The Foundation of God Standeth Sure, Chapter 2
CHAP. II. A brief Narrative of T. V's meeting with some Quakers in Spittle-yard, with the occasion and transactions there, and some exceptions to the account which W. P. hath given thereof.
MY first meeting with the Quakers was upon desire at the house of a friend in Houndsditch, in der to the preserving of some who were tempted to go amongst them; I met there several Quakers, two of which were the chief speakers: It would tire the Reader, as I believe it did the hearers, to give relation of all their wild and impertinent discourse; I could not get them to speak out, and plainly to assert some of their Principles, through fear it is likely lest their mouths should be stopped before the people; yet after many words, they asserted the perfection of Saints in this Life, and the place of Scripture which they brought for the proof of their assertion was, 1 Iob. 3. 9. Whosoever is born of God, doth not commit sin. Unto this I answered, That the words in the Original were foreign, (one of them interrupted me at the mention of the Original words, saying, It was the smoke of the bottomless pit) that the signification was, doth not make it his business to sin; and the meaning was, that such as were born again, did not make a trade of sin, did not go on in a course of sin; or did not commit sin, that is, with the full bent of the will as the wicked do; But that it could not be understood of not committing sin at all; because, the same Apostle in the same Epistle, Chap. 1. 8. telleth thus, If we say we have no sin, we deceive our selves, and the truth is not in us. There he speaketh of himself and others that were born again, and plainly acknowledgeth they were not without sin. It was further urged, that if all that were born of God were perfectly free from sin; then it would follow, that who ever found any sin in them, were not born of God, consequently in state of nature, and so if they should die with any sin remaining, they would certainly go to Hell, and so none there, yea none in the world would be saved. Moreover I appealed to the experience of the best of them, whether they could say they were wholly free from sin, whether they had no irregular thoughts nor affections: this they would not affirm, neither did they absolutely deny: when they pleaded the perfection the Apostle Paul speaketh of, Phil. 3. 15. I replied, that the same Apostle v. 12. acknowledgeth that he had not as yet attained, neither was yet perfect; and if the Apostle Paul who had arrived to so great a heighth in grace that he was (how ever as some think little in bodily stature) yet taller by the head and shoulders than others in regard of his grace and spiritual attainments; how could Audacious Quakers (who if Quakers indeed because of their damnable opinions, I am confident have not the least degree of true grace) boast of perfection, as if they had got above the Apostle himself. I told them that all true Believers were perfect in a sence, they were Evangelically perfect, but not legally, not absolutely perfect; they had perfection of parts, but not perfection of degrees; and in this sence the work of Grace, though the work of God was not perfect in regard of our selves, but by degrees was carried on unto further perfection. After this, when they could give no answer to the Arguments urged against them, they burst out into a clamor, and talking all altogether, opening their mouths as wide as they could, and shutting their ears as hard as they could, repeating the same things over and over again; You make your selves the Patrons of sin; He that committeth sin is of the Devil; And whilst they pleaded, That all which were born of God were without sin, they discovered themselves to be none of those that were born of God by the sin which they were palpably guilty of in the multitude of their words, especially in their wresting the Scripture from its genuine sence & meaning, and in the perverse disputings of their corrupt minds. Our discourse was to this effect, wherein they discovered so much of their rotten Tenents, so much of their folly and weakness, being unable to maintain what they had asserted, that one said to them, An't please God I will believe you no more. Others that were wavering before, were confirmed against them, aud established in the ways of Truth, and so continue still to this day.
