but they have turned altogether to his inward Coming which they say they witness already fulfilled in them and they look for no other Coming Ninthly Concerning the Resurrection of the Body that Dyeth G. W. instead of answering to the Quotations brought out of his and his Brethren's Books against the Resurrection of the Body that Dyeth has not so much as produced them or any part of them they are so broad-fac'd Proofs to evidence his and his Brethren's Infidelity in that great Article of Faith that he seems asham'd so much as to mention them And whereas he saith their Arguments not being answer'd by their Opposers he shall need say the less to them and concludes That he would have them so Charitable that they would not condemn them as Blasphemers for believing that their Resurection-Bodies shall be Spiritual and Glorious far excelling these natural carnal and earthly Bodies for else how should the Saints Bodies be like unto Christ's Glorious Body Note here again He seeks to cloak his and his Brethren's Infidelity by perverting the true state of the Question which is not That the Resurrection-Bodies of the Saints shall not be wonderfully changed and far excelling these natural carnal and earthly Bodies and made Spiritual and Glorious like to Christ's Glorious Body for that is acknowledged But the true Question is Whether the Saints Bodies at the Resurrection shall be so changed that they shall not be the same in Substance or Essence of Bodies and consequently in no respect the same for if the Substance be not the same to be sure the Accidents are not and consequently nothing of that Body that dyeth either in Matter or Manner in Substance or Modification riseth again for our Lord's Body tho' it was wonderfully changed in Manner and Qualities at his Glorification yet it remained the same in Substance or Essence of a Body And yet more fully to detect their Fallacy the following Quotations will prove That they look for no Resurrection of the Body out of the Grave at the end of the World but all the Resurrection they look for is The New Birth or what they expect as some of them say immediately after Death which to be sure is no part of the Body that is laid in the Grave But whereas he saith that W. P.'s and T. Elwood's Arguments about the Resurrection have not been answer'd by their Opposers is false they have been sufficiently Answer'd again and again as The Snake in the Grass Satan Disrob'd and in my First Second and Third Narratives G. Whitehead in Christian Quaker p. 353. brings T. Danson saying The happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body its dear and beloved Companion the Soul having a strong desire and inclination to a re-union to the Body as the Schools not without ground determine c. To this G. W. Answers Both Calvin T. Danson the Schools and divers Anabaptists are mistaken in this very matter and see not with the Eye of true Faith either that the happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body or that the Soul hath a strong desire to a re-union to the Body while they intend the terrestrial elementary Bodies for this implies the Soul to be in a kind of Purgatory or disquietness till the supposed Resumption of the Body To the same effect doth W. P. argue against T. Hicks Reason against Railing p. 137. He quotes T. Hicks arguing for the Resurrection of the Body the Joy's of Heaven imperfect else To this W. Penn opposeth I Answer Is the Joy of the Ancients now in Glory imperfect Or are they in Heaven but by halves If it be so unequitable that the Body which hath suffer'd should not partake of the Joys Celestial is it not in measure unequal that the Soul should be rewarded so long before the Body This Principle brings to the Mortality of the Soul held by many Baptists or I am mistaken But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Widow and so in a state of Mourning and Disconsolateness which state is but a better sort of Purgatory Note We see from both their Reasonings they would infer divers absurdities that would follow upon that Doctrine that the Souls of the deceased Saints now in Glory do look for a re-union to their Bodies which they put off at the Bodily Death So that by their manner of Reasoning as well as their express Words they declare themselves in their own behalf and in the Name of the Quakers whose Faith they pretend to give an account of to be positive Unbelievers as concerning any Resurrection of the Body that Dyeth or any re-union of that Body to the Soul to which it was formerly united before the Bodily Death But still G. W. as his manner is perverts the true state of the question by his saying While they intend the terrestrial elementary Bodies For if he mean that the Bodies after they are raised shall have the same terrestrial elementary Qualities Passions and Accidents that they had before Death he wrongs his Opponents for none of them have so affirmed