Some of the many false, scandalous, blasphemous & self-contradictory Assertions of William Davis, faithfully collected out of his Book, printed Anno 1700. entituled, Iesus the Crucified Man, the Eternal Son of God, &c. in exact Quotations word for word, without adding or diminishing.
I. pag. 1. colum. 2. EVen that outward and visible Person of our Lord Jesus Christ (before he was thus conceived, seen and crucified) was in Heaven, and came down from thence into the Virgins Womb. &c.
II. p. 3 see also p. 49. That we cannot distinguish betwixt the two Natures in Christ, no more than we can divide them.
Pag. 6. If the Father and the Son (as they affirm) are one individed Essence, it will follow, that they are but one individed Person, and consequently either the Son must be the Father, and then the Father hath a Body and Soul, or else they must deny the Son to have such, or else there is no Father at all, according to this absurd Opinion.
III. P. 8. Prodigious Principle of their own, viz. That God is every where present alike.
Gods chief abode and residence, with respect to his glorious Personal being, is no where else but in Heaven, quoting Eccles. 5.2. 1 King. 18.20. Isa. 66.1. Mat. 6.9. 1 King. 19.11, 12.
Pag. 9. Nay further (saith W. Davis) this would destroy the very being of God, according to the saying of the Rhodian Poet, Quisquis ubi (que) habitat maxime nusquam habitat, i. e. He that every where can be, in no place never found is he. For if God be every where alike, then either every thing is God, [...] then every thing must be worshipped, or else nothing is God. If we grant the first, that promotes Idolatry in the highest degree of it; if the second, it introduces Atheism in the utmost extream of it; [Page 2] what a mad piece of absurd and jumbled Divinity would this be? but that God is every where present by his sacred Attributes, is in no wise denyed by us, quoting Psal. 139.7, 8, 10. and 147.5.
IV. Pag. 13. He hath been visible before he was made flesh, quoting Gen. 18.1. cap. 22 25. From which it appears he was also tangible, Ios. 5.13. Dan. 3.2 [...]: Exod. 24.10. Isa. 6 5. From all which it appears (saith he) he was both visible and tangible before he was made flesh; and these respect our outward Senses of seeing and feeling, quoting also for proof 1 st St. Iohn 1.1.
V. p. 28. I may safely, truly & properly say, That that visible Body, viz. the Lord Jesus Christ came down from Heaven, and not thereby intend at all that Christ brought a Body of flesh from Heaven (which indeed I never believed) for there is a great difference betwixt saying, That visible Body came down from Heaven, and, That visible Body came down from Heaven a body of flesh.
P. 30. He chargeth Mr. Clayton, a Minister of the Church of England, and others who opposed his assertions, not only to blaspheme, but also to deny the Son of God.
P. 50. Now then, seeing it is impossible to discern or distinguish in a Child the substance of Father and Mother, distinct or abstract, but that it is counted the Child of such honest Parents to whom it doth belong, consisting of the substance both of Father & Mother, conjunct or concrete, so likewise must we conceive of Christ, that he is not a compleat or perfect Saviour in the abstract, but in the concrete, viz. the Natures consubstantiate, but not transubstantiate, two Natures being made one substance, without any change in either of the Natures into another substance.
[ Note, How this can be, he gives the same account as Papists do about Transubstantiation, that thing which is impossible with Men, is notwithstanding possible with God.]
VI. He was equal to his Father in respect of Honour and Worship, as well as of Nature, therefore he saith, I and my Father are one, Iohn 10.30. to wit, one in Nature and kind of being, though two distinct Persons, Iohn 8.17, 18.
P. 66, [...]] He condemns the Heresie of Apillinarius, that Christ had no humane Soul, but his divine Nature did supply the room thereof; and yet in all his Book it will not be found that he [Page 3] holds that Christ, as man, had any other Soul but what was (as he saith aftewards, pag 86.) of prae-existant matter and substance, which was divine and eternal.
VII. p 65. In answer to Iohn Wats, an Anabaptist, Object. 2. Tho he which laid down his Life for us was God, yet he did not lay down his Life as God. He saith, Grant to an Atheist liberty to argue according to this Rule, and he will easily prove by Scripture that there is no God at all.
P. 61. In the Title of his 7th Chapter he saith, Chap. 7. containing twelve Objections against the former Doctrine of Christs dying, as he was God, as truly as Man.