The next week after this meeting I went into the Country for a fortnight, and in my absence, two of my friends (Mother and Daughter) went off to the Quakers; the Daughter was the first whose inclinations and humour carried her that way for some time before; for the preserving of whom from the Quakers delusions upon the request of the Mother, I had several discourses with her; I gave several reasons against their tenents and ways, unto which she could give no answer, nor any ground of her liking their ways, which was not answered; onelyonly a perverse will (which I am inform'd her Mother hath so much indulg'd in other things, unbefitting a parent, that in this, it is like to prove the destinction both of mother and child) did lead her this way, against all reasons and perswasions; I acknowledge I did say, It was worse to go to the Quakers meetings than to a Bawdyhouse; because the defilement of the soul with their damnable erors, which there she was likely to contract, was more deep and more hardly to be washt off, than the defilement of whoredom or adultery; and what our Saviour said of the Pharisees, I may say of the Quakers, that harlots go into the Kingdom of Heaven sooner than they: moreover I told her that, If there stood a cup of poyson in the window, I would rather drink it than suck in their damnable Doctrines, because poysoning of the body was not so bad as the poysoning and damning of the soul. I said further (not that I would give her up) but that, if she went again, God might give her up to believe a lye that she might be damned: the former is come to passe, and the last is most likely to follow; and now let W. P. call my zealous endeavours to keep a poor soul out of the dark path, which leadeth to utter darkness, peevish zeal, and railing accusations, and what he pleaseth, I am sure I neither did, nor spake any thing unbecoming a Minister of the Gospel. W. P. chargeth me with cautioning the Pater-familias to exercise his authority, &c. This is false, and the Master of the Family I am confident will not a verr it, and why he should charge it I know not, except that he might usher in those expressions, Forgetting that they hold their liberty by connivance and the many appeals made by their non-conforming Bretheren for indulgence; unto which I say that we do not forget it, neither would we be unthankful either unto God or man for it; and if by the appeals made by our non-conforming Brethren for indulgence, he doth mean and reflect upon the grateful acknowledgement, which some of them lately made unto the Supreame Magistrate, under the protection of whose government we all do live. He discovers little of a Christian spirit, if he finds fault with it, since we have a command, 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. That supplications, prayers, intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty; and therefore as we make conscience to pray for our Soveraign, so we look upon our selves, as obliged to give thanks both to God, and unto him when through his clemency and favour, we have liberty to live peaceable and quiet lives in all Godlinesse and honesty. But to proceed in the narrative: the daughter had such influence upon the mother, that she was instrumental to draw her into this pernicious way, which when I heard of, I went to their house to use my endeavors for the reducing of them; where I had not been long, but the two men I had before discoursed with in Hounds-ditch came in; amongst other things they flatly denied that there were three persons in the Godhead, and that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost was a threefold variety or manifestation of God. I did not think fit to enter into a dispute concerning that and other points then; because it was so late, and because I desired to have witnesses on my side, as well as theirs. This was the occasion of my meeting with the Quakers at my House, which W. P. speaketh of, and was present at, but it is false (what he saith) that I bespake my usual Auditory, an hour before the Quakers were appointed to come, for I neither gave publick notice, neither spake to any of a sooner time than I sent sent word to the Quakers of. W. P. chargeth me for bringing not onelyonly a second, but a third and fourth, least I should incur a non-plus, &c. That I should bring one with me was appointed when the Meeting was promised, that our number might be the same, with the two that were to dispute with us, and whom we two had met with before; but if other two of my Bretheren were present, it was without any desire of mine, but onelyonly their our inclination brought them thither for some time after our discourse began; and if they spake any thing, it was not because they thought I stood in any need they should help me out, but because of G. W's confused discourse and indirect answers to my Arguments, they attempted to bring him to some order, and to have gained an answer from him, that the dispute might more intelligibly and successfully have proceeded.
When the assembly was come together I began with prayer, which was no sooner ended, but (the other two Quakers who promised to meet with, us not appearing,) George Whitehead began to speak, and declared that he was there come to defend the Quakers opinions, which I had asserted were damnable; and when he would have first discoursed of the light within them; I told him and the people that I owned my charge of damnablenesse on the Quakers opinions, and though I did not decline to dispute about the light he spake of, and other errours of the Quakers, yet I thought it most proper to begin with the Doctrine of the Trinity, denied by the Quakers I last met with, who directly affirmed that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were not three distinct persons, but a threefold variety or manifestation, and this I asserted to be a damnable errour, and would prove it to be so, and therefore I asked him whether his opinion was the same with theirs, unto which M. Danson added, that he had asserted the Quakers to have an infallible spirit, so that what was the opinion of one, must consequently be the opinion of all, and therefore that he must either own this opinion, or disown them for Quakers. G. W. at first did neither plainly assert nor directly deny the opinion, but filled his mouth, and the people eares with a multitude of words, wherein was so much ambiguity and obscurity, that the sentiments of his mind were not easily to be perceived. But W. P. standeth up, falsly and blasphemously reflecting on the Doctrine of the Trinity, as an errour sprung up three hundred years after Christ, and directly denied that there were three distinct persons in the Godhead, with three distinct incommunicable properties. Then I asked G. W. whether he owned W. P. for a Quaker, and not being disowned, I urged an argument against his assertion.
