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 Second Part OF THE Quakers-Quibbles. (Book 2)

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 An∣swer an Epistle directed to Will. Penn, stiled, THE QUAKERS-QUIBBLES, and therein to demon∣strate the QUAKERS-PLAIN∣NESS; 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 Qua∣ker, 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

of this man's Moderation and Ingenuity; wh•••• in his pretended Answer, instead of impartia¦lly 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, Quib∣bles, deceitful Dealing, and Hypocritical Pretences; absurd, unjust, partial, scornfully aggravated, scanda∣lous and wicked; savouring of meer Ignorance and Envie; Idle Quibbling and envious Canting; Irreve∣rent 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, En∣vious 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 indif∣ferency, moderation, or impartiality between us? or that such work will make a Pacification or end the Con∣troversie? 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, Blasphe∣mer,

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 occasi∣on of all this; no more but a Ministers sending or pro∣posing 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 so∣ber man's! The Book is intituled ISHMAEL AND HIS MOTHER CAST OUT INTO THE WIL∣DERNESS 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 SPI∣RIT 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

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 BLASPHE¦MY — 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 An¦swer 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

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 pre∣tences 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 sur∣prise of passion (which might have been the more ex∣cusable) or upon the highest provocation; but upon such deliberation as Men use to take in writing of Books, and upon a Consultation and Appro∣bation 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 imme∣diate Revelation, and infallible Inspiration, God pre∣serve 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

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 Spi∣rit 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•• ma∣licious Spirit reigns most now? which is the best lan∣guage, 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

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 An∣swer 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 reproa∣ches, or stopt with Popular Cla••ors, or undermi∣ned by the secret Combinations of its Adversaries, or supprest by Injustice or Partiality; I confess these implacable and envious Men, who are chiefly concern∣ed against us, would have had the day; and their Ini∣quity been triumphant, and remained uncontroula∣ble. 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 Re∣ligion 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 Spi∣rits 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 Perse∣cuting 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

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 se∣cret 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, Re∣ligion, 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 there∣of 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 Cove∣tous, 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 Chur∣ches 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 suf∣ferings themselves; how many of the Church of En∣gland (which you have so much condemned) have ex∣pir'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

time! you only had some few happened to dye in Pri∣son, 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 mer∣cy. Thus you see clearly, that in this Proof or Evi∣dence, 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 know∣ledg. 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 pre∣tended 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 in∣tend to Practice here, as I observe thou didst in the late Dispute? first endeavour to throw off all by Cir∣cumlocutions and Evasive words; and if that will not

nor do, then W.P. to come in either ope••ly, or covert∣ly 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 Au∣thor'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 que∣stioned him about it (as if they had had some pow∣er 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 cry∣ing, 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 bet∣ter

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 questi∣on, 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 thou∣sand, that you do not personally know? Is the Au∣thor 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

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 med∣dle 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 baf∣fled, 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 Con∣fident 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 them∣selves? 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,

I find Geo••ge is a little angry (for want of other mat∣ter) that some of the Anabaptists have commended it for an ingenuous piece] How! Is that possible? to be in∣genuous and yet controul VV.P.? how can any Qua∣ker 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 Re∣proof; whether this be folly or Pride, I leave others to enquire. But, says G.VV. [a strange way of Com∣plementing!], 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, on∣ly gives you to understand that mine is a strange way, and looks but oddly; but yet if G. had not forgot him∣self, it's neither so odd nor strange but that the Apostles

used it, Acts 14.14, and 15. Now what wilt thou say that Paul and Barnabas used a strange way of Com∣plementing 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 na∣tural 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 Master∣piece, 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 Spi∣rits 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

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 plain∣ness. 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 QUA∣KERS-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

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 So∣briety, 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 par∣ticulars, 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 assu∣red 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 Inconsisten∣cies.

