ: But will they ſay, that the LIVING and BETTER Part in Geo. Fox's Body, or in and of GEO. FOX, is not THE CHRIST? No, I never could hear them ſay that:’ So you may ſee what CHRIST it is they own, and what DIVINITY it is they talk of, to deceive ignorant People, and unwary Souls withal, a meer Quibble and moſt horrid Equivocation, no worſe, nor better, notwithſtanding (at other times) [Page] their feigned Pretenſions to hide it. G.W. p. 6. ſays, I tell him ‘of a pretty Medley of Hypocriſie, Quibbling, and Confuſion, and deviating from Scripture-Language in their ſpeaking of the Divine Nature or Word Cloathed with the moſt Holy Man-hood, being the Chriſt: But (ſays G.W.) is this a truth in it ſelf yea or nay?’ What is it (or can it be) now then with him a truth in it ſelf, though it deviate from Scripture-Language? or be a Medley of Hypocriſie, Quibbling, and Confuſion? Oh rare! if this be thy Rhetorick, Geo. where's thy Reaſon and Logick?

SECT. IV. Of Scornful Reflections.

Sect. 1. G W. p. 5. ‘With a multitude of Scornful Reflections upon G.W. W.P. and others, and not onely ſo, but upon the Quakers in general, with which thy Pamphlet is much ſtuffed, ſhort of all ſeriouſneſs and Sobriety.’ To which I Reply, that were it ſo, yet their playing the Fool, would be excuſe enough: why do they Act, Write, or ſpeak things, to render themſelves ſo Ridiculous, if they would not have their Auditors and Spectators be moved at it?

I never heard of any Jack-Pudding, that wilfully made himſelf Ridiculous, but that it was with deſign to raiſe a pleaſant Humour in others; and if G.W. or the Quakers have not the like deſign, it is to be feared they have a worſe: But if they would not have others be moved to Laugh at them, their beſt courſe would be, to learn to be no more Ridiculous, nor write and [Page]Print Non-ſence. For if G. Fox will pretend to be wiſer than (and to Inſtruct) all Europe, and yet is ſuch an Ignoramus, as to call a Father, Mother; a Man, Woman; or a He, She; or not know the Maſculine Gender from the Femi [...]e, is any Man to be blamed for Laughing at [...]im? For my part, I do here ſay, I think not at all: But rather that it may be a Duty, at leaſt very convenient, to Laugh at ſuch vain boaſting Pride, Ignorance, and Ridicu [...]ſity, to ſhame them out of it.

Sect. 2. But ſtill Mr. Sleights, thy Brother Pen, falls under thy laſh, why doſt thou not Reprehend him? Thou oughteſt to have done that in the firſt place: You ſhall, I think, hardly find any uſe more ſcurrilous ſcoffing (in ſuch matters) than he hath done. To inſtance but in three or four (becauſe of brevity) of his ſcornful Reflections, viz.

W.P. Rejoynder to Mr. Faldo, p. 38. I cannot but Obſerve after what a SƲSPECTED RATE the SCRIPTƲRES have been firſt Collected, and then conveyed throu [...]h the ſeveral Ages, &c.

P. 39. From hence we may Obſerve the ƲNCERTAINTY of JOHN FALDO'S WORD OF GOD.

Pen's Rebuke, p. 31. It is the Presbyterians ſpecial Grace, THAT SAVETH; and as for particular Perſons, take this in his Winding ſheet, p. 2. That Little Great Pragmatical T.F. a MONSTER, ALL Tongue and NO Ears

Will ye ſay now, that it's likely any Man ſhould out-do this Pragmaticus (your Brother Pen) for Perſonal Reflections? nay, he gives the Gentlemans Name at Length, though as I hear, one that is a good ſubſtantial Citizen, a Perſon of very good Repute and [Page] Eſtate; beſides the Perſonal Reflection, if one ſhould inquire into the Truth of it ſtrictly, one ſhould find it to be a moſt notorious falſhood, for I have inquired, and do underſtand that that Gent. hath TWO EARS, though W.P. ſay [...] NO EARS: (and ſo might give Occaſion to ſome ſilly ſuſpitious Quakers, to think, as if the Gent. was indeed Born without Ears, or had loſt them) ſo baſe was his ſcurrility, and at beſt W.P. will have need of a Quakers Figure (which muſt needs be the Devils drawn Figure) for to help him out, and excuſe this Scoffing Slander.

If you would have a Scornful Reflection above all that ever I read, a ſilly and Prophane one too, See W. Pen's Winding ſheet, p. 8. ſpeaking of H.H's. Prayer to the Lord JESUS: But indeed, his Margin proves to us, he takes him for A MAN, and none of the BEST LINGƲISTS neither; for lest HE ſhould not well underſtand the Engliſh word delivered, he refers HIM to Tradita in the Margin, though both Tranſlations, and one as good as the other, for the Original word is Greek, which either H. Hedworth does not know, or he doubted the skill of him he prayed to, or elſe he did fooliſhly to Correct by a Tranſlation, the Original word being ready.

Any other Man of Sence (except ſuch a wilful ſcoffing Perverter as W.P.) could not but take TRADITA, to be there put down for the Readers, (and eſpecially ye Quakers) better Information, not for the Lord Chriſt [...]s; and ſo I took it on my firſt Reading it, and could honeſtly take it no otherwiſe, H.H. fearing (as I perceived) you might, or would Quarrel, or diſcant upon the word TRADITION, juſt before uſed by him in his Prayer.

But by this it appears the Quakers are ſo Prophane, [Page] and far from owning the Lord JESUS, the MAN that indeed dyed at Jeruſalem, that they wilfully make a meer Scoff at one's ſerious Worſhip and Prayer to him.

Where's W. Pen's Religion and Conſcience now? Is it all devoured with Lightneſs, and turned into Scorn?

Nay, Mr. Pen is ſuch a Pragmaticus, and a wit, that rather than he would loſe breaking his Jeſt on Jeremy Ives, he would adventure the beſtowing on himſelf the Title of Mouſe-hunter, or Mouſe-catcher; and in time, if he continues, as he hath begun, it is hoped he may as well arrive to the Degree of a Rat-catcher amongſt the Quakers.

