THE SPIRIT OF THE QUAKERS TRIED, According to that discovery it hath made of itself in their great Prophet, and Patriarch George Fox, In his Book Titled, The great MYSTERY of the great WHORE, etc.  
In an Epistle to the said QUAKERS, but especially to the honest hearted amongst them.  
Wherein the whole Evidence (except a very few things) doth consist of matters of fact in about 50 Instances obvious to every one's eyes, who can but read English and compare one writing with another.  
ALSO The Judgement and Sentence is pronounced by GEORGE FOX himself against himself and party in the persons of his Adversaries.  
By a Lover of Truth and Men.  
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt he condemned.  Matt. 12.37. 
Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee.  Luc. 19.22. 
London, Printed for Maurice Atkins. 1672.   

THE SPIRIT OF THE QUAKERS TRIED, According to the discovery it hath made of itself in their great Prophet, & Patriarch GEORGE FOX, in his Book Titled, The great Mystery the great Whore, etc.  
Beloved friends,  
I Have of long time with much grief and sorrow of heart beheld and considered your persons and principles; for whilst some of you excel in many things which are in themselves good and laudable, you do by the circumstances wherein you stand, and by other practices and Doctrines render yourselves very dishonourable and dangerous to Christian Religion. I am ready to acknowledge in you a great deal of Temperance and moderation in the use of meat, drink, apparel and other pleasures and ornaments; but I wish your insobriety, pride and Arrogance in a high conceit of yourselves and contempt of others, foolish boastings and braggings were not as conspicuous: you are just and punctual in bargaining; but are you free from making a prey upon your Neighbour's credit, and taking up a slander against him? You say you have put away malice, envy and hatred: but where shall we find more bitterness, reviling and reproachful speeches than in your writings and discourses? You love the Brotherhood well and are kind toward them: but you disown and condemn all, how virtuous and devout soever, if in these times of the shining of your light, they subject not themselves to the yoke of your conduct. You talk much of Christ the light: but you seem at least to deny his person. Your affections are much on things in Heaven within you: but not on things above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. You are much to be commended for your courage and patience: but highly to be discommended for your superstition and gross ignorance, whereby you expose yourselves in great part to those labours and hardships you undergo. Thus I could in many particulars set your vices and defects against your virtues and attainments: but it is not my design at this time to take a full view of you. And indeed I have found it very fruitless to deal with you by way of reason and Scripture; for your leading men have so ordered the matter, that you will not give ear to the most demonstrative arguments that are against you; and you accept of the weakest reason imaginable on your side. And the reason is evident; for whilst you look upon yourselves as lead by an infallible spirit, (though it be indeed nothing but the fancy of George Fox, or some other of your Teachers) you must needs reject the clearest light that God has given to men or Angels, when it opposes your sentiments. And you are ready with your answers of This is the wisdom of the world; This is natural understanding that knows not the things of God; the knowledge from the letter or tradition, and the like. If we will not be put off so, but tell you, we by your own confession have the light within as well as you, and that light tells us thus, and thus contrary to what you assert; O than you tell us, alas! you have the light, but you have not been obedient to it; you are not come to plain language; you are still in the customs of the world, respect of persons; etc. and therefore you are not to be heeded. Thus you prove yourselves to be in the truth, and us to be in error, not by divine reason and holy Scripture, but by the high opinion you have of yourselves, and your low opinion of others.  
I will not therefore now deal with you so much by arguments drawn from reason or Scripture, and depending purely upon the understanding and mind; but by such arguments whose evidence depends mostly upon the outward senses. And I hope, though you will not allow us to judge whether a mental proposition be true or false, sense or nonsense; yet you will not deny us capable of determining concerning matters of fact, that are before our eyes. That is to say; if you will but allow us competent witnesses to prove that George Fox killed a man, supposing we have seen him at noon day thrust him through the heart with a sword; or, if not that, you will grant that we can read English or Greek, that is, not understand English or Greek, but know A. from B. and sound them when we find them together A B. and know that A B. is not Co, and the like: then upon these concessions, we will undertake to prove that George Fox is a false Prophet, a liar or Impostor. But if you will not allow us competent witnesses against George Fox either in matters of reason or sense, than we beg but this favour of you that you will please to believe your own eyes; and if you will not do that, I hope you will excuse us from ever believing any thing that you say or affirm, and from ever speaking or writing to you any more. But as for those of you that have in the simplicity of their hearts by good words and fair appearances been induced to walk in your path, (for to such chiefly do I address myself) I make no question but they will see themselves mistaken. For their sincerity will oblige them to give their own consciences some satisfying account why they take George Fox for a true Prophet, and his Doctrine for infallible as he pretends it is: but it will be impossible for them to give themselves any such account against the evidence of their senses. As for those of you that are much affected with, and have a good share in the glory and honour which accrue unto them from this singular way of knowing all things, and being better than all other men, I may say of you as Abraham to the rich man, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.  
But it is time for me now to begin to make good what I have undertaken, to wit, To prove to your senses that George Fox (who is not only a great Patriarch, but also in highest esteem among you) is a false Prophet, liar or Impostor. And thus I go about it. If George Fox in matters of concernment not only to men's bodies and estates but also to their souls and eternal estates, affirm that to be true which to your own eyes is manifestly false, or that to be false which is true, than he is what I have said: But G.F. doth so oftener than once, twice or thrice. Again, if G.F. doth belly not an ordinary person, a mortal man or Prince, but God Almighty, our Lord Jesus and the Holy Ghost, than he is much more guilty. Moreover, if he deal thus not only through sloth or pride or carelessness, but also through design and purpose, than he is an Impostor with a witness. Lastly, if he doth that which he judges and condemns in others, and much more than that, than he is much more guilty of that condemnation. Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself, for thou that judgest dost the same things. Rom. 2.1.  
I suppose you will not require it of me to bring proof that George Fox professeth himself and is esteemed by you for a Prophet, seeing your principle doth not allow any to be of the ministry but him or her that hath an immediate revelation, or a Prophet: besides Solomon Eccles, 
* In his Book called. The Quakers Challenge, thus. Stand up Muggleton the sorcerer, whose mouth is full of Cursing. Lies and Blasphemy; who callst thy last Book, A looking Glass for George Fox, whose name thou are not worthy to take into thy mouth who is a Prophet indeed, and hath been faithful in the Lord's business from the beginning: It was said of Christ, That he was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not: So it may ●o said of this true Prophet, whom John said, he war not; but thou wilt feel this Prophet one day as heavy as a millstone upon thee, and although the world know him not, yet he is known.  no mean man, has born so great a testimony to him, that even John Penniman has impeached it of Blasphemy. And G. Fox himself in his Book, entitled, The great Mystery of the great Whore, (which I shall animadvert upon,) saith, p. 82. How can ye be ministers of the spirit, and not the Letter, if ye be not infallible? And how can they but delude people that are not infallible, & c? p. 72. And again, Is it not blasphemy for you to speak, and preach (sure there is the same reason of writing) that which ye have not received from heaven? Here we see we are to expect nothing from George Fox but what is infallible, otherwise he is a Deceiver and a Blasphemer. And that we may be confident he will not impose, upon us as others do, he tells us, p. 50. of that Book, You run into all Absurdities that give your meaning to Scriptures. Will not this man be far from falsifying Scripture, who will not so much as give his meaning to them? We shall see that afterward.  
But first I must show you how severe he is in taking notice of his Adversaries misciting or defective citing of Scripture: For misciting Scripture see p. 7. Where he brings in his Adversary saying, Whosoever saith, he hath no sin, deceives himself, and he saith, He perverteth the Scripture of John— He wrongs John's words, and puts He for We. I know not whether this change makes any alteration in the sense; but it's fit we should be exact in these matters. He charges his Adversary with perverting the Scripture upon the same account, p. 37. and how often besides I know not. Nay, so wonderfully punctual is he in the citing of Scripture that he will not have the pronoun Ye expressed, where of necessity it must be understood: Seep: 188. And Christ did not say, destroy ye this Temple, thou perverts his words. Methinks he is more nice than wise at this turn. Now for defective citations see p. 75. and 29. They are both to the same purpose. He citys the Priests saying, And the Holy Scripture is able to make men wise unto salvation. He answers among other things; That ever the ministers of Newcastle should say, that the Scriptures are able to make men wise unto salvation, and leave out faith. It is to be acknowledged a defective citation: but in the mean time (that I may note it by the way) neither doth the putting in of Faith make it full, except he add also which is in Christ Jesus. (See 2 Tim. 3.15.) For there may be faith which is not in Christ; hence Christ saith, (Joh. 14.1.) Ye believe in God, believe also in me. But George did not care for that. Again, under the head of Scriptures corrupted by the Translators he reckons Rom. 1.19. where In the Greek Lat. & Eng. Copies (saith he) it is (speaking of the Gentiles) that which is known of God is manifest in them, or made known in them, though some dare say, and do say, among them. The like corruption he finds in 11 Cor. 2.6. We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, in the Greek (saith he) it is, in them that are perfect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And yet it's doubful whether that is good English, though it is good Greek. He might have spared the Translators such a small fault: but indeed among about 22. places of Scripture there vindicated by this Grecian (with whom nothing is more common than false English construction, and oftentimes nonsense,) from the Translators corruption, 12 or 13. of them depend upon the rendering of this particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in. But this observation tended to the credit of their beloved Doctrine of The light within. Once more for the credit of right citing Scripture. In p. 64. he corrects his Adversary, for not speaking proper like Scripture. And (saith he) there is a proof to thee that the Quakers are sent of God, who speak to thee of the Scriptures right as they are. I hope than he will give us leave to conclude, they are not sent of God, if it be apparent they do otherwise.  
