Further Discovery of the Quakers, Reply · Position 2 – Position 3
Poſition 2. That there is no diſtinction of Perſons in the God-head.
Except. Againſt our proofe, for this Nayler objects, That ſuch a Poſition is not in Sauls Errand to Damaſcus; and ſayes, we have not any proofe for what we here accuſe of.
Reply 1 That George Fox in Sauls Errand to Damaſcus. pag. 12. being asked, Whether there be one individuall God, deſtinguiſhed into Father, Sonne, and holy Ghoſt. Anſwered, It was but a buſie minde ſo to aske, &c. (ſo little reſpect he hath to that ſaving myſtery of the Trinity) this that Booke will witneſſe. And that we had reaſon to inferre this Poſition to be a principle of their way, will thus appeare.
1. If Nayler had taken notice of our Booke, he might have conſidered theſe words immediately following, With other aſſertions of the ſame kinde, knowne to ſome of us. Now had he conſidered this, he might have ſeen, that we did not gather that this denying of the Perſons, &c. was their Principle, onelyonly from what Fox layes downe in Sauls Errand to Damaſcus, pag. 12. but from that of Fox, together with other aſſertions of the ſame kinde, knowne to ſome of us: We know it to be ther Principle, by comparing that expreſſion of Fox, with what our ſelves did know from others of them; thoſe truths compared, were our proofe of that aſſertion, as the Reader will preſently fully ſee.
2. Had we had no other ground, but that expreſſion of Foxes, when he ſayes, Its a buſie minde to enquire, &c. this had been enough? For certainely, if Fox thinke it to be a buſie minde to enquire it, its cleare, he doth not beleeve it himſelfe, as he would not have it to be a matter of any others Faith.
3. But thirdly, Doth he ſay, we have not any proofe for what we here accuſe of? Let both him, and all men know, that we have not charged that aſſertion on them, without ſufficient evidence. Tomlinſon, an eminent man in that way, in his Book called, A Word of Reproofe to the Prieſts, pag. 4. line 20. boldly affirmes, the ſpirit to be no other but Chriſt himſelfe in fleſh. Is not this to deny the Trinity, and take away the diſtinction of Perſons in the God-head? 2. One of us doth know, this was the Principle of Mr. Taylour, Coll. Benſon &c. and ſo it was not aſſerted without reaſon, and their owne ſpirits and conſciences will beare me witneſſe.W.C. 3. A godly Miniſter in Weſtmoreland wrote to us, that one of his charge being perverted to become a Quaker, affirmed, that there was one God b…t no ſuch thing as a diſtinction of Perſons in the God-head; and ſpoke many words paſſionately againſt it.
And now whether there is not juſt cauſe to charge them with maintaining this blaſphemy, will be fully manifeſt; and how un…ighteouſly Nayler hath ſo reviled us upon this account. But we leave him to the Lord to rebuke.
Poſition 3. That the ſoule is a part of the Divine Eſſence.
Excep. To that we layd downe as to the proofe and confutation of this; Nayler onelyonly replyes, What the ſoule is you know not, who live in the fall, and are vaine contenders and pleaders for ſinne; and ſo goes on groſſely rayling.
Reply. For the proofe the e ſet downe, let the Reader obſerve that he doth not in the leaſt deny it, though it be a blaſphemous Principle.W. C. And one of us doth ſtill affirme that he was an eare witneſſe of it. Secondly, Here we might very well expect, that ſith he could not deny our proofe, he ſh…uld anſwer to our confutation of that blaſphemy. Againſt which we have given ſix reaſons, but inſtead thereof he falls a rayling, as if a Rabſhakehs ſpirit were divine Rhetoricke. And what ſayes he? He ſayes, We know not what a ſoule is, and that we pleade for ſinne, &c. and ſeeke gaine from our quar…ers &c. This is h…s anſwer to our arguments. We ſhall not trouble the Read … with anſwering their ſcandals, and reviling… b…t ſ… the e…ample of Chriſt before our eyes, 1 Pet 2.23. who wh…n he was reviled, reviled not againe.