The QVAKERS Quaking: OR, The Foundation of their Deceipt ſhaken, both in their Quakings, Doctrines, Miniſterie, and Lives.
IF ever the My stery of Iniquity, or Iniquity in a myſtery, did work in the hearts and mindes of men: or if ever the devil did manage a Deſigne under ground, ſurely be doth it now by the men called QUAKERS, who, like ſo many Apes, do imitate many of the Faithful in ſome circumſtances, that they may the better deceive in matters that are most ſubſtantial. And this (through the help of God) I ſhall make appear, by ſhewing, that their Quaking, and their Doctrine, Miniſtery, and Lives, is a meer deceit. And firſt, I ſhall ſpeaking ſomewhat touching their Quaking: and therein, I ſhall first ſpeak ſomething touching their Name; and ſecondly, ſomething touching their Practice, viz. Quaking; and the Scriptures they urge in favour to ſuch a practice.
2I Shall in the firſt place ſpeak to that Name or Title by which they are known to the world, viz. QUAKERS. In this they would make men believe they are nick-named; as appears in a book of James Nayler's, called, The diſcovery of the first wiſdom from beneath: where in the Titlepage he ſubſcribes himſelf, One whom the world ſcornſully nick-names, and calls Quaker. Again, in another book of his, called, The power and glory of the Lord ſhining out of the North; in the title-page he ſubſcribes himſelf One whom Iſhmael's brood calls a Quaker. I could bring many inſtances of this kind, to ſhew how they would make men believe they are greatly wronged when they are diſtinguiſhed from other men by this term Quakers. Now ſee their deceit; they ſay Iſhmael's Brood and the world calls them ſo, and yet they take paines to prove themſelves ſo: ſee page 16 and 17 of the laſt fore-mentioned Book: he ſaith, But ſearch the Scriptures, and holy men of God do witneſſ quaking and trembling. See likewiſe Parnel's Shield of Truth, p. 1. and a Book of theirs, called Sauls Errand to Damaſew, p. 32. It being asked by a Juſtice, How it came to paſs that people quake and tremble; James Nayler anſwered, that the Scriptures witneſs the ſame condition in the Saints formerly, &c. Now pray obſerve, the Chriſtians of old were never offended at that which the Scriptures did witneſs them to be: as for inſtance, the Scripture calls them believers, becauſe they believed; diſciples, becauſe they had learned; Saints, becauſe they were holy; and they that prayed, were called a praying people. 3Now where do the Saints of old anywhere call theſe Nick-names, when they were call'd according to what they either believed or practiſed? Is it any more a Nick-name to call a man a Quaker that quakes by the power of God, (if that be true that they ſay) then to call a righteous man a righteous man, that is made righteous by the power of God? or is it any more a Nick-name to call a man a Quaker, that witneſſes to quaking, and owns it, then it is to call a man a Chriſtian, that witneſſes to Chriſt, and owns him? I believe a man may deridingly be call'd a Chriſtian, as doubtleſs ſome of theſe are call'd Quakers; and ſo many are deridingly call'd Saints and holy men; yet theſe are no Nick-names: if they are ſo, the people in captivity were deridingly bid to ſing one of Sion's ſongs, yet theſe were not Nick-names to thoſe ſongs. By this you may ſee that they are Lyers, in ſaying that they are Nick-named Quakers, when themſelves ſay they witneſs quaking: and though themſelves witneſs quaking, yet they ſay that they are Ishmael's brood that calls them ſo. But I pray tell me, if a man be frequently found in railing, whether this be a Nick-name to call him a Railer. In like maner, if theſe people (as themſelves confeſs) do frequently quake, what Nick-name is it to call them Quakers?
But now to their Scriptures alleadged for quaking, ſhaking and trembling: it is true, that ſome good men do ſay thus of themſelves; as Heb. 12.21. Ezek. 12.18. Jer. 33.9. Acts 9.6. Pſal. 119.6. and many other places. To all which I anſwer, firſt, This doth not prove that all were good that did quake and tremble: for the devils were quakers and tremblers, James 2.19. Again, good men made uſe of Scriptures, to exhort and inſtruct;4 yet ſome do make uſe of them to deceive and tempt, as the devil did Chriſt, Matth. 4.6. In like manner may Deceivers fall into quaking fits, that ſo they may ho••••me reſemblance with the ſervants of God, (that did tremble for fear of God) though the fear of God be departed from them: for the devil, many times, and his miniſters, that they may the better effect their deceits, do transform themſelves into the likeneſs of the miniſters and ſervants of Chriſt.
2. None of the Saints of old did ever foam at mouth in this their trembling; but ſome of you do, as many are able to witneſs, and as your ſelves cannot deny. When it was objected againſt you in the Weſtmoreland-Petition, that your practces did exceedingly ſavor of Sorcery, becauſe of the ſwellings, quakings, and roarings, and foamings that were among you at your meetings, but eſpecially of young children; you deny no part of the Charge in your Anſwer, but Blaſphemy and Sorcery: by which it plainly appears, that ſwellings and foamings could not be denyed, elſe you would as well have replyed to that, as Blaſphemy and Sorcery. For this, ſee their Book in anſwer to the West morland-Petition, p. 35. where they make no reply to foaming and ſwelling, though it is charged upon them to be in yong children as well as old folks. Whereupon I demand, Whether any of the Saints of old ever foamed at mouth when they trembled? 2. Whether any young children did ever foam at mouth, quake, ſwell and tremble, in the Saints meetings? 3. Whether ſuch kinde of trembling that is accompanied with foamings, do not rather argue a man to be poſſeſs'd with the devil, then with the Spirit of God? according to that of Luke 9.39.
5Laſtly, Whether this be a good Argument: viz. Some of the Saints did quake, and that by the impulſe of the Spirit of God: Therefore every one that quakes and trembles is a Saint of God, and doth it by the impulſe of the Spirit of God.
The next thing I ſhall ſpeak to, is their Doctrines: And though I confeſs they preach ſomewhat that is true, yet in this they are but the greater Deceivers. For what Heretick is there, but preaches ſome truth? and what counterfeit ſilver will paſs in pay, if there be not ſome appearance of real ſilver? So theſe men, to put off their bad ware, which other wiſe would not vent, do uſher it in with many truths. But, that the Reader may ſee that All is not gold that glisters; take notice, in the firſt place, that theſe men will allow nothing to be call'd God's Word, but Chriſt. This is their firſt Errour in Doctrine: which I thus prove:1 Error.
Firſt, becauſe God hath but one onely-begotten Son Jeſus Chriſt; but he hath many Words. That he hath but one Son Jeſus Chriſt, I prove, from Joh. 3.16. 1 Cor. 8.6. Eph. 4.5. That he hath more words then one, I prove from Deut. 8.3. Man liveth not by bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Prov. 30.5. EVERY word of God is pure. Jer. 23.36. the complaint is, that the falſe Prophets had perverted the WORDS of the living God. So that from this Scripture this Argument may be drawn againſt this Error: viz. If God have plurality of words, then ſomewhat elſe may be called the Word of God beſide his onely Son Jeſus Chriſt. But God hath plurality of words: Therefore, ſomewhat elſe may be call'd Gods Word, beſides his onely begotten Son6 Jeſus Chriſt. And the fallacie of the Argument for the contrary, is thus detected: Jeſus Chriſt is called the Word: Ergo, Nothing elſe muſt be call'd the Word but Jeſus Chriſt. May not a man as well ſay, that Jeſus Chriſt is call'd God's Son; Ergo, No one elſe may be call'd Gods ſon but Jeſus Chriſt? When we read that men are the ſons of God by ſaith; and (Joh. 1.) As many as believed, to them be gave porter to become the ſons of God; though I confeſs they are not ſons in the ſame ſenſe that Chriſt is: ſo likewiſe nothing is call'd the Word of God in the ſame ſenſe the Scriptures call Chriſt ſo, but himſelf. Again, the Scriptures call Chriſt a vine, a door, a ſhepherd: but would it not be madneſs to ſay, Where-ever we read of a vine, a door, or a ſhepherd, it muſt be underſtood of Chriſt?
Their next Errour that I ſhall name,2 Error. (and which is a conſequence of the former) is this, That they ſay the Scriptures may not be call'd the word of God: and in many of their books they blame the Miniſtery of the Nation, and others, for ſaying the Scriptures are the word of God; when Chriſt calls the written Law of Moſes the word of God, which he ſaid the Phariſees had made of none effect by their traditions, Mark 7.13. But ſee the horrible deceit of theſe men! The Scriptures (they ſay) muſt be call'd a declaration of the minde of God, but at no hand they muſt be call'd the word of God: ſee their book call'd A cloud of witneſſes, in the Title-page, and alſo in pag. 3. of the ſame Book, toward the later end of it, and the beginning of pag. 4. you have theſe words: But the blinde guides, the Prieſts of England, that Preach for Tythes, hire, giſts and rewards, they do teach the people, and7 ſay, Hearken to the Word of the Lord, as it is in a chapter and a verſe: and many other paſſages, which I forbear to cite, becauſe it is a thing ſo generally preached and received by them, viz. That the Scriptures are not the word of God, but a declaration of the minde and will of God. See now their deceit! they would make the world believe, that it detracts from the honour of Chriſt to call the Scriptures the word of the Lord, and the word of God: when in truth, the deſigne is to raiſe up the honour of their own Pamphlets, by the ruines of the Scriptures reputation in the hearts and mindes of men. And therefore do but behold their impudence: The holy Scripture (ſay they) muſt not be call'd God's word; no, no: but ſee if they do not give the ſame titles, and as great, to their own bumbaſted, contradictious, lying Pamphlets. And for the proof of this, let me give thee a recital of ſome of them, among many.
