PRIMS Full-text transcription (HTML)

THE QUAKERS VVISDOM deſcendeth not from Above. Or a Brief VINDICATION Of a Small TRACT, Intituled, The Quakers Folly made manifest to all men, As alſo of its Authour, from the Exceptions made againſt It, and Aſperſions caſt upon Him.

In a PAMPHLET CALLED The Voice of Wisdom, &c.

Publiſhed by GEORGE WHITHEAD, Quaker.

By THO. DANSON, M. A. Late Fellow of Magd. Coll. Oxon. And now Miniſter of the Goſpel at Sand­wich in Kent.

And if it be not ſo now, who will make me a Liar, and mak my speech nothing worth? Job 24. ult.

What have I now done? Is there not a cauſe? 1 Sam. 17.29.

London, Printed for J. Allen, at the Riſing Sun in Pauls Church-yard, 1659.



I Am once more come up­on on the Stage, not with­out a Bluſh; yet not be­cauſe I am unwilling to have my Doctrines brought to Light, (as G. W.G. W. voice of wiſdom, p. 3. would make thee believe.) For I am ſo far from being aſhamed of them, that could the whole world be brought with­in the reach of my voice, upon a due call, I would make a Confeſſion of my Faith. Nor yet becauſe I am conſci­ous to my ſelf, of wronging the Qua­kes in my relation of the Diſputes between us; either by laying down things in their Names, which they never ſpoke, or diminiſhing from their words, or making falſe conſtru­ctions (to uſe the very words of G. Whithead's Charge) For let any un­derſtanding man peruſe the Book,In Epiſt to the Reader. (which occaſions this Reply) and he will find, that either I am charged with falſhood, in ſuch paſſages as have many and credible witneſſes to atteſt ther truth; or elſe in particular words, as in putting Sanctfiction for righteouſneſſe w thin, by which alteration (if any ſuch there were) no wrong was done to their meaning. And as for any falſe conſtruction of their words, if thou thinkeſt it worth the while to compare my falſe, and this mans true conſtruction, either thou ſeeſt not with my eyes, or thou wilt ſee that they have no cauſe of complaint. I have followed my pre­ſent Antagoniſt ſtep by ſtep, and omitted nothing that hath the leaſt colour of Scripture, oreaſon, (unleſs where I make a reference to my for­mer Book, to avoid repetition) leſt he ſhould ſay, that like a child, I Skip what I cannot read. Only I confeſs, I am not able to match him at his Bil­lingſgate Rhetorick, nor wold I with Jonah, be as hot as the Sun that ſcaldes me. For I make account (as once a Learned man ſaid) that ſo much as there is of undue paſſion, ſo much of nothing to the purpoſe For there Reaſon ſpends upon a falſe ſent, and forſakes the Queſtion ſtarted. I truſt that thou wilt be more confirmed in thy bad opinion of the Quakers, and that the duſt which they raiſe with their feet, I ſhall blow away, I mean, croſſe their endeavours to hide their meaning in doubtful words, either out of ignorance, not being Maſters of their own Notions, or (which I rather believe) out of de­ſign, it being true of them, which Job ſpeaks of the Thief, If one know them, they are in the terrours of the ſhadow of death, Job 24.17. I hope thou wilt not be byaſſed by their ſeeming humility, for pride may be the root that bears that Branch. The Apostle ſpeaks of a voluntary humility, which was the effect of being vainly puft up by a fleſhly mind, Col. 2.18. And ſure I am, that if one part of the character which the Biſhop of Alif in the Coun­cil of Trent, gave of the Proteſtants, (viz.) that they had Orthodoxos Mores, i. e. an Orthodox Conver­ſation, be as true of the Quakers, as it was of the Proteſtants; yet the o­ther part, (viz.) that withal they had Haereticam Fidem, i. e. an He­torodox or Heretical Belief, is as true of theſe men, as it was falſe of thoſe. And thou wilt find,In the•••ep. that particularly G. W. laies the most innocent Truths under the odious imputation of Anti-Chriſts deceits.

That thou maiſt not know the depths of Satan as they ſpeak, Rev. 2.24. But maiſt hold faſt that Do­ctrine which thou haſt already, v. 25. is the Prayer of

Thy Servant in the work of the Goſpel Tho. Danſon.

QUESTION 1. Concerning the Light of Christ.


Darſon ſaith, the Lights mentioned, viz. natural and ſupernatural are two, and though all have the one, yet but few have the other.

G. W.

Anſ. The life of Chriſt is the Light of men, and that is not natural, but ſpiritual, and thou might as well count the Life of Chriſt natural, as count it (the Light) ſo.

T. D.

Reply 1. The diſtinction of natural or ſupernatu­ral or ſpiritual Light we have, Rom 1.17, 20. Where the revelation of righteouſneſſe in the Goſpel is oppoſed to the knowledge of the God-head, which men attain to by the Creation, Ch 2.14 The Gentiles are ſaid by na­ture to do the things conained in the Law, and are ſaid to be a Law to themſelves; when yet withal 'tis affirmed that they had not the Law (viz. revealed) or the Ora­cles of God, for they were committed to the Jews only at that time, ch. 3.2. 2. And to that ſilly Argument, that I might count the life of Chriſt natural, as well as the light, I anſwr, that there is a life of Chriſt natural, (viz. whereof Chriſt is the author as God) as well as2 ſpiritual (whereof he is the author, as God-man) John 1.3. All things were made by him, with all their qualities and properties, and whatſoever goes to the making them what they are, whch ſo far as it intends life, may be explain­ed by Acts 17.25. He (God) giveth to all life and breath. Or if there be not ſuch a n••ural life, then Plants, Bruits, and all Man••nd have a ſpiritual life (an ab­ſurdity to groſſe to lodge in the brain of any other man, but a Quaer.)

T. D

charged R.H. with ſaying the true Light hath not coe over and comprehended thee.

G W.

Anſ. That's falſe, he ſaid no ſuch thing, for the Light hath comprehended thee, but thou art not come into it, nor haſt comprehended it

T. D.

Reply. My credit will go further than thine, G W. R. H did ſay as was related, but perhaps he meant as thou ſaieſt, that I was not come over to cmprehend the true Light.

Tho. D.

charged us with conſenting that the know­ledge othe Goſpel is vouchſafed to every man.


Anſ. No ſuch thing dd we conſent to, but that there were ſome in darkneſſe, ſo that their ignorance of the Goſpel does not argue that they had not that light in them, that was able o bing them to know the Goſpel but rather that they diſobeyed the lght of God in them, and liked not to retain God in their k owledge.


Reply. My words are, If you meaning be that the Goſpel is vouchſafed by Chriſt to every man, I expect your proof: And R. H. by ſilence conſented thathat was their meaning, Quakrs Folly, p. 2. If your meanng be that all men have thLigt of the Goſpel wthin them, only all do not obey it, 'tis contrary to the Scripture. Eph. 5.8. H op­poſes the ſtate of darkneſſe in whch they were, to their preſent ſtate of light; or if youmeaning be (for the words are doubtful) that all men have a ſpiritual capa­city3 to underſtand the Goſpel when preached to them that's falſe, as appears by 1 Cor. 2 14 The naural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit oGod, neiher can he know them, &c. no more than the blind eye can diſcern a viſible Object.