P. 4. He ſays, I term my ſelf a ſcornful Fellow: which is a plain and evident falſity, for I did not term my ſelf ſo, but theſe were my words, G.W. knows, IT SEEMS, it is a Scornful Fellow he hath to deal withal; otherwiſe I thought he would not (nor could) have ſtyl'd my Epiſtle a very ſcornful Pamphlet, as he did: Where's this Man's Conſcience now? Or ſo much as common Honeſty? That cares ſo little what he ſays or writes, though never ſo falſe. Is this and the like the Quakers Religion? Is this the Practice of one of the Ʋs Gods People? Is this to pretend Chriſtianity? Or to talk for it at ſuch a Rate? Then many Civil Heathens may, or will go beyond them.

SECT. V. Of the Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit, and of Prophecy.

[Page]

Sect. 1. IT appears G.W. met with two ſuch ſtumbling-blocks (though of his own framing) at the very threſhold (the Epiſtle) of my Book, that he dar'd hardly to enter into the Book it ſelf, onely peeps in, and preſently his Brother Fiſher's Ghoſt preſents it ſelf to him, and thereupon he Runs away from the reſt, as if he was ſcar'd out of his wits.

Without any of the Quaker's Revelation I could fore-tell my Reader how I did expect they would winch and Kick, wynd and twine, to Wyer-draw, or draw back thoſe two Sentences again, but all will not do.

For as to the Firſt, he can poorly and onely give us his bare word without any Proof, That thoſe Spiritual Gifts were ONELY PECƲLIAR to ſome in the Apoſtles days, p. 2. I have proved the contrary, by Teſtimonies and Records Cited in my Second Part of Qu [...]k. Quib. p. 53.

And beſides, if he could do that (which I conceive he will never be able to do) yet his buſineſs would remain ſtill undone: For how will he be able to prove Infallibly, uncontroulably (Sam. Fiſher's word) and certainly, that theſe Gifts of the SPIRIT, viz. the Gift of Infallibility; Diſcerning of Spirits, Immediate Revelation, and Prophecy (or an immediate Gift of Interpretation, and fore-telling things to come, certain [...]y and expreſly, and not conjecturally onely) were [Page] not PECULIAR ALSO (without begging the Queſtion) to ſome Chriſtians and Miniſters in the Apoſtles times, as well as the Gifts of Healing, Tongues, &c. (when beſides, the Gift of Infallibility is one of the matters in Queſtion.)

For the ſame Text that ſays, Tongues ſhall ceaſe, and Knowledge vaniſh, firſt mentions, that PROPHECIES ſhall FAILE, 1 Cor. 13.8. and that in the Plural Number.

Sect. 2. And whereas G. ſays, If he could ſpeak with the Tongues of Men and Angels, that were not a ſufficient evidence (OF IT SELF) to convince Ʋnbelievers: I Anſwer, That is more than he knows; becauſe he never could make Tryal: It might be ſufficient to convince Ʋnbelievers, though not to Save himſelf. But if that were any good Argument againſt the Gift of Tongues NOW, then it is alſo a good Argument againſt the Gift of Prophecy NOW, yea, and againſt FAITH; ſince the Apoſtles very next words in 1 Cor. 13.2. are of the ſame ſtrain; And though I have the Gift of Prophecy — and all Faith, and have not Charity, I am nothing — it profiteth ME nothing; [whatever it may do to others.]

But above all, G.W. ſhews his Folly, when he had ſaid, That the Gift of Tongues, and working Miracles were PECULIAR to the Ap [...]ſtles times: Yet then to talk that he cannot give away the Quakers Cauſe, as to working Miracles in a Spiritual way. Oh Senſeleſs Man, is this thy Rhetorick, or Logick, either? Were not the Gift of Tongues, and all the Miracles that the Apoſtles & the Chriſtians then wrought, Miracles in a Spiritual way? Surely thou dareſt not ſay, but that they were.

And thus you ſee he is as far off as before, he [Page] hath done juſt nothing at all to take away the dint of his own words as a ſtrong Argument againſt himſelf. ‘But he hath here made it worſe in this ſheet, by poſitively LIMITING THE HOLY ONE in thoſe viſible Gifts of his Spirit, ſaying, they were ONELY peculiar to them then. Who hath given this Quaker POWER to LIMIT what Gifts of the Holy Spirit are to be PECULIAR to the Primitive Time, and what are to CONTINUE; and none but ſuch and ſuch as he ſays? Oh Rare, is not this abundantly more Arrogant than for John Perrot, to Subſcribe John onely? Or to write Proverbs, like Solomon?’

SECT. VI. Of the Manifeſtation of the Spirit.

Sect. 1. G W. p. 2. Whereas a Manifeſtation of the Spirit was given to every Man to profit withal: Very good, this makes as much for the Gift of Tongues, and healing the Sick, as Prophecy, ſince they were all Manifeſtations of the Spirit; and if the Gift of Tongues were not COMMON to all, no more was the Gift of Diſcerning, nor of Prophecy COMMON to all (See 1 Cor. 12.29.) And therefore that makes as much againſt the Continuance of BOTH, as ONE: And ſo Geo. by his own Hand, is but ſtill ſt [...]iking at, and Deſtroying his own Cauſe.

Sect. 2. Beſides, I could wiſh for no fuller and fitter Text for my purpoſe and his confutation, than this [Page] he hath Cited; For if the Manifeſtation of the Spirit be given to every Man to Profit withal, then it is a ſtrong Argument againſt the Quakers, that they have it not, or at beſt have it not any more than others, becauſe there appears NO SUCH MANIFESTATION given to them MORE than others have, whom yet they Condemn, which will be eaſily further demonſtrated, if you do but conſider this, viz.

That the Quakers muſt mean, that theſe words of the Apoſtle are to be taken either Ʋniverſally, and that the manifeſtation of the Spirit was, and is given to every one, as well Women, as Men, to ALL Perſons in the World. Or Reſtrictively, to the CHURCHES in the Primitive times (and particularly that at Corinth) to whom the Apoſtle was writing.