They have one book, called Love to the lost: which is a Title proper to none but God and Chriſt; yet this is given to one of their books.
Another is called, A diſcovery of the wiſdom from beneath: which none but the word of God can do, by their own confeſſion many a time.
Another book is called, The power and glory of God ſhining out of the North. Is not this Title as great, as if they had call'd it the word of God? Read, and judge you, whoſe light is not darkneſs.
Another is call'd, The Royal law and Covenant of God; which is as great a Title as the word of God.
Another is call'd, News out of the North, written from the mouth of God.
Another is call'd, The Vials of the wrath of God upon the ſeat of the man of ſin.
8Another is call'd, A warning from the Lord to Teachers and people.
Another is call'd, A true prophecie of the mighty day of the Lord. Now if by the mighty day of the Lord, they mean that there ſhall be ſuch a day; which they can hardly do, becauſe ſome of them have ſaid, The day of Judgment is paſt already: but if that ſhould be their meaning, it could be no Prophecie: for what propheſying is it for men to foretel ſuch a thing ſhall be, if others have ſaid it before them? for do not many, by the writing of the Scriptures, believe there ſhall be ſuch a day? yet theſe cannot be ſaid to propheſie of it. But if by propheſying of the mighty day of the Lord, they mean to foretel the very day, then they preſume to know more then Chriſt, or the Angels, or any man, according to that of Mark 13.22. But to proceed.
They have another book, that is called, A Trumpet from the Lord ſounded out of Sion.
Another is call'd, A whirlwinde of the Lord, given forth as a flying fiery roll.
I would from all this, ask but one queſtion, Whether theſe Titles which they give theſe books, are not equipollent to the Title we give the Scriptures, viz. The Word of God? and yet theſe men blame us for this, and give as great to their own Pamphlets. But what ſhall we ſay? they ſtop not here, but at laſt call their own writings The Word of the Lord, and A Word from the Lord; as you may ſee in a book of theirs, called, A prophecie of the mighty day of the Lord, p. 13. and the like in a book called The vials of the wrath of God, p. 57. p. 9. p. 10. and in a book called News out of the North, p. 10. and p. 24. and in p. 1. of a book called The pure language of the Spirit; and many other places, where9 they do readily in words at length, give thoſe Titles to their own books, they will not give to the Scriptures. Doth not this plainly ſhew, that the deſigne of this generation is, to do by the Scriptures, as Judas did by Chriſt, viz. betray them with a kiſs, even by making men believe they do own the Scriptures, when indeed it is, that they may have the fairer oportunity to crucifie them in the croud of their pernicious Pamphlets?
The third Errour in their Doctrine, is,3 Error. That they (ſay they) are immediately ſent of God: ſee this in James Parnel's book, called A ſhield of Truth, page 12. He ſaith, They can witneſs an immediate call from God, to go from their Countries and Callings, &c. to go to preach the Goſpel. I could ſhew this out of many of their books; but I ſpare that labour, becauſe it is dayly owned by them, and they frequently aſſert it in publike conferences. The ſubſtance of two of them I ſhall give you a brief account of: one was in laſt May 1656. in Beech-lane London; at which time, I did propoſe Queſtion to James Nayler, viz. Whether ever any was immediately ſent of God to preach the Goſpel, but either God did bear witneſs to them from heaven, or elſe he did enable them to work Miracles, by which they might evince the truth of their authority upon earth? To this James Nayler replyed, That God might ſend men, for ought I knew, to whom be bare no ſuch witnesſ. To this I replyed, That God did never immediately ſend any, but he did either from heaven demonſtrate the truth of their authority, or elſe gave them power to work miracles upon the earth. James Nayler told me I could not prove what I ſaid. To which I replyed, That the ſaying proved it ſelf, unleſs he could give an inſtance of ſome ſo ſent, to whom God10 bare no ſuch witneſs. Hereupon James Nayler tells me, That Matthias was ſo ſent, and yet did no Miracle. To this I replied, That the 2d of the Acts tells us, That the holy Ghoſt fell upon them, and they all ſpake with Tongues, to the amazement of the beholders*And as for Matthias, he was not ſent immediately, for he was choſe by lot, Acts 1. latter end: So that he hath told two lyes; firſt, that Matthias was immediately ſent; ſecondly, that he could not work Miracles: both which are falſe, as the firſt and ſecond of the Acts declare.. To which James replied, So can I ſpeak with Tongues that thou canſt not underſtand. I told him, I thought ſo he might, in their Canting dialect; but could he ſpeak varieties of Languages, that was natural to ſeveral Countreys. To which he replied, That he was not bound to anſwer to my demand, being an unbeliever: for (ſaith he) Chriſt told the Jews, That a fooliſh and adulterous generation did ſeek a Sign. To which I did reply, That if he could ſhew as good a Sign for his immediate Call, as Chriſt did ſhew that generation, to prove he was the Me ſsiah, we would believe all he told us: for Chriſt ſaid, That as Jonas was three dayes and three nights in the Whales belly; ſo ſhould he be three dayes and three nights in the heart of the earth: This Sign, he ſaid, ſhould be given to them. I challenge all the Quakers in England, either to ſhew us ſuch a Sign of their immediate ſending, or elſe never uſe that Text to reprehend them that ask a Sign: For, though Chriſt did reprehend them, yet he ſhewed a Sign unto them. Nayler did further reply, and ſay, That though Chriſt did mighty works, it was not at or upon the time that they demanded it. To which I replied, That if he would but ſay he had done it at any time, we would believe him. Hereupon he tells us of his Call from the Plough. To which I replied, and told him again, This doth no more prove that which was demanded11 then (as the ſtory goes) the Man that left his fiſhing to be a Prieſt, and afterwards came to be Pope, was immediately ſent of God. To which he replies, and tells me, That when Paul was brought before the Civil Magiſtrate, he gave no other account, but onely told him how God call'd him. To which I anſwered, That if James Nayler could give any hiſtory of as good authority (as the Hiſtory of the Acts of the Apoſtles is) for the proof of his Call, we would believe him. He hereupon calls me Lyer: For (ſaith he) didst not thou tell me, thou would st believe, if I would but ſay it? To which I anſwered, That I did not ſay I would believe he was immediately ſent of God, if he did but ſay it, for then I ſhould give away the cauſe; but if he ſaid, that he had at any time done a Miracle, we would believe him. Hereupon he told us, That he would prove his extraordinary Call, both by himſelf and other Witneſſes: And to make this good, he gave us a Narrative how be was before the Magiſtrates of Appleby, and told them how God call'd him in the field at Plough, &c. To which I did reply, He was not before me to give an account to me as to a Magiſtrate: And ſecondly, I told him, That this was a meer deceit; for we expected he ſhould prove the truth of his Call, and he goes to prove, That he told the Magiſtrates of Appleby he was thus call'd: And I told him, That I did not want proof that he did tell them ſo, but that that which he told them was true, which was the main thing in queſtion. Hereupon, ſeveral of his Proſelytes ſtands up to witneſs, how he had turned them from darkneſs to light. I told them, that was a begging of the Queſtion: for the great queſtion is, Whether that be not Darkneſs they are turned to, and that the Light they12 are turned from: I therefore did tell them all, that it was horrible preſumption for ſuch as they, to proclaim both in City and Countrey, that they were ſent of God, when indeed the Pope can ſay as much for his Infallible Chair, the Turk for his Alcaron, and the Jew for his Talmud, and a great deal more. Hereupon he deſired me to diſpute ſome other Points of Doctrine, viz. Whether Faith were the gift of God, and the like: To which I anſwered, That if he could prove that he was immediately ſent of God, we would believe all he ſaid; and if he did but that, it would ſave us a labour to diſpute other Points: for if he did prove, That God ſent him to check and controll all the Religions of the World, we would willingly be controlled by him: which we did once and again call for proof of, but could not have it. I therefore bade him either renounce this pretended Call, or elſe prove it, before I would diſpute any other Point of Doctrine with him. Hereupon he told us, he was immediately ſent of God, becauſe he could propheſie. I asked him, of what? He told me, Of our breaking to pieces, and dividing among our ſelves. I told him, That breakings and dividings had been, and it was like might be among the Churches; but unleſs he could preciſely tell us when ſuch diſaſters ſhould befal us, he was no more a Prophet then (as the ſtory goes) the Fool, who having ſeen many a rainy day, did uſe to cry in fair weather, becauſe it would rain, though he knew not when. This was the ſum of the firſt Conference. Some dayes after, I was at the Bull and Mouth at Alderſgate, where at that time they had a Meeting, at which Meeting the former Queſtion was revived, viz. Whether James Nayler was able to prove he was13 immediately ſent of God? for I told the people, That the Light within me, taught me not to quit my Religion, to imbrace another that was able to ſhew no better, not ſcarce ſo good proof for its Authority, as either the Jew could for his Talmud, the Turk for his Alcoran, or the Pope for his Infallible Chair. To this James Nayler reply'd, that I ſaid true, that if they