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

who can be innocent? As to the First, G.VV. ac∣quits me himself, p. 14. where he says I have con∣demned the Baptists as well as them, for wrangling and fighting in the Dark, &c. And yet if the Baptists pro∣mote 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, notwith∣standing 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 hin∣der 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 ex∣cellent Rhetorician, and fluent Tongue, and so was Cicero; and yet telling them, you give occasion to per∣sons to think and judg you a perverse Generation with∣out Order or Rule, Rime, or Reason: says he, was Ci∣cero such an one then?

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 Cice∣ro 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 com∣pared 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 Quib∣ble, 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 immedi∣ately 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

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 com∣manded them to be Baptized, Acts 10.44. &c. They which Believed, were astonished, as many as came with PETER, because that on the GENTILES AL∣SO, was poured out the GIFT OF THE HO∣LY 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 command∣ed them to be Baptized in the Name of the Lord. And do thou G. deny it (against this plain Testimo∣ny of Scripture) or make the Apostle Paul to Contra∣dict the Apostle Peter here, if thy Conscience can serve thee. Therefore G. thou art so far from pro∣ving 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 con∣sider, 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 EXCEL∣LENT Tongues by ACQUISITION AND STU∣DY, (much less that any of W.P's. Plausible Ora∣tions 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 acqui∣red

by Study, but the other Spiritual, and a Gift im∣mediate 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 grant∣ed, 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 A∣WAY. So that TONGUES IMMEDIATELY in∣spired 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

this to W.P. who alas is so far from having THAT CHARITY and SINCERITY in the Ʋse and Exer∣cise of those spiritual Gifts of Tongues and Mira∣cles, 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 con∣tradiction? therefore I must note this for G.W's se∣cond 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 vul∣gar 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 Apo∣stles, 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 say∣ing 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

advise him to leave off such Billinsgate Rheto∣rick.

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 Mar∣gent I quoted the Apostles words, Titus 3.2, 3. Speak evil of no Man, be no Brawlers,) he will ad∣venture to make the Apostle contradict or be inconsi∣stext 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 vindicati∣on of W.P. he can tell you the Scripture proves such

Language, and cites Psal. 52.3. &c.

Reply. what does the Scripture prove such Lan∣guage 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 Oc∣casions, 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, Ly∣er, 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 Lan∣guage to be SO COMMON and FREQUENT, me∣thinks 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.

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 en∣gaged 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-Contradi∣ction, 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 de∣ceitfully, 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

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 Fal∣lacy, 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 Adver∣saries as Ridiculous as they can, and to make their Friends believe they do nothing but contradict them∣selves. But I have this further to say for my self, That if I had indeed committed a mistake, or con∣tradicted 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 in∣fallibillity, 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, In∣consistences 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

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 ob∣truded. 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 op∣posers 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 Lan∣guage 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 Hy∣pocrites, 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.

if he had, as the Primitive-Church had, would more convince me, and confute the Baptists, than a hun∣dred 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 reassu∣med 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 to∣gether, and at other times one after another, and so confounding your Discourses on purpose to evade, in∣stead 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 disor∣derly, 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 cla∣mour 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 af∣ter

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 mat∣ter of Fact, you here grant, you did so far boggle, as to make some intermission before an Answer was gi∣ven.

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 mat∣ter 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

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 abu∣sing 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 acknow∣ledg 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, EQUI∣VOCATIONS, and CONFUSIONS about the [Christ of God,] [his Manhood,] [his Humane-Nature,] [his Person,] [his Body,] [and his Flesh.]

* 1.1THat 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 pro∣ved 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 distincti∣ons they do deny, and so would make my words

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 de∣nyed 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 as∣sign 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 Bo∣dily eyes was not the Christ, I do not know how they should see the Light within, (as they call it,) or the Dei∣ty 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 NA∣TURE 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

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 de∣viating 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 Con∣science; 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 ap∣pears, that to blind the eyes of the simple, they some∣times pretend as in p. 18. to own the Holy Manhood to be Christ. And yet p. 19. Deny the Humane Na∣ture to be Christ. By the first they would seem as if they owned the Humane Nature to be Christ, when-as

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, whe∣ther 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 ap∣pear 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 Cloa∣thed 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 ab∣surdly▪ 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 con∣fusions and absurdities.