And Secondly, Conſider that theſe Manifeſtations of the Spirit, ſo given, muſt be either VISIBLE or INVISIBLE, (though it is apparent enough by the enumeration of thoſe Manifeſtations in the ſubſequent Verſes, that the Apoſtle ſpoke of viſible manifeſtations, ſuch as were viſibly APPARENT to others, and for the Profit of others, without as well as within the Church, and the Greek word [...] which the Apoſtle uſes, ſignifies, plainly and clearly appearing; open, bare, or eaſie to be ſeen, as a Face uncovered.)

Sect. 3. But let the Quakers take it which way they will, it deſtroys their Uſurped Title, and vain Pretences above others, whom they Condemn.

For if they ſay that the Apoſtle meant thereby, that the manifeſtation of the Spirit which he ſpeaks of, is given to every one in the world. Then they at the ſame time grant, it is given to the Church of England, to the Baptiſt Churches, and to me alſo; and if they I ſay, that the manifeſtation of the Spirit is VISIBLE to [Page] others, then thereby they grant they have it not more than others, nay, are without it; becauſe the Quakers have Cenſured and Condemned other Churches as being WITHOUT it, and yet themſelves can produce viſibly NO MORE manifeſtation of the Spirit, than thoſe, whom they ſay are without it.

And if they ſay, the manifeſtation of the Spirit is INVISIBLE to others, then at the ſame time, they grant, the Church of England, or the Baptiſt Churches may have it, though they may not know it, or cannot SEE it, for how ſhould they, if it be INVISIBLE?

Sect. 4. But on the other hand, if they ſay, Theſe words of the Apoſtle are to be taken Reſtrictively, that the manifeſtation of the Spirit is given to every Man in the Churches onely, (as moſt likely in truth it is, as the word IS in the Preſent Tenſe, and the whole ſcope of the Chapter intimates, the Gifts and manifeſtations of the Spirit he mentions being then peculiarly in the Church, and no where elſe that we find, ſuch as the Gifts of Healing, Tongues, &c. mentioned in the very next Verſes, as ſome of theſe manifeſtations ſpoken of, in v. 7.) Then this of the Church at Corinths having the manifeſtation of the Spirit, is no more to the Quakers, than to the POPE OF ROME. For it will not follow, That becauſe the Church at Corinth had the manifeſtation of the Spirit, that the Quakers Church muſt NOW have it, nor becauſe THEY SAY they have it; for at that rate, the Baptist Churches, and ALL the Churches in England might claim it, and who can hinder them?

And beſides G.W. hath barred himſelf of that, and plainly told us, (in his Glory of Chriſts Light within p. 33.) ‘That which was to one State, was not to every [Page] particular State and Condition among the Churches, neither do we read that the Church at Corinth, was to go and make the Epiſtle to the Church at Rome their Rule; Nor that the Churches at Epheſus, Philippi, or Theſſalonica were to go to the Corinthians for Pauls Epiſtles to them, to compare theirs with, and to be their Rule; but that of the Spirit or Light within, to which they were all directed, and which was the Rule of the New Creature whereby the things of God were Revealed and made known unto the Saints.’

Now then what does the Apoſtle Paul's writing to the Church at Corinth [that the Manifeſtation of the Spirit was then given to every Man, to profit withal] ſignifie to G.W. or the Quakers here? They are not the Church at Corinth, nor can they produce viſibly ſuch Manifeſtations of the Spirit, as they did; Nay, G.W. himſelf gives you to underſtand, ſuch viſible manifeſtations were onely peculiar to the Apoſtles times. Thus then you may eaſily ſee how much this ſilly Quibbler is beſide the buſineſs, and hath confuted himſelf

SECT. VII. Of the Gift of Diſcerning of Spirits.

Sect. 1. G W. p. 3. ſays, He cannot give away the Quakers Cauſe, as to the Gift of Diſcerning of Spirits, for they have ſufficient evidence thereof, as a Gift given to divers.

I ſuppoſe the two Germans, Young men, (may be ſome of their moſt ſufficient-evidences) who pretending [Page] to be of great Families, and Convinced of the Truth of Quakeriſm, as I have heard, came (or were Conducted by one S.C. a Quaking Miniſter) into England, and were Entertained at London, at the common Charge of the Quaking Friends of Devonſhire-Houſe for a long time. The Quakers paid for their Board, and bought them Apparel, Glorying in their Converts: But in proceſs of Time, it ſeems theſe Men in the Proſecution of their Debaucheries, fell at variance, and each of them fearing to be detected by the other, charged one another, in a Meeting of Quakers, with great and notorious Crimes; did they not detect one another even of haunting of Bawdy-Houſes, W — Pilfring, &c. even out of thoſe Houſes where they had been entertained? Was not here in the mean while an Excellent Gift of Diſcerning, among the Quakers?

Sect. 2. Another Inſtance and pregnant proof I have heard of alſo: One W.W. being a Miniſter among the Quakers for many Years, and an Active man in their Cauſe, yea, and a Sufferer for the ſame, was not diſcern'd, nor Diſcovered by the Quakers, till being troubled in his own Conſcience, he Confeſſed himſelf, to have Lived in uncleanneſs, &c.

Who is it will not think now that they have a moſt Excellent Diſcerning of Spirits? And that they are ſo very wiſe, and have ſuch a Rare Gift, they can tell any thing that's told them, and ſo can others.

SECT. VIII. Of Ʋnbelievers, Muggleton, &c.

[Page]

Sect. 1. G W. p. 3. Haſt not thou plainly implyed th [...] ſelf to be an Ʋnbeliever, who wants ſuch a Sign to be ſhewn thee, to evidence that WE are Divinely Inſpired?

Obſerve, 1. How ſillily does this Mr. Sleights ſcribble of my implying my ſelf to be an UNBELIEVER of their Divine Inſpiration, when I have often directly confeſt it, and now do it once more, ‘That I do not believe that G.W. nor the Quakers are Divinely inſpired, ſo as the true Apoſtles and Miniſters of Chriſt were;’ and I am well aſſured, I have very good Reaſon for it, viz. Becauſe they cannot Evidence it, as the true Apoſtles did.