If the Father be another from the Son, and the Son another from the Father, and the Holy Ghost another from each, and all three are God; and the property of the Father is to beget the Son, and the property of the Son, to be begotten of the Father, and the property of the Holy Ghost, to proceed from the Father, and the Son; then there are three distinct persons in the Godhead, with three distinct incommunicable properties.
But the Father is another, &c.
Therefore there are three, &c.
When I had propounded my argument, W. P. shrunk, saying he did not come thither to dispute, but left it to G. W. who neither would repeat my Sylogism, nor give any direct answer, either to the Major or Minor; I could have multiplyed words as G. W. did, and applyed my self to the people, instead of speaking to the purpose, but this I forbore propounding my argument Sylogistically, and the distinction of three persons being denied, though no direct answer given to the argument urged to prove it; I added another argument from 1 Iob. 5. 7. There are three that bare record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.
The Father, Word, and Holy Ghost are either three substances, or three manifestations, or three operations, or three persons, or something else.
But they are not three substances, nor three manifestations, nor three operations, nor any thing else.
Therefore they are three persons.
G. W. maketh no direct reply to this Sylogism, but findeth fault with the terms, and W. P. telleth us that God did not use to wrap his Truths in Heathenish Metaphysicks, but in plain language; but let the Reader judge whether there be the heathenish Metaphysicks he speaketh of in this Sylogism, wherein there is not a word but what is to be found in the Scripture; not but that some words may be made use of, in explaining Scripture Truths, which are not in the Scripture themselves, so they expresse the thing which the Scripture doth signify (in other Phrases more proper to the languages, the Scripture were wrot in) and I could make it evident out of the Books of the Quakers themselves, that they use many words which are not in the Scripture. No answer could be obtained to my argument in the Meeting, but W. P. taking the argument into further consideration, attempteth at length in his Pamphlet to make a reply, and first taxeth me to be as little a Scholar, in regard of the manner of my Sylogism, as a Christian in regard of the matter of it. My Sylogism was urged to prove the three glorious persons in the Godhead, the denial of which doth necessarily infer the denial of Christ to be God equal with the Father, and let any judge who approveth himself most a Christian, either W. P. in denying this, or I in asserting and proving it. As to the manner of my Sylogism, some Quakers (it may be) who know not what a Sylogism is, may believe that it bespeaks me to be little a Scholar, but no Scholar will judge so from that Sylogism, which they know to be according to rule, and to carry a firm proof in it drawn from the Induction of particulars, but W. P. discovereth himself to be that which he taxeth me for, namely, little a Scholar, and though he hath been at the University, yet that either he never read Logick, or never understood Logick, or hath forgot Logick, or that purposely he hath laid aside Logick, that herein he might be like to the Quakers in answering nothing to the purpose; for besides his finding fault with my Sylogism, his reply to it doth most of all detect his want of Learning and grosse absurdity, for which he would have been hissed out of the Schools, had he done it in the University; for though he telleth us he will give his reason, why he will deny my Minor, yet most ridiculously and ignorantly he argueth against my conclusion. The Minor as he repeateth it is: But they are not three manifestations, three operations, three substances, or three some things else, besides subsistences.
The conclusion, Therefore three subsistences.
If he had indeed denied the Minor, he must have asserted that they were either three substances, or operations, or manifestations, or something else; but he mistaketh the conclusion for the Minor, and argueth that they are not three subsistences. No one substance can have three distinct subsistences, &c. W. P. argueth against the Trinity of persons in the unity of Essence, behold the Christian! he argueth against the conclusion of a Sylogism calling it the Minor, behold the Scholar! yet because his argument is against our Doctrine, therefore I shall give answer thereunto, and his other cavils together in the sixth chap. After this, he reflected upon Mr. Madox in the 11. page, whose answer you have in the following Chapter.