Concerning the Quakers' infallibility.
THIS Section may seem needless, as being in cluded in the former: for who pretend to an Equality with God, to the same Immediate Revelation which Christ, the Prophets, and Apostles had, must needs be Infallible. But I conceive it will be worth the Reader's while to see how they Branch it, and Descend to particular Marks and Instances of their Infallibility. This section therefore is like opening the Jugler's Box --- And you may expect to see Rarities!
(1.) This their Infallibility was Palm'd upon them by the Church of Rome. Of which they were so greedy, that they swallowed it down by whole-sale, and wou'd have none of those Cautions, with which the Church of Rome used to Defend themselves; or else forgot them in their Haste, and in their Honey---Month, when they were New-fangl'd. Thus, while the Church of Rome placed their Infallibility only in their Church, or at most in the Pope alone, as the head of it, the Quakers set up for it, All, and every one of them. There was an Infallibility for you! The Church of Rome had cunning Hiding---Places; and if you attack'd the Infallibility of their Church, they would not tell you what they meant by their Church, nor where to find their Infallibility. Some wou'd make you believe that it was in the Pope, as Head of the Church, and only successor of Peter, to whom the Promises, Super hanc Petram, and Tu es Petrus, were made. But then some distinguished, and said, not in the Pope alone, nor always, but only when he was in Cathedra ; and some said that was with his Conclave; others said no, but only with a General Council. Again, some plac'd the Infallibility in the Council above the Pope; others in the Pope above the Council; others in neither of them asunder, but only in both together. And, lastly, some will have it none of all these ways, but say, it is only to be looked for in the Diffusive Body of the Church. And then, as to the Infallibility it self, some tell us it relates to Manners as well as Faith, and to Practice as well as Theory: Others will by no means admit of that, but confine it wholly to matters of Faith: and then it will be a long Dispute what shall be adjudg'd a Matter of Faith, and what not, but only as Relating to Faith.
These are long and intricate Mazes; and it requires no little Skill to be able to follow them through all these various Subterfuges.
But the Simplicity of our Quakers has deprived them of every one of these Helps: for as they place Infallibility in every single Quaker, so they confine it not to matters of Faith, but extend it to all Persons and Things. To know all Men's Hearts, and all Things in the World, by their inward Light, without being told by any.
I am sure, by this time, the Reader is impatient to come to the Proof, to see if it be possible for men to be possessed with such an incredible degree of Enthusiasm: and I am willing to begin, that I may no longer lie under the suspicion of Imposing unjustly, or, at least, of aggravating any thing against them.
(2.) George Fox, in his Great Mystery, p. 33, an swering this objection, which he there repeats thus: They say that is another error of the Quakers, that say, He who is not infallible in his judgment, when he gives counsel and advice, is no minister of Christ. And this, Fox does not deny, but justifies it in these words: Now he that is not infallible in his counsel, and judgment, and advice, is not he in error? And are they ministers of Christ that are fallible? And again he says, p. 89, that they can discern who are saints, who are devils, and who apostates, without speaking ever a word. Ibid. p. 5; That they have the Word of God, Christ, which is eternal and infallible, in their heart, to judge persons and things. Thou, says he to his opponent, p. 96, not being infallible, thou art not in the Spirit, and so art not a minister, and art not able to judge of powers that is not infallible, nor magistrates, nor kingdoms, nor churches.
Now which of the Quakers is it who have this Spirit to judge thus infallibly of persons and things, of powers, magistrates, kingdoms, and churches? and to discern men's hearts, who are saints, and who apostates, and that without being told by any, as G. F. expresses it, without speaking ever a word?
This is told us in p. 7 of Edward Burrough's Epistle to the Reader of G. F.'s Gr. Mystery, (which is also printed before Edw.Burrough's works,) where he says this infallible Spirit was given; To us, says he, every one of us in particular—And this light “gave us to discern between truth and error, between every false and right way, and it perfectly discovered to us the true state of all things.
And, p. 862 of his works, he says, that every true member ofthe true church—hath certainty and infallibility of judgment and discerning who are out of the truth and in the way of error, and are heretics. And, p. 861, that none can judge of heresy but those who are infallible in their judgments, who have infallible knowledge and discerning, and infallibility of judgment. This is oft repeated in that page, which concludes with damning all our laws, both in church and state, that dare censure any he resy; and the law-makers too, because (forsooth!) none of them pretend to be infallible. These are his words: So both the law-makers and the judges of the law must be infallible in knowledge and judgment in this case of heresy; otherwise the law made for that purpose, and the judgment given by that law, are both false and unjust, and not according to God and his truth, but are to be justly judged and condemned of the Lord God in his day and season. This not only dissolves our laws, and damns the law-makers, but necessarily in fers the Quakers' opinion of their own infallibility, who so frequently do judge others of heresy.
As this same Burrough, p. 191 of his works, was told by his infallibility, that to say the sprinkling (as the Quakers disdainfully call the baptism) of infants with water is baptism into the faith of Christ, and that a steeple-house is the church, and that singing David's experiences in rhyme and metre is singing to the praise of God; that these are damnable heresies, even to the denying the “Lord that bought them: otherwise the Quakers stand condemned by their own sentence, that the judgment given by their Spirit, and they them selves who give it forth, “are both false and unjust, and not according to God and his truth, but are to “be justly judged and condemned of the Lord God in his day and season.
But they will risk all this, rather than part with their pretences to infallibility; even to know the thoughts of others, (which is God’s peculiar attri bute,) and the inward state of their souls with God.
Thou sayest (says Fox to his opponent, Gr. Myst. p. 107.) that the holiest man is not able to give an infallible character of another man: hast thou not in this discovered thyself to be no minister of Christ or of the Spirit, who cannot give an infallible character of another man? How canst thou minister to his condition ? How canst thou see where he is 2 How canst thou see them that be turned from the darkness, and that be in the darkness, and distinguish the one from the other, and an holy man from an unholy man, that canst not give an infallible character of any man's state?
And, p. 94, Have ye given yourselves a name of the church of Christ, and is there not a spirit of discerning among you? Have ye not manifested here that ye are harlotted from the church of Christ the apostles were of? And how can ye minister or teach people, if ye do not discern their states, how they stand before God? How can ye commend yourselves to every man's conscience in God's sight? How can ye present the souls of men to God, and see not their states, how they are in his sight? How came ye to have fellowship in the Spirit? How can you, or any, minister to the state and condition that people be in, and see where they are, and doth not see how they stand in God's sight?
Here the Quakers have excluded all from the church of Christ, from having any fellowship in the Spirit, who have not this infallible spirit of discerning every man's heart.
And it is evident (as I will shew presently) that they did not discern George Keith, Francis Bugg, and many others, whom for many years they owned as true Quakers, and some of them as ministers among them, and boasted a long time in their gifts, and thought them to be principal pillars among them, whom now they vilify as wicked apostates; and therefore, by their own argument, all the Quakers are harlotted from the church of Christ, and have no fellowship in the Spirit, because none of them had this spirit of discerning.
(P.) 105, G. Fox condemns all protestant churches, as well as the church of Rome, for want of this infallible spirit, which the Quakers ascribe only to themselves. These are his words:
We, says he, (the pope,) and you the protestants, (whom he calls professors,) are apostatized from the infallible Spirit that the apostles was in, in which we are come—For who witness these conditions that they were in that gave forth the scriptures, they witness infallibility, an infallible spirit, which is now possessed and witnessed among those called Quakers, glory to the Highest for ever!
(3.) This is dreadfully astonishing! But I was much more surprised to find the otherwise ingenious William Penn laugh at his adversary for not being infallible.