had no better proof for their authority, then thoſe they cried down, they were not to be believed: But (ſaith he) I will ſhew better proof: and the firſt was, That they were of God, becauſe they taught, that the Faith by which a man was ſaved, was the gift of God; which (ſaith he) thou denieſt. I hereupon replied, That to fall into that queſtion, How Faith might be Gods gift, and how it might be acquired, would loſe the firſt queſtion: and therefore I told him, That if Faith (in his ſenſe) were the gift of God, yet it did not follow, that they that ſo preached were immediately ſent of God: My Reaſon was, Becauſe then all the Miniſters of the Nation, or at leaſt the moſt part of them, are immediately ſent of God: for they ſay, both in oppoſition to the Pelagians as well as Papiſts, That Faith is the gift of God: So that if his words were put into a Syllogiſm, they would run thus, viz. Every one that preaches, Faith is the gift of God, is immediately ſent of God: But James Nayler preacheth ſo; Ergo. But may not a a man as well conclude from the ſame premiſes, Every man that ſaith, Faith is the gift of God, is immediately ſent of God: But the Miniſtery of the Nation and others, whom thou crieſt down for Antichriſtian, do preach ſo; Ergo, they are immediately ſent of God? If this be a true and undeniable Argument, the thou art a Lyer in Folio, to cry down theſe and14 others for Antichriſtian: but if it be not true, thou haſt not proved the queſtion: for if ſome one may be Antichriſtian that preaches thus, thou art as like to be he as any. His next Argument was this, viz. They (meaning the Miniſters of the Nation and others) did but SAY ſo. To which I replied, He did no more. He told us then, that he could prove it further by their fruits: I asked, what were they? He told me in the firſt place, Their leaving their Countreys, to go up and down to preach the Goſpel. To which I replied, That this was to a greater degree found among the Jeſuites, who did travel to Rome for Orders, and after come and preach here in England, though there was a ſtanding Law that made it Treaſon. I queſtion much, if ſuch a Law were againſt Quakers, whether they would venture ſo much for their Religion as the Papiſts do; and if they did, they could not do more then loſe their lives, which the Jeſuites frequently do. Now I demand, If this be a good Argument, viz. They that leave their Callings and Countreys to preach, are immediately ſent of God to preach: Whether the ſame premiſes doth not every whit as well prove (if not much better) That the Jeſuites are immediately ſent of God? For what though Chriſts Apoſtles left their Countreys and Callings, doth this prove, that every one that doth ſo is Chriſts Apoſtle? No: the contrary to this is ſeen in Matth. 23.15. that the Phariſees did compaſs ſea and land to make one proſelyte; and when be is made, be is more the childe of the Devil then themſelves: The like proof you bring; for they could not compaſs Sea and Land to make a Proſelyte, without leaving their countreys: and if this proves the Quakers are ſent of God immediately, it as well15 proves the Phariſees were ſo ſent. Again, we reade in the Acts, of one that led into the Wilderneſs four thouſand men: This man alſo left his countrey. By all this you may ſee, that that which theſe men talk moſt of, they can ſay leaſt to, viz. That they are immediately ſent of God. Again, another Argument, by which James Nayler would prove his immediate ſending, was grounded upon their denying themſelves in point of Apparel. To this I did anſwer, Firſt, that many Orders of Fryars did deny themſelves in matters of Apparel, more then they: who (ſome of them) will not wear their clothes of any other colour, then wooll that comes off the ſheep is of, and ſave the charges of dying it; others of them wear hair-ſhirts, whereas you wear fine linen comparatively; nay, are they not generally known to be more ſelf-denying, both as to eating, drinking, and apparel, marrying, and other worldly delights, then any of your Teachers? how then for ſhame can you urge this as an Argument to prove your immediate call, when the ſame is found among them whom you call Antichriſtian? but theſe men will play at ſmall game before they will give out*But if this be a good argument, then every one of them are immediately ſent of God to preach, for they all are ſelf-deniers in theſe things. Another Argument was taken from the number of Proſelytes they make, which, ſay they, they have turned from darkneſs to light: But, as I ſaid before, how do they prove this? for we doubt not, but the Phariſees would have ſaid as much of their Proſelytes, which were made more the children of the Devil, then they were before. But further, and as I then told him, ſome may be ſent of God, that may not turn people, as Ezek. 33. and Iſa. 53.1. The Prophet ſaith, Who bath believed our report? 16Again I told him, That as many might preach that God ſent, who might poſſibly not be received: ſo multitudes might receive a man that God never ſent**See Mat. 24.5. MANY ſhall come in my Name, ſaying, I am Chriſt, and ſhall deceive. MANY.; and that is rather a ſign that God never ſent you, then that he did ſend you: for Chriſt ſaith, That he came in his Fathers Name, but they received him not; but he tells them, If one ſhould come in his own Name, him that would receive. And the Apoſtles themſelve did ſhake the duſt off their feet againſt ſome places that received them not: But James Nayler ſaith, That he never came to a place, but be was received, and converted ſome in it. But our Lord Chriſt, though he did mighty work in Corazin and Bethſaida (he ſaith) they repented not: Which very Argument of yours is ſo farre from proving you are ſent of God immediately, that it rather proves the contrary: for, who hath made more Proſelytes, then the Roman Prieſts and Monks have? as for inſtance, Auſtine the Monk, who was ſent to the Saxons by the Biſhop of Rome, converted 10000 in a few dayes. See Speeds Chronicle, pag. 291, Sect. 8. And who is there that is acquainted with the proceedings of the Spaniards in the Weſt-Indies, but can tell, that thouſands are daily reduced from Heatheniſm, to ſober and upright lives by the Roman Miniſtery? and yet this drawing of multitudes, is an Argument, That Quakers are ſent of God; but muſt not be urged by others, though they are able to ſay more at this turn, then all the Quakers in England. By this you may ſee, that the Quakers are ſhaking, and would gladly make every Straw a Staff to lean upon.
But laſtly, if it be as they ſay, That very man hath a Light within him, that would turn him, if he do follow it, to what purpoſe do they preach one to17 another: So that they have no cauſe to impute the converting of men to their Miniſtery, for they might convert without it.
The laſt Argument to which I ſaid little then (by reaſon I was interrupted with their Women-preachers) was this, viz. That it did appear they were immediately ſent of God, becauſe they did not give reſpect to perſons. I anſwer, firſt then, All the Quakers, both men and women, are ſent of God immediately to preach the Goſpel, for none of them give reſpect to perſons. But ſecondly, is not this an abominable piece of wickedneſs? for by the rule of contraries, Paul was not ſent of God, for he did reſpect Feſtus, and call'd him, MOST NOBLE FESTUS, Acts 24.3. and 26.25. Now all the people were not Moſt Noble; for the Scripture ſaith, Not many Noble are called: by which it appears, that ſome were more Noble then others, and had that reſpect given to them, that was not common to all: But I ſhall ſay more to this anon.
My laſt anſwer to this Argument (if I may ſo call it, and James not judge me for a Lyer) is, That if their not ſitting up, and giving civil reſpect, be an argument that theſe are ſent of God; then Auſtin the Monk was ſent of God, and many others that I could name: but let me trouble you with the recital of one ſtory concerning Auſtin the Monk; and upon the reading of it, you will think (if James ſaith true) that Auſtin was a man ſent immediately of God. Auſtin, 561 yeares after Christ, in the time of Ethelbert King of Kent, was ſent by Pope Gregory to convert the Saxons; who, ſome time after call a Synod, unto which reſorted ſeven Britiſh Biſhops, and other learned men, ſaith Beda in this Hiſtory,18 Book 2. Chap. 2. Theſe men now ready to go to the Synod, came first to a certain holy wiſe man to ask his counſel (which ſome think was biſhop of York) Whether they ought at Auſtins Preaching and Exhortation, to leave their Traditions (Auſtin being come a ſtranger among them) The good man anſwered, If he be a man of God, follow him; but (ſaid they) how ſhall we know that? He anſwered, Chriſt (ſaith he) ſaid, That we ſhould learn of him, for he was humble, and meek of heart: If therefore (ſaith this good man) this Auſtin be milde and bumble, it is like he is of God; but if he be proud, no proud man is of God. Then the Biſhops inquired, how they might know that? The man anſwereth, Provide (ſaith he) that he and his company come firſt to the place of Meeting; and if it be ſo, that when you approach near him, he ariſe and ſalute you, then think him to be the Servant of Chriſt: but if he do not vouchſafe to riſe at your preſence, let him be deſpiſed. They hereupon took the old mans counſel, and when they came in, Auſtin the Monk ſate very ſtill in his Chair, and ſtirred not: hereupon they judged him a proud man. See Speeds Chron. pag. 291. I do urge this to ſhew, That if this be an argument a man is ſent of God immediately, ſurely this man, viz. Auſtin the Monk, was ſo ſent of God, and ſo are all the Popes at this day, that will not reverence any Monarch under Heaven; ſo that theſe Arguments are ſo ſlender, that if Chriſt and his Apoſtles had had no better, they had never made any Proſelytes to the Kingdom of Heaven to this day, how greatly ſoever you brag of your Converts.