P 66. Note, Though he affirms that Christ suffer'd and dyed as he was God, yet (he saith, I readily grant, viz. that when a man dyes his soul doth not dye with his Body, but surviveth it, so in like manner the soul of our Saviour did survive his body, and went into Paradise with the soul of the Thief, that day when he hung on the Cross.
VIII. In answer to Object. 8. which is, This Doctrine of Christs dying as God, doth necessarily conclude two Gods, &c. He saith, Its true, this Doctrine of two Gods is not only carpt at, but deny'd almost by all; albeit all almost but Quakers confess in words, there are three Persons which are each of them a God, but yet they believe it not.
IX. Having quoted 1 Iohn 5.7. There is three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one, he saith, One in regard they are of one Nature and kind of being, and so must be worshipped equally as one, Three in regard they are three particular Persons, and each of these three Persons is a God; so in a Personal sence we may truly and properly say, there are three Gods, viz. God the Father, God the Son and God the holy Ghost; but in a reverential and objective sense, there is but one God.
Pag. 39. When he saith, I came down from Heaven, he means, his outward Person did as properly and as literally descend by a local Motion of his Princely Residence, as when a man, being on [Page 4] the top of some famous stupendious Fabrick, he must descend to come down and go to the Earth.
P. 40. His humane Nature added nothing to him, which made him either more or less visible and outward, but a nature or quality to his outward Person, which his outward Person had not before.
X. P. 86· In answer to Object. 11. from Heb. 10.5. he saith, The holy ghost doth not intend by this phrase, A Body hast thou prepared me, that therefore nothing of the substance of that Body was divine and from Eternity. For altho' the Son of God did really take a substance of the Virgin Mary, which he had not from Eternity, which after his assumption or incarnation was essential to his Body, as well as Soul, by which means he was made flesh; yet notwithstanding his Body and Soul did consist of prae-existant matter and substance, which was divine and eternal.
XI. Object. 12. How is it possible that an outward and visible Person, of such dimensions & bigness could be in a Virgins womb? In short (saith he in answer) all things are possible with God; They may as well say, it was impossible for Christ to come in amongst the Disciples, the Door being shut; and yet this is a truth; but we cannot demonstrate how it was done.
Pag. 91. That one Person, who was both God and Man, suffer'd and dyed conjunctly in both Natures.
XII. P. 98. He reckons it one of Iohn Wats's abominable and vile Heresies, That the Father and the Son are one single and individed Essence.
Pag. 117. He chargeth it on Iohn Wats the Anabaptist, That he agreeth with Sabellius and Muggleton, that the Father, Son and holy Ghost are one individed Essence.
Note, P. 94. He saith, The Father hath not been manifested visibly, and seen in the presence of any Mortal, quoting Ioh. 1.18. and Ioh. 6 46. 1 Tim. 6.16. 1 Iohn 4.12. But how doth this agree with his Notion on Dan. 7.9. That the Antient of Days whom Daniel saw, was the Father? pag. 7.
He gives a lame Definition of a Person, for which he quotes Goldman, which is this, A Person is an individed Substance, of a [Page 5] rational nature; but it wants the following words, Subsisting by it self, to compleat the Definition; and thus the human nature of Christ is not a Person, because not subsisting by it self, but by the person of the son, as he's the eternal and essential Word.
XI. P. 81. That God is a Spirit, Ioh. 4 24. Hence men would infer, as tho' (to speak with reverence) God was a meer nothing, because our Saviour saith to the Woman of Samaria, God is a Spirit. It seems Iohn Wats, and others, would gather from hence, That God was not a Person, but only a Breath or Air, every where present a like.
P. 82. Yet in Contradiction to his former Assertion, That Gods Personal being is no where else but in Heaven, he saith, God doth respect all places alike, and doth invisibly attend every one in every time, and every place (when and wheresoever, with a gracious acceptance) this evangelical, not legal Worship is performed by him in spirit and truth.
Pag. 124. He most ignorantly and wickedly perverts the sound words of Dr Tillotson, late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, in one of his Sermons on that Text, Ioh. 1. The Word was made Flesh, pag. 19. Though the Word was really God, yet not God the Father. Again, pag. 30. The Word was God, yet not God the Father: On these sound words, W. D. saith, Note, Then the Word which is God, and not the Father, and the Father which is God, and not the Word, make two distinct Gods personally, according to the Bp. of Canterbury.