This was one of the firſt things I writ them, that I did not, nor could poſſibly upon any good and certain grounds, believe the Quakers Pretences to a Commiſſion from Heaven, Immediate Revelations and Inſpirations, MORE than Muggletons's except they could produce ſomewhat conſiderable MORE than Muggleton could, and therefore I prayed them to ſhew me what they had, and to tell me but this, ‘Why I might (and ought undoubtedly) believe them and their Commiſſion, MORE than Muggleton's, or the Baptiſts? Which I am ſure is a very Reaſonable and modeſt Requeſt; for otherwiſe, I ſhould have no BETTER ground for my FAITH in Believing a Quaker, than a Baptist, or Muggleton.’

2. But I do believe, and declare to all the World I am a BELIEVER, that the Apoſtles Peter and [Page] Paul, and the true Apoſtles and Miniſters of CHRIST, had Divine Inſpiration, and that they both could, and did Evidence it. Though I do NOT BELIEVE that the Apoſtle Geo. Fox, nor the Apoſtle G.W. nor the Miniſter W. Pen, nor other pretended Apoſtles, or falſe Miniſters, have ſuch Divine Inſpirations; becauſe they do not, nor can, [...]O Evidence it, as the true real ones did: And let any Quaker amongſt them all, Anſwer this if he can.

Muggleton and the Church of Rome ſay they have Divine Inſpirations, as well as the Quakers, doſt thou, G.W. (or any of the Quakers) BELIEVE it? No doubt I may ſafely preſume, you will ſay, No: Why then art not thou an UNBELIEVER, as well as I, for want of ſuch a ſign to be ſhewn thee by them to evidence indeed that they are Divinely Inſpired? For I'le be ſo Charitable as to think, that if they could produce ſuch Evidence, that they were Divinely Inſpired, ſome of the Quakers at leaſt would BELIEVE Muggleton, ſince it is very Certain, that ſome one (or more) that was of the Quakers for ſeveral Years, yet now is turn'd Muggletonian, and believes him without any ſuch Evidence.

3. But beſides, how poor and pitiful would this Quaker hereby repreſent his Church to be, as if it had not, or could produce no ſign as Evidence to Convince UNBELIEVERS, that they (Quakers) are Divinely Inſpired, MORE than what a Papiſt, or a Muggleton (an Impoſtor) can do: Oh ſad! to be proud, and yet Beggerly; proud in pretences and boaſtings, but Beggerly in the Actual Demoſtration of the Spirit, and of Power.

Sect. 2. G.W. p. 7. Note, that this Man boggles at, and evades my eight plain Queſtions, [in p. 22, [Page] 23. of Qua. Plainneſs] about the Son of God.

And note, Reader, this man [viz. G.W.] Boggles at, and Evades five whole Sections, and an Advertiſement of twelve particulars, that is, in ſhort, my whole Book.

Is not this an Honeſt Perſon think you, thus to cry — Firſt?

Is it poſſible that this man could have Ʋnderſtanding and Eyes enough to ſee this, and not the other, without SPECTACLES? or without being taken by the Sleeve, (though not ſo wrathfully or ruggedly as he pulled W. King) to ſhew him his Face in a Glaſs? But it ſeems the Caſe is altered, quoth Ployden.

This man hath boggled at, and evaded a whole Section about the Son of God, the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, his Perſon, his Nature, &c. He hath boggled at, and evaded another Diſcourſe, about the Spirits Evidence and ſufficiency, the Gifts of the Spirit, Miracles, &c. Jeremy Ives did but let a poor ſorry Mouſe (ſo called) run up and down the ſtreets, and their Zealo [...] man, and great Doctor, W. Pen, ran preſently aft [...]; but a Diſcourſe about the Lord Jeſus Chriſt (though immediately Directed to W. Pen) yet he hath declined, and G.W. hath ſlighted, contemned, and openly run away from.

However I can inform him better, there was no occaſion for me, either to boggle at, or evade thoſe Queſtions, I finding they were demanded of the Baptiſts, but I was none; and now G.W. himſelf ſays, neither did he take me for any then, (but how palpable a falſity that is let any Peſron but conſider his own words, in Qua. Plainneſs, p. 35. The Baptiſts may be aſhamed of ſuch groſs and abuſive Inſinuations as this, comparing the Quakers and Muggletonians — AS[Page]WHERE IT IS SAID, Muggleton ſays, he is one of the two Witneſſes, and the Quakers ſay, they are the true Witneſſes, &c. Now, it was I that ſaid ſo THERE, and I ONELY. Thus then he made me a Baptiſt, now no Baptiſt, but Socinianized, anon a Socinian, yea, a Biddlean Proſylite; Oh Excellent Diſcerning Quaker! I wonder what his huge Gift of Diſcerning, will TRANSFORM me into next; (may I not be afraid of Withcraft, or that he is one of the Heatheniſh gods? I think not.)

But 2. G.VV. Had not plainly and directly Anſwered to mine, which he had already undertaken to Anſwer, but inſtead thereof he meerly Trifles, Quarrels, Contemns, Retorts Queſtions, &c. And therefore till that be done, no Anſwer could, or can be duly, or in Courſe expected to thoſe new Queſtions: But if he pleaſes to give me an honeſt, plain, and direct Anſwer to what I have writ, without Evading, or Quibbling, I will promiſe him he ſhall have an Anſwer [...] [...]hoſe Queſtions, without Boggling or Evading, rather [...]an that ſhall be any Excuſe to him.

Sect. 3. G.VV. p. 8. Haſt thou managed the Baptiſts Cauſe well, in ſaying, they do not pretend to ſuch Immediate Revelations, Inſpirations, Infallibility, &c. contrary to their former Teſtimonies?

Obſerva. It is not for me to boaſt of my ſelf therein, neither deſire I, but for ought yet appears, it is managed well enough, as I apprehend, and better than thou haſt managed the Quakers Cauſe by Sleights, for,

1. Thou doſt not ſet down the place, nor page, in their Books, nor ſo much as cite their own words, that one may know where to find thoſe former Teſtimonies thou talkeſt of, and ſee how honeſt thou art therein, [Page] for to tell thee truly, I can give but little Credit to thee now, ſeeing what thou art, and haſt manifeſted thy ſelf in Print to be.