There was an anonymous book wrote against the Quakers, called, Controversy Ended; to this Mr. Penn replied in a sheet of large paper in print, which he entitled, A Winding-Sheet for Controversy Ended, which bears date the 16th of the 12th month, 1672. In the first page he catches up the author (whom he calls Henry Hedworth) for saying that he had been mistaken in the good opinion he had before of Mr. Penn's judgment and conscience: How can he choose, says Mr. Penn, who denies infallibility? But if mistaken before, why not in the Quakers now? And so ad infinitum, being so fallible. And, p. 3, sect. 2, he vindicates what George Fox had as serted of the Quakers' infallibility; for, having re peated these words of G. Fox's, (which were put as an objection against him,) How can ye be ministers of the Spirit, and not be infallible? And how can they but delude the people who are not infallible? he makes this reply; I answer, says he, G. F.'s words stand immoveable for ever : and he gives this strange reason to support himself and G. F. For, says he, he that is a minister of the Spirit is infallibly so, and in that ministry is infallible; otherwise the Spirit's ministry is fallible. Which is such a consequence as this, that if any man who is lighted by the sun stumble or miss his way, the fault is in the sun, which shewed him a false light. What else can be the meaning of that saying, that if a minister be not infallible, then the ministry of the Spirit is fallible? To make God himself fallible, rather than we should not be infallible!
But he comes quite off of this again in the next page and section. And this, says he, roundly checks his (Henry Hedworth his opponent) saying, that I bestowed 32 pages to prove George Fox's spirit to be infallible, for that belongs simply to God alone; and then those that are led by it, which was my question, and in which sense he is, and all such persons are infallible, as he himself confesseth, p. 27. And if he fooled himself by any other belief of us before, let him look to that.
Here Henry Hedworth is made infallible too! whom, in this same Winding-Sheet, he calls a very night-bird, and vagrant burstened with folly and revenge, a busybody, cavilling, conceited, proud, wrathful, equivocating, slandering, cowardly man, &c. All which epithets, and all the rest which the Quakers so liberally bestow upon their adversaries, may by this rule belong to George Fox, or any other infallible Quaker.
Nay, the Devil himself is infallible at this rate, for he has his knowledge as well as being from God. Knowledge is light; and if that knowledge which comes from God be infallible, then while the Devil follows that light or knowledge he must be infallible. And if this be all the infallibility which the Quakers ascribe to themselves, it distinguishes them not from wicked men or devils.
But sure George Fox meant something more by it, when by it he distinguished the Quakers from all other sorts of men, and ascribed to them an infallible discerning spirit, to know the hearts of men without speaking ever a word.
Of which I wish Mr. Penn would afford us, I will not say an infallible, but an intelligible comment; for I protest I say not this out of any obstinacy or perverse temper, but to be able to apprehend, if pos sible, what these men would be at ; for they turn and wind this infallibility of theirs at such a rate, that no man can (I am sure I cannot) know what they mean by it. Sometimes it makes them as infallible as the apostles, nay, as Christ himself; but at other times, when they are pressed, they bring down this infallibility to mean nothing in the world that does distinguish them from other men, though it was upon the pretence of this that they did separate themselves from the church, and from all other men; for they said that they ought not to be subject to, nor had need to be guided by any church, who had an infallible guide within their own breasts; that is, each particular person for himself, as before is told.
But this pretence is now exploded by the separate Quakers, and explained at some turns by the others, as above by Mr. Penn, to mean just nothing ; that is, nothing which differences them from other men, or any thing new, or other than what all mankind have ever acknowledged, to wit, that every man's reason, knowledge, conscience, light within, or by whatever other name or names you may express it, was given him by God, and so is an inspiration or breathing of his into our soul. But this will no more prove it to be infallible, or sufficient of itself to bring us to heaven, than it will follow that man cannot die, because God breathes into him the breath f life; or that he is omnipotent, because his strength comes from God. Omniscience and infallibility is as much God’s attribute as omnipotence ; and the strength which God has given to our bodies is as sufficient to climb up to the skies, as the wisdom or light which he has given to our souls was sufficient of itself to have found out the redemption of lost man by the incarnation and satisfaction of Christ to God’s justice for our sins; or, if found out, to have paid that price, and to have accomplished that whole wonderful economy of our salvation, by our own abilities: so very insufficient is the light within us, even though followed to the utmost by its own strength, to carry us to heaven. And therefore the Quakers preaching up the sufficiency of the light within (as all of them but the separatists do) is not only highly derogatory to the satisfaction paid by Christ for our sins, but it is blasphemous, in ascribing to ourselves a power sufficient to work out our own salvation; whereas no wisdom less than infinite could have found out the means, nor power less than infinite could have effected our salvation.
And though we are commanded, Phil. ii. 12, to work out our own salvation, that is, to perform the conditions which are required on our part; that does not make the light within, the efficient cause of our salvation, or give it any title to infallibility, more than ver. 13 of the 4th chap. in the same Epistle can entitle us to omnipotence, because St. Paul says there, I can do all things.
(4.) But if any could pretend to infallibility from the countenance of some texts in scripture, they will be found to have the best title to whom the Quakers would most unwillingly grant it. For it is written, Prov. xvi. 10, A divine sentence is in the lips of the king, and his mouth transgresseth not in judgment. If either pope or Quaker could shew such a text for either of their infallibilities, we should never have done with them.
I fancy I hear GeorgeWhitehead answering of this text thus: That king's lips and their mouths were only made infallible by this; but that they might transgress in their hearts, and with their hands, and make signs with head, eyes, or feet, for unrighteous judgments, or subscribe, though not dictate, wicked decrees.
If he thinks that this is making too bold with him, I learned it from himself in his sheet called, A Charitable Essay, printed in answer to Fr. Bugg's New Rome Unmasked: there, p. 6, he answers the be forementioned quotations out of G. Fox, that they (the Quakers) could discern who were saints and who apostates without speaking ever a word; and he puts it off ingeniously thus, That they could discern it by their lofty looks, wanton and scornful eyes, envious and fallen countenances; and so, without speaking ever a word. What! Do you think that the Quakers' infallibility is limited to speaking only? They can make an infallible judgment of men's hearts, and tell who are saints and who are devils by very winks and glances ! But if envious and fallen countenances be such sure marks of devils, I would advise some friends to go to the dancing-school, and learn a more genteel and graceful mien; for it would be a sad thing to be made a devil of for scrouling down one's head, or their hat hanging over their eyes.
Therefore, George, hold up thy face, and look like a man : come, be brisk, and tell me, by yea and by nay, is not this very hard fishing for infallibility? Thou and thy godfather Fox can know a saint from a devil without speaking, but not without a little mincing and prinking: if thee but once see him peep or trip it through the floor a turn or two, thou couldst spy the cloven foot presently.
Alas, poor George' is the infallible Quaker dwindled down to a mere gipsy, or paltry fortune teller, to nothing but a skill in physiognomy?
Ah, George what a blessed spirit wouldst thee have thought Satan, if thee hadst seen him when he was transformed into an angel of light !
Thou hast seen him, George, so transformed, and hast so mistaken him.
But smaller jugglers than he can easily deceive these infallible physiognomists.
(5.) In the very dawning of the Quaker light, when their infallibility was spick and span new, before those miserable flaws which have been since discovered in it, in the year 1655, the very year after Quakerism came first to London, there happened a notorious detection of George Whitehead's infallibi lity by signs and faces, as well as of George Fox's without speaking ever a word.
For so it fell out, that a precious brother, one Christopher Atkinson, who wrote the Sword of the Lord Drawn, &c. (a terrible book!) to cut down kingdoms and churches and nations before the Quakers: it was he, who by his powerful preaching converted John Gilpin (hereafter mentioned) to be a Quaker, whom the Devil possessed as soon as he had done, which you will see presently from his own account of it.) This Christopher Atkinson was a Quaker of great renown in those their early days, an apostle, preacher, and writer for their cause, and mightily confirmed their churches: yet so it fell out, (because the Devil would have it,) that he, even this same bright lamp, being in prison in Norwich for the new faith in the infallible light, proved carnally fallible in darkness with a dear sister, the maid of Thomas Symons, who was likewise one of the infallible.