I now come to their next Error,4 Error. and that is, That every man hath a Light within, that will teach a man to Worſhip God rightly. This is ſo common a principle of theirs, that to go about to prove it, were but19 to hold a candle to the Sun: therefore taking this for granted, that they thus teach, as I hope I may without wrong to them, I ſhall now ſhew, That this is falſe Doctrine, and is taught to no other end (I fear) then to thruſt out the Authority of the holy Scriptures.
1. For firſt, what need is there of Scripture to declare the Minde of God, if it may be known without it every whit as well? But now the Scripture ſaith, that what was writ afore-time, was writ for our Learning, Rom. 15.4. and John 20.31. But theſe things were writ, that you might believe: 1 Cor. 10.11. Theſe things were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
2. I demand, Whether by the Light which is in the whole world, or in every one that comes into it, all men may come to know a Virgin had a Son, without any other external means?
3. I demand, Whether the Light in every man, without the Scriptures, can bring every man to know Chriſt dyed, and roſe again in three dayes?
4. I demand, What favour it was to the people of Iſrael, to have the written Law of God, in ſuch a manner as it is ſaid of them, He had not dealt ſo with any Nation, if all Nations by the Light within them, might have (with the like facility) underſtood to ſerve and worſhip God as well without them?
5. Whether all men by the Light within them, before the coming of Chriſt, could ever have underſtood, that he ſhould be born in Bethlehem, as it was written?
6. Whether the Name of Jeſus Chriſt may be knowne to all the World, by the Light within20 them, without Scripture or Traditions?
7. I demand, if the Light within can inform all men into the Divine Worſhip and Service of God, without the Scriptures, Whether it may not do it without your Books? If ſo,
8. Whether or no you that will not be prodigal of your Apparel, and who will not lay out money upon needleſs things, are not at this turn very prodigal, to buy candles to light them to the Sun? My meaning is, to lay out hundreds of pounds to print ſo many Books, when the world (if your Doctrine be true) might have known as much without them?
9. Whether this is not as great ſuperfluity and prodigality, as wearing any thing that is not needful; viz. your paying great Rents for places to meet and preach in, when you ſay you know ſo much by the Light within you, as you need no Teacher? as appears by a Book of James Nayler's, call'd, A Diſcovery of the firſt Wiſdome, pag. 8. where he makes it the character of the firſt man (or carnal man) to know God by relation from others, either by word or writing. And to this purpoſe they apply 1 John 2.27. and Heb. 8.11. and in thee ſame page he makes it a note of a Spiritual man, that he knows God from his dwelling-place, and not by relation from others, &c.
10. Whether there is not the like vanity in your ſpending your precious Times and Moneys to go about the countreys, if the Light which is within the countreys, could have ſhewed them the ſame things without you?
11. Whether you would not count it as vain a thing, as wearing any thing that is needleſs is counted by you, if any of you ſhould be at great coſt to carry21 a Buſhel of coals to Newcaſtle, where there is coals enow already?
12. Whether the Moneys that is thus needleſly laid out, would not be better beſtowed where is more need, viz. upon the hungry and the naked.
The fifth Error I ſhall name, is,5 Error. That there was one Jo: Lawſon accuſed for ſaying, The day of Judgement was paſt; which he in ſtead of diſowning of the charge, goes about to prove it from Matth. 12.20. and ſaith not one word touching the untruth of it. See a Book of theirs, called, Sauls Errand to Damaſcus, pag. 35. where you have that very Errour objected againſt them, with their anſwer to it. I ſhould not have charged this Errour upon them all, it being but the writing and the ſaying of one man, did not all of them received and own it, as appears by the printing of it in a book, wherein many of them are concerned. Now is not this a conſequent of that deviliſh Doctrine, taught by Hymeneus and Philetus, which ſaid, that the Reſurrection was already paſt, and deſtroy the Faith of ſome? 2 Tim. 2.17, 18. For if the Judgement-day be paſt already; Reſurrection, that goes before Judgement, muſt be alſo paſt.
The ſixth Errour I ſhall name, is, That George Fox,6 Error. whom all of them own, profeſſeth himſelf to be the Eternal Judge of the World: and being charged with it by the Petitioners of the County of Lancaſter, makes no denial of any part of the Charge, but ſaith, The Saints ſhall judge the World: See pag. 6. of a book of theirs, call'd, Sauls Errand to Damaſcus.
The ſeventh Errour I ſhall mention, is, That George Fox,7 Error. whom they all own, ſaid, He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life; and being charged with this by the Petitioners22 aforeſaid, he denies not a ſyllable of it; though it is obſervable, that many things that the ſaid perſons do object, they in their Replies do deny that ever they ſaid ſo; yet to this he makes no denyal, but ſaith, The Old-Man cannot indure to hear the New-Man ſpeak, which is Christ. This you may finde to be his anſwer in pag. 7. of Sauls Errand to Damaſcus.
The eighth Errour I ſhall charge them with,8 Error. is, That the ſaid Fox ſaid, That he which took a place of Scripture, and made a Sermon of it, or from it, was a Conjurer, and his preaching was Conjuration. This he is charged with by the men aforeſaid, and in his printed anſwer denies not one ſyllable, but ſaith, He that raiſeth the Spirit out of the Letter, is a Conjurer**See p. 7. of the laſt mentioned Book.. Firſt, doth not the Scripture ſay, Acts 8. that from that place of Scripture which the Eunuch was reading, i. e (viz.) Philip preached unto him Jeſus? and did not the Eunuch reade the Letter, and did not Philip preach the Chriſt? was not that the Spirit, as your ſelves notion it? and yet you ſay, They that raiſe the Spirit out of the Letter, are Conjurers. Oh horrible Profaneneſs!
The ninth Errour is,9 Error. that being charged with ſaying, The Scriptures are carnall: In the book and page laſt mentioned, he anſwers, The Letter of the Scripture is carnall. How now George! what is the Letter of the Scripture carnal? and do not you tell the people that you walk according to them? But why ſhould you walk after a carnal Rule, ſince you profeſs to be ſuch a Spiritual man? But by this the world may ſee, if their Candle be not put out, that this cunning Fox can run with the Hare, and hold with the Hound.
In the ninth page of the laſt mentioned Book,10 Error one23 Leonard Hill is charged with ſaying, Christ had no body but his Church: which he denies not, but ſaith, There is one Body and one Spirit, even as ye are called.
The eleventh Errour is,11 Error That John Lawſon ſaid, pag. 35. of Sauls Errand to Damaſcus, that he had been in Hell, but now was in Heaven: Of this he is charged, and denies it not, but cites that place out of the ſecond of Jonah, where Jonah ſaith, Out of the belly of Hell he cryed to the Lord: Doth this prove Lauſon was ever in this Hell, or in any other? but he may come there before he thinks of it, if he repent not; and his Heaven he is in, will not ſhelter him.
The twelfth Errour is,12 Error That they ſay they are perfect, and ſin not. See a Book of theirs in anſwer to Hen: Haggar and Tho: Pollard, pag. 9. where they charge the men aforeſaid for lying, becauſe they ſaid, The Quakers boast of perfection; and yet in the ſame page they ſay, They own perfection, but do not boast of it. Oh ſtrange! What, that men ſhould be telling and preaching of their perfection, and in print proclaim they own it, and yet call men Lyers, for ſaying, that they loast of it! I pray reſolve me this Queſtion: If any man ſhould by word or writing, or both, publiſh his eſtate to the world, that he is thus and thus rich, would not your ſelves call him a proud boaſter, eſpecially if he ſhall boaſt of that he never had? and that you do ſo, I ſhall make it manifeſt in due place.
The thirteenth Errour is, that James Nayler ſaid,13 Error that None can come to God nor Christ, but they that come to perfection: See Naylers Book, call'd, Love to the Lost, pag. 23. If this be true, Paul was not come to God nor Chriſt; for he ſaith, Phil. 3.12. Not as though I had already attained, or were already PERFECT: And24 in the ſeventh of the Romans, the ſame Apoſtle ſaith once and again, That ſin did dwell in him; and doth not Chriſt call ſinners to come unto him? and yet you are ſo impudent as to ſay, That None can come, but they that come to perfection.
The fourteenth Errour is,14 Error That James Nayler in his book call'd Love to the Loſt, p. 23. ſpeaking of the Lords Supper, ſaith, That at all ſeaſons, whenſoever they eat or drink, they were to have communion with the Body and Blood of the Lord in their eating and drinking, though it were at the Gentiles (or Unbelievers) Table: alluding to that place of Scripture, 1 Cor. 10.27. And another of them in a Book of theirs, call'd, Truths Defence against refined Subtilty, pag. 100. calls a man Carnal Sot, for asking whether Paul did administer the Lords Supper with Bread and Wine; and thereupon demands, Whether the Apostles did give to the Corinthians Bread and Wine.
The fifteenth Errour is, That James Parnel, in his Book call'd A Shield of Truth, hath theſe words, viz. That he denies all Baptiſm, but that of the holy Ghost and Fire: See page 12. Another of them in a Book call'd Truths Defence against refined Subtilty, hath theſe words: he being asked, Whether Chriſt did command his Diſciples to baptize with water? or, whether they did baptize with water? he anſwers, That the querent had ſhewed his ſubtilty, in being ignorant of the Letter: alluding to that place, Matth. 28.19. But I demand, Why theſe perfect men cannot ſpeak perfect ſenſe? for what ſubtilty is it for a man to be ignorant? yet he tells his querent, he hath ſhewed his ſubtilty in being ignorant. But to the thing it ſelf, viz. That there is no baptiſm, but that of the Spirit and Fire; when as the Scripture tells us of a baptiſm25 with water, which is alſo required of them that do believe. But to evade the force of the Scriptures that ſpeak in the behalf of water-baptiſm, they uſe to ſay, That water-baptiſm did end, when other Ceremonies of the Law ended; but after the Reſurrection of Chriſt, it was not to be practiſed.