T. D.

brought Pſal. 147.19, 20. and that by the ſtatutes and judgments are meant the ſupernatural light or know­ledge of the Goſpel.


Anſ. That makes for what I ſaid, for that may be ſhewed to a people which they know not: And this Prieſt hath confuted himſelf, for if theſe ſtatutes were the knowldge of the Goſpel, Why did Irael not know them who had them?


Reply. If the Intent of the phraſe, ſhewing, be no more than that the Goſpel was preached, yet even that the Gentiles wanted at that time. The light of the Goſpel did not ſhine to them (as we may ſuppoſe the Sun might do, if all the world were blnd) He hath not dealt ſo with any Nation, (i. e. not ſhewed them as to Iſrael) Pſal 147 20. To the Queſtion, Why Iſrael did not know the Statutes, who had them? I anſwer, Ignorance of them is not here attributed to the Jews, but to any other Nation except them. The Relative they hath for the Antecedent any Nation, not Jacob and Iſ­rael.


ſaith, Rom. 2.15. is ſpoken of natural light op­poſed to the knowledge of the Jews.

G. w.

Anſ. 'Tis ſpoken of the work of the Law, which Law was written in their hearts, and this Law was ſpiri­tual, and not a natural light.


Reply. Seeing you do not underſtand the difference between the Law, and work of the Law in the heart, I'le teach you: By the Law in the heat, is meant an in­ward and ſpiritual conformity thereunto, which is called the Law, as the impreſſion of the Seal upon a Letter or4 Bond, is called the Seal; which conformity lies in theſe, among other things; viz A conſent to the Law that it is good, Rom. 7.1. A readn ſſe to obedince, Heb. 10.9. And a bringing into captivityvery thouht to the obedience of Chriſt, as the Apoſtles exp ſſion is, 2 Cor. 10.5. But by the work of the Law is mant, the knowldge of ſin, which is by the Law, Rom. 3 20 And the effcts of tht knowl dge in Con cnce, viz. a tſtimony to teir obe­dience or diſobdienctogther w th approbation or cen­ſure, Rom. 2 15 And hough the Law bſpiri ual, yet the work of it in the Gentiles is but natural, v. 14. The Gentiles do by nature (mak the exp eſſeneſſe of the phraſe) the things co•••ned in the Law.

T. D.

Chriſt was not to be a light to the Gentiles till his coming in the fleſh.


Anſ. What then was Chriſts preſence in the fleſh among all the Gentiles whom he did enlght n? What darkneſſe is this? Seeing hs outgoing hve bn from of old. And what became of all thG ntiles that died be­fore the daies of Chriſt in the Fleſh? Were they con­demned becauſe they had no light of Chriſt given them, or becauſe they diſobeyed the light which thy had?

T. D.

Reply. 1. Till the time of Chiſt in the•••ſh, the Goſpel was not preached to the Gntile-world; but I did not ſay (as youmply) that Ch••ſt did preach it in his own perſon to them: Chriſt did honour the Miniſtry of the Apoſtles above his own, by the larger extent of their Commiſſion. As for Chriſts outgoings from of old, that paſſage taken out of M cah 5 2. intends Chriſts eter­nal geeation and e••rnal deſignation to the Office of Mediator, not any knowledge of Ch iſt vouchſafed throughout all ages to the whole world. To your laſt Queſtion I anſwer, that the Gentiles before Chriſt periſh­ed for diſobeying the Lght thy had, Rom. 2.12. But yet their ignorance of Chriſt was the occaſion of their con­demnation5 for that diſobedience, Acts 4.12. Neither is there ſalvtion in any o her, for there is none other Name under Heaven given among men, wherby we muſt be ſaved. Theidiſobeying that light d d damn them, but their o­bedence to it could not have ſaved them without Chriſt, and Chr ſt ſaves nne but thoſe who know him.

[What followes in p. 11, 12, 13, 14. of G W. Books, is nothing but what hath b n anſwered in Qu. Folly, and therefore I ſhall omit them]

QUESTION 2. Of the Doctrine of Perfection.

T. D

SAih, p 9. your Doctrine of Pefection is againſt the Tenour of the Scripture, and to prove it, he b••ngJob 9.20 and he ſaith, p 11. the Perfection Paul dnies is thſtate of the reſurrection, which is to be wi hut ſin.

G. W

Anſ. Here he hath wronged the Scriptures, for thy do not ſay that Perfction is againſt the Tenour of them, for God commands Pefection. And Paul denied not the ſtate of the reſurection, for he ſaid, If you be ri­ſen with Chriſt, &c And he denied not freedom from ſin, Rom. 6.18, 22. Job 9 20, 21 proves not, that Job was not without ſin, when God had delivered him out of that affliction, wh rein he had ſaid, If I ſay I am perfect, &c. but after this Job was perfect.


Reply. All the Scriptures which require repent­ance and mortification during this life, do deny the poſſi­bility6 of Perfection. For they and it are incompatible. As for the commands they are the meaſure of our duty, not of our ability to obedience. Ther's no reaſon to the contrary, but that Gods commands ſhould run in the old ſtile, though we are unable to fulfil them. As for Col. 3.1. which he quotes, 'tis plain that that reſurrect, with Chriſt, was conſiſtent with ſin, v. 5. Mortifie therefore your mem­bers which are upon the earth; By members we are to un­derſtand inordinate deſires, motions and actions of cor­rupt nature (ſuch as are reckoned up in the verſe) By mortifying them, a cnſtant endeavour to repreſſe and ſub­due them. And the Argument to inforce the duty of mor­tification is drawn (as from their death with Chriſt, and life with him,) ſo from their firſt and ſpiritual reſurrecti­on with him. But the ſtate of the reſurrection which Paul denies, is of that perfection of holineſſe (as I told you G.W.) which accompanies the laſt and bodily reſur­rection. As for Rom. 6.18 22. I anſwered it in my Book, p. 47. The Apoſtle explains himſelf, that he means from the dominion of ſin, v 14. And for Job 'tis plain e­nough, that the Character given of Job, viz. a perfect man, was before his afflctions, and not after (as G W. would make the Reader believe) for Gods commendati­on of him for his perfection and uprightneſſe, v. 8. was the occaſion of the Devils deſiring leave of God to afflict him, v. 11. and of Gods grant, (that his words might be found true) v. 12.


p. 12. A Believers perſon with his works are ac­cepted with God, though his works be not perfect.


Anſ. Here he would have believers like the Prieſts, who ſin in the beſt of their performances (as they confeſſe) But I ſay the Believers works are wrought in God, and God works them in them, and theſe works of God are perfect.


