The Snake in the Grass - Sect. 26.

A SUPPLEMENT

Upon occasion of George Whitehead's Answſer to the Snake in the Graſs, lately publihed;

SINCE the second edition of the snake in the Grass began to be printed, there came out an answer to it, by George Whitehead, with which I am very well pleased, because it confirms all the mat ters of fact there related, to every purpose and in tent for which they were produced; and he has not detected one false quotation of all that I have brought out of their books: and to have detected such was the only proper answer that could have been given. Therefore the reader may now securely depend upon the quotations I have produced; which is in effect the whole cause.

If you will ask me, of what then does George. Whitehead's answer consist? Why, of bitter rail ing, and threatening, if I should write any more against them; of very poor and guilty excuses for some things that are objected against them; and a total silence or forgetfulness of the most material points wherein they were accused; of calling this a severe persecution against them; of pleading not guilty to the charge, without disproving any part of the evidence.

In short, it was intended purely to have it to say that there was an answer to such a book; and that is enough with the Quakers, who are not permitted to read the books that are written against them, and receive as gospel whatever their rabbies dic tate. And as for others, I suppose the courage of the Quakers is somewhat abated, to hope for more proselytes; so that if they can but secure the con quests they have already made, they will be content not to extend their empire; at least for the present, not till they see another fit occasion.

When I shall have leisure to consider this answer of the Quakers Κατα ποδα which for their good I do intend, I hope by it to put an end to my pains in this controversy, and to make it fully appear to all the world, and to all of themselves, who will not shut their eyes, that they have not been falsely charged by me: that the vile heresies objected have been taught among them; and that the defences and excuses which some of them do make for this renders them threefold more culpable, by shewing that they apprehend these errors which they seem to disclaim, and yet will not condemn them, nor those who broached and spread them abroad, but still stick by them, maintain and defend them, as true and infallible guides; and, as such, recommend them to the vast multitudes of their deluded follow ers, whereby these destructive errors are kept alive, and still propagated amongst them.

And since I find that there is no doing of them good but against their wills, I will run the hazard of what they threaten me with, and venture their displeasure, rather than fail in my Christian duty towards them, to contribute my pains to open their eyes, and save them from destruction both of soul and body. And I trust in God that he will protect me from their rage, while I have no other design (which I can sincerely say before him) than their good and salvation.

But because the reader may not take my account of this answer of George Whitehead's wholly upon trust before my reply shall come out, I will here give him a specimen of the truth of what I say.

(I.) First, then, he wholly passes by what one would think a material objection against them, of the manifest possessions of many of them, and some of their chief preachers, by the Devil, which was in the beginning of the preface. But he says nothing to this, nor reckons it as any of the mistakes, abuses, or calumnies in the Snake: for having made a ca talogue of these, (as he endeavours to prove them,) he begins at 'page 93 of the preface, and so goes on, whereby we may reasonably suppose that he found none such in what went before.

But now, as to those mistakes which he pretends to find: how does he prove them to be such P Why, by boldly and confidently averring that they are such, without so much as taking the least notice, or pretending to answer any of the proofs which are brought. For example:

(II.) To all that is objected before in sect. xv.1II. of the Quakers' manifold treasons against the king; of their taking arms, and fighting against him for Oliver and the Rump; their applauding and re joicing in the murder of king Charles I, and their blasphemous denouncing of curses, and sending forth lying prophecies, in the name, and, as they pretended, by the special commission of the Lord God against the king, and all who adhered to him; and of their vigorous opposing the restoration of king Charles II. to the very last. All which is proved from the writings of their first apostle G. Fox, of Howgil, and Bishop, and others of their principal pillars; their books and pages quoted, and faithfully recited. To all this it is answered by George Whitehead, in a very few words, p. 24, of his Antidote against the Venom of the Snake in the Grass, (so he styles his answer,) where he never so much as names one of these proofs out of their books, denies none of them, (for indeed he could not,) only says, We need but answer these with negation and detestation, as being most foul railleries, proceeding from a spirit of persecution and deadly malice, which the right eous Lord will rebuke. They cannot refrain their trade in blasphemous and cursed prophecies' yet he pretends not to disprove one single quotation or au thority which is there produced against them.