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 Pro∣perly 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 GAR∣MENT, 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 Equivoca∣tion 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

of three Persons in the God-head — in these ex∣press 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 with∣out adding, or diminishing, or shuffling. We charge you Presbyterians, to give us Printed Scrip∣tures for these following Words, and let us see in wha•• Chapter and verse they are Printed, viz. Concrete, Ab∣stract, 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 pre∣tend that they cannot admit of any thing in their Creed, but what they have plain and express Scrip∣ture 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 Or∣der 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-work∣ers in the Order and Degrees?] Or henceforward be ashamed of your silly doings, and such ridiculous

scribbling: I might think W.P. may yet have so much Ingenuity left in him, as that he would be asha∣med 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) a∣gainst 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 ridicu∣lous) and by his Tautologies and incoherency a sober Man would take him to be Craz'd: witness his Pro∣fessors Catechism, Testimony of the True Light, and his Primmer for the Scholars and Doctors of Eu∣rope.

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 e∣very 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 a∣bout with the Rule. Give us plain Scripture for it with∣out 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

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 Equi∣vocation 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 sub∣stantial 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 Blasphe∣mous

it would be, and what horrible Consequences would follow thereon: And therefore to go round a∣gain (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 abovemen∣tioned. 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 di∣stinct 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 be∣lieve themselves know not well what. By the term MAN, Do you not mean one that is not a Person or Ra∣tional 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

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 Scrip∣ture-Language? Doth Europe or America afford such Equivocation?

8. G.W. p. 19. says further, That Christ's Bo∣dy 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 BO∣DY 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 un∣wary 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

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 Ma∣ry, 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 fore∣go their Principle of the Light within, They will ad∣venture 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 say∣ings, 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

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 no∣thing, 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 Scrip∣ture 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

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 wick∣ed hands Crucified and Hang'd on a Tree. So it ap∣pears 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 eve∣ry 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

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 belie∣ving. 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 in∣to the Print of the Nails? Or was it only Acted with∣in Thomas his Body? And hath the Light within (which thou ownest for thy Jesus) any Print of Ma∣terial 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 An∣swer 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 Scrip∣ture-Phrase: and besides, that can be but a silly pre∣tence 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 An∣swering

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 where∣in 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 Scrip∣ture 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 Qua∣kers alike, give the same Answer or Interpretation thereto, either in form or substance, notwithstand∣ing 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 be∣lieve 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 Gar∣ment is that is none at all.

13. Pag. 23, 24. G.W. says, That the Distin∣ction of Father and Son, is not only Nominal, but Real, &c.] How then doth G.F. say, Myst. p.

142. Christ is not distinct from the Father, and that they are all one, p. 99? will G.W. and the Qua∣kers 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-LAN∣GUAGE, 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 dis∣ingenuous 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.

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 Conse∣quently THREE DISTINCT GODS.]

Now G. if this Distinction of thine, does not make them DI∣STINCT 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 Opi∣nion, 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 Spi∣rit 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 irra∣tional 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

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 Ar∣gument, 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

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 falla∣cy and folly; and so it doth still for ought G.W. hath told me as yet to the contrary; and I cannot with∣out 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 An∣swer then George?

2. Or, what if the Baptists should, and the Qua∣kers should not, in such a Case, Cry out oh Blasphe∣my!

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 excel∣lent 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 Qua∣ker 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.