And now to the trial. 1. The first Scripture which I shall pitch upon as misrecited, (in his language perverted and corrupted) shall be that in Joh. 1.9. the very foundation of all his Doctrine, which he repeats to nauseating, often times Thrice, sometimes Four times in one paragraph. Thrice he has it or a great part of it in 8. lines p. 21. And he citys it almost as often wrong as right. The Scripture runs thus in our Translation: That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. In the Greek it is coming, (not that cometh) and so if may refer to light as well as to man: but George Fox p. 9 hath it thus: And John said, Every man that cometh into the world is enlightened. And p. 10. which every man that cometh into the world being enlightened, that through it he might believe. And p. 24. which every man that cometh into the world is enlightened withal. See also p. 11.15. with 20 or 40 more. But now has he observed that exactness which he requires in others? may there be no difference between lighteth and enlighteneth? and must every man of necessity be enlightened, because the light lighteth him? If there were no difference, yet he is faulty according to his own law, for he has changed both the phrase and the tense or time. But there is great difference in that case; for example in another word, Rom. 2.4.— non knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance: but we cannot say that impenitent hearts of whom the Apostle speaks, are led to repentance, for God is said sometimes to do that, which is not effected, because he doth all that is fit on his part for the effecting it. So our Lord Christ saith Matt. 5.15. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick: and it giveth light to all that are in the house. And yet if a man shut his eyes or have very sore eyes he shall not be enlightened. See also Luk. 11.33, and 36.  
2. The next shall be the 7th verse of the same Joh. 1. which he has relation to in p. 13. (or else I know not where to find it,) where he answers thus: Contrary to John's doctrine and Christ's, who saith, The light that doth enlighten every man that cometh into the world, is the true light, that men through the light might believe; and in p. 10. cited but now, that through it he might believe; notwithstanding if you take the pains to read it, you will find it thus: that all men through him might believe; and read that and the former verse, and you will perceive that him refers to John Baptist and not to the light, as George Fox would have it. So that he doth not only change the word, but brings in thereby a divers sense of his own. See p. 28. and many other places.  
3. The Third shall be that in 2 Cor. 4.6. which he citys almost as oft as that of Joh. 1.9. but seldom right as it is, but thus or the like: p. 11. Ans. When as Paul said, that the light which shined in their hearts to give the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. If it be nonsense I cannot help it. p. 21. he saith— which was the work of the true Apostles to bring people to the light within, that shined in their hearts, to give, etc. See p. 41, 59 and 20. places more to the same purpose. Only in p. 59 when he had cited the Scripture after his wont false manner, attributing that to the light, which the Text attributes to God, he saith, Mark! he saith, the light is that which gives the knowledge, etc. What a strange degree of confidence must this man be arrived at, that he should abuse his Reader with falsity and bid him Mark it too! For the Apostle Paul has it thus: For God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness hath shined in our hearts to [give] the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ. But if he had recited it right, it would then have appeared, not only that God is the giver of light, and the light a gift, but also, that it is the light of knowledge, and created; for God commanded the light to shine out of darkness by creating it. See Gen. 1.3, 4. But George Fox likes none of these Doctrines, therefore it was his Interest to pervert the Text. And because that Text Col. 3.10. seems to have been corrupted by him upon the same account, that shall be  
4. The next. And have put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him. So saith Paul; but George Fox (p. 220.) puts them in stead of him; and so the Saints must be the Antecedent to Them, whereas the new man is the Antecedent to Him, and shows that the new man is created, which George Fox is not willing to allow; for p. 10. he corrects his Adversary for saying, The light is a creature; and I take it, he means by the light and the new man the same thing. However this is, the alteration is manifest of the words, and of the sense by reason thereof.  
5. The fifth Scripture shall be that of Deut. 30.14. where I complain of defect, p. 10. for there he makes mention indeed of the words of the 12th and 13th verses, but in the same Character with his own words, but then he changes his Character, whereby he intimates that he citys the very Text, and saith, But the word is night in thy heart, Deut. 30. Moses saith, But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayst do it. To say The word is nigh thee in thy heart, agrees pretty well with his Doctrine of the light within: but to say, The word is in thy mouth and in thy heart, argues that word there spoken of is indeed such a word as is wont to be in ones mouth, that is, a word spoken; and that our Author G. F. is not willing to acknowledge. So he saith, p. 47. The word of faith is within, Rom. 10. This is manifest, that in citing this Scripture he leaves out of the middle that which seems against him, and takes the former part and the latter part that seem to be on his side. Compare this with what he condemns in his Adversaries. Now because it follows immediately in the same paragraph of his Books, p. 10. that Text in  
6. Luke ch. 24. v. 5, 6. shall be the sixth Scripture wherein his prevarication appears notorious. For he brings in the Priest saying, Christ was not in his Disciples, when he said, I am the light of the world. And G.F. corrects him by Christ, who saith, I in you and you in me. Then he brings in the Priest saying, They that will came to Justification must go to Christ's grave without, etc. And answers him by citing Deut. 30. as I have said. And then it follows. And the Angel said unto them that went to the grave without, Why seek ye the living among the dead, he is risen; now the Angel's words run thus: Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen. So G. F. leaves out, He is not here, out of the middle of the citation, for that would have overthrown his opinion of Christ within and not without: for the Angels would not say truth in saying, He is not here, if he was indeed there, even within those that sought him.  
7. The Seventh Scripture follows in the same paragraph. (So he has abused 3. Texts of Scripture in 6. lines.) For it follows, after, He is risen, and the Saints sits with him in heavenly places. (We must take no notice of the failure in Syntax, for that's frequent.) Now Paul saith Eph. 2.6.— and made us sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus. Now there may be a different sense of sitting with Christ, and sitting in him; for when an Ambassador from any State is honourably entertained and seated, the people of that State may be said to be honourably entertained and to sit in him, because he represents them; but scarcely to sit with him. But whether there be any difference or no in the phrases, it's certain that G. F. chargeth the Translators with corruption for putting with for in. See p. 373. Jud. 14. The reciting of this Scripture in this manner is so frequent with him, that though he use it perhaps 20 times or more, yet not once (I think) as it is in Scripture. And here give me leave to complain of him, that he deals like a deceitful Chapman, that would not have his wares tried whether they be good or no, for he hides the Touchstone, by using some words of Scripture putting them in a different character, & saying, The Scripture saith, or Christ saith, or the Apostle saith, etc. but he names seldom the Book or Chapter, more seldom the verse; (though he clamour upon his Adversaries for Chapter and verse,) and so he imposeth upon his Reader for Scripture what is no where to be found. These; as I have in several particulars made it evident before your eyes, and shall in many more.  
8. The next shall be that in Joh. 17.5. which he often useth and always abuseth as far as I remember. Christ's words are these. And now O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. But G. F. thus, p. 13.— Christ who was glorified with the Father before the world began. You will say perhaps his words and Christ's are the same in sense: but doth God give G. Fox his infallible spirit to correct his son Christ's words? Can he speak better than Christ, or are these two manners of speaking so much the same that they cannot be taken in a divers sense? Nay, Doth not G. Fox take his phrase in a divers sense from what Christ intended by his? For it's manifest that Jesus prayed now to be glorified with the glory, wherewith he was not at this time glorified when he spoke these words; for who will pray for that which he enjoys? But God was glorious before the world was, and could not possibly want it at this time, so as to pray for it; therefore Jesus intends by the glory which he had with the Father before the world was, the glory which the Father had given him in his decree before the world was; but he had it not yet in possession. So Paul speaks of the grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, (2 Tim. 1.9.) before they had any actual Being; which should come unto them, and be brought unto them at the revelation of Jesus Christ. See 1 Pet. 1.10, 13. And the Evangelist tells us expressly Joh. 7.39.— Jesus was not yet glorified, But it's evident enough that G.F. means by his phrase to possess his Reader with an opinion that that which he calls Christ, (which is not Jesus the Son of man) was actually glorified before the world began. And this brings to my mind another phrase of his, which he useth divers times, 8. at least, as if it were Scripture, but is so far from being Scripture that it will be very difficult for any man to make less than a gross absurdity of it. And therefore I can scarce get leave of myself to refer it to any phrase of holy Writ.  