But he adds, (like a prince!) Has he (i. e. the author of the Snake) not heard of some of the clergy who have lately absolved persons condemned of high treason? There's a high touch! Who hereafter dare question the loyalty of G. Whitehead or the Quakers? Probatum est! But he goes on: His quoting Bugg's authority for these black charges, p. 199, shews his partial credulity in not taking notice of our answers to him. Now, reader, when you turn to the place, you will find that no authority of Bugg's is quoted at all for the charges before mentioned. The charges against them in Bugg's Impeachment, which is there men tioned, is upon the subject of tithes; wherein he likewise takes occasion to shew their barbarous treatment of the clergy, and also of the government which supports them; damning them all together to hell, in the most outrageous terms that furies could invent. And he quotes their books and pages, some of which quotations I set down, p. 189, &c. of the preface, and refer to them again, p. 199, which G. Whitehead here quotes. And how do I refer to them 2 I desire the Quakers to convict Bugg of false quotation in these barbarous passages, which he has produced out of their books. Is this refer ring to his authority, or not rather appealing to their own books? Well: but I have not taken no tice of their answers to Bugg. Indeed, (George') if thou wouldst not be angry, this was a little too imposing upon thy reader: for the joint answers of the Quakers to that Impeachment of Francis Bugg is not only casually mentioned, but particu larly insisted upon, and made the subject of a dis tinct section. It is sect. XI. of the preface, begins at p. 121, and continues to p. 171, and bears this title in the contents; The Quakers' Answer to Fran cis Bugg's Impeachment upon this head (i. e. of tithes) considered. Now, (George') any who had not read the Snake, and would take thy word, would believe that I had taken no notice at all of the Quakers' Answer to Bugg's Impeachment: and then whether thou hast not herein endeavoured to deceive thy reader, and cover the errors of the Quakers, I leave to thy own conscience and all the world to judge. Thou sayest (ibid.) that I have not taken notice also of your answer to John Pennyman on the like passages, entitled, Christ's Lambs defended, &c. Why should I? What is that to our present business? You are not now an swering John Pennyman. I have brought several authorities of the Quakers' treasons, &c. which are not in John Pennyman's book, (The Quakers Un masked,) to which thy Christ's Lambs was intended for an answer; particularly I have set down large quotations out of George Bishop's works, whom Mr. Pennyman does not mention. Why didst not thou answer to these? Either deny the books or the quotations; disown the author, or put some toler able meaning upon his loud blasphemies and bloody treasons. No, they are too broad to be excused or palliated; and therefore are slid off in this most sin cere manner, by referring to a book which has not one word of them.

For, to tell thee the truth, George! I have undergone the penance of reading over thy tedious answer to John Pennyman, even thy Christ's Lambs; and there is not one word in it from top to bottom, one tittle to the purpose, but such shuffling and cutting as in thy present answer to the Snake; only thus much it serves for, that you may have it to say, there is an answer to such a book: and if any thing of that sort be ever afterwards objected against you, then to cry out, This is answered al ready. Thus you now refer to your Christ's Lambs; and if any hereafter should object against you any of those things which are objected in the Snake, though without quoting of the Snake, or perhaps without ever having seen it; then would you refer to this thy new Antidote, and say, That has been ob jected in the Snake, and answered in the Antidote, though, may be, not one word of it in the Antidote, or shuffled off as thou dost (in the same, p. 24.) G. Fox and Edw. Burroughs their traitorous abet ting of Oliver and the Rump, of which very many proofs are brought in the Snake from their own words and writings; without naming one of which, or offering to disprove the least of them, every word of thy reply is in these words; This is very harsh, and denied; and thou hast not one syllable more in answer to it. Yet if that were again objected, O, would the Quakers say, that has been answered already! From the abovesaid full and ingenuous answer, G. Whitehead turns to retort upon the clergy: He (i.e. the author of the Snake) forgets, says he, how the then clergy abetted Oliver, and highly applauded him and his son Richard, as their Moses and Joshua; and shews as little re gard to the act of indemnity in these recrimina tions, if they were true. Thus he ends, and I have not omitted one word of his answer to this charge, which concludes with p. 24. As for the then clergy, (as he calls them,) let the Quakers and them reckon about their equal treasons and rebellion; the clergy of the church of England are not herein concerned; they then suffered for their king, and with him. But what means George by bringing me under the lash of the act of indemnity! What Quaker, or Quakerly-affected council, drew up this answer for him 2 The king has pardoned the lives of these rebels; but has he granted them a charter therefore to lie, and to tell the world that they were always loyal and true, nay, and infallibly so? Can not they fare well, but they must cry roast-meat 2 But if past faults must not now be so much as re membered, was it not as great an encroachment upon the act of indemnity for the Quakers to up braid the other dissenters, the Presbyterians, Inde pendents, &c. with their treasons and rebellions, and to ring loud peals upon that text against them, which they did; and upon which occasion Mr. Pen nyman wrote his Quakers Unmasked, being a col lection of their treasons, and abetting of all the seve ral sorts of usurpations in their time, and sent it privately to the Quakers several years before it was made public, to prevent their railing against the Presbyterians for their seditions, treasons, and fight ing principles, the Quakers being as guilty in all these themselves. But this could not hinder them from continuing to print still on, in the same strain, against the Presbyterians; and therefore Mr. Penny man at last published his Quakers Unmasked, to shew how little reason the pot had to call the pan black—Was it no offence then against the act of indemnity for the Quakers to upbraid the Presby terians, &c. with their former disloyalties; and must it now be an offence to tell the Quakers that they were as deep in the mud as the others in the mire? But enough of this.