Pag. 122, 123. He grosly perverteh the sound words of Bishop Vsher, to justifie his Blasphemies. And in like manner he perverts the second Article of the Church of England, and other Protestant Authors.
- George Keith, Clerk.
- John Talbot, Clerk,
- Evan Evans, Rector of Philadelphia.
BY the fore-going Quotations these following Anti-scriptural and Blasphemous Assertions of William Davis are evident.
First, From Quotation 2, 6, 12. The three Persons are three distinct and seperate individed Essences, and so three Gods, as really as Peter, Iames and Iohn are really three men; contrary not only to all sound Reason, but to many clear Proofs of Scripture.
Secondly, From Quotation 6 & 9. These three Gods being of One nature and kind, every one of them from Eternity had a Soul and Body, seeing, as he affirms, Quest. 1, 4, 5. the Son had a Body from Eternity, an outward, visible and tangible Body, contrary both to Reason and Scripture; for if the Son is compounded of Soul and Body, so must the Father and the holy Ghost, seeing (as he affirms) they all three are of one nature and kind.
Thirdly, And seeing the outward, visible and tangible Body of the Son, which he had from Eternity, was a circumscribed Body, of no greater bigness or quantity than the Body of an ordinary Man, such as the Man Christ Jesus was, so the Body of the Father and the Body of the holy Ghost are circumscribed, visible and tangible Bodies, of no greater bigness or quantity, having hands, fingers, eyes, ears, feet, toes, of the like ordinary bigness; see Quotation 4
That not one of these three Gods is every where present; and by his wicked and blasphemous Consequence, if every thing where God is, be God, then Heaven must be God, for he confesseth God is in Heaven. But whether he is only in all the heavens, or only some part of the heavens, he hath not expresly told; see Quotation 3.
Fourthly, That God the Fathers substance hath parts, which can be seperated from him; for he compares the generation of the Son to the generation of a Child, that consists of the substance of both Father and Mother, to wit, being real parts of them; so Christ God-Man consists of real parts of the Fathers Substance, and of the Virgin Mary.
5 thly, That Christ suffered, as God, as well as Man, in both Natures; see Quotation 7, 8
6 thly, That these three Gods are one Objectively, being one Object of Worship; and thus he would excuse his Blasphemy and Idolatry; and the like excuse the Heathen might give, who [Page 7] worship many thousand Gods together, as one Object of Worship, as witness their manner of Prayer to them altogether, Dij De (que) omnies, i. e. O all ye godds and goddesses; see Quota. 9.
7 thly, That the Body and Soul of the Son, which he had from all Eternity, locally came down from heaven, having the bigness of the body of an ordinary Man, and came into the Virgins Womb, [Which is as great a contradiction to Scripture & Reason as Transubstantiation] see Quota. 9.
8 thly, That he denyes God to be a Spirit in the proper sence of all rational men and true Christians, as if the notion of Gods being a Spirit, were, that God is a meer nothing, or but only a breath or air; see Quota. 12, 13▪
That Christ, as both God and Man, hath but one Nature and subsistance, it being as impossible to distinguish the two natures in Christ, as to divide them; see Quota. 2.
- George Keith, Clerk.
- Evan Evans, Rector of Philadelphia.
A Publick Advertisement to all Christian People into whose hands this may come.
AT Philadelphia in the Province of Pennsilvania, the tenth day of March, 1702. George Keith a Presbyter of the Church of England, having fully and evidently detected the chiefest of the above-mentioned monstrous and blasphemous Principles of W. Davis, at the Meeting-house of the People commonly called, The Keithian Quakers (their free consent being had thereto, in the said Town of Philadelphia) in a publick Dispute between him and William Davis, mutually agreed on betwixt them, as to time and place, which continued two hours, or more, in the fore-noon, and three hours at least in the after-noon, several hundreds of persons belonging to the Town and Country (many of them of [Page 8] good Quality of the Church of England, and others) being present, where, by agreement, each of the Disputants had half an hour to speak, without interruption, and which was duly observed on both sides; it being also agreed by W. Davis, that G. Keith should be the Agressor, and bring his Charge and Proofs against W. Davis out of his above-said Book of vile Heresies and Blasphemies; and that W. D. by agreement, in the first place, was to be the Defendant. And according to the said agreement G. K. began to give his Charge and Proofs of vile Heresies and Blasphemies contained in the above-said Book of W. D. for the first half hour. To none of which did W. Davis give any direct and close Reply, either in his first half hour, or any of the following half hours which he spent, whereof many judicious persons were witness. But instead of defending the Notions and Doctrines of his Book, he generally turn'd Aggressor against G K. accusing him of several passages contained in his Book, call'd, Truth Advanced, &c. (writ by G. K. when under the profession of a Quaker, as being erroneous, about the Person of Christ and the Resurrection of the Body: To all which G. K. did so Reply, that he sufficiently cleared himself from the false Aspertions and Perversions that W Davis had put upon some passages in the said Book, as likewise his false aspertions and pervertions upon the words of divers worthy Divines of the Church of England, and other Protestant Authors, whereby to defend his Blasphemies, alledging, That if he was in an error for holding three Gods, &c. he was led into it by some of the Sons of the Church of England.