2. But if thou doſt find any ſuch Ancient Teſtimonies, I dare ſay, n [...]ither you nor I ſhall there find that they Teſtifie they pretended to them AS the Quakers do, for ſo I ſaid.

3. But yet if that were to be found, why may it not be as Lawful for them to decline from what many of them pretended at firſt, as for the Quakers to decline from what many of them pretended at firſt, as I have Inſtanced abundantly in ſeveral particulars, in this Third Part of the Quak. Quib? What, is it a vertue in You, and a vice in Them? Surely they might better do it, (a hundred times) than ye Quakers, becauſe you pretended to a Gift of INFALLIBILITY, but none of thoſe men, whoſe Teſtimonies you make mention of, did ſo, that I underſtand.

SECT. IX. Of the Quakers Art of DIRECTING the INTENTION, ſometimes directly Contrary to their Expreſs words, and ſometimes quite beſide their true, proper, common, and Ordinary import and Signification.

I Having in my former Book onely hinted this, and Confined my ſelf to one Inſtance, for fear of ſwelling it to too big a bulk, it hath been intimated to me, that ſome diſcreet Perſons wiſhed I had been larger therein, which I could deſire ſome abler Perſon would undertake, it being a Theme whereon one may have [Page] Scope enough, if he does but conſider what he Reads in the Quaker's Books.

But the ſame Reaſon that prevented me then, will in a great meaſure do the ſame ſtill, viz. The fear I have of exceeding the brevity that was deſign'd, therefore I muſt now give you but a few Inſtances more (of many that I could produce) and beg your Excuſe, if it makes this longer, than otherwiſe it would, or ſhould have been.

Sect. 1. That which I Inſtanced, was a moſt eminent and remarkable one, in no leſs Caſe than that of BLASPHEMY in it ſelf; Solomon Eccles, one of their Miniſters, did not onely write privately, but thought fit to Publiſh it in Print to the World, That it may be SAID, yea and SO ſaid of GEORGE FOX, AS it was ſaid of CHRIST, that he was in the World, and THE WORLD WAS MADE BY HIM, and the World knew him not, whom John ſaid, HE WAS NOT, as you may ſee more largely in the Second Part Quak. Quib. p.93, 94.

G.W. In his Serious Search, p. 58. In this matter undertakes (according to the Jeſuitical Art) to DIRECT Solomon Eccles's INTENTION, and gives us to underſtand, that indeed Solomon Eccles did not INTEND as he writ and publiſhed, but though he ſaid it of GEO. FOX, yet (ſeeing People take notice of the Blaſphemy of it, and of the Divine Honour that they give by ſuch words to G. FOX, to the ſhame and diſ-credit of their Cauſe) he INTENDED it onely of CHRIST; ſo he ſpake or writ one thing, and meant another, which yet, in ſincere-hearted W. Pen's ſence (at another time, he can tell you) is no better than to be one of the worſt of KNAVES; they are his own words, in his Rebuke, [Page] p. 8. And ſo let him ſhare it amongſt them, if they pleaſe.

Sect. 2. You have another ingenious one in this ſheet of G.VV's. p. 4. concerning FIGURES; yea, even when they are ſpeaking of Figures, and againſt Figures, they ſpeak by a Figure: One while the Quakers tell us, ALL Figures were ended by Chriſt; but now this Quaker is at the Old Jeſuitical Art again, of DIRECTING THE INTENTION, and gives you to underſtand, that though the Quaker ſays, ALL Figures, yet he does not INTEND all, but onely SOME, viz. The Figures under the Law.

I need not onely ſet his Quondam Maſter Fiſher to whip him for this, Ruſticus ad Acad. p. 142. So on this ſcore our Scribes ſcape ſcot-free still by their SHIFTS.

To meet with Quakers [we] need never doubt,

Nor need [we] when we meet them fear a rout;

If all's but ſome, Out's In; and In's for out,

Then they are always In, and never Out.

‘Thus (ſays Fiſher) the Seed of the Serpent ſaves it ſelf alive in its Enmity against the Holy Seed, not ſo much by PLAIN DOWN-RIGHT DEALING — as by ſhameful SHIFTINGS FROM SENCE TO SENCE, miſerable marchings from meaning to meaning, ſo that one can hardly know well where to have them, nor how to find them, nor what they mean.’

‘Then he complains, But as for us, we may not ſafely WITHOUT THEIR CENSURES, ſo much as take the Scriptures to be (what themſelves [Page] are neither afraid, nor aſhamed to make them, viz.) a LESBIAN RULE, and NOSE OF WAX, which may be made (yet ſcarcely is by any more than themſelves) to ſhew it ſelf in 7, 8, 9 ſhapes at once. [Oh brave Fiſher!] And though they dare Diſpute themſelves, and Argue any way from Figurative and Forreign, and proper and improper, Literal or Myſtical meanings and Importments of words and Phraſes, yet they can well digest, or diſpenſe with none of all this in us. and LEAST OF ALL, when we do (as we moſtly, or EVER do) keep to the true, honeſt, Ordinary, and plain purport of the words, as they lye OPEN AND CLEAR to every Ordinary and Common Capacity, that is willing both to know, own, and do the Truth.’ So far he; and need any Man any more to Confute and Confound this Figurative Quaker?

Sect. 3. Nay, and they undertake, not onely to DIRECT their own Friends. INTENTIONS, but other Mens alſo, ſuch Maſters of it are they; as hear G.VV. again, p. 4. If Quakers uſe Figures, either Metonymies, Metaphors, or Ironies, Oh then it is uſed, and INTENDED in a Serious Sence: But if T. Hicks, or another, uſe the ſame, or the like, in the Title or words of their Books; Oh, then it is INTENDED as palpable Slander, or DESIGNED Forgery.

