The snake in the grass: or, Satan transform'd into an angel of light. Discovering the deep and unsuspected subtilty which is couched under the pretended simplicity of many of the principal leaders of those people call'd Quakers.

SECT. XI. Concerning the Authority of the Ho∣ly Scriptures.

THE Quaker's Refuge, Printed Anno 1673. p. 17. states this, as truly own'd by the Quakers, in these words.

VVhether the first Pen-Man of the Scriptures was Moses or Hermes, or whether both these are not one; or whether there are not many words con∣tained in the Scriptures, which were not spoken by Inspiration of the Holy Spirit; whether some words were not spoken by the Grand Impostor; some by wicked Men; some by wise Men, ill Apply'd; some by good Men, ill Express'd; some by False Prophets,

and yet True; some by True Pro∣phets, and yet False—

And from these Suppositions he goes on, and concludes that some part of the Scriptures concerning the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind were True. And, p. 18. That the Scriptures as above Di∣stinguished, are a true Record, &c.

Instead of Answering these Dia∣bolical Suggestions against the Sa∣cred Authority of the Holy Scriptures of God, and which evidently over∣throw the Certainty of the whole; G. VVhitehead in his Innocency Triumphant, Printed 1693. in An∣swer to F. Bugg's New Rome Ar∣raign'd, p. 28. does own the whole, by way of an Excuse for it, and says, That this question'd but of some words in Scripture, not all.

But the Holy Scriptures confirming the whole of themselves, one part Quoting another; if the whole be not therefore True, the whole must be False.

And we must take this to be the Opinion of the New Quakers, as well as the Old, because Non Asserted.

G. VVhitehead endeavours to solve this, Ibid. p. 21. in Answer to the Quotations which F. Bugg had brought out of their Authors, which call'd the Holy Scriptures by the Wicked and Contemptible Names of Dust, Death, Serpents Meat, &c. Whitehead says that was only in op∣position to those who wou'd have the very Paper and Ink and Chara∣cters to be the Word of God, and the Gospel: wherein they were op∣pos'd

(says he) Christ being the Word, and the Gospel the Power of God which Endures for ever, which the Books and Letters or Characters cannot.

Here Whitehead says that there were some Priests in the North, in and before the year 1653. when those Books (which Bugg Quoted) were Printed, who were thus Ignorant. And that this was the Reason for those Ex∣pressions in these Quaker Books.

First, This had been no Reason for these Barbarous Expressions, if it had been so.

But Secondly, I will joyn Issue with G. Whitehead upon it, that there never were such Priests, ei∣ther in the North, or any where else, that were so Ignorant.

No, George! This is an Arrant Lye, without all doubt. Did any

Man ever Think or Say that the ve∣ry Material Paper and Ink and Let∣ters wou'd Endure for ever?

Where is now thy Infallibility! Where thy Common Honesty or Mo∣rality, thus grosly to bely these Priests as thou callest them? But they thank Thee that it was so Gros∣ly; for it is so very Ridiculous, that it is in no Man's Power to believe Thee, or that Thou canst have the least pretence to Infallibility, or e∣ven that Thy word shou'd be trust∣ed in any thing, that Thou averrest, when Thou darest Print so notori∣ous and impossiblean Untruth. Like G. Fox's senseless Reply to Richard Baxter, &c. Writing (says he) Pa∣per and Ink is not Infallible, nor the Scripture is not the ground of

Faith— Your Rule, Paper and Ink, that will come to Dust.

Here I wou'd fain ask them a Question. How it comes, that since they are such bitter Enemies to the Letter, they yet make a Conscience of saying Thee and Thou instead of You in the singular, because these were old English words in the first Translations. Is there any Immorality or Iniquity in these Letters y, o, u, more than in T, h, o, u? And is not every Nation Master of its own Language?

Besides, these were not the words of the Languages in which the Scriptures were wrote. It is likely that G. Fox, and the rest, in the Year, 1650. thought they were, and lighting upon some old

English Bible, took it for the Origi∣nal. For, if stress must be laid up∣on the Letter, it must be surely up∣on the Original Letter in which the Scriptures were wrote. And the Quakers may as well lay stress up∣on the Latine or French, or Dutch Translation as upon the English, in this Case. How do they in o∣ther Languages make the Distin∣ction betwixt thou and you, when you is us'd in the singular Number?

Behold here, these Men whose Chief Principle it is to Decry and Damn the Letter, do set up, at the same time, the most Superstitions, and Ridiculous sticking to the Let∣ter that ever was heard of since Adam, so very Extravagant, that, if it had not been, no Man cou'd have believ'd that it cou'd have been!

Or that any Men cou'd have made a Case of Conscience of such a senseless and insignificant Criticism? But as the Scorpion is said to carry Oyl which cures its own Venom, so the wise Providence of God has dispos'd of most Errors, that they carry Contradictions to them∣selves in their own Bowels.