9 It runs thus p. 66.— and so to the word Christ Jesus: him by whom the world was made before it was made. Strange! that the world should be made before it was made! I would fain know of him what that world was which was made before it was made: but I despair of Information. But what can you or any man that has not abandoned both his understanding and sense say in vindication of this Prophet? Can you match this saying in the most impertinent Author, Papist or Protestant?  
10. A Tenth Scripture is that of Judas vers. 10. and 19 But what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. The 19 v. thus. These be they that separate themselves, sensual, having not the spirit. But how doth our George read it? p. 2. and 196. And the Apostle saith, What they knew who are separate from the spirit, they knew naturally as brute beasts, Jud. 10.19. Judge now whether Judas say as he saith! But what's the difference in sense? Judas speaks of notoriously ungodly men, who corrupted themselves in natural things, as Sodom and Gomorrah; G.F. speaks of all men whatsoever besides those that are inspired: Judas saith, these men separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit; and G. saith, They are separate from the spirit, and they that are such, what they know they know naturally as bruit beasts. But what may be the design in rendering it thus? you may see he opposes this Text to his Adversary asserting, that there is an infallible Judgement which may be made from the Scripture without the spirit: and this Text would not serve his purpose without thus corrupting it. Besides he cannot endure that men should be said to know by nature any thing that's good, therefore he takes this course to disparage all such knowledge. But you may remember that I am not bound to give a reason why he perverts a Text, I am only to show you that he doth so.  
11. Next I bring you to Rom. 2.15. which he is pleased to cite: the passage is this in his Book, p. II. Priest The Scripture plainly denies that conscience can justify, though it may condemn. Answ. Which is contrary to plain Scripture, where the Apostle saith, Rom. 2.15. Their consciences either accusing or excusing? Who would think that G. Fox should have either so little wit or conscience as to write in this manner? for the Scripture words are these;— their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing, or else excusing one another. The truth is, G. Fox was willing to have this works of accusing and excusing attributed to the light, and therefore he saith by and by, And the light condemns which you call conscience: but because it served his turn to attribute it to conscience, he did. Besides, the Quakers used to say, they were out of the thoughts and the imaginations; and upon that account it was not fit for him to recite the Scripture right, sure I am he doth it wrong.  
12. Let us see now what he saith of the Apostle James, for it would be strange if he should scape without abuse. p. 2. He makes the Priest say, He that can bridle his tongue is not a perfect man. Answ. Which is contrary to the Apostle James, who saith he is, and so thou art out of James' Doctrine. But where James saith so, I am to seek, if he cannot produce it, he belies the Apostle. He saith indeed Ch. 3.2.— in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. It may be questioned whether every man that can bridle his tongue, doth also not offend in word. The same Apostle saith, Ch. 1.26. If any man among you seem to be religious and bridleth not his tongue but deceiveth his own heart. this man's religion is vain. But I dare not say, that every one that offends in word, his religion is vain.  
13. G. Fox answers his Adversary thus: p. 9 Corrected by the Apostle, who saith, he works all in us and for us. I do not remember where the Apostle hath those words, I doubt G. Fox is fallible and herein mistaken. I'll count him so, till I can find them. And I must say the like of that passage of his p. 15. Priest, There is nothing in man to be spoken to but man. Answ. How then ministered the Apostle to the spirit? I cannot find where the Apostle is said to minister to the spirit.  
14. The next I will note is in p. 9 thus: Priest. The Quakers are deceived because they say, Christ is within them, kept down by something within them. Ans. Corrected by the Apostle who saith to the Saints, Christ is in you the hope of glory, and he was pressed down as a Cart with sheaves. It's manifest that Christ is the Antecedent to He: but where is that spoken of Christ? The Prophet Amos (not the Apostle) saith in the name of the Lord, Ch. 2. v. 13. Behold, I am pressed under you, as a cart is pressed that is full of sheaves. But it is referred to the Lord or Jehovah that brought them out of the land of Egypt, v. 10. and not to Christ. But our Prophet George will not allow the Father and the Son to be distinct, but all one, (See p. 99) & therefore frequently refers that to Christ which is spoken only of God the Father.  
15. So he doth with that Text, 1 Cor. 15.28. which he doth us the favour to cite, Chap. and verse, and to put the words in Scripture Character too: for thus he saith, p. 343. The promise is to the seed, the seed is Christ, & Christ all and in all, 1 Cor. 15.28. He's very unhappy both in reciting words and Texts, for the Apostle saith thus: And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God (not Christ) may be all in all. He could not have done a greater Injury to the Holy Spirit's words than thus to put Christ for God, for it maids them altogether absurd; but whither will not the love of a false opinion drive men?  
16. Thus where the Scripture saith— and the word was God, G.F. saith, p. 350. and 61. God is the word, Jo. 1.1. I would gladly know of you, my friends, Whether the infallible spirit that leads G.F. into all truth, doth not also bring things to his remembrance? if it did at the time he wrote this, than he sailed through wilful disobedience; if it did not, then G. F. is not infallible, for here either his memory or his will failed him. And this he is chargeable with, though we should suppose there were no difference in the sense: but I conceive there is a difference; for though the Scripture saith, And the word was made [or was] flesh, yet no considerate man will say, Flesh is the word, neither is it in itself true.  
17. It seems to proceed from the same bitter root in him, that he perverts the sense by so cutting short that Scripture. Rom. 1.16. saying p. 160.— And immortality, not come to the light, through the power of God which is the Gospel. And p. 4. And the Apostle saith, It [the Gospel] is the power of God; whereas the Apostle saith indeed, I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth, etc. which is far another thing than to say simply, The Gospel is the power of God: for what may not a man make of Scripture, if he will take to himself this kind of licence? Then may we say of the like phrase, 1 Cor. 1.18. The preaching of the cross is foolishness; and foolishness is the power of God: for the preaching of the cross is both.  
18. And if it had not been for the confounding of the person of the Son with the Father, I see no reason why he should say, p. 119. His father and he is greater than all. For Christ saith, Joh 10.29. My Father which gave them me [speaking of the sheep] is greater than all. What would you say of your Adversary that should deal thus with your writings, as G. Fox deals with Holy Scriptures?  
19 And he that dares thus to add and insert another person into the Text as he hath done in that now named, what marvel is it that he adds the name of a person at all adventures, whether it be right or wrong? Thus doth he p. 134.— and so deny Christ the Lord that bought them. He had heard (its like) formerly that Text (2 Pet. 2.1.) so rendered by some or other, and therefore it must be so, though Peter saith only— denying the Lord that bought them; which may agree as well to God the Father, as to Christ his Son.  
20. The two last Scriptures we noted, we found addition in them; here we have substraction; which thought it might be pardoned in another man that appears not to have any design in it, or that condemneth not severely the like in others, yet in him it cannot. If he will quote Scripture why not as it lies plainly? especially when brevity doth not constrain him to do otherwise? Thus when he saith p. 165 Christ is come, to whom every knee must how, and tongue confess to the glory of God; why doth he neither add the father to the term God, nor insert, that Jesus Christ is Lord, as the Apostle doth both? for he saith, And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. But how the truth of this Scripture can consist with their Doctrine that say, the Father and the Son are all one, I cannot conceive.  
21. The 21th Scripture which he hath notoriously and impudently added to, is that in John, Ch. 15. v. 25. which according to John runs thus: But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. But according to George thus: Christ, saith he, is in the Father, and the Father is in him, and he will send them the spirit of truth the Comforter, that proceeds from the Father and the Son. Now that it may appear most evidently that he quotes this as Scripture and Christ's own words, I will produce a passage out of the Epistle to G. Whitehead's Divinity of Christ subscribed by G.F. & John Stubbs, where he useth the words in the letter of Scripture, saying also, The Scripture saith; and challengeth his adversaries to give him Scripture in plain words; Thus it is read.  