[Without this Vertue, [viz. The Arm of God] CHRIST and JESUS are but empty names. We be∣lieve 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. in∣stead 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 mem∣bers (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 ma∣king three Christs, by taking no notice upon what I grounded the Objection, viz. Now after this rate, or

by the same manner of Reasoning and Quibbling, may not one say that G.K. makes three Christs in Scrip∣ture, 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 di∣stinct 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 Intro∣duction to his Divinity of Christ [We judg that such ex∣pressions 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 devi∣sed Distinctions since the Apostles days] — nor in Philosophical terms and nice School-Distinctions deri∣ved from heathenish Metaphisicks,] and now tell me G. whether this of thy Brother Keiths, is not a de∣vised Distinction since the Apostles? And whether G. thou hast not condemned thy Brother K's Distin∣ction? 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 Igno∣rance, of the true Spirits Evi∣dence, who deny the Gift of Tongues, Prophecy, Signs, &c. to be such.

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 Chur∣ches?

Here was a Church indeed that had the Spirits evi∣denee, and here was an Apostle indeed that had Di∣vine 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

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 Testi∣mony (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

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 re∣mained 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 af∣ter 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 pre∣tend 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 Scrip∣tures

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 Ar∣guments 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, be∣cause the Jesuites have used it? Dost thou think in thy Conscience this is a good Answer? You can some∣times 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

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 wor∣thy 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 con∣siders this, and makes use of it, will doubtless find

the ease and Benefit of it, in Disputing with a Papist or a Quaker: I have already shew'd it to be both ne∣cessary 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 Eva∣sion!

5. Then he says p. 31, and 32. the Baptists pro∣duce 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 in∣spirations, nor to a Gift of Infallibility, nor yet to any such immediate Commission from Heaven, as the Qua∣kers 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 there∣fore the Quakers who do lay Claim to all this, be be∣lieved that ••hey have it without giving us any visible Evidence, Sign, or Demonstration that they so have it

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 ad∣vantage 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

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 ho∣nest 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 impo∣sed 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 not∣withstanding all your boasting pretences and Bragga∣docio's, you can produce NO MORE than others, whom you have condemned and unchristianed, oh true∣ly 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 Tran∣scriptions and Translations WERE THEY NEVER SO CERTAIN and intire 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, &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 im∣posing, 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

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 Spi∣rit: 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 Mug∣gleton 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 An∣swered me to the purpose and main bent of my Epi∣stle 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

thus thou servest me, but it will not do. For my de∣sign is, that I may know you better, what Real Power, Evidence and Authority you have BE∣YOND others, that so I may have a good Foundati∣on 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 Po∣verty, (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 im∣posed 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 a∣bove 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 MINI∣STERS CALLED SO George.

G.F. To all People in all C••ristendom says thus, p. 2. All Sects —have the words of the Apo∣stles, 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 Rail∣ing, p. 115. Many may run into the Practice of se∣veral 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 I∣mages 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 Pow∣er] But alas where is the thing it self, viz. the visi∣ble Power and Gifts of the Spirit, the Demonstration of the Spirit that the true Apostles had, and the Scrip∣ture 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 Bap∣tists 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 De∣monstration 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

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, be∣besides 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 Evi∣dence 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 ma∣nifest

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 WIT∣NESSES 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 ma∣ny 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 pro∣duce. 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

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 Prejudi∣ced Spirits? Poor Evasion!

12. As for them which thou sayst in whose Consci∣ences there is a Record, many of which were gather∣ed 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

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 extraordi∣nary immediate Inspirations and Revelations as you do.

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

14. And whereas G.W. p. 34. says, That a foo∣lish 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 Mi∣racle, nor produced so much as ONE such Sign (not∣withstanding all their Pretences) among us, that ever

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 doubt∣less 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 Spi∣rits Evidence and Teaching: for I do fully acknow∣ledg 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 re∣mains 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 Teach∣ing 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

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 Ex∣ample, and not the Scripture?] And again in another place in the same Page [is not the POPE the MO∣THER?] 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

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 Certi∣ficates, 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 ne∣cessarily 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 in∣deed prove them to be sent of God to go forth as Apo∣stles, Prophets, &c. more than all others, and be satisfactory in Answer to the foregoing Particu∣lars.