Repy, As for our confeoſſin, 'tis agreeable to7 Scripture, Eccleſ. 7.20 There is not a juſt man upon earth, that doth good, and ſinneth not, i. e. that ſinneth not in doing good. Exod 28.38. Inquity of holy things is there ſpoken of, Duties which are holy for the matter, are inquity for the manner of peformance. Your argument doth no more conclude for the perfection of Grace, than it does that every child ſhould be a man the firſt day of his birth, for that is one of Gods works, as well as Grace. As for Saints, they may be ſaid to be perfect in regard of parts (as a child is a perfect man) 1 Theſ. 5.23. Sanctified in ſoul, and body, and spirit, and in re­gard of their aims and intendments, but not as to degrees of Grace. Sin and Grace in this life are together in the ſame ſubjct, as Eſau and Jacob in thſame womb. As for the name of Prieſts, which throughout you give me, and other Miniſters of Chriſt, I count it no diſparage­ment (however you intend it) ſeeing Chriſt is called by the Holy Ghoſt, the High Prieſt of our Profeſſion, Heb. 3 1.

[The anſwer of G. W to Eccleſ. 7.20. is no other than what M. Fiſh r gave, which is vry abſurd, and not worthy any further reply, ſee Quks Folly, p. 13.


We (the Saints) are one body with them in Heaven, and have the ſame title with th m in poſſeſſion, p 14, 38.


Anſ This confutes his former words, for they that are one body with them in Heaven, are members of the Body of Chriſt which is perfect, and its members cmleat,ol 2.10 Eph. 3 15

T D.

Reply. The Body of Chriſt is not yet perfect, for the e are great numbers of elect belonging to it, yet u bo n. Chriſt gives a commiſſion to preach, and a promiſe of b••ſſing to the Apoſtles, and their ſucceſſours, Mt 28.19 20. And the Apoſtle ſaies, that Paſtors and Teachers are for the edifying of the Body of Chriſt, till we all8 come in the unity of the Faith, &c. Eph. 3 12, 13. Put both places together, and they inform us that Chriſts Body is not built up (i. e. all the Elect not converted, and ſo not actual members of Chriſts body, for ſuch men are by Faith) till the end of the world. As for Col. 2.10. 'tis plain enough that the Apoſtle calls the Saints compleat, in reference to the Doctrine of Chriſt, which ſhewed them all things neceſſary to ſalvation, ſo that they needed not the addition, which natural reaſon, humane tradition, or Judaical ceremonies could make. As for circumciſion, we find expreſly that it was urged as neceſſary to ſalvati­on, Acts 15 1. This the Apoſtle denies. They are alſo ſaid to be compleat in Christ, in reſpect of Ordinances, and outward priviledges, as particularly of Baptiſm, which rendred cicumciſion uſeleſſe, becauſe it ſignified the ſame thing which circumciſion did, in a more large and emphatical manner, v. 11, 12. As for Eph. 3.15. Ther's nothing in that v. to his purpoſe, but I ſuppoſe he means v. 19 That ye might be filled with all the fulneſs of God. Fulneſſe of God intends not equality, but quali­ty, a divine and ſpiritual fulneſſe. And the Apoſtle praies that they mght be filled with it all (and ſo they ſhould be in Heaven) but he aſſerts not that either they were, or ſhould be filled in this life.


QUESTION 3. Concerning Juſtification.


VVHereas S. Fiſhſpoke of our good work being a m••toou cauſe of our juſtification, this Pieſt hath M••lmuch ado to p ove tht S. F. 〈◊〉a rank Papiſt, and••ih our good woks are but imperfectly good, and Iſa 64.6. All our righteouſ­nſſs are as filthy rags


Aſ. S. F. never affirmethat imperfect works and the righteouſneſſe which is as il hy rags do deſeve Juſtfication, as this P••hath w••nged him, but good works whch are the fulfilling of thaw


Reply. Whether I have w••nged S. F I leave to the Readers judgment, that ſhall peruſe Qukers Folly, p. 14,5. I urged againſt him,••r though our evil works did condmn, yet oug••d workcould not juſti­fie; becauſe none of ougood wor••n this life are per­fect, and ſo not the fulfi lng of the Law, as evil works are the violation or breaking of the Law. And to prove the imprfection of our righteouſneſſe. I brought Iſa. 64 6. To which G.W. hath nor, nor indeed can anſer. 'Tis an expreſſe place, The Chu ch c••pars all her righte­ouſneſſes to the garments of a peron legally unclean, which by the Law were unclean, and to be waſhed, be­cauſe his body had touched them.


hath confeſſed, p. 15. thatood works which are10 the fulfilling of the Law, deſerve ſalvation, and that the deſert of obedience ariſes from the dignity of the Subject, by which it is performed.


Anſ. So then this makes for what S.F. declared, for here it appears then that obedience to God is deſerv­ing.


Reply. I did not directly affirm that good works which are the fulfilling of the Law deſerve ſalvation, but that from the rule of contraries (which Mr. Fiſher urged) we might ſo argue. For upon ſuppoſition that any meer man could fulfil the Law, yet he could not be juſtifid, unleſſe he had undergone the penalty of his former diſobe­dience, and ſo made reparations to the Juſtice of God for damages ſuſtain'd. And again, though I aſſerted the de­ſert of obedience from the dignity of the Subject, yet withal I affirmed that the Subject muſt be an infinite per­ſon, and one from whom no obedience is due, Quakers Folly, p. 15.

T D.

gives the explication of 1 Cor. 6.11. Where by the Spirit of our God, is interpreted of the Spirits applica­tion, ireferring to Juſt fication, or elſe it may relate to Sanctification, ſpoken of in the former clauſe.


Anſ. He would divide the Spirit of God, from the Name of Jeſus; when as his Name and Spirit are one. And where doth he prove that juſtified by the Spirit, (which he ignorantly calls the third Perſon in the Tri­nity) is not the work of Grace? Here he would divide the Grace of God from the Spirit, for the Saints were juſtfied freely by his Grace, which was one with the Spi­rit.

T. D

Reply. Though Jeſus and the Spirit are one God, yet they have diſtinct operatons, or manner of working about our Juſtification. 'Tis Jeſus alone, and not the Spirit (nor the Father) who merits and makes ſatisfa­ction for our ſins. The Spirit gives Faith to lay hold on11 Chriſt for Juſtification, and ſeals the ſouls intereſt when obtained. I have proved that we are not juſtified by the work of Grace, or good works, in the diſcourſe upon Ju­ſtification, Quakers Folly, p. 15. &c. And ſo that the work of Grace cannot be meant in that place (if by Spi­rit muſt be meant the meritorious cauſe of Juſtification, as you aſſert) I do not divide the Grace of God from the Spirit. But I affirm, that the Gce wrought in us by the Spirit is no meritorious cauſe oJuſtification. As for that paſſage, justified frely by his Grace, which is in Rom. 3.24. It intends not grace〈◊〉us, but the grace or favour of God in giving Chriſt for our propitiation, v. 25. As for your accuſation of ignorane, I value it not, but look upon it as a juſtifiable ground〈◊〉account you a blaſ­phemer, for 'tis an implicite denying of what I expreſly affirmed, (viz) Perſons in the Godhead.