But we do charge Danson, and his Brethren to make this good by Scripture in plain words;— For the Scripture saith, The Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, & the holy Ghost proceeds from them. I beseech you friends, consider what spirit lead G. F. when he wrote these words! What! Call and clamour upon his Antagonist for Scripture in plain words, and then pretend to give Reader Scripture & falsify it! Can you produce an Author that ever wrote so inconsiderately? If this be not a plain addition to the words of Christ, I pray tell me what is? It is now (saith Daille of the right use of the Fathers) the space of some Ages past, since the Eastern Church accused the Western of having added [Pilióque, and the Son] in the Article (of the Nicene Creed) touching the procession of the Holy Ghost. But the Pope and his Council were never so impudent as to make that addition to the Scripture, as G. Fox hath done. See how upon occasion of an Inference (not asserting it to be the words of Scripture) G. Whitehead pronounceth the curse upon his Adversary John Newman (Christ ascended, etc. p. 21, 22.) J. N. from Rev. 1.7. Those that pierced him in his body of flesh, shall see that body visibly come again. G. W.'s Answ. These are not the words of Scripture, but added; although to add or diminish be forbidden under a penalty, Rev. 22.18, 19 Yet this man's presumption leads him to incur that. What would G. W. have said to him if he had done a G. Fox has done? Well! there is a righteous God that judgeth the heart, and trieth the reins, and is no respecter of persons. It's true he doth not quote the Ch. and verse; but more to blame he, for if he had, we could soon have seen his forgery, whereas now perhaps not one of a Thousand (that has read his Book) has discovere it. Or if he can tell us where those words of his are to be found in Scripture, he shall escape the Curse for addition to it, till than it lies upon him.  
22. The 22th instance of his negligence and fallibility in quoting Scripture may be that place p. 71. of his Book, where he saith,— and Paul declares himself (take Pawles own words) not of Man, nor by man, but by the will of God: now this citation might have passed currant for Scripture though it's no where found in this form, (for all I know) but that he so confidently calls them Paul's own words, which is false, if they be not found together, and not only apart.  
23. The 23th this, p. 68 speaking of the Churches or Temples wherein God is worshipped by some; saith he, Is God worshipped in Temples made with hands? Is not be worshipped in the spirit and in the truth? the different letter wherein he puts it, intimates that he would have us take it for Scripture; and there are some words like his in Joh. 4. and Acts 17. but in neither of those places are either the same words or the same sense: but it's sufficient against him that there are not the same words.  
24. The 24th Scripture perverted is Joh. 7.38. He that believeth on me, (saith Christ,) as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shalt flow rivers of living water: where his belly is plainly spoken of him that believeth, but G. Fox applies it to the light, Christ, saying p. 130.— and believing in the light Christ, out of whose belly flowed rivers of living mater. The light, the light must be magnified by G. F. and the Scripture must be wrested to that purpose, come on it what will!  
25. The 25th instance of his fallibility or deceitfulness in the use of Scripture is taken from p. 27. where he makes the Priest say, A true Church is guilty of Injury. G. F. Answ. Contrary to the Scriptures, where the Apostle saith, the Church is the pillar & ground of truth, without spot or wrinkle or blemish or any such thing. The Apostle saith indeed Eph. 5.25 27— Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it,— that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing. He saith, That it might and should, not that it is, as our G. reperesents it.  
26. So he abuseth us with a defective quotation of the 30th verse of the same Eph. 5. which he has both in the 11. and 12th pages in the same manner, as in divers other places. The 11 p. thus: Priest. They are no Christians that doth not hold Christ absent from his Church, but Antichrists. (By the way, I believe he wrongs his Adversaries in making them speak bad English.) Answ. Which is contrary to the Scriptures, which say, they are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, and they are as nigh together as husband and wife. But the Apostle thus: For we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. If he had not left out the former clause, we are members of his body, the latter clause which he takes, would not so well have served his purpose, and also have been more easily understood: for we know it's ordinary for a member of a Body, or for the head itself of a Body, which is an assembly, (as the word Ecclesia (here rendered Church) signifies) to be in one Country, when the Body or Society is at a far distance in another. But this was not so discoverable in the Allegory of flesh and bones alone.  
27. The 27th place shall show that our Author's memofulness or negligence as fallible, rather more fallible than that of other men; which is a great reflection upon his infallible spirit. Thus p. 152. he saith, And the Apostle said, the deep things of God was revealed by the spirit of God, (It's a small matter with him to make the Apostle speak bad English.) But the Apostle speaketh neither so nor so: but— God hath revealed them unto us by his spirit, for the spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God: 1 Cor. 2.10. And v. 11. the Apostle saith, But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: but G. Fox thus, p. 39 The natural man receiveth not the things that be of God: he leaves out spirit, though for aught he knows, there may be a vast difference between the things of God, and the things of the spirit of God, as there is a vast difference between blasphemy against God, which may be forgiven; and the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven unto men. Mat. 12.31.  
28. And if G. F. were a man capable either of rendering or understanding reason, I would ask him, why in using those words of Paul, Rom. 14.9. he puts in the term God in stead of Lord; for thus he saith p. 99— who [Christ] both died, & rose again, that he might be God both of the dead, and the living. But the Apostle saith, For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. So p. 17. Let the word of God dwell in you richly: The Apostle hath Christ. Col. 3.16. But this savours of his willingness to have no distinction between God and Christ. For he saith, p. 142. Christ is not distinct from the Father.  
29. And p. 160. by the Character he writes in, he gives us these words for Scripture— and so who is in Christ is a new creature; And old things pass away. But the Apostle saith 2 Cor. 5.17. Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creature: old things are passed away, behold, all things are become new. The Apostle speaks of the new creation as a thing done; G. F. as a thing a doing and not done; for that agreed better with his design in tha place.  
30. But we have not yet done with the 2 and Epistle to the Corinthians where Ch. 2. v. 16. the Apostle saith, To the one [that perish] we are the Savour of death unto death; and to the other [the saved] the Savour of life unto life. But G. F. (I suppose as he had heard it sometimes from some Priest) applies it to the word, thus: For the word itself is immediate, for it is the Savour of death to the death, and of life to the life; Thus when it is for the honour of his phrase, the word must be put for the Apostles and Preachers of it.  
31. The Apostle Paul 2 Tim. 3. prophesying of the wicked ones that should come in the last days, saith, p. 6. of this sort are they which creeps into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. But G. F. that he may lay load upon all those Preachers that are not Quakers, saith of suoh as have got the good wonds, etc. who are reprobates concerning the faith, which crept into houses before the Apostles decease; which have kept people always learning, but never able to come to the know ledge of the truth, led away with dibers lusts. Now the Apostle doth not attribute to these false Teachers, (which yet were bad enough) that they kept people always learning, etc. but they led captive such as were so. He should give him without wrong to the holy spirit in the holy Apostle.  
32. And that our Prophet G. may seem to have some colour for disparaging the other Ministers upon the account of their humance learning, he saith p. 70. So all your tools ye have wrought withal since the Apostasy, hath been taken out of the stops of humane learning which is earthly; this proves ye are Apostates, and the spirits gone out into the world. And Luke saith, the tongues of the Hebrew, Greek and Latin was set up a top of Christ by Pitale who crucified him. But where Luke saith so, he leaves us to guess. I have found indeed that Luke saith Ch. 23.38. And a super scription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin and Hebrew; but I could never yet find Luke saying, The tongues of the Hebrew, Greek and Latin was set up a top of Christ. This came out of George's own brain, that is not over fraught with those tongues I dare warrant you: but yet he will undertake to correct the Translatours; and he never doth it with greater advantage than in the rendering of that passage of the Apostle to the.  
33. Colossians, Ch. 1. v. 23. which we read thus: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven: The use of this last clause in G. Fox is this: p. 41. Priest. He dare boldly assert that the Gospel is not first made known by the seeing within, but by hearing tidings without, etc. G. Fox's Answ. Contrary to that which they call their original, which saith, the Gospel is preached in every creature. That which is to my purpose chiefly is, that puts is for was; that it may be accommodate to his Doctrine of the Gospel in these days and all days of the world preached within them that never heard or saw a tittle of the Gospel either by word or writing. Thus when our Lord said unto his Disciples (Mar. 16.15.) Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature, (in is not there;) he bade them do that which was done already, and was always done ever since there were men in the world. And them it would have been hand for the Apostle Paul, to preach the Gospel, not where Christ was named. Rom. 15.20. It seems G. F's Gospel of Christ is preached, where Christ is not named. This excellent use doth G. Fox make of his skill in the Orginal as they call it. But more of that afterward.  