Now these put so good a face upon the matter, that neither by their lofty looks, wanton and scornful eyes, envious and fallen countenances, were they discovered.
Nay, though there was some suspicion of it, and, as R. Hubberthorne tells some other infallible friends, J. N., F. H., and E. B., in his letter from Wramplingham, dated the 9th day of the 5th month, 1655. While, as Hubberthorne saith, in the wisdom of God we were searching it out, and in his will waiting for his counsel—Yet all this notwith standing, and that in his said letter he desires that George Fox may be acquainted with it, and names George Whitehead too by name; (whose letter to the foresaid J. N., F. H., and E. B., dated the 9th of the 5th month, is added to the abovesaid letter of Hubberthorne's, in the copy which I have seen;) I say, notwithstanding of all this, neither George Fox, George Whitehead, nor any other of the infallible gang, could find it out, till Christopher Atkinson, pricked, as he said, with the stings of his own con science, did freely, and of his own accord, confess it, and signed a paper of condemnation of himself for this wicked fact, dated in Norwich gaol the 3rd day of the 5th month, 1655, and gave it as an act of penance, and of the sincerity of his repentance to three friends, John Stubbs, William Cotton, and Thomas Symons.
But these, not regarding the sacredness of the seal of confession, or being not acquainted with it, and fearing that this would be known, and so reflect upon the inerrable society, and preferring their own honour to the honour of God and the restoring of a lapsed brother, did resolve to reveal his confession, and then renounce him ; which they did (and pre tended that it was by the special direction of God) by sending his paper of confession to the magi strates, (though they thought them to be the children and rulers of darkness,) which was underwritten in these words.
The abovewritten being declared to me, I am moved of the Lord to make it known to you that are the rulers of this city, that the truth of God may be cleared, and he to bear his own iniquity who hath done this wicked deed, which is hated of them that dwell in the light. This from me,
Tho. Symons.
But now, how do you think they contrived to salve their infallibility, that they could not find out this of Christopher Atkinson till he told it him Self?
Why, most cleverly! As we have it in another letter of the above R. Hubberthorne to E. B., F. H., Ger. Roberts, and the rest, from Gissing, the 5th day of the 5th month, 1655, wherein he ascribes this confession of C. A.'s to a miraculous force upon him from God, and against his own will; and there fore we are left to suppose (if we please) that it was obtained by their prayers. His words are these: When it was intended by them (Christopher Atkinson and the maid) to have been hid, they were forced from the witness of God in them to declare it, and own their condemnation.
And here was a greater miracle than if they had found it out of themselves, if they could prevail with God to force the very guilty parties to confess it against their own wills.
And therefore no thanks to them—and therefore these Quaker confessors were not bound to conceal the confession which C. A. made to them in prison, nor seek to restore him, but rather to drive him further into despair, by quite throwing him off, and disowning him.
There was much more tender regard shewed to some young women, who had given a confession in writing to John Bolton of their frailty in the flesh, as is told in The Spirit of the Hat, printed 1673, p. 43; but it was hushed up, because (as the Quaker author declares) it touched many eminent ones in the ministry, who from day to day resorted unto them, and giving them these appellations; inno “cent lasses, and daughters of Sion.
Instances can likewise be given of some of their she-preachers (whom they call travelling friends) that went abroad to propagate the faith, and to settle the churches, who got something in their journey which made them propagate and travail, even ac cording to the letter.
It is not good manners to name names upon such an occasion; yet, if the friends will plead ignorance, something may be done for their satisfaction. But let the shame lie at their own door. and have.
(6.) But we may make a little more bold with the men's infallibility: and I will not go to mean ones. The great James Naylor was brought upon his knees before their church, where George Fox presided, to acknowledge his failings. And I saw, in George Fox's own hand, this sentence against James Nay lor; viz. Friends shall not be judged for judging of him, J. N. This was preserved by one present (among many others) when he wrote it. This James Naylor suffered himself to be hosanna'd into Bristol as Christ was into Jerusalem. And I will shew you presently G. Fox's ascribing, not only the names and titles of Christ, but his power and virtue to himself and others, even of their preachers, invoking and worshipping of him as God, in the style and attributes of God.
These are much more dreadful failings than those (before spoke of) of the flesh, than of Hallelujah Fisher of W. W. (the saints know whom I mean,) and several others whom I could name. And I had not mentioned one single person, if it had not been against pretenders to infallibility; which plea leads us naturally and necessarily into this sort of redar gution, as giving a man a fall is the shortest and plainest conviction that he is not almighty. And I am very sure, that all the knowing among the Quakers will believe that it was merely the necessity of the argument which forced me to expose the failings of any; for that, if it had proceeded from any inveteracy or malice, catalogues might have been produced, instead of single instances here set down, and those at great distance.
But I hope what has been said will be sufficient (and then it has reached my purpose) to cure men of this most mistaken pretence to infallibility, grounded upon the infallibility of the Spirit of God; as if nothing could proceed from infallibility but what was infallible, or from omnipotence, but what was itself omnipotent.
But though God omnipotent and infallible did create all things that are, yet there is weakness, error, and sin in the world.
Of all which, there is not any instance so great, as of those who deny this, who are not sensible of their own weakness and fallibility, but pretend to perfection, and that even infallible.
(7.) But let such consider, that it is a just judg ment from God, to give up those to follow their own imaginations, who, of their own heads, durst pre sume to leave those guides (the bishops of the church) under whose government God has placed them, and to rend the body of Christ by a causeless and desperate schism.
So that even their error may, in this sense, come from God, that is, as a judgment upon them.
And for this cause (says St. Paul, 2 Thess. ii. 11.) God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. And if the prophet be de ceived, (Ezekiel xiv. 9.) I the Lord have deceived that prophet. And it was the Lord who put a lying spirit into the mouths of Ahab's prophets, 1 Kings xxii. 23. Now whether it be such a spirit or not, which is in the mouths of the Quaker prophets, we have a plain rule whereby to know; Deut. xviii.20, 21, 22. The prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak—even that prophet shall die. And ifthou say in thy heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken 2 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing fol low not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Here is a plain touchstone which cannot be mistaken. And the case of the Quakers is so hard, that if we can prove but one false prophet among them, the infallibility of all and every one of them must be a deceit; because (as above quoted out of Ed. Burrough) the infallibility is asserted to belong to every one of them in particular.
(8.) And the shewing their fallibility upon this topic of prophecy will be a stronger conviction than any other of their personal failings, because a prophet pretends to speak from the mouth of the Lord: and if such pretence be false, it renders him not only fallible in the highest sense, but a blasphemer, and one whom God hath forsaken much more than those who fail in the common infirmities of mankind. I shall have occasion in the following discourse to make frequent mention of the Quaker prophecies: but here, in this place, let me give two or three instances, to shew their false and wicked pretence to infallibility. And I will not travel far for an ex ample: but I will be as merciful in exposing them as I can.
(1.) Therefore, without telling names, the friends do know that there is a Quaker glover in Cheap side, London, who had his till robbed, and that a Quaker prophet came to him and told him, he was sent from God to reveal to him, in the name of the Lord, that his maid servant (who was likewise a Quaker) was the person who had robbed him. The maid, being thus charged, stood resolutely in assert ing of her innocency. But the prophet endeavoured to bear her down by his prophetic authority, and bid her not deny it, for she was seen to do it. Who saw me? said the maid. The prophet replied, (with a monstrous assurance!) The Lord saw thee. This prevailed so far with the glover, that he had his maid before a magistrate, who was persuaded, the more to terrify her, to send her to Newgate, where she was threatened with the irons, or put in them: but nothing could extort any confession from her; and having no evidence against her, at length she was dismissed from the prison; but her master (the glover) believing the prophet, turned her out of doors.