I will give one instance more of the nature of this answer of G. Whitehead's: coming to that part of the charge against the Quakers where they pre tend to an equality with God, he says, page 88, Where did ever the Quakers so advance them selves to be one person, substance, soul with God, and equal even to God? We positively deny the charge and give this person leave to secure such persons in Bedlam, if he can find any among us that he can plainly prove to hold the same thing as he charges. Now whether this be not plainly proved before in sect. II. and III. I refer to any that have eyes to read: and G. Whitehead, in this his answer, does not deny one of the quotations, or so much as name one of them, much less disprove them. So that I leave it to the judgment of the reader, whether I have not now fairly G. White head's warrant to send G. Fox to Bedlam, He has guessed right for once! And whether he ought not to accompany him, if he will stick by him!

(III.) But from hence it does appear, that this se cond edition of the Snake will prove a full reply to this answer of G. Whitehead's: for what reply could I give to the answer of this particular, (for example,) or those before mentioned, but to set down the proofs which I before produced, where G. Fox, &c. do positively assert all these things 2 And this being in G. Whitehead's method through all his answer, the reply to each particular must prove a reprinting of all those proofs in the Snake which G. Whitehead has omitted, and that is al most of the whole book. And any who will take the pains to compare the Snake with this answer, will, I am confident, think that this is a sufficient reply.

But because the Quakers shall not complain of being thus put off, I do intend to make a particular reply, and to follow G. Whitehead through every single point that he touches; for this end especially, that this being the last cast of the Quakers, and all the defence they have to make, I may so plainly de tect it, as to leave them without excuse, and, by the blessing of God, to convince all of them, except those who are resolved not to be persuaded, though they were persuaded; and these I must leave to the mercy of God and miracles to cure, but hope to disarm them so, that they may not be able to hurt others.

(IV.) George Whitehead, in this same little an swer, pretends to have answered likewise Satan Dis robed; yes! and the Discourse of Baptism too, upon which he bestows not two leaves, wherein he does not attempt to answer so much as one single ob jection, or to remove one stone of that foundation upon which the outward or water-baptism is built; but, because he might find something to say, he falls upon an advertisement of two other discourses which are there promised, but not yet published, and says, that the author should have held his hand until he had seen an answer to his Snake in the Grass, which, in the very first page of his book, he tells, that the Quakers did not intend to answer; but afterwards were brought to it, to sa tisfy the importunity of others, that is, about a year and a half after the Snake was published. But the author should have stayed and waited on; what had he else to do?

(V.) Let me here desire the reader to look over the conclusion of this discourse, (which, in the first edition, is the end of the preface,) and see what caution is there given to guard against the falla cious methods of the Quakers' way of answering books; and when he sees this answer of G. White head's, he will find that it was not in his power to avoid falling into every snare, against which I gave him warning: especially having told him, and all of them before, that it was not in their power to avoid it, because their cause would not afford it, not being able to bear a fair and clear answer; and provoked them to shew the contrary, if they could, in their answer to the Snake, and to let the world judge of their cause by it. I desired them to an swer to each section by itself, and not give one ge neral and evasive answer; that they would not, like rats, nibble at some leaves, carp at an expression, and so slip over the most material points, and the proofs which were brought against them: yet this they have done most exactly, not meddling with the proofs, as if none such had been produced, and slid ing by twenty or thirty pages together, where it pinched them; of which I have given some in stances: and the reader, who will be at the pains to compare their answer and the Snake together, will find abundance, almost in every page of their an swer. more. But let me here take notice of one instance The first edition, sect. V, of the book, p. 28, was upon the wrathful and proud spirit of the Quakers; and there, p. 32, 33, there are some of the most senseless and venomous expressions against their adversaries that ever came out of the mouth of man, while they pretend to be the very meek of the earth, and call themselves the lambs of Christ! But G. Whitehead, in his answer, p. 58, 59, gives a leap from p. 20 of the Snake to p. 38, and says not a word of this matter; for the proofs he could not deny; and what else could he do? This is sect. XVII. of this present edition, and there, p. 201, you will find the abovementioned sweetnesses of the Quaker spirit, with some additions, as to their cleanliness, p.203, 204.