And notwithstanding the two Moderators chosen by agreement, did press the said W. Davis to answer the points charged and proved, as also did some others present, of good judgment and quality, of the Church of England, yet they could not prevail with him to speak or hold to the points charged; and he so wearied all judicious and intelligent persons there present, with his Tautologies, Triflings and most impertinent Repetitions and dreadful Blasphemies, that not only the Justice of Peace, whom G. K. had desired to be present to keep the Peace, but several other worthy persons said openly in the Meeting, They would no more be present to be Witnesses to such irregular proceedings, as well as horrid Blasphemies of the said William Davis, and his palpable self-contradictions, [Page 9] one time professing to retract his Notion of three Gods, and his uncharitableness towards all that differ'd from him about that and other things; and another time telling us, he could justifie them all by Reason and Scripture, and accordingly did endeavour to justifie them.
In the conclusion, the Justice of Peace, who was the Moderator for G. K. in the afternoon, and chosen by him and divers other persons of the Church of England, whom G. K. had desired to be present as Witnesses, did openly refuse to come to another Meeting the next day, reckoning it would be lost time, unless W. Davis could be brought to a regular way of answering to things charged by G. K. and proved; but this W. D. could by no means or perswasions be brought unto. Whereupon G. K. did openly declare, that he was resolved to have no other Meeting with Davis, especially seeing the Justice of Peace refused to come another Meeting, and G. K. knew not where to find any other Justice or Magistrate that would be willing to be present, and unless some that were in Authority, were present, G. K. thought it not safe to come, lest any thing should have happened that his Adversaries might have represented to be a Riot or Breach of the Peace.
But notwithstanding the declared purpose of both the Justice of Peace, and other Friends of G. K. as well as his own, not to be present at any other such Meeting with W. D. yet the said W. D. the next morning, being the 11 th of March, sends a new Challenge to him, to meet him that morning to discourse with him about some other heads, viz. that of Infant Baptism and the Sabbath; but G K. had not agreed with him to dispute about those Heads, until an end had been fairly and regularly put to the first head, viz. the vile Heresies and Blasphemies contained in W· D 's Book, and which not being done, nor like to be done, had there been another day spent in that dispute; and though they had not agreed to two days, yet they agreed the Dispute should not last above two days; so the failure was altogether on W D 's part; and indeed in any point of argument, W D was so ignorant, that by W. Davis's illogical and sophistical way of reasoning against each Person of the holy Trinity having an individed Essence, and consequently that the Three were but One Person, [Page 10] as they were but one Essence, W. D. having given only the Genus of the Definition of a Person, without giving also the specifical Difference, by which W. D. sophistically as well as ignorantly did infer, That the three Persons in the Trinity were three Gods; as also, he argued, That if there were two Natures in Christ, there would be two Persons. But said G K. by W. D 's false Logick, he would prove W. Davis to be an Ass, as thus,
An Ass is an Annimal,
And W. Davis is an Annimal,
Therefore W. D. is an Ass.
But so ignorant was W. D. that he retorted the like Argument on G. K. to prove G. K. to be a Horse. But how? only by W. D 's false Logick, which though it ty'd W. D. to hold, yet it no way ty'd G. K. being only Argumentum ad hominem, according to that Maxim in Logick, Cui convenit ad hominem, convenit definitum, i. e. That to which the Definition agreeth, to that the defined thing doth agree.