Had that poor maid been either threatened or flattered into any confession, here had been a pro phet as great as Elijah! But, however, the prophet stuck to his point, and those who were so inclined believed him rather than the maid.
But (alas!) this story did not end here: for the devil owed somebody a shame. And these Quaker prophets resolved to try their hands round, since they had begun, and see if they could terrify some or other to confess to their infallibility; and then all the nation should have been deafened with their miraculous gifts.
In order to this, soon after the glover had turned off his maid, as above said, there came to him in the power and spirit of the Lord, as he blasphemously pretended, one John—another Quaker prophet, and told him, that as God sent prophets to the children of Israel, so had he even now prophets among his people; that he was a prophet sent to him from the Lord, and did pronounce to him in the name of the Lord God, that his apprentice, then present, was the person who had robbed him. The young man, the apprentice, though a Quaker, knew his own in nocence, and therefore did boldly, before his master, confront this prophet; and that with so much assurance, and such circumstances, as overcame the prophet's confidence, who thereupon owned to his master and to him, that he was mistaken in the per son, for it was not the apprentice who had robbed the till. The glover then asked the prophet, if he had spoke of this to any ? The prophet said, Yea, to one Robert, a friend, and a shoemaker in Martins,
near Aldersgate. Then, said the glover, thou canst do no less than to clear my apprentice to him; which he promised to do: and away went the appren tice with him to see his reputation vindicated. When they came there, and the Quaker shoemaker had gone with them into a room, the prophet being loath to fall to his work, sat silent, humming and groaning, as if moved by the Spirit, till the apprentice, having waited very long, minded him of the end of their coming there, and related to the shoemaker how the prophet had confessed himself mistaken in charg ing the robbery upon him, and had come there on purpose to own so much before him, (the shoemaker,) because he had aspersed him to the shoe maker; and therefore desired the prophet to pro ceed, and perform his promise. But the prophet having bethought himself, gave no answer, but con tinued in his humming posture. The shoemaker seeing the distress of the prophet, interposed very seasonably, and said to the impatient apprentice, “Perhaps he desireth some longer time to consider of it. And turning to the humming prophet, said, Dost thou not, John? Yea, cried the prophet hastily, finding himself relieved. And the apprentice was forced to return to his master without the satisfaction which was promised. But, on the contrary, John the prophet, upon second thoughts, found it best to stick to his infallibility, and therefore returned to the glover, and repeated his charge in the name of the Lord against the apprentice. But after this, the robber was taken robbing a till at another shop; and among other of his robberies, confessed that he had robbed the till of this glover. Then was this prophet again confounded; and nothing left to the friends to salve up the deceit of this prophet, otherwise than by concealing it. But they see it is not concealed, nor a great many more instances, which, if they will join issue upon that point, shall be produced.
(2.) But the next I shall offer now is more consi derable than that of the glover's prophets; it is of a much greater prophet and preacher of theirs, called Solomon Eccles: and the proof is not hearsay, but under his own hand, in a letter of his, which he did not send, but carry, and deliver to a fellow Quaker of his, one John Story, who was one of the opposers of the women's preachings, and the jurisdictions of the women's meetings, set up by G. Fox as an ordinance of Jesus Christ. This letter bears date the first day of the first month, 1677, and is printed by Thomas Crisp, (another Quaker opposer of this prelacy of women in their church,) in his Babel's Builders, &c. the first part: reprinted at London 1682: where he likewise tells us, that for the greater solemnity, Solomon Eccles carried with him two eminent friends, and espousers of G. Fox and his party, to be present at his delivery of his own letter to this back sliding John Story; in which letter, being ushered with so great ceremony, after very sharp reprehen sions to the said John, for opposing himself to their great apostle G. Fox, he denounces thus; This is the word of the Lord, that this year,” says he, shalt thou (John Story) die, because thou hast “taught rebellion against the living God.
One then present asked the prophet, what sort of death he meant, whether a natural or a spiritual death. To which Solomon answered, that John Story had been spiritually dead long before, (for they had excommunicated him, with others who opposed the women's meetings,) and that he meant it of a natural death. This I have from one then present in the room; and I insert it, because some of the Quakers have started this distinction, to solve the failing of Solomon Eccles's prophecy, as if he had not meant it of John Story's natural death.
Note, that John Story was at that time so very sick and weak, that his death was expected every day; and he himself then told Solomon Eccles, that he had had so bad a night, that he did not expect to have seen that morning's light.
And to men possessed with such enthusiasm as the Quakers are, and languishing under the extremity of sickness, such a cordial as this, administered with such circumstances of terror, might have wrought the effect it foretold, which, in all probability, was Solomon's design; and if he had not lived to see himself proved to be a false prophet, he might have been hanged for a real murderer.
But this John Story lived about four years after this, to the eternal confusion of the Quaker pretence to infallibility.
(3.) The third instance I give is a prophecy of William Penn's against one Thomas Hicks, a Bap tist preacher, against whom he wrote a book, which he entitled, Reason against Railing. There, p. 180, he denounces in these words against Hicks; “So “sure as the Lord liveth—and I testify to thee from the Lord's living Spirit, if thou desist not, and come not to deep repentance, the Lord will make thee an example of his fury, and thy head shall not go down to the grave in peace. Now Tho mas Hicks did go down to the grave in peace, and no visible example of God's fury was shewn upon him.
But Thomas Ellwood, in his Answer to George Keith's Narrative of the Proceedings at Turner's Hall, 11th June, 1696, p. 218, endeavours to solve this in these words: That he (Thomas Hicks) desisted, is certain; and that he did not come to repentance, I suppose George Keith will not ad venture to say. But it is certain that Thomas Hicks did not desist writing against the Quakers after this prophecy of William Penn's ; for he print ed an answer to this same book of Mr. Penn's in the year 1674, entitled, The Quakers’ Appeal answered; and therein he takes notice of this very prophecy of W. Penn's against him, and exposes it; and he never shewed any repentance for the opposition which he had given to the Quakers, which, had it lain upon his conscience, we cannot suppose but he would have done, especially at his death; to which time he remained an opposer of the Quakers, and their doctrine; yet notwithstanding, no part of W. Penn's prophecy fell upon him. But perhaps Mr. Penn did not mean an outward grave, or a natural death ; and so he may come off as well as Solomon Eccles, in the case of John Story before mentioned.
(4.) I will close these instances, at the present, of the proof of the Quakers' infallibility from their prophecies, with that remarkable one of the great Ed ward Burroughs, in the time of the late usurpation under Oliver, concerning the downfall of Rome, which he said was then to be ; and upon that ac count admonished the then usurpers, and that in the name of the Lord, to carry their arms into all the popish countries, and to set up their standard at the gates of Rome, as you will find, p. 540 of his works; for “the time is come,” says he: their church cannot stand long; and as sure as the Lord lives, so shall it come to pass,” p. 535, 536, 537.
There were many other prophecies which they gave forth, with the same blasphemous assurance, against the king and his loyal subjects, in favour of the usurpers of those days; which, as they were wicked to the highest degree, and treasonable, so were they as false, and proved so by the event. But I shall have occasion to speak of these more fully when I come to treat of the Quakers’ loyalty; and therefore I will for the present leave this head, as sufficiently proved by those instances I have already given, that the false prophets of the Quakers are totally inconsistentwith that infallibility which they pretend to.
But that is not all. If losing their plea to infallibility were all, they would still stand upon the common level with other men: but now it is made apparent, that that spirit which possesses them is the very spirit of lies, which is the spirit of the Devil, and consequently that their light within is darkness; and then, as our Saviour said, how great is that darkness!
- O, therefore, let those Christians beware, who are led away with pretences to the Spirit in any men, not only against, but beside that which is written!