T. D.

p. 16. The Apoſtle aſſertshe holineſſe of mans nature as a work of the Spirit confoming it to the Law, to be the meritorious cauſe of our fedom from ſin.


Anſ. And yet he hath dal d good works of o­bedience to be a deſerving cauſe ojuſtification. What is not juſtification a freedom from in? Acts 13.39. And where doth he prove the holineſſe omans nature is a me­ritoious cauſe of our freedom from ſin?

T D.

R ply I ſee G. W. thou art ſo far from perfect, that thou wanteſt moral honeſty. Thou ſhouldſt have added, what I did in the ſame period, to make up my ſenſe? but mark withal, 'tis not that [holineſſe of mans nature] which is in us, but in Chriſt. And then thou might'ſt have anſwered thy own Queſtions. The righteouſneſſe of Chriſts humane nature or active obedience, as we uſu­lly call it, in oppoſition to paſſive, is aſſerted to be the cauſe of our freedom from ſin and death, Rom. 8.2. But not righteouſneſſe inherent in the ſame nature, as it ſubſiſts in our perſons. As for Acts 13.39. I find nothing to12 the purpoſe; it aſſerts not your Popiſh Doctrine, that juſtification is ſanctification, or that the righteouſneſſe whereby we are juſtified, is infuſed or inherent. The words are, And by him all that belive are juſtified from all things, from which ye could not be juſtified by the Law of Moſes, And it proves that by Faith men are freed from the guilt of all their ſins. And what of that?

T. D.

ſaih, Rom. 8.4, 5. It impots the end for which God ſent Chriſt, that his righteouſneſſe might be impu­ted to us, as if it had been inherent in our ſelves.

G. .

Anſ. If the Apoſtle had not meant the righte­ouſneſſe of the Law fulfilled in their own perſons, he would not have ſaid, fulfilled in us, neither would he have counted Chriſts righteouſneſſe inherent in them­ſelves, if he had not counted it••hm, nor needed he to ſpeak of theighteouſneſſe of the Law beingo be fulfil­led in Chriſt (as if it had not been fulfilled in him)

T. D.

R••ly. Bold man! Who art thou that teacheſt the Apoſtle how to ſpeak, who canſt not ſpeak ſenſe thy ſelf? (as appears by the middle clauſe of this thy anſwer.) If thou didſt underſtand thy ſelf, thou wouldſt ſay that the Apoſtle would not account that righteouſneſſe in the Saints, which was not in them. Nor indeed dos the Apoſtle ſo miſtake, but he aſſets that the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt redounds to their benefit, as if it had been their own inherent righteouſneſſe As the principal is diſchar­ged from the debt, when the ſurety paid it, though the credtor cannot, nor does ſay that the principal did make payment. Nor does the Apoſtle ſpeak of Chriſt's fulfil­lng the Law as ihe had not done it, but he tells of what Chriſt hah already done, and to what end, (viz) that we might have the benefit of it, as if it had been our per­ſonal act.

T. D.

Suppoſed S. F. to mean, when he acknowledg­ed degrees among Believers, that ſome of theſe (Belev­ers)13 have a mixture of ſin with their Grace.


Anſ. This is a falſe ſuppoſition, grace is pure, the mixture of ſin is in that which goeth from the grace.


Reply. Reader, If thou doſt not judge this latter clauſe in the anſwer to be unintelligible non-ſenſe, thy judgment and mine muſt part her. Mixture doth ſuppoſe at leaſt two ingredients, but whathat is which goes fom grace to mingle with ſin, I cannot divine. He ſhould mean, that when grace decreaſs, corruption increaſes, and gathers ſtrength. As for my words, they intended but that ſin and grace are in the ſame ſubjct, or in each faculty of the ſoul, not ſucceſſively, but together, at the ſame time, which Paul expreſſes by anoter Law in his members, rebelling againſt the Law of his mind, Rom 7.23.

[Reader, G.W. quotes a paſſage, p. 18. l. 17. of my Book, wherein he ſaies, I wronged S. F. But I refr you to the place, where you may read it, and judge as thou ſeeſt cauſe.]

T. D.

ſaies, p. 19. Conſcience in the Saints being but in part cleanſed, as a witneſs it tetifies falſhoodo them alſo.

G. W.

Anſ. This man laies falſhood and badneſs to the charge of the Saints Conſciences,heeas they witnſſed truth to them, Sanctification throughout, 1 Theſ. 5.23. and holineſſe perfectd in the fear of God

T. D.

Reply. I do ſtill affirm that no faculty in the Saintss ſanctified wholly, but only in part (And that place you bring, 1 Theſ. 5.23. is a diſtribution of the ſubjects of Grace, it intends not pefection of deg••es in each ſubject) And if no faculty,henoCnſcience, As for 2 Cor. 7 1. which you f••mo quo••, y••wong that Scripture. The words are not〈◊〉ſ••p••fcted, but perfcting holineſs And the Apoſtleo not ſuppoſthir holineſſe to be perfected, but exho••them to endavour14 after degrees of Grace, nearer perfection, which he ex­preſſes by cleanſing from all filthineſſe of fleſh and Spirit, in the former clauſe of the verſe, which ſuppoſes that there was filthineſs remaining in both, and then in Conſcience, for that is partly intended under Spirit, See Quakers fol­ly, p. 19.

T. D.

ſaith, p. 21. As Chriſt was made ſin for us, ſo are we the righteouſneſs of God in him, but the former was by imputation, not inherence, and therefore ſo the lat­ter.


Anſ. If our being made the righteouſneſs of God in Chriſt be but like Chriſt's being made ſifor us, then this Pr. might as well ſay, that we ſhall have no righte­ouſneſs in us at all, for Chriſt was made ſn for us, who knew no ſin.


Reply. There is not the ſame reaſon G.W. for ſaying the one, as for ſaying the other. For 2 Cor. 5. ult. aſſerts ſuch a proportion as I mentioned, but no Scripture ſuch a one as you vainly ſuppoſe. Yet this I ſay, that as there was no neceſſity of inherent ſin in Chriſt, in order to the imputation of our ſin to him, ſo nor of inherent righteouſneſs in us, to the imputation of his righteouſ­neſs to us. But our Juſtfication is as independent upon our inherent righteouſneſs, as if we had none. The Sure­ty (though he never contracted penny of the debt) is as much obliged to payment as the Princpal; and the Principal is as truly diſcharged by the Suety s payment, though he pay nothing out of his own eſtate.


ſaid, do you think that the righteouſneſs which the Apoſtle cals his own, was not Chriſt's?


Anſ. He might as well ſay, that the Apoſtle de­ſired noto have Chriſts righteouſneſs, which is but one.

T. D.

Reply. The Apoſtle askes a queſtion whch implies an affirmation? Who maketh thee to differ from another?15 and what haſt thou that thou didſt not receive? 1 Cor. 4.7. And 'tis as true of righteouſneſs inherent, as of common gifts, which are there ſpoke of. The righteouſneſs of his perſonal conformity to the Law Paul deſired not to be found in, but in Chriſts imputed to him. But I have ſaid enough, which G.W. takes no notice of, becauſe he cannot reply to it Quakers Folly, p. 21. 2.