Thus indeed Geo. is ſo far from clearing of himſelf, by his ſilly Anſwer, from the dint of his Second Sentence againſt himſelf, that all he ſays, can amount but to thus much, viz. ‘That T. Hicks ſpeaks, or writes words, which are Scoffing, ſland [...]rous Lyes, uſed in a Scoffing or Ridiculous ſ [...]nce: [Page] And the Quakers ſpeak, or write words, which are ſerious Lyes, uſed in a ſerious ſence: Taking both their words equally and alike in their Natural, Proper, and Grammatical Sence, without Reſpect of Perſons’ (which once I am ſure the Quakers pretended much to abhor, and nothing worſe, or more unjuſt, than Reſpect of Perſons.)

For if the firſt Accuſation alone will ſo alter and vary the Intention, and make a Man Guilty, then the Quakers are as liable ſo to be made by T. Hicks, as T. Hicks by them, yea, and rather more, becauſe the Quakers are Originally the firſt Perſons Accuſed, and impeached by T. Hicks; in his firſt Dialogue, and this Renders G.W's. Cauſe very lame, and ſorely wounds it.

And which is worſt of all, Mr. Sleights is ſo willing to Sleight over this, that he ſlips by his own Prophet's words, which yet ſtood as fair to be ſeen as any there, on the very top of the laſt Page in the Epiſtle, which if he had ſaid any thing to the purpoſe, he ſhould have cleared; for there G. Fox ſpeaks Directly of Figurative Speeches, viz. VVe Charge thee ſhew us a Verſe in Scripture that ſpeaks ſuch Language, and where ONE WORD may be put for ANOTHER by METALEPSIS; and ſo leave People in Doubts and Questions.

What ſayeſt thou now, Geo? What, couldſt thou not ſee this? If the next time thou writeſt, thou canſt not, I will write to the Book-ſeller to buy a pair of SPECTACLES for thee to help thy Eyeſight.

Now, for him thus ſlily to avoid this (if he could) by a Figure, ſurely cannot be much better than one of his Devils drawn Figures.

[Page] Sect. 4. Another Excellent (rather moſt groſsly falſe) one, he gives us in this thread-bare ſheet of his ſleight ſtuff, p. 7. where he DIRECTS his quondam Maſter, Sam. Fiſher's INTENTION, though dead, and Directly contrary to his words, yea, the main Scope, Bent, and Intent of his Book.

Well, now good Readers, I am fully ſatisfied G.VV. is a wicked Man, and of no good Conſcience, but of an Audacious Confidence, for otherwiſe he could never have had the face to publiſh ſuch a thing, that all Perſons that can but Read Engliſh, and underſtand what they Read, may detect his falſeneſs in; as here,

Sam. Fiſher, in his Appendix, p. 21. ſpeaking of the Scriptures, and the Scripture Text, ſays thus, in theſe very words, VVhich Tranſcriptions and Tranſlations, were they never ſo certain and entire, by anſwering to the firſt Original Copies, yet are not CAPABLE to be (to all Men) any other than a LESBIAN RULE, or NOSE OF WAX, [now, if ſo far be not a plain Aſſertion, I never ſaw, nor heard any in my Life: Then he goes on in his Proof, or Confirmation of it, as his word Foraſmuch denotes,] FORASMUCH as even WHERE MEN HAVE THEM (as half the world has not) they are lyable to be WRESTED and▪ Actually twiſted twenty ways, &c.

Now comes G.VV. with the Art and Myſtery of Jeſuitiſm, and would DIRECT Fiſher's INTENTION, By asking me thus, ‘Haſt thou dealt Honeſtly and Truly in this? Was it S.F's. poſitive Aſſertion concerning the Scriptures THEMSELVES, &c.? Judge, ſerious Reader (ſays [Page]he) whether it be S. Fiſhers own poſitive Aſſertion, that the Scriptures are a Noſe of Wax (IN THEMSELVES) or whether that they are not RATHER made ſo (or no better) by ſuch as wreſt and twiſt them?’ And then hath the wicked Confidence to call me Manifeſt Perverter, yea, and to take the LORDS Name in vain upon it too, ſaying, Surely the Lord will Rebuke him, and all perverſe Oppoſers and Perverters.

What a ſad thing is it to have to do with Men thus hardned, falſe, and impudent, which I will ſhew to you as Clear, as I think it is poſſible, for any words to be Clear, in three Particulars.

1. This Man turns Perverter and Forger himſelf, and then he Charges me with it; for Firſt, to the word [Scriptures] he adds theſe words, [THEMSELVES] and [in THEMSELVES:] But if he, or any Man can find thoſe words [Scriptures themſelves, and in themſelves,] as my words in that whole Book, I will never truſt my own Eyes more: He firſt foyſtes in words of his own to ſerve his Deſign (which yet they will not) and then falls abuſing me, as if I had abuſed Mr. Fiſher: Oh horrible, add words of thy own, Geo! and then Charge me with the Guilt of Perverſion and abuſe, if it were any ſuch thing, as it would not be neither.

2. For though I did not ſay ſo much then, yet now I find I ſafely may, and will ſay it poſitively, That Sam. Fiſher did ſpeak or write it with Reflection upon the Scriptures THEMSELVES, as well as upon the Miniſters (who had the Scriptures) going Round, &c. Yea, rather MORE [Page](if not only) at that place in Reſpect of the Scriptures themſelves, and do thou, G.W. bring him honeſtly off if thou canſt.

The Queſtion then is, Whether Sam. Fiſher's words (which are his Aſſertion mentioned) are of, or about the Scriptures THEMSELVES? And 'tis moſt certain, that no Man that is honeſt, and hath his Senſes and Reaſon, and can Read Engliſh, that can doubt of that, when he ſays, WHICH Tranſcriptions and Tranſlations, it can be nothing elſe but the Scriptures themſelves; Becauſe neither we the Miniſters, nor the Quakers have any other thing for the Scriptures themſelves, But ONELY theſe Tranſcriptions or Tranſlations; If the Quakers have any other than Ours (Commonly called the Bible) which are all and every one of them, either Tranſcriptions or Tranſlations; let them tell us what, and which it is, if they can. And when S.F. ſays [were THEY never ſo CERTAIN and entire by ANSWERING to the FIRST ORIGINAL Copies.] Now, is it not moſt Manifeſt, that it is the Scriptures themſelves he here ſpeaks of? Nay, is it poſſible to be any thing elſe, that can ſo certainly and entirely Anſwer the firſt Original Copies? Oh wicked Man, bluſh at thy Impudence, that wouldſt go about to make us believe that S.F. did not here ſpeak of the Scriptures themſelves; Tell us what it was then? To be ſure thou wilt not ſay, that it was the Miniſters Rounds, Confuſions, nor yet their Interpretations, that either do, or might ſo Anſwer to the firſt Original Copies: for as to their Rounds and Interpretations, S.F. Rebukes [Page] and Scoffs at them.