But if he mean the same Substance or Essence of Bodies under more excellent Qualities and Endowments as far excelling the former as Spiritual excells Natural or Animal and Carnal Immortal and Incorruptible excells Mortal and Corruptible and Heavenly excells Earthly they are the same For in all changes that Bodies are capable of as well as Souls or Spirits from worse to better the subject of these changes must remain the same and that is what is justly called the Substance as when the Soul or Mind of Man is converted and changed from Earthly affections to Heavenly the Subject or Substance which is the Soul or Mind is the same and by as good Reason when a Body is changed from Earthly qualities to Heavenly the Body is still the same Substance or Subject tho' changed in Qualities and Conditions For further proofs out of both G. W. and W. P. I refer to my Third Narrative p. 26 27 28. Again Rich. Hubbertborne a great Author among the Quakers in his Coll. p. 121. proceedeth at the same rate against the deceased Saints looking for the Resurrection of their Bodies And these are they saith he that plead for a Life in Sin while they are here and that say that the Saints glorified in Heaven do yet hope For the Resurrection of their Bodies and so not come to the end of their hope tho' in Heaven when as the Saints upon Earth witnessed the end of their hope the Salvation of their Souls Now these may well deny perfection on Earth who deny it in Heaven which the Saints we and the Scriptures do witness it in both and against all such who are not fit to speak of the things of God See further in my Third Narrative p. 29. Note Here again G. W.'s gross Fallacy and Sophistry Truth and Innoc. p. 59. as if Rich. Hubberthorne
Lines immediately going before the Quotation W. Burnet clears the matter That he was not for having People go on Pilgrimage to Jerusalem either for Christ or to Christ W. Burnet in his Capital Principles p. 24. Israel of old he saith were commanded to go up to the literal Temple at Jerusalem to worship but now God's Worshippers may worship him each one in his Respective Place Yea G.W. in his Light and Life takes that to be W. Burnet's Sense That Christ was to be sought and found at such a Distance by Faith and yet he still objects against Christ sought at a Distance without us even by Faith as in Heaven above the Clouds or as he suffered at Jerusalem I ask saith he if the Object or Foundation of the Faith he divided from the Faith From which reasoning it is evident he is against Christ as without us as at a distance either as he suffered at Jerusalem or as he is now in Heaven to be the Object of our Faith And whereas in that called Some Account from Colchester they quote Rom. 10. 6 7 8. and set down the Words at full Length why do they not quote and set down the Words in p. 9 10. That if thou shall confess with thy Mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thine Heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved By all the things that have been objected against G.W. to move him to give some confession of his Faith in the Man Christ as he suffered and rose again without us and is now in Heaven without us in that very created Nature of the Soul and Body of Man he had on Earth as in Union with the eternal Word and that as such he is the great Object of our Faith for Remission of Sin yet he cannot be drawn to it which still shews he remains in his vile Antichristian Doctrine As to his seeming Confession to Christ without in his Supplement to the Switch we shall see ere long in its Place In his Truth and Inn. p. 54. he seeks to excuse W. P's Saying in his Quakerism a new Nick-name p. 6. Faith in Christ's outward Manifestation has been a deadly Poison these later Ages has been infected with G. W's Defence is 'T is making Faith in the History thereof that is in Opposition to his Power and Work in the Soul and to Godly living as is evident in the Place quoted But did I. Faldo W. P's Opponent make Faith in Christ's outward Manifestation in Opposition to his Power and Work in the Soul Nay surely nor did any other of their Opponents teach such Doctrine But this is the common way of G.W. and his Brethren to cloak their own vile Errors they will misrepresent their Opponents Principles It 's sufficiently evident from G. W's Doctrine that he has all along opposed Faith in Christ's outward Manifestation as necessary to Salvation and it will yet further appear Again he excuses W. P's Saying Truth and Inn. p. 55. And since they believe that outward Appearance i.e. of Jesus at Jerusalem they need not preach what is to be main by telling us he means They need not always preach it where it is believed and comesseth all true Quakers own that visible Appearance of Christ Note this is an evidenly apparent Strain W. P's Reason why the Quakers need not preach Christ's outward Appearance as he suffered Death was that it was