[Note Reader, that G.W. ſpends two Pages, 27, 28. of his Book, about my explication of Col. 1.26. and the di­ſtinction I make between Chriſt perſonal and myſtcal; for anſwer whereto, to ſave the trouble of repetition, I refer you to Quakers Folly, p. 22, 23. Only whereas he re­plies to the diſtinction, that Chriſt is but one, I ſay ſo too, yet the Name of Chriſt is applied ſomtimes to the Head, and at other times tohe Body. And they are though one in reſpect of Union, yet of diſtinct conſidera­tion in the buſineſſe of ſalvation, Eph. 5.23. Chriſt the Head is the Saviour, Chriſt the Body the Saved.]

And whereas G.W. denies, that he ſaid, we are juſtified by Sanctification, I am confident that was his word, however, if it was righteouſneſſe within, it comes all to one: 'Tis evident that the dift of his diſcourſe was to maintain that aſſertion.


QUESTION 4. Concerning the Scriptures.


THE Scriptures are the Word of God and the ſaid Rle of Faith and life, and that there is no­th••ſtning Rle bt thSc••ptues.


Anſ. What then was their Rule who ſpoke〈◊〉the Sciptues? And what was the Gentiles Rule? And what muſt be their Rle who cannot read thcrip­tures? Mſt they be condemned, becauſe they cannot read thm? The Word oGod is in the heats of Be­lievrs, and of this Word the Sriptures are a true de­clara••on but at not the Word

T D.

R••ly I muſt agin refer the Reader for an an­ſwer to th••Qu••ie, to Qukers Fo••y, p. 29, 30, 43, 44. And〈…〉matter cnanedn the Scriptures is a Rule to〈…〉(ſo for as 'tis revealed to them) and ws〈…〉•••re it waput into witing. And ſo much of it as〈…〉upn the hearts of Heathens, is a rule to th••Rm 2.12 And ſince they ae in a body preſented〈◊〉, thwholohm are our Rule. And for thoſe who cnnot ra, though thy ſhall not be condemned for a•••urlncapacity, yet they ſhall for not walk ng accrding to the Scriptures, as they a••ain the know­l••ge of them by ſome othr way ahea••ng, &c. To that Not on, thathe Scpures are but a true dclaration of thWod ofodn the hats of Belivers. I re­py, that th•••p u••s are alo a dclaration of what ought to〈◊〉thhea••s of Belev••s,nd unbe­••evers. If you m•••(amoſt of you do) that they are17 only a declaration of their conditions who ſpake them, read, 1 Pet. 1.10, 12. and that place alone will confute you.

T D.

John 20.30, 31. Suppoſe we had the ſigns faith­fully rcoded, yet were they not our Rule, becauſe God did not gve order for them, but hah aſſured us as much as isufficent to create and preſerve Faith in the Go­ſpel whch we have.


Anſ. Faith is the gift of God, not created and preſerved by the Sciptures, but by Chriſt the author of Faith And again, this Prieſt in affirming no other Rule, but what we have in Scrpture, hath contradicted him­ſelf, p 44 he ſaies, that thoſe things that were not written, migh haveeen uſeful, if they had been written, for they were done for the very ſame end, with thoſe (ſigns) which are lft us. So then many things that are not written, might have been as uſeful, as that which is written in the Sc••ptures.

T. D.

Reply. I ſee thou art a man of depth, G.W. to make an oppſition where there isſubordination, be­tween the efficient and inſtrumentacauſe. The ſecond creation doth not exclude (though the firſt did) inſtru­ments or ſecond cauſes, James 1.18. Of his own will be­gat he us with the〈◊〉of Truth. Rom. 10.17. Faith comesy hearng, and hearng by theod of God. Which Word is the repot othe Goſpel. v. 16. I am not ſenſible of any contradiction in the paſſages G••quotes. Q. Folly, p. 26. I told Mr. F ſher, Sermons havthe ſame common end with the Scriptures, yet they are not a Rule any fur­thr than they agee with the Scriptures, And hence the Bere••s are commanded forxamning Pauls ſermons, by the Sciptures, Acts 17.11. Yet God bleſſes them ſo far as that the Word preached is the uſuameans of converſi­on, whereas the written Scriptures armore rarely ſuch. You add, as uſeful, which I did not affirm, for that18 which was delivered to us by Divine Authority, hath Gods promiſe of bleſſing, that it ſhall be inſtrumental to beget a Divine Faith, John 20.21. Theſe [ſigns] are written that ye might believe, &c. But from ſuch ſigns as are handed by humane authoity only an humane Faith may be expected, which is uſeful in its kind to prevent or take off prejudice againſt what is of Divine Authority, which the carnal reaſon of man is apt to cavil atf you ſay (as you ſeem to do) thaif all the ſigns were done for the ſame end, then being written they muſt reach the ſame end. I deny the conſquence, for the difference lies in Gods arbitrary diſpenſation. Hwought them all for the end mentioned, but hath thought fit to tranſmit only ſome ſw by writing to po••erity, and they ſhall be in ſtead of all the reſt.


cavils at my denial otheir infallibility, which I judge anſwered ſufficently, Qu Folly, p. 39. l. 20.]

T. D.

As for our want of infallibllity, 'tis no valid plea againſt our Miniſtry, p. 33. and the Spirit of God may accompany a Miniſtry, and the Miniſter not have the Spiit. See for proof, Acts 20 30. Mat. 23.23.


Aſ. Thy that want infallibility are out of the Truth. The Scribes and Phariſees tht ſpoke perverſe things againſt the Apſtles, the Spirit did not then ac­company what they m niſtrd.

T. D.

R ply. Why do you not reply to Acts 20.30. Which proves clearly that the Goſpl-Miniſters are not in­fallible? As alſo 1 Theſ. 5.19, 20, 21. Which I impro­ved, Q. Folly. p. 33. we may mſ••ke in ſome things, yet ordinarily we preach infallible Truths. Hence the Church is called te Pillar and Ground of Truth, 1 Tim. 3.15. Pillar, non ſeſu aci••ctonico, ſed forenſi; as upon the Exchange in London, are Pillars upon which hang Ta­bles of Proclamations. And Ground,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Seat of Truh, or place of its reſidence, and the gates of Hell ſhall19 no more prevail againſt the publication, than the profeſſion and practiſe of infallble Truths in the Church univerſal, though they may againſt particular Miniſters and Chur­ches, by damnable Hereſies (ſuch as yours, G.W.) And as for your inſtance of the Scribes and Phariſes. I an­ſwer, that though the Spirit did notccompany their Mi­niſtry, when they ſpoke againſt Chr••t yet hd d accom­pany it, when they taught the people tob evſuch things as Chriſt enjoynd And this they dd o•••ntimes, as I ſhewed, Mat. 23.3. What they hiyou obſerve, that ob­ſerve, and do. Chrſt did then approve of their Doctrine in thoſe things wherein he would have it practiſed. And if ſo, then the Spirit was in their Miniſt y, and yet he was not in themſelves, for tey ſa••, and did not, (i. e. practiſed not their own Doctrine.)