To which I anſwer, That it was by Chriſt commanded, after that he roſe from the dead: See Mat. 28. and Mark 16.16. But if any ſhall ſay, This was to baptize with the Holy Ghoſt; I demand, Firſt, Whether that this baptiſm was not peculiar to Chriſt himſelf, as appears by John's words, Matth. 3.11. HE (meaning Chriſt) ſhall baptize with the holy Ghoſt and fire?
Secondly, Whether that if the command of Mat. 28. and Mark 16. be for to command the Apoſtles to baptize with the holy Ghoſt and fire, they did ever obey it? if they did, ſhew when and where.
Thirdly, Whether we may not judge, that the baptizing men and women in water in the Name of Chriſt, which the Apoſtles frequently did, was not in obedience to ſome Commiſſion they had received from their Lord? If ſo,
Fourthly, Do you ſhew us where and when their Lord gave them a command ſo to do, if this of Mat. 28. and Mark 16. was not it: If you ſhall ſay, They did it in order to the peoples weakneſſes, as Paul's circumciſing Timothy was; then I demand,
Fifthly, Whether Paul did in the Name of the Lord Jeſus impoſe Circumciſion upon Timothy? if not, How doth this parallel with the caſe in hand, viz. water-baptiſm, which Peter, Acts 10. doth command in the Name of the Lord? But if you ſhall ſay, That26 baptiſm with water was not commanded, but left to liberty: I demand,
Sixthly, Whether to command a thing to be done in the Lords Name, which he commands not, be not to ſin, & take his Name in vain? See to this purpoſe Deut. 18.20. But the Prophet that ſhall preſume to ſpeak a word in my Name, which I have not commanded him to ſpeak, &c. even the ſame Prophet ſhall dye.
Seventhly, And whereas it is alledged, That water-baptiſm is a thing of indifferency, that may be done, or lawfully left undone; I demand, Whether it was not then as great a ſin in Peter, Acts 10. to command the doing of it in the Name of the Lord, as it was for men to forbid to marry, or to command to abſtain from meats, 1 Tim. 4.2, 3. ſeeing that to command the doing of that which God hath left to liberty, is a ſin of equal extent with the forbidding of that he hath left to liberty?
Eighthly, But if it ſhall be ſaid (as ſometimes it is) That they in the Primitive Times did receive water-baptiſm, becauſe they had a command immediately ſo to do, and therefore we are not to be baptized till ſo commanded: I anſwer, Firſt, how will this be proved, that all they that were then-baptized, were ſo commanded? is not the contrary to this eaſily made manifeſt, from Acts 2. and Acts 8. and many other places, where the people were mediately, by means of the Apoſtles preaching, put upon this duty, and not by extraordinary Revelations?
But to the main Queſtion, and that is this, Whether or no that this very Principle doth not lay all other Precepts waſte, and excuſe the obſervance of them till I am immediately inſpired thereto? I believe, if a27 man did owe a Quaker a ſum of money, he would be loth to be ſerved as he would have men ſerve Chriſt: As for inſtance, Suppoſe I did owe James Nayler a ſum of money; and he ſhould deſire me to pay him, and ſhould urge this Scripture, Owe nothing to any man, as an argument to perſwade me to pay him; what if I ſhould ſay, It is true, James, this was a command to them that could witneſs it in themſelves; and when by an immediate power they were inſpired to the obſervance of it, then they were to do it; but till then they did not ſin in omitting of it: and therefore when I can witneſs this Text within me, I will pay thee thy money: Do you think they would count this fair dealing? yet in this manner would they have men deal with the commands of our Lord Jeſus: and the truth of it is, this evaſion of the command of baptiſm doth as forcibly evade all other Precepts in the whole Bible. By this the Reader may ſee, that theſe men would make the commands of God of none effect by their tradition.
The ſixteenth Errour that I ſhall inſiſt upon, is,16 Error That though they ſay they are perfect, yet they are inconſiſtent with themſelves; as appears, Firſt, in as much as they make it their daily practice to preach, That every man in the world hath a light within him, according to that Text, John 1. And yet one of their Scribes asketh a Miniſter of the Nation, Whether he had that light which doth lighten every one that comes into the world**See for this a book of theirs cal'd Truths defence, p. 3? Oh horrible blindneſs! Did ever any man in his right wits ever ask ſuch a queſtion; having over and over aſſerted, that every man hath that light ſpoken of John: 1, and yet to ask a man, Whether he hath that light ſpoken of John 1. Surely this man did not28 underſtand, that the party of whom he demanded the queſtion, was a man, or elſe he was not of age to underſtand, that univerſals do include all particulars of their ſpecies; and yet theſe are the men that witneſs perfection. Let me tell thee, Reader, whoever thou art, that theſe men are the ſaddeſt ſpectacles of Gods Spiritual Judgements, that ever any Age hath heard of: And ſurely, if ever any people were given up to believe a lye, theſe are the men: for was it ever heard of, that a man ſhould profeſs to be immediately ſent of God, and to be infallibly guided by him, and to have attained to perfection, as theſe would have it, and yet not know common ſenſe? What think ye, if after Paul had told the Athenians, Acts 17. that God did give to all life and breath, if afterwards he ſhould ask the Areopagite, Whether God had given him life and breath? Do you think he would ever have cleaved to Paul, as the 34 Verſe of the aforeſaid Chapter, doth declare he did? and yet ſuch are the injudicious mindes that many in our dayes are given up to, that though an Angel from heaven ſhould detect their vanity, yet ſome would reſolve to be vain.
A ſecond inſtance of their inconſiſtency, is, That though they ſay the letter of the Scripture is carnal, as appears by a Book of theirs call'd Sauls Errand to Damaſcus; yet, for the juſtifying of their conceited New-light, they make uſe of the firſt of John, and many other Texts in the letter, though therein they ſtretch it beyond its line.
But further, at another time they ſay, That it is a ſign of a dark minde, to think the Scriptures ſhould have another meaning**See a Book of theirs cal'd Truths Defence, p. 1.. And yet in the Book call'd, Sauls Errand to Damaſcus, they ſay, The letter is carnal: and yet29 for all this, a little before in the ſame book, they ſay, He that raiſeth Spirit out of it, is a Conjurer; as I have already mentioned upon another occaſion.
What miſerable confuſion is here? doth this look like perfection? One while the letter is carnal, and another while its conjury to raiſe Spirit out of it; and another while its a ſign of a dark minde, to think the Scriptures ſhould have another meaning; and another while they will give other meanings to them, then what is expreſt in the letter.
A third inſtance of their inconſiſtency, (and by which, all that I have ſaid is juſtified) is, That though they ſay they own the Scriptures, and will talk a few words ſometimes in their behalf; yet one of them ſaid in a book call'd Truths Defence, pag. 2. in anſwer to Parſon Camelford of Stavely-Chappel, That he might as well have condemned the Scriptures to the fire to be burned, as his Quares that be ſent unto him; or, that he might as well have ſaid the ſayings of Chriſt and his Apoſtles were abſurd, as to ſay thoſe Quares were abſurd, they (meaning his Quaeres) being given forth by the ſame Spirit the Scriptures were.
A fourth inſtance of their inconſiſtency, is, That one William Tomlinſon, in a book of his call'd A word of Reproof, p. 11. doth blame the Miniſters, for praying before or after Sermon, and ſaith, What, did Chriſt or his Apoſtles fall ſhort of what they ought to do, and leave it to you to mend it? And yet in other caſes we muſt not follow Chriſt's and the Apoſtles example; and yet he would bring them to diſprove the lawfulneſs of praying before or after Sermon, becauſe they did not ſo.
But further, he inveighs againſt the Miniſters for ſo30 doing; yet one of their own Merlins prayed after Sermon, at the Bull and Mouth at Alderſgate, before hundreds of people. I pray judge, if any thing of this look like perfection: nay, are not theſe things Strong ſymptomes of the greateſt degrees of defection, that can befal the ſons of men?
Now I come to the next Errour,17 Error and that is, They ſtudy and deviſe deceitful terms, that look with two faces, like the Oracles of the heathen Gods, that they may the better effect their deceits: as for inſtance, one of them, namely, Farnworth, being charged by Hen: Haggar and Tho: Pollard, for ſaying, Paul was not converted, when be ſpake thoſe words in the 7 to the Romans, where be cries out of a Body of Death: To this they anſwer in a printed book, call'd Scriptures freed from Scandals, pag. 12 & 13. That there is not ſuch an Affirmative in the whole Book. Now mark: the charge is a Negative Propoſition, viz. That Paul was not converted when he ſpake thoſe words in the 7 of the Romans, concerning a Body of death; they anſwer, That there is not ſuch an Affirmative in the whole Book.