Upon G· K 's refusal to dispute with W. D. the following day, for good Reasons above given, the said W. Davis goes that morning to Edward Shippen, a Quaker, being Mayor of the Town of Philadelphia, for the time present, and obtains of him, by his order, a Constable, with his Constables staff, to stand by and protect the said W. D. that none should oppose him in his Discourse, during all the time he should speak; the said Mayors pretence being, that he sent the Constable to keep the Peace, supposing G. K. would be there to dispute with W. D. in the open street or ground before the Meeting-house above-mentioned, that was kept shut; and according to the Quaker-Mayor, Edw. Shippen's order, the Constable stood by with his Constables staff, to protect and countenance the said W. D. while he vented some of his chief Blasphemies contained in his Book, and faithfully collected in the fore-going Sheet, and that openly in the Street, or on the ground adjacent, before the concourse of a rude and ignorant Mob, some of them being W. D 's Crew, such as Alex. Badcock, Abel Noble, and some others. And among other dreadful Blasphemies that the said W. D. did again utter openly in the street, before that concourse of People, he did most wickedly and wretchedly dispute [Page 11] against the Omnipresence of God, saying, If God be in every thing, then every thing is God, and so there shall be as many Gods as things; and Grass and Vegetables, as well as Beasts, shall be God: This is Keith 's God (said he)
Now, let all Christian People, who shall hear or read this publick Advertisement, seriously consider and judge, what a hainous Offence it is to Almighty God, and what great scandal to all sober and religious Persons, who do believe that God Almighty is, that his sacred Name should be so blasphemed openly, and the Quaker-Government so far from discountenancing it, that the said W. D. was publickly countenanced and protected by the Mayors order, who thus, for three hours together, openly in the street, or ground adjacent, did belch out his horrid Blasphemies against Almighty God, and other vile Speeches against some Principles and Practices of the Church of England, as the Baptism of Infants, and the Religious Observation of the Lords Day.
And so punctually did the Constable, being a Quaker also, fulfil the Mayors Orders, that when a Church of England Man, a Free-man of the Town of Philadelphia, of good repute amongst his Neighbours, formerly a Keithian-Quaker, did but soberly oppose, by a few words, to the Blasphemy of W. D. which he heard him belch forth, the Constable, at the desire of W. D. and some of his Crew, laid hold on him, and carried him away as his Prisoner.
Qu. Whether the Mayors pretended ignorance in the case be any tollerable excuse, seeing G. K. did make no address to him, nor any for him, to send any Constable to keep the Peace? But again, had G. K. been so indiscreet and rash, (which he was not) to have sent to the Mayor for to have a Constable sent to keep the Peace, would it not have been very blame worthy and scandalous in the Mayor to have granted such a Request, to have some of the greatest Truths of all true Religion, whether natural or revealed, so prostituted and exposed, in the open street, in the face of the Son at noon day, as to be expresly denyed, exposed and villified by that wretched Blasphemer William Davis, as he evidently did before many Witnesses, and to the truth of which four Persons of [Page 12] good Credit, who heard him, have given their Oaths before a Justice of Peace. But was this supposed Ignorance of the Mayors an invinsible Ignorance? nay, he could easily have informed himself that G. K. was not to be there; and he could very easily have enjoyned the Constable, if he did not see G. K. to acquaint him that he was not there.
But if it be said, that the Mayor did at last come himself and discharge W. D. VVe say, that was after the said VV. D. had vomited out to the full all his Blasphmies against God Almighty, together with many other falshoods and fictions for about the space of three hours, yea, and the Mayor passed by the said VV. D. while he was like a Mountebank on a Stage in the open street, belching out his fulsom and loathson Assertions, and did not in the least discharge him, but went in to feast at a wedding hard by the place, and was, with difficulty, perswaded by a Gentleman of the Church of England, and some others present at the said Feast, to go and discharge the said W. D. from the place.
The publick Countenance given by the Authority of the Mayor of Philadelphia, to such open and publick VVickedness, deserves a publick Censure, and calls for great Humiliation before God, lest he be provoked by this great sin, as by other great sins both in Town and Country of this Province of Pennsilvania, under Quaker-Government, to pour down his heavy Judgments upon the Inhabitants thereof, which God Almighty, in his great mercy, avert and prevent, for Christs sake, Amen.
- George Keith,
- Evan Evans.