[Reader, note that G.W. having anſwered after his faſhion ſome o the aguments inhe Diſpue, he pre­tends alſo to reply to ſveral things, which I wrote againſt R.H. but G. Whith•••s replies are ſojne, that I need but deſie you to compare them (if you judge them worth your reading, for I ſhall not ſtand to tranſcribe them) with the places in my Book, to which I ſhall refer you, and I dare ſtand to your judgment.

[G.W. p. 34. T. D. p. 35. G. W p. 35. T. D p. 36, 37. G. W p. 37. T. D. p. 40, 41. G W. p. 40. T.D. p. 44.]

Only four paſſages I ſhall brifly reply to.

T. D.

The righteouſneſs which God woks in us, is but finite, as well as other effects, p. 39


Anſ. And yet this Pr p. 37. hath owned that the righteouſneſs whreof Chriſt is thſubject, and that whereof he is the efficient are of one pcies or kind; then I ſay, the righteouneſs which God efcts in us, is not fi­nite, but infinite, for Chriſt is Gods righteouſneſs, and Chriſt is formed in us.


Reply. A pitiful cavil! The righteouſneſs in Chriſt20 which I aſſerted to be of the ſame kind with that in us, muſt be underſtood of the righteouſneſs of Chriſts humane Natue, John 1.16. & of his fulneſſe have we received Grace foGrace, (viz.) As the eſſential and integral parts of the child anſwer to the Parents, or as the Paper receives the impreſſion of the ſtamp. Chriſt indeed is Gods righte­ouſnſs, in reſpect of Gods donation and acceptance of him for mans righteouſneſſe, 1 Cor. 1.30. Who (Chriſt) of God is madunto us righteouſneſs. But the righteouſneſs of the Divine Nature or Godhead is not our Juſtification. No, but the righteouſneſs of Chriſts Humane Nature, as it receives an infinite value from the Divine Nature, to which the Humane is united in one perſon.


ſaid, the Spirit was not wont to be effectual with­out the Letter of the Word, and gave inſtance, Rom. 10.17.


Anſ. He might as well have ſaid, the Apoſtles Miniſtry wanot wont to be effectual, for Pul was not a Minſter of the Letter (or writing) but of the Spirit, or thing declared of. 2 Cor. 3.6. Rom. 10.17. is againſt his principle, for there is a difference between the Word and the Letter, for the Word abideth for ever. 1 Pet. 1.23. So doth not the Letter. How would Pr. convince Heathens of Chriſt, ithe Spirit be not effectual without the Let­ter

T. D.

Repy. I had thought Paul had been a Miniſter of the Letter, (if you mean the writing) for did not he miniſter (as you phraſe it) many Epiſtles to the Chur­ches, and command the Letter to be read, Col. 4.16. 2 Cor. 3.7. intends that Paul did not only ſhew them their duty, and the happinſs to be had in Chriſt, but his Miniſtry was a means of conveying ſtrength to do it, and putting them into an happy eſtate. Your d ſtinction between Word and Ltter is frivolous, the Letter abideth for ever in the ſne there intended,••z. in the impreſſions of it21 upon the hearts of the regenerate, v. 2, 3. 'Tis not true of the new creature, that he is bon to die. To your fond Queſtion, I anſwer, The Apotle makes preaching ordinarily neceſſary to the converſion of Heathens, Rom. 10.14. How ſhall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? Preaching, without the Spirits efficacy, brings but the Letter of the Word, yet 'tis as neceſſary by Gods ordination, as plowing, with the influence of the Heavens, to make the earth bring forth.

T. D.

The Goſpel gives life upon imperfect obedi­ence.


Anſ. And yet before he denied our good works to be a deſerving cauſe of juſtification, when now 'tis ſo far deſerving, that the Goſpel gives lie upon it.

T. D.

Reply. Fair and ſoftly goes a great way in a day, G W. you make too much haſt to have good ſpeed, to find out a contradiction where there is none. I did not ſay that imperfect obedience deſerves life, though I did, that the Goſpel gives life upon it. Thus your Catholick Bre­thren, when J mes ſaies, This man ſhall be bleſsed in his ded, Jam. 1.25. cry out, here is a clear place to prove, that we are bleſſed for our deds, but alas, they mak not the warineſs of the Scripture phraſe, which is not for, but in his deed. Our deeds may be Argments or Evidences of our bleſſed ſtate, but no deſerv ng cauſe. And hadſt thou had any ingenuity, thou woulſt have taken in the who••period, which was neceſſary to underſtand my meaning, which was thus, Thougthe Law gives not life without perfect obedience, the Gſpl gives it upon im­perfect obedience, i. e. Thouh the Lw exacs perect per­ſonal obedience to Juſtification,〈◊〉the Goſpl does not, but by believing we obtain int•••ſt in Chriſts righ­teouſneſs for that end.

T. D.

David was not free from thbing oſin in this life, but a ſad inſtance of the power of it in real Saints,22 and yet he is made a pattern to New-Teſtament-Saints, Zach. 12.8. p. 48.


Anſ That Scripture proves his Doctrine falſe, for the words are, He that is fe••le among them ſhall be as David, and the Houſe oDavd ſhll be as God, as thengel of the Lordefore them. So that David and the New-Tſtament-Saints were free fom ſin, for in God is no ſin

T. D.

Reply The words are intended in the Letter, of the H••och Forttude and Srength which the people ſhould have inhe tme of danger, like to David's. And ofengelikad Divine pitch of both, which the Ru­ler(intendd by the Houſe of David, which was the Royal Fam••y) ••ould be raiſd to through Faith in Chriſt. And ſo they give us two ſizes of ſtrength and for••tude, and not one only (as G••interpres them.) Some ſhall be as David, & others as God. Now look as Omnipotency is not Literally promiſd to Davids Houſe, but by anx••ſſe of ſpech, or Hyp••bole, a greater mea­ſure of ſtrength than others againſt bodily enemies, ſo nor can we underſtand it (ſpritualy) bt of a greater meaſure of ſpiritual ſtrength againſtp••itul enemies.

To conclude this diſcourſe, I ſhall not refuſe to imitate an adverſary (though I ſhall be more ingenuous than to wrong hm as he hath done me) but ſhall bifly ſum up his principles, and aſſertions, with the place in his Book, where they are to be found.

The Spirit was eff ctual among the Gentiles, who had not the Letter of the Word, p. 39.

The works of God which true Believers witneſſe, are perfect, p. 18.


He (meaning my ſelf) would have the Believers like the P••eſts who ſin in the beſt of their performances (as they conf ſſe) p. 18.

Tht our good works are the meritorious or deſerving cauſe of our Juſtification, p. 19.

G. W. finds fault with me for holding that the Scriptures are the Word of God, and the only ſtanding Rule of Faith, and life, p. 29.