But, if the Holy Scriptures of God must not be call'd the Word of God, because they are wrote in Letters, why must the Quakers most Blasphemous and Prophane Scrib∣bles be Stil'd the Word of the Lord? Even Solomon Eccles's Lying Pro∣phesie before told, in his Letter to John Story. To you all this is The Word of the Lord, says George Fox, of his own Writings. Great Myst. p. 225. I charge you (says he)

in the presence of the Lord God, to send this amongst all Friends and Brethren, every where, to be Read in all Meetings; To you all This is the Word of God. [G. Fox's Letter to all Friends, Printed 1671. with several Papers, &c. p. 60. 62.] The Scriptures are not the Word of God. [G. F. &c. Fire-brand, &c. p. 159. 2d Part 1678.] A Printed Letter of G. Fox's, which is now lying before me, Dated at Dalston the 13th of the 10th Month, 1683. Bears this Title, All Friends every where, this is The word of the Lord unto you all. And there is a Postscript in these words, This you may read amongst the Children of the Light, and of the Day. And p. 4. of the Letter, he says,

I remember, before we were call'd Quakers, as I was sitting in an House in Nottingham-shire (about the Year 1648.) the word of the Lord came to me, and said, &c. And yet in his Great Myst. p. 246, 247. he calls it Blasphemy to say that the Scriptures are the Word of God. His words are these, They (the Scriptures) are not the word of God, which thou (Christopher Wade) hast Blasphemously af∣firmed. But (says he Jesuitcally, to amuse the Reader) Christ is the word of God. As if Christopher Wade, or any Christian had ever affirmed that the Book of Scriptures was the Word of God in the same sense as Christ; or any otherwise than as the Records of those Re∣velations which God, by his Holy

Spirit, did dictate to the Inspired Pen-Men; But not a Living Per∣son, partaking of the Substance of the Father, like the Word Eternal∣ly Begotten! Cou'd this George, either of these Georges, Fox or VVhitehead, produce any one Man, even in Bedlam, who ever asserted this of the Ink or Paper of the Ho∣ly Scriptures?

Why then do they use this Di∣stinction? Against whom do they use it? Against No Body; it was only to Shufle and Cut, to Cover and Excuse their Contempt of the Holy Scriptures; and, in their place, Deifying of their own Spirit, and their own Scriptures.

They knew that the Holy Scrip∣tures cou'd not be discarded openly and above Board, nor all at once:

That the World had been long in Possession of them, and of a just Veneration of them; and therefore wou'd not so easily part with them, nor accept of any Foxes In∣spirations, instead of them: There∣fore they set up a Power, like that of the Church of Rome, of Infallible Interpretation of Scripture: And improv'd it, as above is told, into Immediate Revelation equal to that of the Prophets and Apostles. And, pursuant to this Plenitude of Power, they have taken upon them not only to Abrogate the most express Ordinances of the Gospel, and Pronounce them expir'd, at their Pleasure, as Baptism and the Lord's Supper: But to set up, and Insti∣tute new ones, as the Womens Preach∣ings (directly contrary to 1 Cor.

14.35. which suffers not VVomen to speak in the Church) and the Prelacy of the VVomens Meetings, an Invention never heard of in the World, till G. Fox Cobbled it out. And they Enjoyn not these only as Ecclesiastical Injunctions of their Church; but (upon their pre∣tence, before told, to the same Immediate Revelation which was gi∣ven to the Apostles) as the Institu∣tions of Christ. Solomon Eccles, in his Letter already mention'd to John Story, calls these, the VVo∣mens Preachings and the VVomens Meetings, the Great and Good Ordi∣nance which Christ Iesus hath set up in his Church. This is directly giving us New Scriptures, and a New Gospel. For which they will find their Reward, Gal. 1.8, 9. Rev. 22.18, 19.

And they having (as they pre∣tend) the same Spirit which gave forth the Scriptures, they cannot be bound by the Scriptures, or any Command in them, unless their Spi∣rit does anew require the same thing which the Scripture Com∣mands.