34. But is it not pretty? that whilst G. F. charges the Translators with corrupting the Scripture because they render en to in English and sometimes with or among; that yet himself, when they have translated it in, should change it into within; (as he changed it into with, which I observed before upon Eph. 2.) Thus p. 105. Now the Scriptures cannot lead into all truth, but it testifies of that that doth so. And if Christ be not within people; they are reprobates: The Apostle and the Translators say; know you not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobates? 2. Cor. 15.5. But G. thinks he may boldly and to the Scripture when he doth not alter the sense, though he reproves it very sharply in others. As if in you could admit of no other sense but within you. Let us see then whether the words of Christ will always admit that sense. Mat. 20.26, 27. But it shall not be so within you, but whosoever will be great within you, let him be your minister, and whosoever will be chief within you, let him be your servant. Here if G. please to consult that which they call the Greek, he will sinned it en by min in you, and then we must read it as I have done. And is not that excellent sense? let the impartial judge. The like fault is G. F. guilty of in relation to 1 Joh. 2.27. where the Apostle speaketh of the anointing which— abideth in you: but G. p. 79.— the Apostles brought the Saints then to the anointing within them: and a little below in the same page, no one knows the eye of the soul, but who comes to the light within.  
35. But that charge will not lie against him for the term within in Luke 17.21. because he finds it in the Text: but it's rare with him to use any. Text and not abuse it, therefore in stead of The kingdom of God, as it is in the Text, he makes it go for the kingdom of heaven, p. 64. But that's a small matter, and might be passed by, but he will not leave it so, for his Adversaries do often press him with the many Scriptures, which speak of Christ's being in Heaven, and consequently absent from the Saints on earth as far as heaven is from earth: this Text now must be pressed for his service at this turn, and must prove that Heaven is within men: Therefore he said p. 101. And the Scriptures doth witness heaven within. Is not this fair dealing, first to change the Kingdom of God into he Kingdom of heaven, and then to leave out Kingdom too, and put Heaven for the whole phrase? Who needs ever want Scripture for any thing he has a mind to say, if he may abuse the words of Christ after this manner? But if he or any of you think you can produce a Text that favours him more than this, I will recall what I have writ on this points if not, pray take notice of the grossest forgery.  
Here I might bring in his uncouth use of those words in Isai. 8.20. as another Instance: but because it is not very clear, that be quotes them for the, very words of Isaiah I will only propose it, Isaiah saith; To the law; ard●●●ke testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. But G.F. thus p. 75. For Isaiah— bid them come to the law and the testimony; and you that do not speak according to that rule, it is because you hate the light in you. Isaiah saith, There is no light in them. G. saith, you hate the light in you. One would have though he should have had so much respect to Scripture words, as not to have said the quite contrary to them.  
36. The 36th Instance of perverting Scripture shall be that in p. 280. where he hath this passage;— which [Scriptures] saith, that the Holy Ghost moved in them that gave forth Scriptures, which led them into all truth, and did not say, the Holy Ghost moved in the Scriptures; but said The letter was dead, and did not give life. But I am to seek for that Scripture. I find indeed the Apostle Paul (speaking of Moses' ministration, not of the writings of the new Covenant,) saith 2 Cor. 3.6.— the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life: but I think there is difference enough between The letter killeth, and The letter is dead; for who will fear to be killed by that which is dead? for that which kills must have some activity, life or power; that which is dead hath none: and the letter and spirit are not opposed as the one dead, the other living, but as the one killing, the other enlivening. This I say to show what a perverse sense, and how contrary to the Scripture he has brought in, by altering the words.  
37. And as if he scorned to quote Scripture right, he saith p. 170. And I will slay you with the sword, the words of my mouth, saith the Lamb, which words I cannot find in Scripture, much less spoken by the Lamb: I find these words Rev. 2.16.— and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth & Rev. 19.21.— the sword-which proceeded out of his mouth: but not the other. Here is false quotation, but I know not what bad sense; therefore it is with him a small fault, though it would be a great one in his Adversaries.  
38. But my 38th Instance will discover both his forgery and vanity sufficiently. For p. 98. he introduceth his Adversary charging the Quakers, that they publicly deny the resurrection of the dead body: to which among other things he answers; Christ— is the resurrection and the life both, and thy dead body shall live with my dead body: this is Scripture, and they that said the resurrection was passed in the days of the Apostles, overthrew the faith of some. In the first place I would know of any man what pertinency there is in this quotation of those words that seem to be taken out of Isai. 26.19. Can any man be more certain by it than he was before, of the Quakers acknowledging or denying the resurrection of the dead body? or can any man tell by it, what the Prophet Isaiah means by those words? which are not neither the same with G. F's, but thus: Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. So that besides the forgery, there is the greatest vanity and lightness that I remember ever to have seen in citing of Scripture. As if he would upbraid his adversaries with their respect to Scripture, This is Scripture! He might as well have quoted, Abraham begot Isaac, and have concluded, This is Scripture.  
39 And whence it is, except from his carelessness and height, I know not, that p. 279. he read thus in a Scripture letter: Ans. If Christ be not in you, the body is dead; in contradiction to the Scripture which saith (Rom. 8.10. And if Christ be in you the body is dead— But if it must be imputed to the Printer; so he may be excused: but till that appear, not.  
40. And if he were not delighted with adding or detracting from Scripture at his pleasure, why should he not quote Christ's words as they are, Mat. 5.37. But let your communication be yea, yea, nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil? But G.F. thus, p. 178. He [Christ] says, in all your communication let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; for whatsoever is contrary is evil. Why not here as he has it afterward, whatsoever is more, is evil? except it were that he would confound his Reader, and so make him believe that the Quakers are very obedient to Christ's command and perfect men, though they in their communication call God to witness, and assert things in the presence of God, and the like phrases, which other Christians take to be Oaths, and dare not use them in that manner: at least they are more than yea and nay, which Christ saith, cometh of evil: but G. only, whatsoever is contrary is evil; as if all that is more must needs be contrary.  
41. And where to find that clause which he gives us for Scripture p. 250. I know not. He brings in the Priest saying, Sin is in the Saints for their humiliation. His Ans. Contrary to the Scripture which saith, Christ is their humiliation. And this he hath divers times as I remember: but I take it for Scripture of his own making.  
42. There he makes Scripture, here he mars it most egregiously. For p. 47. he saith; And saith the Apostle, God is in Christ reconciling the world unto himself; where he puts is for was. (Sec 2 Cor. 5.) the present for the past time. For you must know that their opinion is, as one of their great Authors expresseth it, that God was in Christ reconciling men to himself ever since the fall in all ages, both before and since Christ suffered in the outward; and consequently the verb was doth not signify any thing passed but what is also now present and ever will be, as it always was. By this means it may as truly be said, that God is in G.F. reconciling the world to himself, as that god was in Jesus, reconciling, etc. forasmuch, as Christ is (so they would) as truly and properly (perhaps equally; See p. 67.) in G.F. as he was in Jesus. But he has not yet done abusing this Scripture, for p. 250. he saith, God can do what he will, who was in Christ reconciling himself to the world. Is not this a large liberty that he takes, to say the quite contrary to Scripture and to his own friends? for saith that Author of theirs,— the Scripture saith not, When we were enemies God was reconciled to us; but— when we were enemies we were reconciled to God. But may not G. F. say what him pleaseth? for he speaks by an infallible spirit.  
43 p. 100 He introduceth the Priest saying: Nor is it an essential indwelling of the divine nature in God's people, etc.  
His Answ. Doth not the Apostle say, the divine nature the Saints was made partekers of? But where doth any Apostle say so? Peter saith, 2 Pet. 1.4. Whereby are given to us exceeding great and precious promises, that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, he doth not say, They were [was] made partakers of the divine nature, but They might be, which may relate to the time to come after the day of Judgement, and not to the present time. Hewever he affirms that which is false concerning the Apostle.  
44. The 44th. Instance shall be that in Heb 10.26, 27. which he quotes thus, p. 339. And be that sinneth after he hath received the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sin, but a fearful looking for of Judgement, Heb. 10.27. But the Scripture saith, For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, etc. where it's evident enough that the stress of this Text lies in the term wilfully which G. F. is pleased to leave quite out; for so it agrees better with his Doctrine of perfection; and the Scripture must be made to speak to his mind, though it be false or nonsense. To let pass other differences between him & the Text.  