Reader, had theſe words fallen from the mouth of a man that were conſcious of his imperfection, Charity would have taught me to have over-look'd them; but now I cannot: for ſuch a ſpeech as this, either argues the ſpeaker to be imperfect, and ſo diſcovers his deceit, in ſaying he is perfect; elſe if he be perfect (as believe it who's will) how could ſuch a thing fall from his pen? and on the other hand, if he underſtood what he writ, then it follows, that he writ that to reſcue himſelf from the force of the charge, that ſo ſimple people, that know not a Negative from an Affirmative,31 might think he was not guilty of ſuch a charge; by his ſaying, There is not ſuch an Affirmative in the whole Book.
But Oh the impudence of theſe men, that dare to ſay, That one might as well burn the Scriptures, as their Papers; when, if the Scriptures had let fall Negatives in ſtead of Affirmatives, and Affirmatives in ſtead of Negatives, how could they have been for our learning, upon whom the ends of the world are come? I dare challenge all men in the world, either Quaker, Atheiſt, or Anti-Scripturaliſt, to ſhew me ſuch a piece of Non-ſenſe from any of the Pen-men of old, who were inſpired by the holy Spirit. Who will believe that theſe mens tongues and pens are infallible Oracles, that know not I from No, and that put Nay in ſtead of Yea: for is it not the ſame? he is charged for ſaying, Paul was not converted, and he ſaith, There is no ſuch Affirmative in his whole Book: but then it ſeems there is ſuch a negative; and if ſo, then how dare they call thoſe honeſt ſervants of Chriſt lyers, viz. H: Haggar, and Tho: Pollard? By this you may ſee, that theſe are the greateſt Seducers that theſe latter Times have produced; and the Lord grant, that theſe things that I do bring to thy minde concerning them, may be as warnings to you that ſtand, to take heed left you fall; and you that know God, delight to glorifie him, left he give you over to a reprobate minde, to do the things that are not covenient: Take heed there fore, and be warned of turning the truth of God into a lye (as theſe men have done) left God in his Juſtice give you up to believe a lye.
The next thing I have to preſent the Reader with,18 Error is, their Lying: and that, firſt, in ſaying, They are perfect;32 when all the fore-cited imperfections are found in them, beſides many more, as ſhall be named.
The ſecond Lye is, that they ſay, They are immediately ſent of God; which nothing is more falſe.
The third Lye is, That one Fox writ a book, and in the Title-page ſaid, The world did not know his Name; and yet in two ſeveral places of the ſaid Book, he ſubſcribes himſelf, Known by the Name of GEORGE FOX.
The fourth Lye is, That one Edward Boroughs ſaid, His Book was ſealed by the Spirit of the Eternal God: and being demanded to prove it, he asked, If any thing he writ in it was falſe? it was replyed to him again, If he proved that God ſealed his Book, we would believe all that was in it: which I am ſure he can never do while the world ſtands.
A fifth Lye is, That James Nayler in a written Paper which he ſent to me, calls me ſhameleſs man, for tempting him to deny the Lord: when I ſaid no ſuch thing; but that I did ſay, & to which he alludes in his Paper, was, That either he ſhould prove he was immediately ſent of God, as he profeſt, or elſe that he ſhould renounce it: and thereupon he calls me ſhameleſs man, in tempting him to deny the Lord.
A ſixth Lye is, That James Nayler in the ſaid Paper ſaith, If he had come in his own Name, I would have received him, as (he ſaith) I did plainly confeſs. I do believe this man hath bent his tongue like a Bowe for lyes: for I dare appeal to all the company (which I believe were at leaſt two hundred) if I ſaid any ſuch thing.
A ſeventh Lye is, that being charged with writing ſuch falſities in his Paper, by a friend that read it,33 and knew what was in it, he (at a Meeting at the Bull and Mouth at Alderſgate in London) did utterly deny it; and while the ſaid friend ran from them to my houſe (which is not farre) to fetch the ſaid Paper, to prove that he had writ thoſe untruths that he had charged Nayler with, in the mean time he ſlips away, and was gone. If theſe are tokens of perfection, ſure one may as well ſay the Devil is perfect: but ſure if theſe men are perfect in any thing, it is in the art of deceiving, lying, and equivocation.
Theſe are but few of thoſe legions of Lyes and Inconſiſtencies that their Writings and Preachings are ſtuſt withall, as the judicious may perceive, that will but ſtrictly weigh what they either write on ſpeak, in the balance of the Sanctuary.
Having now been in the place of a Reſpondent, to ſhew the Fallacies, and Non-ſequiturs, and abſurd Contradictions of the Arguments that theſe men bring for their Quakings and Infallible Preachings; together with other their vain Conceits of the Scriptures, and of the Ordinances of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt: I ſhall now aſſert ſomething briefly by way of oppoſition to theſe mens conceits, and endeavor the proof thereof from Scripture and Reaſon, as God ſhall enable me.
And firſt of all, I ſhall affirm, That the written Precepts and Promiſes of God, together with his Threatnings of Judgements, and Exhortations to amendment of life, they are, and ought to be eſteemed the Words of God.
That his written Commands may and ought to be ſo called, I prove from Mark 7.10. for Moſes ſaid, Honour thy Father and Mother, &c. which was the writing34 of Moſes, Exod. 20.12. And Chriſt ſaith, their making this written Law of none effect, in doing nothing for their Father or Mother, was To MAKE THE WORD OF GOD of none effect by their Tradition, John 10.35. and Jer. 36.2, 5. And Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, all the WORDS OF THE LORD: and ver. 8. He was reading in a BOOK the WORDS OF THE LORD. Again, the Apoſtle calls the Law of Moſes, which contained Precepts, Promiſes, Threatnings, and Exhortations, The Oracles or WORDS OF GOD, Rom. 3.2. But it is objected, The written Word did not make the World. To which I anſwer, That if they mean the Ink and Paper, we make one minde with them. But yet further I reply, That the ſame God whoſe Word made the World, and whoſe Word preſerves the Fabrick of the World, did ſpeak thoſe words that are written, for the admonition of the World; and therefore they may truly be call'd Gods Words, according to the fore-cited Scriptures, and many other that may be named.
Again, it is objected, That the Word of God abides for ever, but the Writings may be burned: To which I anſwer, That this doth not prove that which they would have, viz. That the Commands contained in the Scriptures, may be burned, or any of Gods Promiſes to him that ſears him, or his Judgements upon them that do not fear him: No, theſe remain like Mount Sion, that ſhall not be removed: As for example, the Words of God were writ upon Tables of Stone; yet the breaking of the Tables did not put a diſſolution to thoſe words that were contained in them, but they were as truly to be obſerved, as if the Tables had been whole.
35Reader, I ſhould not urge theſe as arguments to thoſe that diſown the Scriptures in words at length; but ſure I am, that they will ſerve to confute theſe men, that in words own them, yet in works deny them.
Again, I prove the Scriptures as aforeſaid to be the VVord of God out of their own mouthes, though it may be they may deny the conſequent: for they, though they deny them to be the VVord of God, yet they ſay they are a declaration of his Minde and VVill.
VVhence I thus argue, That which declares Gods VVill, is Gods VVord: But the Scriptures declare Gods VVill; Ergo, it is Gods VVord. The major I prove out of their own mouthes; for they all ſay, that Nothing can inlighten but the Word; and, that Nothing can bring us to know Gods Minde, but the Word: though it may be they mean ſomewhat elſe by Word then I do, yet that matters not: for, if nothing can manifeſt Gods Minde, but Gods VVord, and the Scriptures by their own confeſſion do ſo; then it follows, That by their own Principles (if they have any) that the Scriptures may be ſo called, though in words at length they do deny it. By which you may ſee, how miſerably theſe men contradict themſelves, in ſaying, The Scriptures are not Gods Word, and yet ſay, They are a declaration of his Will: when at another time they ſay, Nothing can declare Gods Will, but his Word; which they ſay the Scripture is not.
Secondly, I do aſſert, That the Light which every man hath, doth not direct him into the worſhip and ſervice of God: and though Chriſt be the true Light, that inlightens every man that comes into the world, or that doth that which in its nature and property hath ſuch a36 tendency; for ſo the Scriptures ſpeak ſometimes, Ezek. 24.14. Becauſe I have purged thee, and thou waſt; not purged; that is (as if God had ſaid) I have done that which was ſufficient for thy purgation; And the like in Joh. 1.29. Chriſt is called, The Lamb of God, that takes away the ſins of the world; though he that believes not, ſhall dye in his ſins: the meaning then muſt not be, that every man hath his ſins pardoned. In like manner then when the ſame pen ſaith, that as he taketh away the ſins of the world, ver. 29. ſo he doth inlighten every one that comes into the world, ver. 9. which is as much as if he had ſaid, Jeſus Chriſt by his bleſſed mediation, hath done that which is able to effect pardon of ſins for the world, and which alſo is able to inlighten and inform the world into the knowledge of it: How then doth this Text prove, That every man hath this Light within him, any more then the other Texts proves every mans ſins were took away? the latter of which, themſelves will not allow.
But further, if every man hath received this Light, Joh. 1. then every man hath received Chriſt: for he is that Light, ver. 9.
But every man hath not received Chriſt: Ergo.