Thoſe Teachers that want infalliblity, are out of the Truth, p. 33.

G. W. calls it Ignorance in me, to call the Spirit the third Perſon in the Trinity, p. 22.




MY Rejoynder to G.W. having been finiſhed a good while ſince (as the date of the Epiſtle will inform thee) and the Book­ſeller having thought fit to delay the publication, after it was off the Preſſe, (upon a conſideration not neceſſary to be mentioned) I have been perſwaded by ſome worthy Friends to annex a Narrative, the materials whereof lay by me; and are of undoubted credit. To moſt of them thou ſhalt have the Witneſſes names (perſons of much integrity) and where they are wanting in the reſt (the Witneſſes not judging it adviſable in ſome reſpects to be publickly named) I ſhall be accountable to any man that deſires it for a punctual proof. Thou canſt not be ſo much a ſtranger in England, as not to know how fre­quently the Quakers decry the preſent Miniſtry, with their Doctrine and Worſhip, under the Notion of Anti­chriſtian. But how little reaſon have they ſo to do? conſide­ring how much themſelves do ſymbolize with Antichriſt, particularly in that grand Doctrine of Juſtification by works, which as they hold in the Principle, they reduce it to Practiſe. Witneſſe. Mr. Davis Min. of Dover.For one of them lately at Dover, when he came to die, upon the queſtion put to him,2 made anſwer, that he expected ſalvation only by his own works, and not by Chriſt. And dying men may uſually be preſumed to ſpeak their hearts. And I am out of doubt that they are acted by the antichriſtian Faction. A Gentle­man of good credit aſſured me that he met with an Engliſh Jeſuit in London, the firſt Lords day in June laſt; one who was bred in Cambridge, and had been formerly of his acquaintance, who after ſome ſhyneſſe to be known, at length confeſſed that he came over to propagate the Romiſh Faith, and told him, that there was a good ho­neſt people called Quakers, whom we jeer'd at, that did their work at the ſecond hand; and he boaſted much of the numbers that turned Catholicks immediatly, or medi­ly, by becomming Quakers. And another Gentleman that came this Spring from St. Omars, did avouch that he ſaw the Jeſuits there, about four a Clock every evening throw off their Gowns, and put on aprons, and betake themſelves to the exerciſe of Handy-craft callings; ſome plaid the Shoomakers, others ſate at the Loom, others kill'd and dreſſ'd ſheep, and they did not ſtick to boaſt, that under the diſguiſe of ſuch callings (working as Journeymen, and changing place as they liſted) they ſerved the Romiſh Church. And the Head of the Colledge told him, that England never was in ſo fair a way of re­turn to the Romiſh See, ſince it broke off, as now. And what hopes the Papiſts can have, unleſſe from the encreaſe of Quakers, I leave Reader to thy determination. And the truth is, the Quakers now dclare their intentions to propagate their perſwaſions by the ſword, whereas they were wnt to pretend to ſo much meekneſs & peace­ableneſſe that they would bear neither ſtaffe nor ſword. At•••t Meeting of the Quakes, in Hurst-Peir-point in Suſſex, he that undertook to be the Speaker, cald out to the Minof the Pariſh (who then accidentally paſſed by) ſay­ing, We will have you all down, for now our day is come 3 and another Quaker in the Pariſh of Nuthurſt in the ſame County, did ſay to a Godly perſon of good quality in that Pariſh, that he no more cared to kill one of the Priests, (as he ſtiled the Miniſters) then he would to kill a dog. And another Quaker way-laid the Miniſter of Covewold, (a very worthy and reverend man at his return from a Faſt) and juſtled him upon the high way, (as he kept it; having his Wife behind him) and drew out a ſword, which he had by his ſide, about half way, which was a ſhrewd preſumption that he intended the Miniſter miſ­cheif; but that ſome Neighbours that came from the Faſt, coming up to them, prevented it. And they do uſually give out threatning ſpeechs againſt the Miniſtry, and their Friends. Mr. Wingfield.One In­ſtance you may take, as it was formal­ly atteſted to me, under the hand of a Godly miniſter of a Town within one mile of Sandwich.

I do teſtifie that Luke Howard of Dover Quaker, did ſay in my hearing on the 25 day of July 1659. upon the rode, near Dover Caſtle, that it was revealed to him by the eternal God that the Prieſts ſhall be deſtroyed, and by the people who are called Quakers. In teſtimony whereof, I ſet my hand, Aug. 3. 1659. Will. Wingfield. Min. at Word.

And in a late Pamphlet, call'd a Word of advice to the Souldiers, by E.B. Quaker, p. 2. (he ſpeaking to the Souldiers, of the Miniſters) uſes this paſſage, Oh give the Prieſts bloud to drink, for they are worthy. I my ſelf read the whole Book through, and can therefore atteſt it upon perſonal knowledge.

And what affronts theſe wretches offer to the Worſhip of God, is notoriouſly known: On the Lords day (be­ing the 18 of Sept. 1659.) one Will. Naylor Brother to James Naylor, (a Quaker) came into the Savoy Church,4 when Mr. Hooke was in the Pulpit preaching, and made ſuch a bellowing noiſe, that it ſeemed to be rather the Devil ſpeaking within him, than his own natural voice; inſomuch that the Miniſter was neceſſitated for a time to hold his peace; and many of the people were ſadly af­frighted at the dreadfulneſſe of the noiſe, that ſome ran one way, ſome another, to ſecure themſelves from the danger which they apprehended was near them. This is teſtified by credible Witneſſes, as Mr. and Mrs. Hooke, and divers others.

And at Aldermanbury, on a Lords day, June 12, 1659. whilſt the Pſalm was ſinging, a Quaker gat up into the Pulpit, with his Hat on his head, and ſetting his Breech upon the Cuſhion, fell to ſewing. Anothr example as remarkable as the former, was in Chriſt-Church, Octob. 6, 1659. It being a Day of publick Thankſgiving, the Parl. L. Major, Aldermen, Com. Coun. & Officers ofhe army, being there met together, to hear Dr. Homes and Mr. Caryl, who were appointed by the Parl. to preach before them. Mr. Caryl being the laſt that preached, it ſo fell out, that when he was in his laſt Prayer, there were two Quakers made a very great diſturbance in the publick aſſembly, in the very preſence of authority: This will be teſtified by many Witneſſes that were preſent. And they ſeem to re­gard their own Worſhip as little as they do ours. For March 6 1659, one Mary Todd of Southwark, Quaker, at the Bull and Mouth in Alderſgate-ſtreet, an uſual Meeting place, whilſt her Friends (as they call one ano­ther) were ſpeaking, pull'd up all her cloaths above her middle,Mr. Tho. Creſſt, Chirurgion. expo­ſing her nakedneſſe to the view of all that were in the Room, and walked ſo up and down a while, uſing ſeveral expreſſions about her practiſe, as ſutable to a ſtate of innocency and perfe­ction: This I had from an eye and ear-witneſſe who is5 named in the Margin: and what a beaſtly and abomina­ble practiſe this was; eſpecially in a woman, beſides the unſeaſonableneſſe of it, being in the time of their Wor­ſhip, (ſuch as it is) I leave to thee to judge. And whereas 'tis an uſual thing for the Quakers to call Miniſters of the Goſpel Liars, it is well enough known, that beſides the Lies of their Doctrine, they have not ſo much moral ho­neſty, as to ſpeak Truth in matters of Fact.