Who break the unity of the church, (which Christ calls the tearing of his own body to pieces,) and for sake the communion of their lawful bishops, (whom Christ has left as his own immediate representatives and vicegerents, and as the principles of unity in their respective churches,) upon pretences of extra ordinary inspirations in those teachers whom they have heaped to themselves; for extraordinary inspi rations are not to be credited unless vouched by miracles, which God always sent to attest his extra ordinary commissions: and if they are pretended to come from him, and are not, then it is a demonstration that they come from the Devil.
And let us take this one mark more to judge when such inspirations are from God or from the Devil.
Those from the Devil generally tend to schism and rebellion; as in that of Jeroboam and the ten tribes, who broke off from the priesthood of Aaron, as well as from the house of David, and set up opposite altars to that of Jerusalem.
But, on the other hand, though God sent many prophets to reprove the kings and the priests, yet they neither rebelled against the kings, nor set up opposite altars against those of those wicked priests: but as they paid all dutiful obedience to their perse cuting kings, and suffered martyrdom under them without resistance, so did they always keep in the communion of those same priests, whom they had provoked and reproved, and paid all due obedience to their sacred authority, and never would countenance any separate communion set up in opposition to their communion, at the same time that they were denouncing the judgments of God against them for their manifold iniquities and prevarications.
And when our Saviour himself came into the world, he did not separate from the public worship and communion of the Jewish church ; but in the same chapter, (Matt. xxiii.) where he inveighs most severely against their wickedness, he guards their au thority as sacred and inviolable; and, to shew that the receiving of Christianity itself was no exemption from paying all obedience to them, he commands his own disciples, as well as the multitude, to pay them all manner of obedience.
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses's seat; all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do.
And the apostles, after our Saviour, frequented the Jewish temple, Luke xxiv. 53, and observed their hours of public worship, Acts iii. 1, acknow ledged the authority of their high priest, and submitted themselves to him, as to one invested with God's commission, as to God's high priest, even when he was judging them unjustly, and command ing them to be smitten, contrary to the law, Acts xxiii. 3, 4, 5.
And they frequented the Jewish temple and liturgy, though they had separate meetings for the breaking of bread, and other institutions of the Christian religion, which they could not have in the Jewish communion, from which they did not abstain while it lasted in the world, that is, till the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
By all which examples we are instructed how strongly we are to adhere to the Public Communion of the Church, and to suspect all pretended Inspirations which would draw us away from it.
But the Quaker-Notion of the Light within, and their pretence to Infallibility, as consequential to it, does totally root up and destroy all Church-Government and Order; for if the Light within be God, it must be self-sufficient, and not need the Rules or Directions of any other: and who can Dictate to Infallibility, or pretend to Limit it? Upon this ground the Quakers broke off from the Church, and refused to be under the Government of any outward Authority, but Resolv'd themselves each into his own Breast, to the Light there within, and to seek no further. And thus they stood several Years in the Infancy of their State, till they began to grow Numerous and Rich; and then they found the same necessity upon themselves which they had declaimed against in others, to set up Church Authority above the Light within particular persons, else all had gone into Confusion; though this laid them under all the objections they had made against the Church, and effectually overthrows their pretence to Infallibility, or the sufficiency of their Light within. Therefore I have made their church authority another Topic whereby to disprove, by their own Practice and Arguments, their pretended Infallibility; and I would have made a distinct section of this head of Church Government, but that the application of it being to this point of Infallibility, I have chosen rather to give it in the last Number of this Section.
(10.) Concerning that church government which is among the Quakers.
The Quakers' pretence to infallibility has been disproved, first, in particular instances of several of their prophets, as before is told; and the same can be done, secondly, in whole floods and parties; for Francis Bugg and many others have come openly off from their communion, after having lived many years with them, and as zealous Quakers as the best; but now detect their gross errors publicly and in print. But,
Thirdly, those among them who continue still Quakers, have notwithstanding joined in disproving their pretences to infallibility, and discovering many other damnable heresies and doctrines of devils among them, denying the Lord who bought them, &c.
From which diabolical errors George Keith being converted, he has endeavoured to strengthen his brethren, and has gained many, and has separated them in a distinct communion from the other Quakers, who called these separatists apostates, and false brethren, that have erred from the faith; and the separatists say the same of them.
Now, if their abovetold pretences to infallibility do hold, then it will follow that these their former opinions, which the separatists now condemn, were true then, and false now ; may, that they are both true and false even now ; because some Quakers do now hold them to be true, and others contend as zealously that they are false; then the separate Quakers and the others do not differ, though they damn one an other, nor are they separate, though they be sepa rate. All these contradictions must be reconciled, or else it must be granted that G. Fox and others have grossly erred, who asserted, that they, the Quakers, and every one of them in particular, were infallible, as above is quoted.
And that they could discern who were true Quakers, and who were only false or pretended ones, “without speaking ever a word;” for either Francis Bugg, (who lived twenty-five years in their commu nion, their secretary, and a principal man among them,) G. Keith, (who, as Sam. Jennings tells us in his State of the Case, p. 2, hereafter mentioned, was twenty-eight years of their communion; yea, says he, most of that time a preacher amongst us, a vindicator of us,) and others, were true Quakers or not. If not, why were they owned as such all that time? Then neither G. Fox nor any of them had an infallible discerning spirit, to which they have falsely pretended.
But if Keith, Bugg, &c. were true Quakers, then true Quakers are not infallible; and then G. Fox, &c. (who said they were infallible) were led by the spirit of delusion, and not by the Spirit of truth.
But that nothing may be wanting to the full conviction of this,
Fourthly, The infallibility of the private spirit, or of each particular Quaker, is now damned by their church, and their infallibility is now reduced by them (as in the church of Rome, whence their first inspiration came, as told before, and wherein it na turally ends) to that of their church.
For proof of this,
Fifthly, Their meetings or churches in Pennsylvania, &c. in America, have censured G. Keith, and other separatists there, for not submitting to their judgment, which these churches have given forth against them.
This appears in the account of the proceedings there against the said G. Keith, &c. in the year 1692, which was published by G. Keith, or some of his party, and printed in the year 1693 under this title, New England's Spirit of Persecution transmitted to Pennsylvania, and the pretended Quaker found per secuting the true Christian Quaker, in the Trial of Peter Boss, George Keith, &c.
In answer to this was published a vindication of the proceedings against G. Keith, &c. called, The State of the Case betwixt the People called Quakers in Pennsylvania, &c. in America, and George Keith, with those seduced by him into a Separation from them.
This was wrote by Samuel Jennings, a Quaker justice of peace in Pennsylvania, and one of the prosecutors of G. Keith and the separatists, and printed at London in the year 1694. To which G. Keith hath printed a replication, entitled, A further Disco very of the Spirit of Falsehood and Persecution, &c. I will not trouble myself nor the reader to say any thing either for or against the manner of these proceedings of the old Quakers against their modern separatists; let them implead one another as to that: all I am at present concerned for is, that their churches have censured these separatists, and consequently given judgment against the light within particular persons, which was the original pretence, and only infallible guide of the first Quakers; and upon this ground they exclaimed against any church assuming authority over any man's private spirit, or his light within, as antichristian and diabolical; and gave this as the reason of their separation from the church of England, and yet now condemn the pre tence of the light within others who separate from them.
Nay more, they fly to the brachium seculare, when it is on their side; for G. Keith, and other of their separatists, were tried before Samuel Jennings and other Quaker justices of the peace, at their sessions in Philadelphia, &c. and some of them were imprisoned for printing and publishing defences for them selves without license, (though it be their daily practice in London, most, if not all, their books here being printed without license ;) they issued warrants (one is inserted in the abovenamed narrative, New England's Spirit of Persecution, &c. p. 4.) against the printers and publishers of a vindication of George Keith and his separatists, entitled, An Appeal from the Twenty-eight Judges to the Spirit of Truth, &c.