45. The next Instance is rather of his ignorance and idleness in the use of Scripture than of his corrupting it by misrecital; for p. 337. against his Adversary, that salth, that they and the Papists and Jesuits do agree all together that the Scripture is the word of God, etc. he saith— the Minisrers of the word calls the Scripture a Declaration, as ye may read Luke 1. and ye do not agree with them that set forth the Acts, that called it a Treatise, Acts 1.— and ye do not agree with John. Rev. 22 who saith, the words; nor with Moses, nor God, who spoke all these words, Exod. 20. In the beginning was the word, and the word is God, and the word liveth and abideth for ever: but the Scripture is words, and the Scripture cannot be broken. p. 337. I suppose he has this distinction between the word and words above 20 times in his Book. But if he would have looked upon his Greek Testament, (wherein he pretends to such skill, that he often corrects the Translators) he might have found that that very word which they translate Treatise, Act. 1.1. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Logon, which is the same which in Jo. 1.1. is translated Word, so that that very Text which he produceth against the Scripture its being called word is a plain Text for it: and the. Translators might justly and with great reason have translated thus: The former word have I made, etc. and then Scripture would have been called in English word, as it is in Greek So he saith p. 68 they [the Scripture] are not called the written word but words; and yet his Greek Testament (if he have one) which I much doubt) would have informed him that Scripture is called the word written, 1 Cor. 15.54. where the English read— the saying that is written; but in Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ho logos ho gegrammenos; the word written: So that his distinction. that he cracks so much of is come to nothing. But we have little reason to expect that he that is so intolerably unfaithful in quoting the English, should any way help it by the Greek, which I shall show that (for all his arrogant pretences) he doth not at all understand.  
46. The Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 14.31. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may, learn and all may be comforted. But G. F.— practice and Doctrine of the Apostles in the true church which said, let all speak one by one. Thus he changeth prophecy into speak, as if all speaking were prophesying.  
47. The 47th particular shall be that of-womens' speaking in the Church, which the Apostle disallows in the same 14th Ch.u. 34, 35. in as plain and express words as can well be spoken, saying, Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the Law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their bus bands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the Church. Here if the Apostle do not command silence to women by sex, in those cases wherein he allows men by sex to speak, I understand nothing thts written. But G. F.p. 386. (speaking of the woman that is forbid to speak in the Church) saith— now the woman here hath a Husband to ask at home, and not usurp authority over the man, but Christ in the male as in the female, who redeems from under the Law, and makes free from the Law, that man may speak, etc. Here we may perceive, he allows women as well as men to speak in the Church, and indeed your practice shows that women are not in any case excluded from speaking, where it is permitted to men. Also we may perceive that by the husband that is to be asked at home he means Christ. Now if we may take liberty to expound Scripture after this manner, I count it utterly impossible to prove any truth by Scripture: & then we may as well deny Scripture as affirm it. It will be a nose of wax that may be turned which way we please. I do not in this particular charge G. F. with misrecital of, adding or diminishing from Scripture words, because he neither quotes the place, nor puts the words in Scripture Character, as he doth in the other instances: but the exposition which he gives of it is so gross and absurd, that it may well be reckoned among his abuses of Scripture. Besides it seems to be built upon a mis-reading of Husband for Husbands, because Christ, who is but one, is made the Husbands that must be asked at home. So one of your Authors saith, But what husbands have widows to learn of but Christ? And was not Christ the Husband of Philip's 4 daughters? And may not they that learn of their husbands speak then?  
48. The 48th Instance of his abusing Scripture shall be that great doctrine of yours of not calling men Master, and thus he saith, p. 43. Priest. Why may they not be called Master? Answ. It is his master that teacheth him to be called of men Master, that is gone out of the truth; but Christ said ' Be not of men called Master, and woe be to them that are, Matt. 23. Thus for G. Where I observe first, that he puts in here of men into the Text, as he doth in 20 more places besides. But then 2dly, I do not find Christ (Matt. 23.) saying, woe be to them that are called Master; that seems to be added by G. F. True indeed Christ saith: But be not ye called Rabbi; for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your Father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in Heaven. Neither be ye called Masters, for one is your Mester, even Christ. Now I will take the liberty to argue a little: because the Text seems to be so plain on your side. An first let me tell you that you yourselves do restrain this Text from universally excluding all men from being called Master, whilst you allow your servants to call you masters, and your children to call you Fathers. If your servants may call you our Masters or my master, because you are their masters; (which exception is not in the Text:) why may not another man call you masters, because you have servants, and are masters? When I call a man master, I do not call him so because he is my master, (perhaps he is my servant,) but because he hath a servant and is a master. Now doth Christ forbid that any man should be called master, if indeed he be a master? The Apostles, that understood Christ's precept as well as G. F. call the Colossians, Masters, Co. 4.1. and Fathers, Col. 3.21. Also the Ephesians, Eph. 6.9, and 4. And Stephen a man full of faith and power saith to the Council of the Jews, Men, brethren, and Fathers, Act. 7.2. They were not his Fathers, but they were Fathers, and therefore he calls them so. And why may I not as well call him, Master, that is not my Master, as call him servant, that is not my servant? 2. Let me tell you that there are divers words in the Greek Testament which are by our Translators rendered Master, which not withstanding have different meanings and acceptations. Thus we find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all rendered Master. But that which is used by Christ in this Text, Mat. 23.10. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Katheegeetees, which signifies (as the learned tell us) a leader of the way or a Guide: but as for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Kyrios, which the Apostle Paul useth, when he writes to the Colossians and Ephesians, and is translated in Scripture sometimes Master, sometimes Sir, most often Lord, we find that the Apostles both singularly and plurally suffered themselves to be called by it. Thus in the singular number the Greeks that came up to worship at the Feast, desired Philip saying, Kyrie, Sir, we would see Jesus. Joh. 12.21. And in the plural number the Jailer came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out and said, Kyrioi, Sirs, [or Masters,] what must I do to be saved? if Sirs or Masters had been a term offensive to the Apostles, would the Jailer in this case have called them so? or if they had disallowed it, would not the holy writer have intimated so much unto us? especially considering that Christ's precept is given to his Disciples, Be not ye called Masters, whereby they seem to be obliged to reprove those that do so. But the example of that good Convert Mary Magdalene is in this case beyond all exception, and proves that Holy persons used to call Master, not only those that were known, but strangers, and that they no precept of Christ in so doing; except we will say (which I abhor to think) that Jesus himself suffered her in his presence to sin without reproving her: for she supposing him to be the Gardener, saith unto him, Kyrie, Sir or Master, if you have born him hence, etc. For in her intention, she called a stranger, and him no great person, a Gardener, Master; and that in the presence and hearing of her Lord and Master Jesus Christ.  
Having made it manifest to your senses by a multitude of instances, that G. F. is not that true prophet you take him for; but the most notorious perverter of Scripture that any of you can name unto me, I hope you will give some attendance to what I have argued upon this point; though it be somewhat more than I undertook.  
49. In the next place I do not find those words in Scripture which he useth for Scripture p. 249. when he saith,— God justified [Job] and said, Job did not sin with his mouth: the Scripture saith, In all this did not Job sin with his lips: but that is far from not finning at all with his mouth; for a man may in this case keep himself from sinning with his mouth, and in that case be guilty of sin.  