The minor I prove from the 11 ver. of the ſame Chapter; He came to his own, and his own received him not; and the Builders were ſaid to refuſe him, Matth. 21.42. and many other places: But if they ſhall think to be relieved at this turn with this diſtinction, viz. That it is one thing to have the Light, and another thing to receive it: Then I demand, If this Light was not received, how can it be in all men, unleſs they are born with it? Secondly, whether men HAVE ANY THING, but what they have RECEIVED, according37 to I Cor. 4.7. eſpecially any Light or Knowledge of Jeſus Chriſt. Laſtly, whether the Scriptures do make a diſtinction between a mans having the Spirit of Chriſt, or the Light of Chriſt within him; and his receiving Chriſt, and receiving of the Spirit within him, or in his heart, as the Apoſtle phraſes it, Rom. 8.
But to proceed: Doth not the Scripture ſay, John 11.10. That He that walks in the dark ſtumbles, becauſe there is NO LIGHT in him? And Iſa. 8.20. If they ſpeak not according to this rule, it is becauſe there is NO LIGHT in them? and yet theſe ſay, Every man in the world hath the Light within him, ſpoken of John 1. which Light is Chriſt.
Thirdly, In oppoſition to another of their Errours, I ſhall prove, That the day of Judgement is not paſt; which I prove thus:
If the Heavens and the Earth are reſerved to the Fire of that Judgement-day, then is it not paſt already: But the Heavens and the Earth are reſerved to the fire of that day; therefore that day is not paſt already.
The major is unqueſtionable: For if they are yet kept from the fire of that day, and are reſerved to the fire of it; then it followeth, That none bath ſeen that day, becauſe the Heavens have not felt the heat of it. The minor is proved out of 2 Pet. 3.7.
Again, if the day of the perdition of the ungodly be not paſt, then the day of Judgement is not: But the day of the perdition of the ungodly is not; therefore the day of Judgement is not.
Again, if in that day all muſt give account of the deeds done in the body, and there are thouſands, and38 ten thouſands that have not given an account; then it follows, that the day of Judgement is not paſt: But there are thouſands, and ten thouſands that have not given an account of the deeds done in the body; therefore the day of Judgement is not paſt already.
Again, if the day of Judgement be paſt already, then the Reſurrection is paſt already: But the Reſurrection is not paſt already; Ergo.
The major I prove from John 5.29.
The minor I prove thus: In the Reſurrection they neither marry, nor give in marriage: But now men do both; therefore they are not in the Reſurrection.
Fourthly, They ſay, There is no Baptiſm but that of the Spirit. In oppoſition to which, I do affirm a Baptiſm with water; which I prove from Mark 16.16. and Matth. 28.19. **Act 2.38, 41. & 8.3, 6. & 10.4, 7.And that the baptiſm here commanded was water-baptiſm, it appears by what I have already ſaid, by way of Reply to this notion: Alſo the Scripture tells us, Heb. 6. of the Doctrine of BAPTISMS. And whereas it is objected, That the Scripture tells us of one Lord, and one Baptiſm: I anſwer, Firſt, this is not excluſive; for there are Lords many; yet he ſaith, There is but one Lord Jeſus: So in like manner we reade of divers baptiſms; as of water, and afflictions, and the holy Ghoſt: yet there is but one properly ſo call'd, to wit, That of water, and the other are metaphorical baptiſms.
Fifthly, That the Lord Chriſt did adminiſter bread and wine, in token of his blood-ſhedding and bodybreaking; which they deny: This I prove from Mai. 26.27, 28. where Chriſt did uſe both bread and wine upon that occaſion: and that the Apoſtles did ſo, appears from 1 Cor. 11.23. where he ſaith, That that39 which he received of the Lord, he did deliver unto them, how that Chriſt when he was betrayed, took bread: and ver. 25. In like manner (ſaith the Apoſtle) he took the Cup when he had ſupped, &c. All which ſhew, That bread and wine was inſtituted by Chriſt, and practiſed by the Primitive Chriſtians, in remembrance of the dyings of the Lord Jeſus.
Sixthly, That civil honour and reſpect is due to ſome perſons more then other; which they deny: Firſt, from the childe to the father, as Exod. 20.12. Eph. 6.2. Secondly, from the wiſe to the husband, Eph. 5.33. and 1 Pet. 3.6. Sarah obeyed Abraham, and called him LORD. Thirdly, this is due from ſervants to their Maſters, 1 Tim. 6.1. Let as many ſervants as are under the yoke, count their Maſters worthy of All honour, &c. Fourthly, it is due from young ſolks to the aged, Levit. 19.32. Thou ſhalt riſe up before the boary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: or as Beza hath it, Thou ſhalt honour the PERSON of the old man. Fifthly, this reſpect is due to perſons in Authority; as not onely the Apoſtle exhorts, I Pat. 2.17. but as Paul himſelf practiſeth (as I have ſaid) when he calls Feſtw, Moſt Noble: and our Lord Chriſt notes the unjuſt Judge for one that did not reverence man, Luke 18.2. and yet the Quakers make it a note of their infallible Miniſtery, that they do not reverence men; when Chriſt makes it a character of a wicked man. This was urged by James Nayler at the Bull and Mouth near Alderſgate, viz. That their not reſpecting perſons, was a ſign they were immediately ſent of God, as I have already minded.
Again, was not Jacob a faithful man, and doth not the Scripture ſay, that he called Eſau LORD, Gen. 32.18. 40Gen. 33.13, 14, 15. And Luke calls Theophilus, Luk. 1.3. Moſt Noble Theophilus: And Chriſt himſelf bids his Diſciples, Not to covet the uppermoſt rooms at feaſts, leſt a MORE HONORABLE perſon come in, and then they be bid ſit lower, Luke 14.8. By all this you may ſee, that though we muſt not reſpect perſons in Judgement, or do any thing for a rich man, becauſe he is rich, without reſpect had to the equity of the cauſe; or give flattering Titles to men, to whom it is not due, as to call one Maſter, and ſay, I am his Servant, when I owe him no ſervice: yet this doth not hinder, but a man may and ought to acknowledge himſelf a Servant, when he is really and truly ſo: And though it be flattery to give Titles that are not due; yet it is a duty to give them where and when they are due.
Seventhly, they are not Infallible, as they pretend: This I prove, becauſe if one propoſe a queſtion to one of them, he ſhall give one anſwer; propoſe the ſame to another, he ſhall give another anſwer, quite contrary to the former: and ſo if you ſhall go on to a fourth or fifth, not one of five, nay (I dare ſay) not one of ten ſhall give the ſame anſwer with the firſt: and yet ſometimes theſe men do make the harmony that is among them, an argument that they are infallible; when no Trumpet that ſounds forth any thing of Religion to the world, gives a more uncertain ſound then theirs. And truly, I know nothing wherein they were ever ſo well agreed, as they were office at their Meetings in Kent, wherein they all agreed to meet together many times, and ſaid nothings Truly, if this dumb ſpirit had alwayes been among them, it had been happy for many thouſand ſouls in this Nation, who are now miſerably deluded with their fair words.
41Eighthly, I ſhall further prove, in oppoſition to another Errour of theirs, That Chriſt had, and yet hath, another Body beſides his Church: And my firſt Argument is this, viz. If Christ had a Body that was broken for his Church, then he had a Body beſides the Church: But he had a Body that was broken for his Church; Ergo.
The major is unqueſtionable; or elſe Chriſt gave the Church to be broken for the Church, if he had no Body beſides the Church; which is abſurd.
The minor is proved from Matth. 26.26. Luke 22.19. where Chriſt ſaith of his Body, that it was broken for them. By this you may ſee, theſe men either cannot or will not diſtinguiſh between the Body of Chriſt, which is glorified in the Heavens, and the Church of Chriſt, which is his Myſtical Body upon Earth, and who (if they continue faithful) ſhall have their vile bodies made like unto his glorious body; according to that of the Apoſtle, Phil. 3.21.
Thus, Reader, thou haſt an account of a ſew of thoſe many vain Errours that are profeſt by this generation of men, who go up and down to ſubvert whole houſes, and congregations, and to pervert the right and ſtraight wayes of the Lord. But I hope the Lord will put a ſtop to theſe mens careers, that they may proceed no further, that their folly may be made manifeſt unto all, that every one may take heed, that he be not led away wit the errour of the wicked, and fall from his own ſtedfaſtneſs.
I ſhall now proceed to ſhew the Reader, that theſe conceits, though they are newly riſen among us, yet they were ſuch wherewith the Churches of Chriſt have been peſter'd, even in the Primitive Times; and that42 not onely in the dayes of the Apoſtles, but in the Ages following, wherein men did riſe up, and ſay, They were ſent of God; and afterwards grew into ſuch Blaſphemous Opinions, as theſe men are now fallen into; ſome ſaying, They are the Eternal Judges of the World; others ſaying, The Day of Judgement is paſt; Others ſaying, They have Divine Revelations; others ſaying, They are Chriſts; and, That they are the Way, the Truth, and the Life, &c.
And that theſe men do agree with moſt of the Hereticks both Ancient and Modern, I ſhall mention ſome few among the reſt.
As firſt, they have affinity with Hymeneus and Philetus, who ſaid, That the Reſurrection was paſt already, 1 Tim. 2.18. in that they (as I have already ſhewn) ſay, The Day of Judgement is paſt already.