In May laſt, there having been ſome diſcourſe one day between one Howard of Dover Quaker,Mr. Ruſſel, Min. in the Marſh. and a Miniſter in Rumney Marſh, the next day was appointed for further diſcourſe between them two, but over-night the ſaid Howard ſent his horſe and man for Mr. Fiſher (ſometime a Miniſter, now a Quaker, and ſuſpected to be a Jeſuit. ) and going with him to the place of meeting, told the people, that ſeeing S. Fiſher came accidentally thither, he would now leave the diſcourſe to him; whereupon one among the people ſtept out, and told Howard that he lied, for he did ſee his horſe and man go out over-night, and ſee the ſaid Fiſher ride into the Town on the morning upon the ſame horſe, by which it was manifeſt that he ſent for him on purpoſe. All that they could ſay in juſtification of themſelves, was, that the ſaid Fiſher came accidentally in reſpect of the people or Miniſter who was to diſcourſe, they knowing nothing of his coming. To conclude, I deſire thee Rea­der, to peruſe the Quakers anſwer to certain queſtions propoſed to them, hereto annexed, wherein thou wilt find them denying the Scriptures to be the Rule for judging matters of Faith; aſserting that they ſhould have had knowledge of God ſufficient to ſalvation, if they had never heard of the Bible; and their words and writings are as infallible as the Scriptures; and again, denying the Perſons in the Godhead, the Humane, Nature of Chriſt, and that6 Chriſt is a diſtinct Perſon from the Saints, and that there hath been a true Church ſince the Apoſtles, till now, and that one day is more holy than another. And ſurely by theſe Principles in conjunction with the reſt which thou haſt an account of in the Book it ſelf, to which this Narrative is annexed, the Quakers have for ever forfeited the name of Chriſtians, and are to be reputed Heathens.

Questions propoſed to, and anſwered by Joſeph Fuce, Quaker.

Queſt VVHether the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament be the Rule of trying and judging all matters of Faith and obedience towards God?

Anſw. And now I ſhall ſet down theſe Proofs to prove the Scriptures are not to be the Rule for to try and judge all things or matters of Faith, John 5.22 &c.

Q. Whether the Light within, you ſo much ſpeak of, be ſufficint to guide you to Salvation, if you had never heard of the Bible?

Anſ. I do believe if I had never ſeen the Bible, yet believing the Witneſſe which God hath given, which is Chriſt, the Light & hope and Glory in us, which we ſo much ſpeak of, and preach freely as we have received, to the offending of thoſe deceivers that preach for hire, and ſo make merchandiſe of the people, I ſay, I ſhould have attained to the knowledge of God, if I had never heard of the Bible.


Q Whether the teachings or writings of any of your way be infallible or of equal authority with the Scriptures of the Old and New Teſtament?

Anſ. I ſay, we do not erre in ſpeaking or writing the Truth as it is in Jeſus, and that of God in all Conſciences ſhall one day witneſſe this to be true and infallible: and the Scriptures and our writings hath and will moſt cer­tainly come to paſſe.

Q. Whether the Father, the Word, and the Spirit be three diſtinct Perſons in the ſelf-ſame Godhead?

Anſ. As for thy words, three diſtinct Perſons, that I deny, till thou proveſt them by plain Scripture. It is like the Biſhops in Rome may own thee in them, for that is ſome of their unfruitful works of darkneſſe.

Qu. Whether Jſus Chriſt hath a Divine and Humane Na­ture in one perſon?

Anſ. Thy words, Humane Nature, I return them with thoſe words, Three Perſons, into the Pit of confuſion, from whence they came.

Qu. Whether Jeſus Chriſt remains for ever a diſtinct Perſon from all the Saints?

Anſ. But as for being a diſtinct Perſon from all the Saints, he is not.

Qu. Whether the true Church hath failed upon earth ſince the death of the Apoſtles of Jeſus Chiſt, mntil theſe times? if not, in what age or ages, or among what people hath it con­tinued?

Anſ. He cauſed all both ſmall and great, rich and poor, bond and free, to receive a mark in their forheads, or in their right hand. Read, Rev. 13. And thus the true Church ceaſed or failed upon earth, ſince the death of the Apoſtles of Chriſt, untilhe raiſing up of Gods own ſeed out of the earth, to ſtand a witneſſe a­gainſt wicked murderers, and Perſecutors of the Saints, and true Church of Chriſt.


Qu. Whether the first day of the Week be more holy than any other day of the Week.

Anſ. All the daies of the Week as the Lord created them, are holy unto the Saints, who are redeemed from obſerving daies and moneths, and times, and years.

Theſe things are expreſly aſſerted and ſubſcribed by

Joſeph Fuce.

About this transcription

TextThe Quakers vvisdom descendeth not from above or a brief vindication of a small tract, intituled, The Quakers folly made manifest to all men, as also of its authour, from the exceptions made against it, and aspersions cast upon him. In a pamphlet called The voice of wisdom, &c. published by George Whithead, Quaker. / By Tho. Danson, M.A. late fellow of Magd. Coll. Oxon. And now minister of the Gospel at Sandwich in Kent.
AuthorDanson, Thomas, d. 1694..
Extent Approx. 65 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 22 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.
SeriesEarly English books online text creation partnership.
Additional notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A81745)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 121325)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 244:E2255[4])

About the source text

Bibliographic informationThe Quakers vvisdom descendeth not from above or a brief vindication of a small tract, intituled, The Quakers folly made manifest to all men, as also of its authour, from the exceptions made against it, and aspersions cast upon him. In a pamphlet called The voice of wisdom, &c. published by George Whithead, Quaker. / By Tho. Danson, M.A. late fellow of Magd. Coll. Oxon. And now minister of the Gospel at Sandwich in Kent. Danson, Thomas, d. 1694.. [8], 23; [1], 8 p. Printed for J. Allen, at the Rising Sun in Pauls Church-yard,London :1659.. ("A narrative" has separate caption title and pagination; register is continuous.) (Reproduction of the original in the British Library.)
  • Danson, Thomas, d. 1694. -- Quakers folly made manifest to all men -- Early works to 1800.
  • Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723. -- Voice of wisdom -- Early works to 1800.
  • Society of Friends -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800.

Editorial statement

About the encoding

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

Editorial principles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Publication information

  • Text Creation Partnership,
ImprintAnn Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2014-11 (EEBO-TCP Phase 2).
  • DLPS A81745
  • STC Wing D217
  • STC Thomason E2255_4
  • STC ESTC R210142
  • EEBO-CITATION 99868968
  • PROQUEST 99868968
  • VID 121325

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.