VI. But this is so inherent in the Quakers, that it ceases to be a fault in one sense, that is, because they cannot help it; of which G. Whitehead, in this answer of his, gives convincing proof. For, after all the caution given them in the Snake, and exposing the fury and implacable malice that reigns in their spirit, he not only passes all this by without any answer to it or excuse for it, but (which we must suppose one good reason why he did so) he does practise it afresh in this his answer, in a most bitter and invective manner. Every page is full of it, slanderous liar, impudent, sculking, (that he is fond of) vile, mercenary soldier, and the like; these are the most courtly terms the author of the Snake meets with. He calls him, p. 44, a poor dissembling hypocrite, through whom the Devil and malice does invent and produce terms and charac ters, (for them, the Quakers:) aye, but the Devil is in it, George, he has proved them too, and so plainly, that thy excuses confirm it the more. Whereas thou canst not prove one word of all thy senseless ribaldry against him; but, like a dog, thou only breakest thy teeth upon the stone that was thrown at thee. Thou callest him an unknown au thor: how then dost thee know that he is a hy pocrite? Has he dissembled with thee? Has he not dealt plainly enough by thee? And why callest thou him mercenary? Was it because he took more part with George Keith (as thou objectest) than with thee? But he has not said any thing in behalf of G. Keith, but only so far as he maintains the true Christian doctrine against thee and thy friends: and he disputes against G. Keith as well as thee, where he thinks George Keith to remain in an error. But why mercenary for all this? All the town knows that George Keith is a poor man, who makes hard shift to support his family: and those Quakers who adhere to him are the poor church of the Quakers: whereas thy church in Gracechurch-street are of the richest trading men in London; and many of them such. The author of the Snake then was ill-advised, if he wrote for hire, to go to those who had nothing to give; and to disoblige those who could have gratified him. But, George, thy tongue is no slander: and he thanks thee, that thou makest such senseless lies of him as confute themselves; and shew only the rancour and venom of thy spirit, that overflows in an effeminate and ungovernable passion; which moves not anger, but pity, in those whom thou desirest to provoke, and leaves thee wholly disappointed of thy malice.

But if thou wilt not hear me, I recommend to thee the Christian advice of a friend of thine, Wil liam Penn, in his Address to Protestants, p. 242; Men that are angry for God, passionate for Christ, that call names for religion, may tell us they are Christians, if they will; but nobody would know them to be such by their fruits; to be sure they are no Christians of Christ's making.

Now I would desire of thee and William Penn to read over again once more the names which thou and he, and others of your fraternity, have called men for religion; some of which are above quoted, sect. xv.11; and then to tell me, whether by Mr. Penn's sentiments, as before expressed, you are Christians of Christ's, or of whose making? And remember withal, 1 Cor. vi. 10, that revilers shall not inherit the kingdom of God. And, James i. 26, If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue vain.