Secondly, they have affinity with the Gnoſtici, which ſaid, They knew all things: See Epiphan. Haereſ. 26. So ſay theſe men: and thereupon one of them, namely, Farnworth, being asked, If he knew what two men ſpake one to another, being apart from them? he anſwered, That though he did know, yet he was not bound to anſwer the queſtion, becauſe (ſaith he) it is an unbeliever that, asketh it. Again, they agree with the fore-cited Hereticks, inaſmuch as they taught, That Chriſt did not take fleſh really, but in a figure; ſo ſay theſe; for one of them being asked this queſtion, anſwers, That Chriſt was but a figure: See Sauls Errand to Damaſcus, pag. 54.
Thirdly, they have affinity with the Manichees, whoſe Ring-leader Manes, call'd himſelf, The Comforter, and ſaid, He was Chriſt, Euſeb. lib. 7. cap. 30. So do ſome of their Teachers, ſaying, They are the Way, Truth, and Life.
43Fourthly, they have affinity with the great Heretick Seleucus, who denied the Humanity of Chriſt to be in Heaven, and Water-baptiſm: He lived in the time of Theodoſius Magnus. See Auguſt. lib. de Haereſ. Both which Errours are maintained by the Quakers, though they are repugnant to holy Scriptures.
Fifthly, they have affinity with the Papiſts, in the great Maſter-veins of Popery: As 1. the Papiſts do introduce all their vain conceits by this Maxime, That the Church cannot Erre: and from thence it is, that the Quakers do uſher in all their Dreams, viz. That they are perfect, and cannot erre. 2. The Papiſts do make the writings of their General Councels of equal Authority with holy Scripture: So do the Quakers make their pernicious Pamphlets. And at this they exceed the Papiſts; for the Papiſt will not ſay, That none of their Prieſts have erred; neither will they ſay, That the Writings of any particular man (except the Pope) is Infallible: but theſe Quakers ſay, That their Writings are of equal Authority with hely Scriptures, although they are the private conceptions of either particular men or womens brains. 3. They agree with the Papiſt Prieſts, in that they would make the outſide of their converſations, an argument to demonſtrate the truth of their Apoſtolical ſending. In like manner (as I have formerly ſaid) James Nayler and Boroughs, and divers others of their falſe Apoſtles, being asked, How they could prove they were ſent of God? anſwered, That their lives did make it manifeſt, becauſe they denied themſelves in point of Apparel, &c. By this it appears, that the Quakers are compounded with moſt of the groſſeſt Errours that the Church of old were incumbred withall.
44Sixthly, and laſtly, they do in many of their fore-mentioned Errours, agree with their lorefathers the Familiſts, who were great perverters of the right wayes of the Lord in the dayes of Luther, and Calvin, eſpecially in the Netherlands, and many places in Germany; as theſe are in our dayes (to our grief we may ſpeak it) in many places in England.
The CONCLUSION.
I ſhall now conclude with a word or two of Caution: and that firſt, That every one would compare what I have writ with holy Scripture, and then judge, whether I have ſaid any thing of theſe men, that is either harſh or unſavoury, ſave what the harſhneſs and unſavourineſs of their Opinions and Practiſes call for: and then, I hope, none will think amiſs of me for calling them Lyers, Deceivers, Blaſphemers, &c. if they ſhall ſinde that I have prove them ſuch, both by Scripture, and Reaſon, and their own Sayings and Writings. I do confeſs that it is very common among men, to call thoſe that differ from them in Opinion, Lyers, and Deceivers, &c. though they are not able to prove them ſo: But though this be an evil, to call that an Errour or Blaſphemy that one cannot prove to be ſo; yet this doth not hinder, but that I may lawfully call that an Errour and Blaſphemy which the Scriptures call ſo in expreſneſs of terms: As for inſtance, The Scriptures ſay, He that denieth Chriſt come in the fleſh, is Antichriſt: Now though I may not call a man Antichriſtian, that differs from me in ſome circumſtances and diſputable Points of Doctrine; yet he that ſhall ſay, He is equal with Chriſt; or that ſhall ſay of himſelf, That he is the Chriſt, The Comforter; The Way, the Truth, and the Life;45 and the Eternal Judge of the World, as theſe men have ſaid of themſelves; ſurely ſuch men may be call'd Deceivers, Lyers, and Blaſphemers, without breaking the Law of Love and Charity.
But if it ſhall be doubted, whether the things I charge them with be true or no; let me tell thee, that all that I have writ concerning them, are either ſuch things as have fallen from their own Mouthes before hundreds of witneſſes; or elſe ſuch things as have been faithfully collected out of their own Writings: and therefore let me caution thee, whoever thou art, to reade their Books, eſpecially thoſe places to which I have referred thee, before thou judge I have wronged them. This I am ſure thou muſt do, before thou canſt judge righteous Judgement in the caſe: And if thou doeſt but take pains to inform thy ſelf, thou wilt finde, That the Erorrs I charge them with, are either ſuch as themſelves being formerly charged with could not deny, as appears by their printed anſwers to them; or elſe they are ſuch as they have in words at length poſitively afferted, as will be found among their Writings, in the books and pages I have cited.
I confeſs, many things have been reported to me, concerning the evil manners of ſome of the Teachers of this way, and of the badneſs of their lives: and though doubtleſs this hath not been without ground, yet I do forbear to mention any thing of that kinde; Firſt, becauſe the miſcarriage of ſome particular perſons, doth not prove the whole to be guilty; unleſs it be in matters of Doctrine, which they all receive and own: And ſecondly, becauſe the Errours of mens lives and converſations, do not infallibly prove the Errours of their Doctrine; inaſmuch as ſome men46 do walk contrary to what they make profeſſion of: yet let me tell thee one thing by the way, viz. That though Errour in life doth not prove Errour in judgment; yet Errour in converſation doth prove Errour in converſation; my meaning is, If the queſtion be about Errors in Doctrine, then the goodneſs or badneſs of the lives of them that profeſs it, doth no way reſolve the queſtion certainly, though it may probably; but if the queſtion be about Perfection in life, which theſe Quakers ſay they have attained to; then let me tell thee, That any Errour in the lives of ſuch, proves infallibly, that they are not ſuch as they profeſs to be, viz. Perfect men. My laſt reaſon why I do not inſiſt upon the particular evils that relate to the converſation of theſe men, is, Becauſe I know that the proof thereof is not ſo eaſie for the Reader to attain, becauſe poſſibly many of them may live hundreds of miles from the places where this may come; and alſo, becauſe that they will not believe any thing that is witneſſed againſt any of their way, but ſhuttle it off with ſaying, That Chriſt and his Apoſtle were evil ſpoken of, and perſecuted, &c. But let me tell thee, Reader, whoever thou art, That this is a vain plea: for what though Chriſt and his Servants ſhall be evil ſpoken of without cauſe; yet this proves not, that therefore every one that is evil-ſpoken of, is Chriſts Servant; for thouſands there are, that give juſt cauſe to be evilſpoke of daily; and may not theſe men excuſe themſelves, by ſaying, Chriſt was evil-ſpoken of? and do not the Papiſts Prieſts (many of them) at this day excuſe their wicked and beaſtly practiſes (with many of their Nuns, who have vowed Chaſtity) by ſaying, That Chriſt was evil-ſpoken of, and ſo are they for being his ſervants?47 when indeed there is cauſe enough to ſpeak evil of them, though there was no cauſe to ſpeak evil of Chriſt. In like manner do theſe Quakers ſhuttle off all evil that is objected againſt any of them, by ſaying, They are belyed, and ſuffer falſly; therefore to prevent any thing of this kinde, I charge them with nothing, but what is either daily preached among them, or elſe what may be found in their printed Books.
I have one Caution more, that I ſhall give to my Antagoniſts (if any of them ſhall undertake to write any thing in anſwer hereunto) and that is, That they lay aſide all ſuch un-man-like reaſonings, wherewith many of their Books are ſtuffed, in telling their Adverſaries, They are Sots, and Fools, and Blinde; and, That they are of the Devil, and in Darkneſs, and ſpeak the firſt wiſdome from Beneath; and, That they are Lyers, &c. till they have firſt proved what hath been writ to be falſe: and remember how fooliſh a thing it was counted, to ſay, Bellarmine lyed, before he was proved a Lyer: And therefore let what I have ſpoken, be anſwered with words of truth and ſoberneſs; and if by the words of truth it ſhall be made manifeſt, that I have ſpoken any untruth, I ſhall with the like readineſs of minde make a publick acknowledgement of it to the world. And I would alſo intreat, That there may be no carping about words, thereby to avoid the force of any argument or queſtion that is propoſed, but that every thing (whether Words or Arguments) be orderly and directly ſpoken to; that ſo the Readers on both ſides may judge, on which ſide the Truth lyeth, as I queſtion not but they will eaſily do.
Thus having diſcharged my conſcience towards48 God, in the publiſhing theſe Lines out of love to the world in general, but more eſpecially out of love to my Brethren, whoſe feet (many of them) are taken in this Snare, not knowing that they are for their lives: And if God ſhall bleſs theſe Lines, either to the prevention of the falling of them, who (through grace) yet ſtand, or to the reſtoring of thoſe that are fallen; or if otherwiſe I have miſtaken any thing, God will bring this good of my miſtake (if in caſe any be found) as to raiſe up, and provoke ſome one or other to make my miſtake manifeſt. If by theſe Lines I obtain any of theſe ends, which I do not much queſtion; then ſure I am, that I have not run in vain, but ſhall give God the glory, while I am able to ſubſcribe my ſelf