The twenty-eight judges were twenty-eight of their ministers, who had passed sentence against G. Keith at Philadelphia, the 20th of the fourth month, 1692, “as a person without the fear of God before his eyes, &c.; and they published a paper of this judgment against him. In answer to which came out the abovesaid Appeal, for which the printer (William Bradford) was apprehended and put in prison, and his letter seized, (whereby he was disabled to support his family, and at last forced to quit that country, and fled to New York,) and one John Macomb (a tailor) was prosecuted for dispersing one of them; his name is inserted in the above said warrant; and Sam. Jennings was one of the five justices who signed the warrant.
For the pretence in the said warrant was for reflecting upon their majesties' justices of the peace in the said appeal; for some of these twenty-eight ministers who judged George Keith were likewise justices of the peace, as the abovesaid Samuel Jen nings, &c.: yet how severely do they inveigh against ministers in our church being justices of peace, or secular magistrates!
But this double capacity of justices and ministers serves them in stead, in other matters, as in the case of the sloop hereafter mentioned. But I must not omit to acquaint the reader, that the ground of this prosecution against George Keith was his preaching Christ without, or a personal Christ in heaven, besides the light within, which, he said, was only the spiritual presence of Christ, by his light and life, in all his children.
Upon this, Geo. Keith was accused for preaching two Christs, i.e. a Christ without, besides the Christ within; and so “denying the sufficiency of the light within, which light, the other Quakers say, is sufficient, without the man Christ Jesus.
This, Sam. Jennings (after their manner of mum bling thistles) will not confess, but dare not deny.
If they took no offence at preaching a Christ with out, and thought this not derogatory to the suffi ciency of their light within, why was G. Keith accused for this, and nothing else? What need was there for the ministers of the Quakers (as Thomas Fitzwater and Will. Stockdale) to appear as witnesses against G. Keith for preaching that doctrine, and no other, even as his adversary Sam. Jennings himself gives the account? Why was this the busi ness of so many meetings, and of so great stir among them, and at last of an open separation, if the Quakers do in good earnest believe in a Christ without them, or in a personal Christ, who suffered and died for us, and now reigns in heaven in the same body? For G. Keith is not so much as accused for preaching any thing else but this: and I think this as good as a demonstration, that (however they endeavour to mince the matter) they do not really believe in any other Saviour than their own light within, which they call Christ, and so endeavour to amuse us.
But, reader, take notice, that (as it is told in Geo. Keith's Apology above said, called New England's Spirit of Persecution, &c. p. 2, and owned likewise by Sam. Jennings) a meeting, consisting of at least sixty monthly meeting members, gave judgment in vindication of G. Keith against his accusers, T. Fitzwater and W. Stockdale; the substance of which was, that they should forbear preaching and praying in meetings till they had condemned their ignorance and unbelief, &c. But at the next quarterly meeting a party withstood the said judgment, and said, that the persons being ministers, none but them of the ministry were fit to judge; which many (says the account) thought relished too much of popery. But, as above told, after this an assembly of twenty-eight of their ministers met together at Philadelphia, and published a paper of judgment against Geo. Keith, the 20th of the fourth month, 1692; in answer to which he published an Appeal from these twenty-eight judges to the Spirit of Truth, &c. In reply to which these ministers, being likewise justices of the peace, issued their warrants against the printers, publishers, &c. as above is told.
Here is a many-forked and involved infallibility, one meeting justifying, another condemning George Keith, and all for the very same doctrine. There were in America sixteen meetings against G. Keith, and as many for him.
This will not only overthrow the infallibility in each particular person among them, but even of their churches or meetings.
However their churches or meetings, assuming an authority over the light within particular per sons, totally destroys their original pretence of in fallibility in particular persons.
Sixthly, And besides this first proof in Pennsylvania, there is another yet more express and positive, called the Barbadoes judgment. The dispute was this very point, whether they were to adhere to the spirit or light in each particular person, or to the judgment of their church or meetings; and it was resolved as follows:
At a quarterly meeting at Ralph Fretwell's house in Barbadoes, the 23d day of the tenth month, 1680.
I desire to give up my whole concern, if required, both spiritual and temporal, unto the judgment of the Spirit of God in the men andwomen's meetings; as believing it to be more according to the universal wisdom of God, than any particular measure in myself, or any particulars with which the men and women's meetings have not unity.
This judgment was subscribed by thirty-nine men and forty-three women; in all, eighty-two.
And the party that sent the abovesaid judgment writes thus: This paper hath been promoted in sundry meetings since, and subscribed; but some few have refused: in abhorrence whereof, other persuasions have posted it.
This you have in Babel's Builders, p. 4.
Seventhly, There are further testimonies to this in Some of the Quakers' Principles, &c. p. 14, 15, where the words of some of them are set down as followeth:
Tis true, friends in the beginning were turned to the light in their own consciences, as their pro per guide; but when it pleased the Lord to gather so great a number into the knowledge and belief of the truth, as were in few years gathered, then the heavenly motion came upon George Fox, as the Lord's anointed, as being the great apostle of Jesus Christ, and as one whom the Lord had ordained to be in the place amongst the children of light, in this our day, as Moses was amongst the children of Israel in his day, to set forth the methods and forms of church government, and to establish monthly and quarterly meetings of men, and of women distinct from men; and these meetings are since called the church; whose counsel, advice, and judgment, (as occasion shall offer,) is to be submitted unto by every one who professeth himself a member of the church : and, saith George Whitehead, we are to believe as the true church believes, &c. Christian Quaker, part i. p. 9, an. 1680.
Eighthly, I was told by one present at the Quaker meeting at Radcliff, on Sunday the 17th of February, 1694/5, that Mr. Penn having preached, and after George Keith rising up, and expounding some scripture in another manner than Mr. Penn had done, Mr. Penn stopped him, and solemnly denounced these words against him; In the name of the Lord I pronounce him an apostate over the head of him.
Upon which occasion I have these few questions to ask:
Whether this was a sentence from Mr. Penn himself, or from their church? If the latter, it comes in the class just before mentioned, of their church authority over the light within particular persons.
But if the former, then here is private light against private light; and Mr. Penn will please to tell us by what authority he pronounced this sentence against G. Keith, in the name of the Lord: if by an ordinary commission of succession to Christ and the apostles by regular ordination, that I should be glad to hear: but if by an extraordinary commission, such as the prophets and apostles had, we would desire such credentials as they had, that is, miracles; otherwise, any reason why this is not rank enthusiasm, and liable to the sentence of those who spoke in the name of the Lord, when he had not sent them.
Mr. Penn owns the enthusiasm, but does not shew the miracles; for he said publicly in their yearly meeting, in May 1695, in excuse or justification of his abovesaid sentence of apostasy against G. Keith, that he was then so transported with the extraordinary power of God upon him, that he knew not whether he was sitting, standing, or kneeling, when he spoke the words.
But whether this enthusiasm proceeded from di vine, or what other inspiration, will be best known from the doctrine it supported, and which was the ground of the contest; and it was thus told to me by one who was present, viz.
That Mr. Penn, at a former meeting, had explain ed this scripture, 1 John i. 7, The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin, in this manner, that the blood was the life, and the life was the light within.
This resolves all into the light within, which (as will be further shewn) they make to be the arche type and substance of what Christ's outward body, blood, and all that he did or suffered in it, were but the types and shadow, and so of much less value and consequence to our salvation. But to go on with our present matter of fact.