So that the Scripture remains of no Authority with them: because, if what the Scripture Commands, be anew required by their Spirit, they are bound to obey it, because required by their Spirit: But if the Scripture Command the thing, they are, (by their Principles) not bound to obey it, unless it be requir'd by their Spirit Anew. Which is most effectually over∣throwing the Scriptures, and re∣solving all into their Private Spirit,

or Light within. This will yet fur∣ther appear in the Sections which follow. But let me first give an Authority for the last thing that I have said; and it is such a one as does astonish me; because first, it is from the ingenious Mr. Penn; secondly, it is where he accuses others of Mis-representing the Qua∣ker Principles, and rescuing them from such Mis-re∣presentations, he sets them down in their most Moderate, and he says, True sense. And he averrs, That what was a Commandment to any Servants of God, in old time (that is, in the Scriptures)— That such are not Commandments to us, unless required by the same Spirit Anew,

And he instances in those Elemen∣tary Types, Shadows and Figures ap∣pointed (as he says) for a season, and to pass off. These are the Sacra∣ments of Baptism and the Lords's Supper, which he calls Elementary, Types, and Figures: But that they were appointed only for a season, and to pass off, that is not to be prov'd from Scripture, which en∣joins them till Christ's coming again, 1 Cor. 11.26. always, even unto the end of the VVorld, Matt. 28, 19, 20. But all this signifies nothing. These Commandments are not re∣quired by the Quaker Spirit Anew. And so they pass off.

This we are sure is not Aggra∣vated upon them.

Indeed Mr. Penn does in the same place, find fault with those

who would improve this Prin∣ciple of theirs to justifie Immoralists and things inconsistent with Govern∣ment; As if (says he) that Eternal Holy Omnipresent Light, with which we are enlightned, did not continually declare and require Just and Righteous things at our Hands.

This, with submission, instead of an Excuse, is a full Confession o•• the whole Charge, unless Mr. Penn can make it appear that the Qua∣kers, and every one of them in Particu∣lar, have this Light more than other Men: Or if they have it, that they must necessarily be guided by it. Because otherwise, they may commit Theft, Sacrilege, and all Immoralities under this Umbrage: And no Command of Scripture can Restrain or Convince them, by this

Latitude here granted; because if they shou'd Enthusiastically Believe, or Hypocritically Pretend that such Command of Scripture was not required by their Spirit Anew, it is ipso facto superseded by this Principle.

Thus it being Objected to G. Fox, that one of his Quakers had Pretended an Imme∣diate Call from Hea∣ven to commit Theft or Robbery, and Sacrilege in taking out of the Church an Hour-Glass. G. F. does vindicate it in these words. And as for any being moved of the Lord to take away your Hour-Glass from you, by the Eternal Power it is owned. And if another shou'd pretend an Im∣mediate Call to take away the Com∣munion-Plate — for that is us'd to

Superstitious uses— where is the end of these loose Principles! Mr. Penn can tell whe∣ther he did not so∣licite G. W. to return a Letter, which another Quaker had stoln and given to him, and whether G. W. did not make this Answer, That unless the Lord requir'd him he wou'd not return it again. See more of this in Tyranny and Hypocr. &c. p. 37.

But as for things Inconsistent with Government, which Mr. Penn sup∣poses their Light can never dictate, I refer him to the first Section, and to some of the Quakers Principles, Sect. 10. to 18.

These concern the Government of the State, But as for Church Government I think Mr. Penn will not say, but their Principles are

wholly Inconsistent. Have they not broke off from the Church-Go∣vernment established in England, and in all the Christian World? And ••o they not pretend that their Light guides them in it? Have they not by the same Light, Rebell'd from Episcopacy, which they cannot de∣ny was in the times of the Apostles, and through all Ages of Christi∣anity to this day? If they think this a Light sin, let them read the 16th of Numb. and see if the sin of Korah was small? Or if it was for any thing else but Church-Govern∣ment? And St. Jude tells us ver. 11. of those under the Gospel who pe∣rish in the gain-saying of Rorah.

But if disobedience to Church-Government be no such great mat∣ter, why do the Quaker-Church treat

their Separatists with such violent fury, and strain their Invention to find Names bad enough for them; Devil-driving Dungy Gods, &c. as if already smoaking in Hell? Why do they charge them so desperate∣ly with the heinousness of Schism?

It is true indeed, that the Church cannot subsist, more than any o∣ther Society, without Government: But it is as true, that the Quaker Pretence to the Private Light in Particular Persons, as a Principle o∣ver-ruling Scripture and all out∣ward Ordinances, is Inconsistent with Government either in Church or State, or any security from all the Dismal and Enthusiastical Mur∣thers, Rapines, and Out∣rage of the Zealots among the Jews; who went upon the same

Principle, yet shew'd no evil signs of it; nor, I do Charitably be∣lieve, had, at first, any Evil De∣signs, nor knew, more than Ha∣zael, 2 Kings 8.13. whither these Principles would at last hur∣ry them.

But if Hard Words are a Natural Presage, and shew and Inward Di∣sposition to come to Blows, no People have shewn more Virilence in the First, nor do I believe that they are Infallibly secur••d from the Latter: But no Tempting occa∣sion has yet offer'd it self to them. For it is a very convenient Princi∣ple to be protected by other Mens Swords, without running any of the hazard our selves; to enjoy the Benefits of Peace equally with others, and to be freed, if not

from the Charge, at least from the Slavery and Dangers of War. It is good to sleep in a whole Skin. But yet if they had a Government of their own, they wou'd not part, no not with a Sloop.