But were the Tranſcriptions, or Tranſlations (which are, and are onely the true Scriptures themſelves, which we and the Quakers now have, that ever was heard of) never ſo certain and entire (ſays S.F.) by Anſwering to the firſt Original Copies, yet are not Capable to be (to all Men) any other than a Lesbian Rule, or NOSE OF WAX; Foraſmuch, as even where Men have them, &c. Here he comes to bring his Proof (as he thinks) of this his Doctrine.

3. Beſides the Abſurdity that unavoidably follows ſuch a Construction, as G.W. would put upon S.F's. words, not onely evinces it to be falſe, and not poſſible to be conſiſtent with the reſt of his words: But alſo ſhews G.W's. Conſtruction to be ſo ſilly, that if it were right and true, yet would it not do the Quaker's a Pin's worth of Service: For, have not the Quakers the Scriptures as well as the Miniſters? And S.F. ſays, That even where men have them, (even there, without excepting the Quakers themſelves) they are lyable to be wreſted, and Actually twiſted twenty ways by Interpreters.

Have not the Quakers then got much by this, think you? For their Brother Samuel hits them and all that have the Scriptures, without excepting One; ſo that now the Quakers muſt of Neceſſity either deny themſelves to be Men, or ſay, they have not the Scriptures: Or otherwiſe, if the Quakers are Men, and have the Scriptures, they are lyable to be wreſted, and Actually twiſted twenty ways by Interpreters, WHOSE Expoſitions, Sences, [Page]and meanings, (which are as many and various as the Thoughts, Conceits, and Inventions of THE MEN are, who Comment upon them) muſt be the Rule to ſuch (without excepting any one Quaker) as can Read them neither in Hebrew and Greek, nor in their own Mother Tongues, If Sam. Fiſher is to be Credited, either by us, or them; and ſo ſtill they muſt indeed own, what he Aſſerts, That the Scripture can be no Rule to THEM, but a LESBIAN RULE, nor is CAPABLE to be any other than a NOSE OF WAX.

And if it can be no other to them that have the Scriptures, then certainly it cannot be ſo much (or nothing at all) to them that have it not, and never had it; and S. Fiſher himſelf tells us, that half the World has them not.

Moreover, S.F. ſhews us in above Twenty ſeveral places, the impoſſibility, or unfitneſs of the Scriptures to be a RULE, by Reaſon of the variab [...]eneſs of them, the alteration and Change that hath been in them, even the Scriptures themſelves. But that it is too long, you ſhould have it here Tranſcribed; do but look in the Second Paragraph of this Section, and in the Tenth Section fore-going: Now then, let the Serious Reader Judge, whether I have not moſt Reaſon to Cry out, What a Manifeſt Perverter is this Man! The Lord Rebuke him, and all perverſe Oppoſers and Perverters.

What, cannot a Man of Skill (as G.W. is) in this Jeſuitical Art of Directing the Intention, do? Oh, Quakers! REPENT, REPENT of ſuch wicked doings; lo [...] upon it as you will, God and good Men will abhor ſuch baſe, falſe, indirect, [Page] and impudent ways. I ſhall onely deſire my Reader at his leiſure to peruſe a Book Printed ſome Years ſince, Entituled; THE MYSTERY OF JESƲITISM, Compare it with this Myſtery of the Quakers, and conſider how near they come. Good Wits (you know) uſe to jump; the Jeſuites and the Quakers; we know the Jeſuites are Wits, and you may be confident the Quakers will ſay themſelves are no Fools: This I leave with them, and ſhall take my Leave of them for the preſent, till ſome fitter Occaſion, and then it is not impoſſible they may have it in ſome other Mode, if they do not like of this. I did not ſtudy ſo much to pleaſe them as to deal Faithfully with them; nor to flatter them, but to be plain with them: Be not over-Angry.

Open Rebuke is better than ſecret Love.

And ſharp Maladies require ſharp Remedies.

Poſt-ſcript.

[Page]

Kind Reader,

THE Buſineſs betwixt the Quakers and Me is not ſo much Matter of Difficult or Intricate Diſpute, as Matter of Fact, and of Ocular Demonſtration, which is, or may be plain to the very Eyes or Ears of Perſons of mean Capacities, as well as Learned: For my ſo oft reiterated Grand Objection againſt them all along my firſt two Treatiſes, is in effect no more but this,

‘That they (Quakers) do not ſay, nor viſibly produce ANY MORE, than the Baptiſt Churches, or the pretended Prophe [...] Muggleton does, or can do, whom yet they Condemn; the one for FALSE, and the other as an IMPOSTOR.’

‘G.W. As in the Name of the Quakers, affirms, THEY CAN, AND DO, or to that purpoſe.’

‘Upon this, I require of him, his Proof, Evidence, or Inſtances: (But as yet cannot obtain them, and ſome thin [...] never ſhall.)’

Now, this would be plain, and is not to trouble Peoples Heads or Minds with long and dubious Diſputes, about nice School-diſtinctions, nor abſtruſe[Page]Matters; WHEREFORE if the Quakers deſign to give any Real and Direct Anſwer to ME, they ought (if they dare to go the plaineſt way, and deal honeſtly therein) ‘To ſet down on one ſide, what the Baptiſts and Muggleton ſay, and can viſibly produce for themſelves; and on the other ſide ſet down what they (the Quakers) do ſay, and viſibly produce for themſelves.’