not to be again which makes it unnecessary to be preached But this Liberty of G.W. and I. Weyeth and others of adding and taking away material Words is so intolerable where the plain Sense will bear no such Addition nor taking away that at this rate nothing so false but shall be made to seem true But why need they not always to preach it Suppose the Quakers believe it do not they preach always the Light within and do not the Quakers generally believe it and divers other Principles they prosess How shall their Children have the Faith of it without preaching Doth the Light within so reach it that they have it without preaching But how do they believe it Only histostically It is no necessary Article of their Faith to be preached or believed to Salvation the Light within is sufficient to Salvation without any thing else The like Fallacy and Sophistry he useth to excuse W. Shewen's Saying Not to Jesus the Son of Abraham David and Mary but to God the Father all Worship Honour and Glory is to be given But to hide his Fallacy he gives a lame Quotation The Words being Not to Jesus the Son of Abraham David and Mary nor to Saint nor Angel but to God the Father he saith he knows his Intent was Not to Jesus only as the Son of Abraham But then if the Word Only must be added as explanatory to one Part of the Sentence it must be added to the other Part of the same Sentence and so it will run thus Not to Jesus the Son of Abraham David Mary nor to Saint and Angel only but to God the Father all Worship c. Is not this a fair Excuse by which to cover their vile Heresie they will run into Popish Idolatry they are not to give Worship to Saints and Angels only but to God Note G.W. writes this contrary to what he knoweth in his Conscience to be true for he was present at that Meeting in London 1678. where W.S. and others blamed me for praying to Jesus Christ in the Passage above quoted in my Book called The Way cast up c. Beside it was no Part of the Controversie betwixt the Quakers and the Church of England or Dissenters That Christ was to be prayed to only as the Son of Abraham But is G.W. now in good earnest in thus excusing W.S. Is he for giving divine Worship to Jesus the Son of Abraham David and Mary in any respect seeing he hath denied that the true Jesus did consist of a Body of Flesh and Bone or that he hath a created Soul and Body as above quoted But let us once more hear how he excuseth that Passage of W. Penn his Address to Protestants p. 119. Let us but soberly consider what Christ is and we shall the better know whether moral Men are to be reckoned Christians what is Christ but Meekness Justice Mercy Patience Charity and Virtue in Perfection G.W. saith W.P. did not design thereby to lessen the Power or Dignity of Christ who is the Author of these Virtues no more than the Apostles did in saying He Christ is made of God unto us Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption spoken in the Abstract and the Prophet saying God is my Light and my Salvation though God and Christ also be the Author of Redemption and Salvation This is also a sophistical Evasion when Paul said Christ was made of God unto us Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption he meant not the Light within as it is in meer moral Heathens but so W.P. meant 〈◊〉 but Paul did really
Part of God Their Inferences are weak as That Christ is the Bishop of the Soul The Soul is in Transgression in Death The Soul redeemed rejoyceth in God All this doth not prove that George Fox did hold that the Soul of Man in all these Considerations was not a Part of God For according to him the Soul being a Part of God this part rejoyceth in God the Fulness and God or Christ considered as the Fulness is the Bishop of the Soul that is a Part of him the Soul being like a Drop of Water returning into the Ocean so taught the Ranters and that all Creatures were Parts of God who was the Substance of all things and so saith George Fox expresly Great Mistery page 99. and Edward Burrough see the Collection of his Works pag. 827 828. And George Fox denieth That either Christ or Men have a Humane Soul or that Christ hath either a Humane Soul or Body Great Mistery pag. 99 100. His Objection is idle against Humane as signifying Earthly from Humus the Ground which is but a Cloak to cover his gross Eerror None of his Opponents said the Soul was from the Earth He might as much object against the Language of Scripture that calleth Christ the second Adam the Word Adam signifying Red Earth That the Soul is in Transgression in Death proves not that George Fox did not hold it to be a Part of God for he and other Teachers among the Quakers teach That what they call the Seed Christ is crucified in the wicked and is held in Satans Chains and what are these Chains but Sins as is above proved out of Truth 's Def. p. 49. But for a full and clear Evidence that George Fox did hold the Soul of