And I do not think any sort of People wou'd less encourage, un∣der their own Government, their now Pretended Principle of En∣thusiasm or the Private Spirit: We see how violently they now op∣pose it in their Separatists. They call any Opposition to the Orders of their Church, no less than Re∣bellion, and that against God Him∣self. Thus Solomon Eccles told John Story, in his Letter above-Quoted, That his opposing the Divine Right of the Womens Preach∣ings and Womens Meetings, set up by

G. Fox, was Rebellion against the Living God. (More Instances of this see in some of the Quakers Prin∣ciples, Sect. 13.) And they make Orders in direct opposition to the Laws, and make it Rebellion against God to obey the Laws, as in the Case of Tythes. They declare all, as well Payers as Receivers of Tythes to be An∣ti-Christs, and to have deny'd Christ's coming in the Flesh. And it is at their Discretion to declare any other Injunction of the Law of the Land to be against their Light; and then it is Rebellion a∣gainst God, any longer to obey the Law, in such a Case. So that all our Laws stand but at their pleasure. And if they shou'd de∣clare

against All Laws and Kings together; there is nothing excep∣ted from the Plenary Power of their Inward Light.

Do not think these for extrava∣gant suppositions. They have done as much as all I have said. Their Principle is Spiritualizing. And as they have Spiritualiz'd a∣way all the Letter of the Scripture, the Sacraments, and Christ's Huma∣nity; so have they reduc'd Govern∣ment also, from the outward Admi∣nistration, at least, of Kings, when the time was that they durst speak plain: As in Edw. Burrough's Stan∣dard, &c. in the Year 1658. p. 9. The Lord is risen (says he) to overturn, overturn, Kings and Princes, Governments and Laws; and

He will change Times and Laws, and Governments: There shall be no King Ruling but Iesus, nor no Government of force, but the Govern∣ment of the Lamb. And George Fox says, There is that Nature that would have an Earthly King to Reign, in which Nature lodgeth the Mur∣therer. A Word from the Lord, p. 15. Anno 1654. The Lord will cleanse the Land of you (Rulers, Priests, &c.) and not any that rejects Christ shall Rule in Eng∣land. Discovery of the En∣mity, p. 29. Anno 1655.

Now whether or no the Qua∣kers do reckon us of the Church of England to be among those who Reject Christ, I refer to Sect. 4.

And then, whether they think by this Rule, that any such ought

to Rule in England, I leave to the Reader.

And then whether their Sub∣mission to such Govenment, can proceed from Principle or Necessity?

In short, Enthusiasts have no Principles. They have no Rule but their own Fansie (which is strongest in Mad-Men) and this they mistake for Inspiration. And then their Madness is at the height. And it is inconstant as the VVind. They know not their own Minds. Nor can promise for themselves an hour together. They are as dangerous in any Government, as Elephants in an Army, who, if they take the Humour, fall foul upon their Leaders. No Libertines have done greater mischief than the En∣thusiasts: The Atheist and Profli∣gate

pursue not their VVickednesses with half Their Zeal and Fury. If the Debauch'd stick at nothing Unlawful, the Zealot thinks every thing he does to be Lawful.

And it cannot be deny'd. No Quaker can deny, but that the Principle of the Quakers is all En∣thusiasm. There never was any Enthusiasm in the World that ex∣ceeded it. None that ever call'd themselves Christians have advanc'd themselves so high, to have the same Infallible Spirit, and Immediate Revelation, as the Prophets and Apo∣stles, or as Christ Himself, to be Equal even to God, to be one Per∣son, Substance, Soul with God. And I do not think that any Human Government can be secure of Men, in whose Power it is to screw

themselves up to such Blasphemus heights of Enthusiasm; and who, while they make themselves Gods, think their Governors to be Serpents, Reprobates, and Devils, Raveners from Christ, and his utter Enemies.

I here repeat the Caution, which I set down at the beginning of this Discourse. That I do not include all the Quakers in this: But those only who, having seen these Blasphemies and Delusions of George Fox, and other their old Primitive Quakers, will not Renounce them; but seek to Cover and Excuse them, and pretend still to the same Spi∣rit that they had.

And what that was, we shall see yet farther in the next Section.

Notes

• Great Mystery p. 302.
• Some of the Qua∣kers Principles, &c. p. 4.
• Reason against Railing, 1673. p. 150. Article 21.
• Great Myst. p. 77.
• Some of the Qua∣ker Principles, p. 8.
• T. C's Animadversi∣ons upon G. W's In∣nocency Triumphant, p. 16. and 30.
• Some of the Quakers Principles, Sect. 10.