SECT. IV. In Reply to his fourth Section, shewing the Comparison betwixt the QUA∣KERS 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

Muggleton does, will it therefore follow, the Qua∣kers are Impostors, or like him, who holds many Blas∣phemies? 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 Blas∣phemies, 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 condem∣ned by thee, so that this will be no Proof; and be∣sides; 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

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 Blas∣phemy, (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, un∣less 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

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 Blas∣phemer and Impostor for holding this Blasphemous Doctrine; That the Soul of Man dies or is Mortal. Now may not Muggleton tell thee, ••••at the Scrip∣ture 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-Lan∣guage? Thus then thou condemnest something as Blasphemy, which is according to Scripture-Lan∣guage, and so it seems it is all one to thee, be it ac∣cording to Scripture-Language or not; thou joynest them all together as alike false and Blasphemous. Be∣sides 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 Blasphe∣mous

Doctrines of Muggleton respecting the God∣head Life, and that the Godhead died; thou G. ac∣cording to thy Principles must hold so too, or else thou must run into another Blasphemy; by hold∣ing 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 there∣fore were called PATROPASSIANS; for without that they found they could not Really believe, that THE CHRIST HIMSELF DIED, and this Di∣lemma (if not Blasphemy) the Quakers are got in∣to; 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 Questi∣on still, betwixt the Impostor Muggleton and you, which cannot be granted you by Muggleton, nor yet by others, without your producing better evi∣dence: for you see he can speak according to Scrip∣ture-Language as well as you, when he hath a mind to it.

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 o∣thers believe, that the Quakers were Muggletonians or the Muggletonians Quakers: No, that was never my intent, but thy own perversion, on purpose to E∣vade 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 con∣trary, 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 Qua∣kers 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 Im∣postor? 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 whe∣ther

(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 shuf∣fling 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 Fal∣lacy? 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

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 accu∣sed 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 say∣ing, 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 im∣plied, 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

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 visi∣bly 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 Apo∣stles and true Church did not only pretend to, but expe∣rienced the same, does it therefore follow that he must be compared with, and deemed an Impostor? What An∣swer 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 BE∣YOND 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

lies at thy door still, notwithstanding all thy pitti∣ful 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 Fan∣cies 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 un∣learned, 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

one, Epip. haer••s. 62. Aug. lib. haer. [as the Qua∣kers 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 fore∣going 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 them∣selves, as well as he can for himself if not better, be∣cause 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 Quib∣bling 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

I thought on it at the beginning of that and this also & do wish that he h••d been so ingenious as to have consi∣dered of it in his Answer, and that he would honest∣ly confess with me humanum est Errare rather than only to commend it as some kind of Ingenuity in a∣nother; and I believe the same humility and submissive∣ness 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 Ar∣guments into Syllogisms, and used this plain way of discourse, that so it might the better suit with the Ca∣pacities of the Vulgar and be the more beneficial to the understandings of such well-meaning persons, who yet notwithstanding, may not be well acquaint∣ed with a Syllogistical method, neither understand rightly what Mood and figure are no more than He∣brew 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 with∣in himself, which I have here done; and I can seri∣ously tell them, that the Light and Spirit within me beareth Witness to it: and then although the Qua∣kers should think amiss of it, or say it is bad, yet how could I help it, according to their principle, teach∣ing 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

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 no∣thing herein, but with a good Conscience, and an ho∣nest Design. 1. With a good Conscience, I not ha∣ving either wilfully or knowingly wronged the Qua∣kers 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 Cir∣c••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 ac∣knowledg 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 him∣self) 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 rea∣lity

〈…〉〈…〉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 bre∣vity I first intended I will now forbear, and if they please to return an Answer to this, in plainness IN∣DEED, singleness of heart and honesty, without RAILING EQUIVOCATIONS, or MENTAL RESERVATIONS, to the particular and very MAT∣TERS in question, (without BEGGING the questi∣on) 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.

Notes

• * 1.1

  G.W. p. 18.