The 50th and last instance shall be that in the latter end of his Book, wherein his Ignorance, Arrogance and Imposture do manifestly appear. Marvel not that I speak so plainly, for the matter is very plain: His Ignorance and Arrogance appear in that he pretends to understand Greek, and to correct the Translators, when he doth not understand it in the least: his Imposture, in that he labours to persuade his Reader of that which is notoriously false. Thus it is p. 373 under the title of Several Scriptures corrupted by the Translators,  
He saith, Cor. 15.31." In our English copies it is, I protest by your rejoicing, etc. Now I protest is added, for there is nothing for it in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So far G.F. Now that he is ignorant of the Greek tongue is manifest, in that he should have given us that Greek which the Translators render I protest by your rejoicing, that so it might have appeared, there was nothing for I protest: but in stead of that he gives us the Greek Katherine emeran apothnesco, which signifies I die daily. And the reason of his mistake seems clearly to have been this: The verse in Greek begins with those words that he has set down, but in English it begins with I protest by your rejoicing, and he did not understand so much Greek as to distinguish the one clause from the other. And then the falsity will appear to any man that hath but read his Greek Grammar, and will apply it to this case, for that which they render I protest by your rejoicing, is n Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ne ten humeteran cauchesin, where the particle ne is rendered I protest by, for humeteran cauchesin is your rejoicing. Now my Greek Grammar (which is the common one, and Printed 1629, and made I suppose long before G. F. was born,) saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ma, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ne are Adverbs of swearing. And Scapula's Lexicon saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a particle of granting and affirming and with an oath. The Grammar gives for example, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ita est per Jovem, so it is by Jupiter. Neither may any one excuse him by saying, that ne signifies by and not I protest, for ne being a particle that imports swearing, and by is sometimes used when there is no swearning, it seems to have been necessary for the Translators, to put in I protest, or some other word equivalent, or else they had not fully expressed the full Import of the Apostles words. But whether they have translated well or ill, it's certain that ne is in the Text, which they have so translated, and therefore it's false that there's nothing in the Text for, I protest. This puts me in mind of what he saith p. 117.— it is no where said that the Apostle swore: as if every one that swears must say I swear by God, or the like, or else he doth not swear: that would be a notable way to excuse many thoustands of Oaths that are sworn by profane men every day. Now I would not have you think that I can produce no more Instances of this man's failure in quoting Scripture, for I can more, and yet I suppose I have not read above half that Book whence I have collected these. For in truth it's a burden to me to read so many Tautologies and Repetitions, so much nonsense and bad English, so many Contradictions and Absurdities, etc. If you produce any man that has wrote a Book this 500 years, wherein you can find so many or half so many false quotations of Scripture as I have showed you in G. F.'s Book, you will somewhat lessen then wonder, and make it appear that he is not an unparallelled perverter of Scripture, but still one of the greatest that the world ever saw. Surely those that are ingenuous among you will blush when you read what I have written; for you are not concerned in him only as one of your party, but as one and the chief one of your Ministers & leaders, and not only so, but as in one that was of the first, if not the very first that came forth in your spirit & way, one of greatest authority among you, so great that some of you are offended to behold it; one that writes in your behalf, and professes to give answer in this one Book to above one hundred Books and papers of your Adversaries. So that his faults are in some degree imputable to you, especially if being warned, you do not declare against them, & disown both him & them.  
Neither are these things that I object against him matters whose proof and evidence depend upon any curious arguments or even logical Demonstrations, but upon the Demonstration of sense; for the Question is, How readest thou? Doth the Scripture, God, Christ, the Apostles and divinely inspired writers say those words, that G.F. charges them with? If not, as I have showed to your eyes they do not, than I have proved what I undertook, viz. that G. Fox is not only, not infallible, but a false prophet, a liar or Impostor, and that in matters which concern the most holy God and his Son, and the holy Apostles and writers. If I have proved also to your eyes, that he passes severe censures upon others for far less crimes than himself is guilty of in the same kind; then ought ye to condemn him out of his own mouth. Moreover if according to your principle, (which forbids all swearing,) those of you that affirm falsely are to be reputed as perjured persons, than G. F. is highly liable to be so reputed. And if ye being now called as his Peers, and as it were a numerous Jury to try and judge the cause of G. F. whether he be guilty or not guilty of those crimes which I have set before your eyes, if ye (I say) shall not find and declare him guilty, why shall not you also be accounted for perjured persons? The evidence is not only as clear, as that Twice two are four; (for G. F. has denied as plain a proposition as that, namely, that twice one are not two, but all one,) but as clear as that one Egg is not two Eggs, a Horse not a Cow, or that THE is not AND, etc.  
And now that I have brought such undeniable evidence against him in obvious matters of fact, I will take the boldness to tell you, that it's manifest also to any common understanding, that F. G. neither knows the meaning of the words he writes, nor considers them; to such a high conceit of himself is he arrived. Who that either knew or cared what he said, would have given out for Scripture such a plain absurdity as that in the 9th Instance— by whom the world was made, before it was made? Suppose he had reference to that in Joh. 1.3.— and without him was not any thing made that was made. Would any man but he have rendered it as he hath done? What Sottishness? what pride and folly would not you impute to another that should so do? If he had known the meaning of the word infallible, would he have said How can they but delude people that are not infallible? As if there were no difference between, To fail, and, To be not infallible. Who but he would have said it was contrary to Christ's words, to say, That the Son of Mary, God man, is absent from his Church? Who that knew what he said, would have urged, that Bunyan is deceived, who said he [Christ] is Distinct from the Saints, p. 16, and p. 293. that the Son is not distinct from the Father? Who that knew the meaning of words would contend against him that said, The soul is not infinite in itself, but a creature, and have asserted that it is— infinite itself,— immortal and infinite. p. 29. and p. 68 Is not that [the Soul] of his being? and p. 90. Is not the soul without beginning coming from God, etc. and p. 273.— it is not horrid blasphemy to say the soul is a part of God, for it came out of him, etc. Who that knew what he said, or whereof he affirmed would have reasoned thus, (p. 325.) If the seed of Israel be men, then by thy account the seed of Israel is the seed of the serpent, for they are men? His Adversary chargeth him that he professed equality with God: and he answers as if he did grant that some do witness equality with God, only he did not say it of G. Fox. See p. 127. If he had known the sense of the word carnal, would he have said of the Bells, p. 30. If they be not carnal, than they are spiritual? Who but G. F. would have said, It was contrary to the Apostle's Doctrine to assert, The Enjoyment of immortality is not till they have put off the body? p. 40. And p. 55. he saith,— They that are not worshipping him [Christ] in them, are worshipping men, Devils or Angels. But he never play's the Critic with greater glory than when he meets with the word humane spoken of Christ's nature, for than he answers, where doth the Scripture speak of humane, the word humane? where is it written? tell us that we may search for it. Now we do not deny that Christ according to the flesh was of Abraham, but not the word humane. And Christ's nature is not humane, which is earthly, for that is the first Adam. And he is so pleased with this Criticism, that he has it over and over, again & again. O learned Observation! and yet we find the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anthropinos (which all our Lexicons and Dictionaries tell us signifies in Latin humanus, humane,) no less than Seven times in the Epistles of the New Testament, and once (James 3.7.) it is joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nature, humane nature, and 1 Cor. 2.4. it is rendered man's, which indeed is the plain English of it, for humane is rather Latin. What is then the humane nature of Christ, but the man's nature of the man Christ Jesus? And if Christ be indeed a man, must he not of necessity have the nature of a man, or a humane nature? Behold! This man never betrays his folly more, than when he pretends most to learning. Thus you may see that your difference from others is grounded much upon words and phrases misunderstood. If G. F. had understood Greek, (as he highly pretends) or Latin, nay or good English, he would never have run into many of those absurdities he is guilty of.  