At the forementioned meeting, the 17th of Febru ary, 1694/5, Geo. Keith, taking occasion to discourse upon the abovesaid text, 1 John i. 7, did expound it in a quite different manner from what Mr. Penn had done, but (without naming of Mr. Penn) said, that it ought to be taken literally; that it was the outward shedding of Christ's blood which cleanseth from sin; and that this was not to be resolved into the light within, nor to be spiritualized away from the letter; for that this was overthrowing of the faith. Upon which Mr. Penn rose up, and inter rupted him in the middle of his discourse, (which, I am told, is contrary to the method and freedom of their meetings and church discipline,) and taking it to himself, and his former exposition of that text, which is told above, he inveighed, not without great passion, (which he mistook for inspiration,) against G. Keith, concluded with the sentence of excommunication above told, and stopping G. Keith from any reply, immediately dissolved the assembly.
I will not here enlarge upon the subject-matter of this dispute betwixt them, because it will be fully discussed in the following sections.
But for the present, I only apply it to the point of their church-authority over the light within particular persons, which was their original and great pretence.
Ninthly, There was another remarkable instance of the opposite infallibilities of their churches, in the contest (among other things) about the jurisdiction of their women's meetings, of which George Fox was the founder and supporter. On the other side, John Story (before mentioned, against whom Sol. Eccles prophesied) and John Wilkinson were the chief leaders, and many in the west country followed them; but the London Quakers adhered generally to G. Fox and the women's prerogatives; these were the court party; and these pronounced and printed a formal sentence of excommunication, subscribed by sixty-six of them, bearing date the 12th day of the fourth month, 1677, against Story, Wilkinson, and the rest of the country party; who (not being used to give ground to the court) returned their compliment in as formal an excommunication of these their city judges; and, that they might not be behind them, their sentence was subscribed by sixty-seven of the country party: concerning which I shall have further occasion to speak hereafter, but mention it in this place as a proof of their infallibility; for all who are in infallibility must be in unity: whence it is a principle of the Quakers, that they are all of one mind and soul; and in this they pretend to distinguish themselves from all other so cieties of men whatsoever, and give this of their unity as a mark of their being the true church. Thus Edward Burroughs says, p. 462 of his works, that “they (the Quakers) are of one mind and one soul: and yet the abovesaid counter-excommunications stand both unrepealed against one another to this day; and the very same division is still kept up in the opposite Quaker churches of Harp-lane and Gracechurch-street, who differ upon the old matter which divided Story, Wilkinson, &c. and no other. Thus, as in America, there were sixteen of the Quaker meetings for G. Keith, and sixteen against him and his doctrine, which before is told; so now here in England there is church opposite to church, and excommunication against excommunication; yet both infallible, both in the unity; and all, notwithstanding, “are of one mind and one soul.
Tenthly, There is a third faction and church now set up amongst them, and opposite to both Harp lane and Gracechurch-street, condemning both the other, and condemned by both the other; that is, the society of Turner's-hall, where G. Keith and his party have set up, since the excommunication of G. Keith by the yearly meeting in Gracechurch-street, in Whitsun week, 1695.
Of which he has given us a full account in print, entitled, The Pretended yearly Meeting of the Quakers, their nameless Bull of Excommunication given forth against G. Keith, &c. And in another treatise, which bears this title, The true Copy of a Paper given in to the yearly Meeting of the People called Quakers the 15th day of the third month, 1695, with a brief Narrative of the most material Passages of Discourse betwixt GeorgeWhitehead,Charles Marshal, and George Keith, the said day, &c. to gether with a short List of some of the vile and gross Errors of George Whitehead, John Whitehead, Wil liam Penn, &c. Both these are printed for R. Levis, 1695, and the bull of excommunication is inserted verbatim in the first of these accounts.
As to the justice or injustice of the said bull, I refer the reader to these two short treatises above mentioned.
But the use I have to make of it is, to shew the authority which their church or meetings do assume over the infallibility of the light within particular persons, which was the great pretence upon which the Quakers first set up, and decried all church au thority as carnal and antichristian ; that is, (as they have done the power of the sword, which will be hereafter shewn,) till it come into their own hands.
For you must know, that when a Quaker sets up the infallibility of the light within, he means only within himself, not within you, or any other; for that may be a false light, and deceive you; but in me (says the Quaker) it is infallible, and I am sure it cannot lead me wrong: and so it is when one Quaker's light does cross another's, (for cross they do,) then each damns the other's infallibility, and says, that he is ravened from the true light, and is not a true Quaker. Thus the sixty-seven west country Quakers, who excommunicated the sixty six London Quakers for first excommunicating of them, would not allow them the name of Quakers, (as you will see hereafter ;) and the Foxonian Quakers say, that the others are not the Quakers, but themselves only. Each party calls the other impostors, deceivers, apostates, devil-driven, &c. and, being men of honour, we are bound to believe both to be in the right, since both pretend equally to infallibility.
Eleventhly, There is yet a fourth church of the Quakers, which is worthy to be mentioned; these are called the new Quakers, and reside mostly in Long Island and East Jersey in America. It is true, they are disowned by all the rest; but as much disowning them. They are Cameronian Quakers, and follow the principles of Quakerism up to the height, which neither Fox nor any of his followers have done, and therefore are accused by them as prevaricators from their own principles. For ex ample; the received notion which the Quakers have of the resurrection, (which I will shew in its place,) is not that of the body, but an inward rising up, or resurrection of the light within in the heart; and therefore they say that they have attained the resurrection already. Pursuant to this principle, the new Quakers have turned off their wives, because the children of the resurrection neither marry nor are given in marriage ; and they condemn marriage as of the Devil, because the children of this world marry: yet they hate not the women, only would not be tied to them; which made one of them, (James Seaton,) having parted with his wife, fall in league with Mary Ross, who, because, as G. Fox says, they were come to the state of the first Adam in his innocency, stripped herself stark naked, and so appeared, saying, that it was a sign of guilt to be ashamed of one part of one's body more than of an other. But his wife meeting with her, beat her so well, that though she cared not for clothes as a covering, yet she thought them convenient as ar mour; which that spark, more bold than wise, wanted; who, adventuring too near this naked virtue, received such a token of her love as stuck to him, and gave him occasion at once to bemoan and revenge himself in this distich upon his Adamical mistress:
->In Mariam Rosam.
Per Mariam juro, doleo quam vulnere duro:
Desere famosam spinigeramgue Rosam.<-
These new Quakers not only sing, but dance, in their public meetings, and some bring fiddles for that purpose; and those who have seen them told me, that even the old women do frisk and vault with such vigour, that they must have some other help besides their own; for they dance as well as pray by the Spirit: and they can defend themselves as well by David's dancing before the ark, as the other Quakers by their preternatural quaking and shaking from Habakkuk’s lips quivering, &c.
The ringleader of these new Quakers was one Thomas Case, whence the old Quakers call them (in scorn) Case's crew. This Case preached in a sur plice upon the bridge at New York, and asserted that he was come to perfection, and could sin no more than Christ, because that whatever he said or did was by the same Spirit which Christ had ; which is a natural consequence of the Quakers’ notion of perfection before spoke of, of their being equal with God, of the same substance, soul, and essence with him.And because the Quakers do not own any personal Christ, or man Jesus, now in being, except what is within themselves, (as will be shewn,) and because, if so, then the preaching of an outward Christ, now in heaven, and to return in an outward bodily appearance to judge the world, must be a doctrine, not only false, but of a most pernicious conse quence, to make men trust to and expect such an outward coming of Christ, and draw them from the inward, which is the only coming, if this be true; therefore these new and most genuine Quakers think it not enough to deny such an outward Christ as the others do, but that they are obliged to vilify him, and treat him with the utmost contempt; and I can name one, who reasoning with one of these concerning the outward Christ, (O horror to repeat it!) he bid that Christ kiss his -------. I would not have let the light see such outrageous blasphemy, but that the world should know that prodigious length to which this Quaker spirit has transported some of them : and it was not behind this, which a Quaker preacher now in London said to one I can produce, who was endeavouring to persuade him that Christ was now a man; the preacher replied, The man Christ, a f----rt.