Thus the Work would be ſhort, the Quakers need do no more at preſent than this, in Anſwer to the Firſt and Second Part of the Quakers Quibbles; neither do I deſire any more at preſent of them, thereunto. And this I pray my Countrey-men and them to take NOTICE, how Reaſonable my Requeſt is, and how I deſire to prevent (that they may have no Colour nor Excuſe for troubling the World and me with) any more of their Impertinent, and ſilly ſcribling, not at all to the purpoſe.

If they undertake to make any Anſwer to Me, NOTE, that this above is the main thing, and the very MATTER, they muſt Anſwer to, or elſe it is not an Anſwer to ME, nor to WHAT I have wrote, but an Anſwer to SOMEWHAT elſe, or onely an EVASION.

And they cannot, now either honeſtly or juſtly refuſe to do this, becauſe G.W. hath already undertaken (for them) to give me a plain Anſwer to my firſt Treatiſe, (which contains this,) which he hath not yet done, as I have fully ſhew'd in my Second Part, where, and how he falls ſhort. THEREFORE that they may not pretend Ignorance or forgetfulneſs, I do ſignifie it to them ONCE MORE, (Becauſe I would fain beat this into their [Page] Heads, finding they will not yet let it enter their Crowns, it conſtrains me to tell it them over and over again) and do deſire him or them that ſhall go about to write, to Read this, and take NOTICE of it in the firſt place.

And then when they have honeſtly performed this (that they may not pretend any Excuſe) Let them write what, and as much as they will about any other Matter in difference betwixt us, I hope it ſhall find no other than a kind Reception with me.

THIS any plain Ordinary Man, that hath but the Common uſe of his Ʋnderſtanding, Eyes, or Ears, may be able to ſee, or bear, and Judge of, viz.

‘Whether, and what the Quakers do ſay, and viſibly produce MORE than thoſe others (whom THEY CONDEMN) do, or can ſay and produce. For otherwiſe no Man can certainly, and uncontroulably give and produce any BETTER ground for his Faith in Believing a QUAKER, than a BAPTIST, or MUGGLETON.’

But I doubt this is too honeſt and plain-hearted for the Quakers ever to do, and ſome think one may as ſoon expect the Great Turk to turn Quaker, as the Quaker to do this; they knowing that this would touch them to the Quick, and lay them too open, however I lay it before them, and leave it with them, that all good and ſober Men may ſee what Plainneſs, Honeſty, Fidelity, or Chriſtianity is in them.

‘I would Adviſe all Perſons, that are, or ſhall be concerned in Diſpute with a Quaker, to bring [Page] them to this plain matter and Method, and hold them cloſe to it: Or if any Quaker ſpeaks to you, or would perſwade you to come to them, or to turn to their Church or way, or does but Aſſert that their Church is true, and the Church of ENGLAND, or the Baptiſts Churches falſe, do but keep them cloſe to THIS, and you ſhall, without doubt, quickly find them weary of you, and willing to leave that Diſcourſe, ſooner than by any other way or Arguments that ever I heard; becauſe theſe are plainer and eaſie to be diſcern'd: And this I here intimate to you, as my ſincere and Cordial Advice. The Benefit of it you will be better able to Judge when you have Experienced it:’ Which that you may do, and over-come all Deceivers, Hypocritical Pretenders, and their Temptations, is my earneſt Prayer.

FINIS.

§

[Page]

THE Printer hath Omitted to put the Citations of the Quakers words, in an Italick, or different Letter (as they ought to have been) through the moſt part of this Treatiſe; therefore the Reader is deſired to take the more heed, which are their words, and how far the Citations out of their. Books go, that ſo he may not run into any miſtake thereby: And that he would Correct theſe Errata's of the Preſs.

PAge 4. Line 24. Read. of the. p. 6. l. 2. for was, r. were. p. 18. l. 13. for are, r. were. p. 9. l. 9. for as, r. at. l. 25. for [...]s, r. are. p. 13. l. 12. add 15. l. 20. r. man's. p. 15. l. 24. dele in. l. 26. r. ſpoke or writ. l. 28. r. teachings. p. 17. l. 4. add or. l. 21. add of. l. 28. for, and motions, r. to the anoynting. p. 20. l. 3. r. whining-Spirit. p. 22. l. 24. r. they. p. 32. l. 12. where's, r. where be. p. 40. l. 26. and, r. and the. p. 43. l. 32. r. To.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

The Quakers quibbles in three parts : first set forth in an expostulatory epistle to Will. Pfnn [i.e. Penn] concerning the late meeting held to Barbycan between the Baptists and the Quakers, also the pretended prophet Lod. Muggleton and the Quakers compared : the second part, in reply to a quibbling answer to G. Whiteheads, entituled The Quakers plainness ... : the third part, being a continuation of their quibbles ... / by the same indifferent pen.

Thompson, Thomas.

Edition statement

1675

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2007-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A62427

ID [STC]

Wing T1013

ID [STC]

ESTC R41153

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

19645221

ID [OCLC]

ocm 19645221

ID [VID]

109270

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A62427)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 109270)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1695:3)

Source

— The Quakers quibbles in three parts : first set forth in an expostulatory epistle to Will. Pfnn [i.e. Penn] concerning the late meeting held to Barbycan between the Baptists and the Quakers, also the pretended prophet Lod. Muggleton and the Quakers compared : the second part, in reply to a quibbling answer to G. Whiteheads, entituled The Quakers plainness ... : the third part, being a continuation of their quibbles ... / by the same indifferent pen., Thompson, Thomas., Hedworth, Henry., Penn, William, 1644-1718..

Extent

38, [10], 101, [11], 99, [1] p.

Printed for F. Smith ...,. London :: 1675.. (Each part has special t.p., and first part has 1674 imprint.) (Epistle to William Penn signed: Thomas Thompson.) ("H. Hedworth is also suspected of being the author of 'The Quakers Quibbles'"--Smith, J. Bibliotheca anti-Quakeriana, London, 1873.) (Errata: p. [10] before pt. 2, p. [1] at end.) (Imperfect: torn, cropped, stained and tightly bound, with slight loss of print) (Reproduction of original in the Harvard University Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.