Now I should conclude and leave what I have written to your serious consideration; and I doubt not but it will have a divers reception among you. For there are some among you (as I hear) that are already grieved at G. F. and thinks he takes too much upon him. There are others, I persuade myself, that have so high an opinion of the Doctrine of the Light, your great Fundamental, and conceive they are so certain of that, and have found so much benefit thereby, that they are ready to say, Though an Angel from heaven should preach any other Doctrine than that which G. F. has preached and they received, they could not give ear to it. To such I say. First, that the evidence I have brought of G. F. his failing and falsity is as clear and full as if I had brought miracles to confirm it; for the evidence of miracles depends upon the certainty of our faculties and senses, and such certainty we have in this case. 2 ndly, I appeal to the light in every one of you, whether he is not guilty himself, in a much higher degree, of such things as he condemns in others. 3dly, I desire you to consider, that this principle of the light in every man, which you so much boast in, is the principle of all Protestants, however you have entertained it under new names, as that which you were not aware of before; and have extended it farther than it will reach. 1. That it is the principle of all Protestants is evident from the dissent from the Church of Rome; the Church of R. pretended to be the infallible guide of all men in matters of Religion: No, says the Protestant, Every man is to judge for himself, to be satisfied in his own mind, to try the spirits whether they be of God, to prove all things and hold fast that which is good, and not to pin his faith upon any man or Church's sleeve. And that they may so do, God has (say they) endued every man with such a light of common and certain principles written in every man's heart, that if a prophet should come and give them a sign or a wonder to draw them away from the observance of that light and those principles, they ought not to hearken to the words of that prophet (See Deut. 13.1, 2, 3.) Moreover they say that God has promised his holy spirit to them that humbly implore it in the obedience of that light which God has already afforded. To this purpose they quote those words of Christ, If any man will do his will, he shall know of the Doctrine whether it be of God, etc. Joh. 7.17. 2 lie, That you have entertained it under new names, appears from the contention between you and others, whether God have given this light to men by nature, consequently whether it is a natural, light or a divine light, etc. to which purpose your adversaries quote Rom. 2.14, 15. For when the Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law are a law unto themselves, which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. You urgo Joh. 1.9. to prove it is a divine light, which Christ the true light lighteth every man withal, that cometh into the world. Is not the difference now between you and others about words and names? for whether God hath given it unto men by nature or not, it is of God in respect of its proceeding from God and tending to him; for God is as truly the Author of the good gifts that come unto men by nature as of other gifts; and what reason can there be, why that should not be said to be natural, which agrees to every Individual of the same kind, as you say the light doth? for G. F. saith p. 20.— a blind man and an Infant is enlightened with the light of Christ— and where there is life in an Infant there is light. And the Apostel saith— The Gentiles do by nature, etc. and— are a law to themselves. Thus and eminent preacher in a great Assembly of late upon that Text. And so far the Quakers are in the right, if they understand themselves, and mean no more by it, when they say that every man hath light within him, than this; That every man hath naturally the notions of good and evil within him, which in plain cases of good and evil, right and wrong, will tell him what he ought to do, and what he ought to avoid, by which he ought to be directed, and that his conscience will acquit and excuse him if he do the one, and accuse and condemn him if he do the other. Thus far he. And this helps me to show in the 3 rd place that you extend the Doctrine of the light in every man farthor than you ought; for it is not to be extended to all cased whatsoever, as if every man that attends to the light in him; did certainly know what is good, what is evil, right or wrong in every case, for many cases are every difficult, and even good men do commontly differ in their Judgement concerning their. So we see that among the Saints at Rome, to whom Paul wrote, One (faith he) believeth that he may eat all things: another who is weak, eateth herbs. One man esteemeth one dya above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Rom. 14.2, 5. And the Apostle doth not condemn them for judging thus diversely, but teacheth them how to behave themselves under this diversity. And I appeal to the Conscience of very one of you who has not enslaved his Judgement to the Judgement of your Ministers and Elders, whether in divers cases which come before in your Judicatories, you are not of another mind before you hear the Judgement of those your Elders, and sometimes afterward also? and whether you do verily believe that in all cases that have been decided by you, every particular person would have been of the same mind being alone, as the Society was of in their determination? Nay do you not sometimes find yourselves aggrieved at the Judgement of men? and are you not forced sometimes to set up the Judgement of a part or of the Elder, against the Judgement of another part of the people? If you are; then how is the light in every one of you extended to every particular case? or is the light contrary to itself in this and that man or number of men? And where is the Infallibility you speak of in particular persons, in all cases? If you consider this well, I am persuaded you will perceive that the light in every man, (especially in those whose Judgements have been prepossed with false notions, (as many of you have been before you were Quakers) doth not teach him all things whatsoever, but all things that are necessary for him to know in order to a holy trust in God, and sincere obedience in the general course of his life. Besides, Doth not the light in every man teach him to make use of such helps and assistances, as God has afforded him? And doth not the Apostle Paul say— whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope? Rom. 15.4. And the Apostle John— These [things] are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name, Joh 20. 31. Now supposing the light in every man would teach him every particular thing, it is always to be understood, if he be obedients to what he knows and diligent in the use of those means God has afforded him, of which we find the holy Scriptures are very great means: and perhaps he has been negligent in the use of these; indeed who can think any less of you, who have suffered a Book to be set out in your names about 12 years ago, wherein I have showed you about fifty false quorations, (not only false Interpretations or meanings) besides nonsense and other faults, and yet I am apt to think, that scarce one in 500 of you that have read that Book, have observed any such falsities. And must we believe that God will still give you a light actually teaching you all things whatever, how negligent soever you have been or are in the following of that he hath given you? Must God be bound with his divine light and Inspiration to supply the defects of you Idleness and pride? For when other men count it great mercy and favour in God, that he is pleased through the vilest means that may be, and through their earnest Study and diligence to grant them the knowledge of his will, enlightening their minds by his holy Spirit; you must have it, like the Angels that always behold his face, by immediate Revelation, and without labour and Industry.  
So now my friends, I deny not that there is a light in every man, which he is obliged under pain of the displeasure of the Almighty diligently to eye and follow; that so doing it will lead him by degrees into all necessary truth, and at length to eternal life. I deny not but some of you have received and done much good by following this light: but I must say again, and that with great sorrow of heart, that your preachers, especially G. F. have greatly mistaken both the Teachings of and the Obedience to the Lights that your zeal been in great part, not according to knowledge; that you lay great snares in your onws way, by binding yourselves to those things, to which God hath not bound you; that in stead of worshipping God in spirit and truth, you require the observation of ceremonies, things in themselves neither good nor evil; such are your not putting off the hat in Salutations, not saying you but thou to a single person, not calling him Master that is a Master, and the like, which your negative precepts no man in the world is one jot the better for, & your are the worse. But above all, your allegorical way of interpreting Scripture tends utterly to make it void and of no use, and consequently to the ruin and overthrow of all Christian Religion.  
Now I doubt not but there will be found among you more than one Solomon Eccles, whose blood will boil within him and stir him up to the vindication of this great Prophet: & I can easily persuade myself that there is scarce any one, of you, that at least has at any time wrote any thing in your cause, but he or she will think him or herself as soon they read the Title-page, able to give a confuting answer to all that can be said against so worthy a person: but I should think that as none of you is so able, so none should be more provoked to defend him than your late Apologist William Pen, who from Jenner's relation did observe, that the only blasphemy was against G. Fox, in speaking evilly of the Lord's servant. (p. 170. of that Apol.) If he be moved to engage in it, I only beg of him that he would first be satisfied in his own conscience and light concerning that underta king: and if he can do that, I shall ever after have a better opinion of the Popish writers that engage in defence of Transubstantiation.  
Here I easily foresee, one substantial Objection against me and Defence of George will be, that I was ashamed of my name, and durst not subscribe it to the charge. Now I am almost ready to grant the last part of the Objection, for I have some fear upon me on that acount, and my reasons for it are such as these. 1. There are some of your writers, that make it a great part of their answers to Books, the reproaching of the Author, and they are very Rhetorical in that point, and truly I desire rather a pertinent answer, and am not willing to put into your hands an occasion for an impertinent one. If you had my name, than it must be considered what party I am of, whether an Episcopalian, Prechyterian, Independent, etc. and accordingly all that is odious or so reputed either in the Doctrine or practice of the whole party or any particular person thereof must all be raked up against me, and serve for a very plausible Answer. Or if I should chance to be an old man of sixty six, like your Adversary Jenner; that would help, (as it doth against him) to render me doting at every turn, and be matter for a good part of an eighteen pence Apology. Or if I have been a Brazier heretofore, or a Tailor, the world must be made to know what a pitiful mean fellow I am, and must be told my name with Tinker or Tailor at the end one. [See the Apol. p. 2.] But if this will not be enough, you have a way that will serve you effectually to disgrace any man living, so far as it is in your power; and that is by suggesting (as G. Whitehead against Mr. Danson (Divinity of Christ, p. 49.) that he was given to Gaming, Bowls, and Ninepins) any crime whatsoever; and when the suggestion is proved to be false, if it so fall out unhappily, you may come off as he, by saying, you did but quaere whether it was so or no; you did not positively affirm it. Will these things encourage any man to put his name into your hands, that can keep it out? Judge ye! Besides, I known not what disadvantage it will be to you, not to know my name, for what I have written will be as true without it as with it. I confess that perhaps you will lose some of that sweetness of Revenge you would take in lustily bespattering me, and that I am not willing to gratify you with. I thank God through Jesus Christ I have a full testimony in my own Conscience both touching the causes and Inducements of my present writing, viz. my hearty love and affection to Truth and your persons, (for whom I have longtime daily prayed God who is light, to lead you into the true light, and the acknowledgement of the Mystery which was hid from Ages and Generations:) and also touching my faithfulness and Intergrity in the collection and Citations and Observations I have made: so that whoever of you have a true discerning of spirits, which you lay so great a claim to, I am sure ye must justify me in what I have done, and receive it as that which I was moved to, in the general, by the light of God and Christ in my heart. But however you receive it or judge of it, he that justifieth me is the Lord, to whom I commit myself and it, still praying for you, for I am  
Your affectionate Friend.  
FINIS.   

The courteous Reader may be pleased to take notice that the words relating to Scripture in the Citations out of G. Fox, should have been Printed in a different Character as they are in G o F's Book: such are these, p. 6.1.7. l. 12. p. 7. l. 21.14. p. 8. l. 12.13.24.25.27. p. 9 l. 15.17. them. l. 30. p. 10. l. 20.29. p. 11. l. 25.26. p. 12. l. 〈◊〉. p. 13. l. 16.27. p. 14. l. 21.26. the Spirit. l. 32. 82.   

ERRATA  
Page, 7. l. 33. non, read, not. p. 11. l. 18. r. found there p. 13. l. 〈◊〉. for, I am only to, 1. It's enough that l. p. 31, l. 12, for. 1, far, p. 38. l. 25.1 think.