These new Quakers have so much indignation against the old ones, for not coming up to their own principles in all things, that they used when they met them to throw dust in their eyes and mouths, telling them that dust was serpents’ meat, and they gave them that to feed upon. This came home upon them for calling the holy scriptures death, and dust, and serpents' meat, as you will see in the next sec tion, to which I now hasten, having given this short account of these new Quakers, because they are not so generally known here in England; and they have the same, and as good a plea to the light within, and to infallibility, as the other Quakers have. But if any one of the four Quaker churches above-mentioned be in the right, all the rest are in the wrong; and if all be right, all are wrong, for they all condemn one another, and call one another by the most malicious names they can invent, apo states, Judas's, devils incarnate, &c. for they know one another best.
Twelfthly, Thus do they make their light within to be God and Christ, and infallible, and therefore that it should not be restrained, but that they ought to have liberty of conscience; yet do they, of all people, allow least liberty of conscience to those under their power, and are most out of patience at those who plead their own light within against any the most trifling order or custom of their church: see a book of Mr. Penn's, wrote against some of the separate Quakers, entitled, A brief Examination and State of Liberty Spiritual, printed 1681. There, p. 11, he tells those Quakers who stuck to their own light within, rather than the orders of G. Fox and his church; “And this I affirm, says he, from the understanding that I have received of God, that the enemy is at work to scatter the minds of friends by that loose plea, What hast thou to do with me? Leave me to my freedom, and to the grace of God in myself, and the like: for this is the plain consequence of this plea, if any one (especially if they are but lately convinced) shall say, I see no evil in paying tithes to hireling priests, in that they are not claimed by divine right, but by the civil laws of the land: I see no evil in marrying by the priest, for he is but a witness: furthermore, I see no evil in declining a public testimony in suffering times, or hiding in times of persecution, for I have Christ's and Paul's examples: I see no evil in worshipping and respecting the persons of men; for whatever others do, I intend a sincere notice that I take of those I know, and have a good esteem for: lastly, I see no evil in keeping my shop shut on the world's holy-days, and mass-days, (as they call them,) though they are rather lewdly and super stitiously than religiously kept; for I would not willingly give any offence to my neighbour. And since your testimony is against imposition, and for leaving every one to the measure of the grace which God hath given him, not only no man hath power to reprove or judge me, but I may be as good a friend as any of you, according to my mea sure. And now here is measure set up against measure, which is confusion itself—Babel indeed : this is that very rock both professors and profane would long since have run us upon, namely, that a way is hereby opened to all the world's libertines, to plead their light within for their excesses Thus Mr. Penn. And again, p. 13, Nor is this the least evil this spirit of strife is guilty of, even at this day, that it useth the words liberty of con science, and imposition against the brethren, in the same manner as our suffering friends have been always accustomed to intend them against the per secuting priests and power of the earth.
This looks very like playing of booty: for it effectually overthrows that loose plea (as Mr. Penn calls it) of the light within, to which he allows not of liberty, no, not in the smallest punctilios practised in their church, such as taking off your hat, or bowing, which they call worshipping of men, though you mean no more by it than a sincere notice of those you know, and have a good esteem for; or shutting your shop upon a holyday, only not to give offence to your neighbours; or if your light within see no evil in paying of tithes, marrying by a priest, only as a witness, or hiding in times of persecution, having Christ's and Paul's example for it; yet that will not excuse you, though you had both their examples and precepts for it, and though your light within be never so much convinced of it, if it thwart the discipline or customs of the Quakers. But what if these Quakers, whose light within should allow them to take off their hats, or bow, &c. appeared by all other circum stances to be good, honest, and conscientious men? That would not do; for Mr. Penn, in his Address to Protestants, p. 245, says, Holy living is become no test among us, unless against the liver. The tree was once known by its fruit; 'tis not so now : the better liver the more dangerous, if not a conformist. Thus he.
Well, but though they allow liberty of conscience as little as other men, yet Mr. Penn makes a difference 'twixt them and others, in his State of Liberty Spiritual, ut supra, p. 14, that they do not, as others, compel conformity by worldly violence upon the persons and estates of conscientious dissenters. God be thanked they have not, or ever had the power to do it here; so they may boast of their lenity and good nature what they please. But they have shewed it where they had the power, as in the prosecution f G. Keith, and others in Pennsylvania, (before men tioned,) where they both seized goods and impri soned, and prosecuted G. Keith, for what, by their law, was death; and were going on with their pro cess against him, when the government was taken out of their hands, and Colonel Fletcher (a church of England man) made governor there instead of Mr. Penn, who put a stop to the prosecution of these conscientious dissenters, else G. Keith might not now have been alive, to have given them any further opposition.
But have they no worldly coercion here? Yes, beyond what the church of England or any other church have in their power. For they being mostly a trading people, and chiefly among themselves, who ever is disowned (so they call excommunication) by their church, does ipso facto lose his trade among them, and there is not one of an hundred of them but must be thereby broke and undone. And this discipline they observe so strictly, as to keep their subjects more in awe than all the excommunicato capiendos, and other objected severity in our church.
As, on the other hand, the surest method with them for a young man to step into an abounding trade, and a rich wife, (of which there are many among so wealthy a people,) is to set up first for a preacher, and if he happen to please, his fortune is made; of which many examples daily occur, far beyond the much envied allowance given to the hirelings, as they call our priests, which is hardly sufficient to afford bread to most of them. And G. F. had more money at his disposal than any bishop in England, he having the command of the Quaker treasury.
But as to the subject of church government and liberty of conscience, which we are now upon, you will see more of it when we come to discourse of tithes: but the use for which they are brought into this section is to shew, that, as they are practised by the Quakers, they totally overthrow, and are altogether inconsistent, as with their original pretence of the sufficiency and independency of the light within; so with all their plea to infallibility, upon account of the infallibility of that light.
(II.) There is a topic behind, which, if the former convince them not, may at least shame them out of their vain pretence to infallibility; and that is, the pitiful and childish blunders which are daily seen among them, some of which are mentioned in Satan Disrobed, as William Penn's printing in his Christian Quaker, p. 104, that Christ was born at Nazareth, which Thom. Ellwood repeats in his Truth Defended, p. 167. Will. Walker's mistaking John xiv. 2, In my Father's house are many mansions, for, In my Father's house are many manchets; and thence improving what fine bread, even pretty little manchets were, in God's house. Another, preaching upon Paul's being bred at the feet of Gamaliel, and being asked by one in the meeting what that Gamaliel was, answered, A town in Judaea.
The great Fox, in his Great Mystery, p. 29, (for want of his spectacles,) mistaking the eternal light (of which Mr. Baxter wrote) for eaternal, and so quoting Mr. Baxter's words, and naming the page, where the word is eternal plainly printed, he goes on like a hero, and hews down Mr. Baxter for his easternal light, that is, temporal, (says Fox,) and so proves that the light of God was not a temporal light. And thou that saith so art in the delusion, saith he to Baxter; who said no such thing, but the direct contrary. And who is in the delusion now! Yet Fox is infallible enough for all this That won derful book of his affords a great many such jests as these, to demonstrate their infallible either igno rance or knavery. But above all his Battledoor, a large book in folio, in defence of the phrase thee and thou, out of several languages, Greek, Hebrew, &c. of which G. Fox understood not one letter, yet subscribes G. Fow, not only to the book, but to the several pages of this polyglot. But some friends do know the Jew who had threescore pounds in new crowns (as himself told it) out of the Quaker treasury, for helping G. Fox's infallibility as to the Hebrew, and by the like means they procured the rest; and all not twopence to their purpose, only to boast their gift of tongues' and to afford G. F. to say, as he does in his introduction to this Battle door, magnificently thus; All languages are to me no more than dust, who was before languages Were.
Many more the like instances of their infallibility might be produced, if the reader were disposed to be merry: but I spare the friends, and proceed.
No comments:
Post a Comment