(VII.) The Conclusion (which I desired the reader to review upon this occasion) ends with a short test of the Quaker sincerity and soundness in the faith, viz. that they would begin their answer to the Snake with a plain yea or may to two of the seven queries, which were presented to their yearly meet ing, 1695. Because, in their fallacious answer to them, they pretended that they were too long and intricate to answer them distinctly; and in their answer they left out the most material words upon which the chief stress was laid, as is shewn in the Conclusion: and therefore it is there pressed upon the Quakers, that they would yet, after all their dodging, give a plain yea and may to these two short queries: otherwise, that it ought to be concluded that they never intended a fair answer; and that they were not sound in the faith. But no provoca tion can bring them to speak plainly and in sin cerity; for then their cause were gone, that is, it would be known. Had they forgot this short and easy test, (which they would never have refused had they been sincere,) though it was in the last words of the preface in the first, as of the book in this edition: I say, had they forgot this, though a bad excuse, it had been some; but they have not forgot it. They repeat some of the provocation that was given them to answer it; nay, they begin with it too as desired; and, p. 5, to the Reader, they call it a monstrous calumny, to say there was any dodging in their first answer to the queries. And now one would have expected a full, plain, direct, and categorical answer in this: but they beg your pardon; you sha'n't catch them at that No: they will not answer so much as to one of these two short and easy queries proposed. What then do they mention this for 2 Why do they name this provocation to them to answer, since they will not answer 2 This is their modesty' They reprint their long tedious answer to the seven queries, which takes up four pages. Well! and what then Do they reply to that unfairness which is charged upon them in the Conclusion of the Snake; particularly their leaving out in their answer those words in the queries upon which the chief stress was laid, where by to detect their double meaning, whether they be lieved in Christ now, as without them, without all other men? Do they answer now to this, or make any excuse for having left out these words before? or do they now use them 2 No, none of these things; only they think that reprinting their an swer is sufficient to solve all the objections against it. Well! have they reprinted the queries too; to which they answer, that the reader may compare them, and see whether the objections against their answer be just or not? whether they have answered fully and plainly or not? No, says G. Whitehead, p. 6, the said queries appear to be of so little weight—and perversely designed for cavil, that I do not think they deserve to be reprinted here. It was not fit! George, thee art in the right; they are twice better answered without seeing of them. Yet in the reply to this thine answer, I suppose it will be thought fit to let the reader see the queries, as well as your answer. But I will not take up time in this, which is designed only to give the reader a view of thy general method of answering, to stay his stomach till the reply can be got ready. Take one relishing bit or two more, and so fare well.

VIII. In answer to sect. xvi. of the Quakers damning all the world but themselves, says G. Whitehead, p. 59 of his Answer, We damn none to hell; 'tis men's own wickedness which carries them to hell. And in answer to their taking the very attributes of God to themselves, he retorts, p. 100, the titles of grace and my lord given to bishops. And, Do these import divine honour and divine attributes, or earthly, pray? says George. Some charitable body help this poor peti tioner in this difficult point, which puzzles his un derstanding. I would advise thee, George, to go to thy friend William, who understands courts bet ter than thee, and ask him his meaning for calling thee and others of your ministry, in his preface to Fox's Journal, p. 39, his much honoured brethren. Can you take much honour to yourselves, and not allow a little to bishops? Suppose, from that say ing of William Penn's, I should arraign you all as guilty of blasphemy for taking the divine attributes to yourselves, how many scornful, malicious, lying, slandering, sculking, persecuting, mercenary devils, serpents, vipers, &c. had I received from thee! Even so many hast thou deserved. What thinks he' (says George, ibid. to the author of the Snake) of godfathers and godmothers? Are not these divine attributes, and very high ones too? The Lord help him, and restore him to his wits' Reader, what shall I do with such a man as this? Greater extravagance is not in Bedlam | And men may be mad secundum quid. He thinks this enough to throw off all the idolatry charged upon them, sect. VIII, in transferring both the divine attributes and worship to themselves.

(IX.) It is easy for him to throw off any thing, or to answer any thing. These words being quoted out of a Quaker book, entitled, The Sword of the Lord Drawn, p. 5, viz. Your imagined God be yond the stars, your carnal Christ is utterly de nied that Christ is God and man in one per son, is a lie. G. Whitehead does not deny the quotation, but says, p. 155, We do not affect the terms. Was not this a terrible rebuke | A full condemnation of the author and such damnable heresy' George, why didst not bestow upon him some of the pretty names thou callest me, only for telling thee of these things? No! no he was a friend in saying of them, and had a good intention; but I am an enemy, and have a murderous, perse cuting design to detect them: for what else can it be, since all the world cannot excuse them from be ing the most outrageous and blasphemous heresy And then must all men look upon Quakers as mon sters, as no Christians. And is this no persecution Why truly, it is a sad case that the Quakers should endure all this, rather than they will quit G. Fox and their ancient friends, their blasphemies, their heresies, their treasons! but endure it they must, till they either quit them or defend them. Their sidelong answers and silly excuses will not do. These do but shew how unwilling they are to come off from these damnable doctrines which they had once sucked in, and yet now dare not fully own; but would impose upon the world with their double meanings, and call it persecution, when they are drawn out into the light.

But I must not surfeit the reader with a breakfast, lest he lose his stomach to his dinner. I have given him a taste of this Answer of G. Whitehead's; and he may guess by that what a plentiful meal we are like to have when the whole regale shall be served in.

In the mean time I have some other business, and release the reader to his, till the next opportunity.