Man to be a Part of God in answer to Magnus Byne his Book called The scornful Quakers answered Great Mistery p. 90. Is not the Soul without Beginning coming from God returning into God again who hath it in his Hand And in Answer to Jonathan Clapham his Book called A Discovery of the Quakers Doctrine Great Mistery page 100. Is not this that cometh out from God which is in God's Hand part of God of God and from God and to God again which Soul Christ is the Bishop of It is to be noted and well observed that this Opposition that George Fox made to those Men and his other Opponents as Richard Baxter and the five Ministers of New Castle about the Soul which they denied to be a Part of God or without Beginning and he affirmed it was By Opposition to them was not about any divine Soul in the Soul that was the Life or Soul of it as George VVhitehead would have it by which he means God or the Holy Ghost for in all Disputes the Subject of the Dispute is one betwixt the Opponent and the Respondent and though sometimes where the Matter is intricate and nice the Subject is hard to find out and the Opponent may mean one thing and the Respondent another yet in a Case that is clear and easie to be understood as this Case is there can be no Difficulty about the Subject of the Dispute as indeed here there is none which Subject of Dispute betwixt George Fox and his Opponents above mentioned was purely and simply the Soul of Man and not any divine Principle in the Soul As to instance from Magnus Byne the Beginning of this Controversie betwixt Magnus Byne and George Fox about the Soul was by a Question that Magnus Byne put to Thomas Lawson a Quaker which was this see in Magnus Byne The scornful Quaker answered page 103. VVhat is the Soul of Man and the Preciousness of it seeing Christ says It is more worth than all the VVorld To this Thomas Lawson the Quaker answers The Ministers of Jesus who come by the Will of God such know the Soul and watch for the Soul Heb. 13. 17. But thy watching is for the Fliece and art querying what the Soul is which lies in Death and State and Condemnation so long as it lives and the false Accuser lives and it the First-born knows not nor the Preciousness of it who prefers the World and obeys it before the Light of Christ and so sells the Soul for the World as thou dost who professest him in thy Lip-talk but denies him in Practice Ways and Conversation though Christ saith The Soul is more worth than all the World To which Magnus Byne his Opponent thus replieth In all this Answer there is not a Tittle unto-the Question here it appears thy perfect knowledge fails thee Here thou guessest that the Soul is Christ for he is the First-born the Scripture mentions and so according to thy Blasphemy Christ it seems may be damned and cast into Hell for so it is said of the Soul Fear him who is able to cast Body and Soul into Hell See how dark thou art in making no Difference between the Soul and Christ the Soul is indeed a precious thing there is a kind of Infiniteness in it which all the World cannot satisfie and therefore the Man was a Fool that said Soul take thine Ease because thy Barns are full and yet notwithstanding this kind of Infiniteness in the Soul as being restless till it return to God yet it cannot be Infiniteness it self it cannot be the First-born for of whole Man it is said whereof the Soul is the more noble Part VVhat is Man that thou art mindful of him Heb. 2. 6 7. Man you see is inferior unto the Angels much more inferior to the Son of God And farther saith he though the Soul be the Seat of Christ and Christ be hid there as a Treasure in a Field even in the innermost Room of the Soul yet the Soul cannot comprehend the infinite Majesty so Christ in his diviner Essence or Being much less can it be Christ who is God over all blessed for evermore And though there be indeed a blessed Union and Fellowship between Christ and an holy Soul yet still there is a vast Difference between the Essence or being of the Soul and Christ the one being still a Creature and the other the Creator of it Next he comes to give his own Definition of it The Soul saith Magnus Byne is a most noble Power a living Being an Essence that quickens the Body and yet dies not sleeps not when the Body dies and sleeps but returns unto God who gave it This Soul is a little Map of the great World and makes Man a little World for in his Soul is comprehended the Life of Plants the Sense of Beasts the Reason of Men and Angels This Soul quickens and makes Man a living Creature a sensitive Creature a rational Creature After he has described the Soul of Man which he expresly calls a Creature as above quoted in its several Powers and Faculties of the Mind Reason Judgment Will Memory Fancy Appetite and Affections to wit the created Soul of Man He saith God is the Life of
In the 4th Article of that Paper sign'd by G. W. I quoted these words The Divinity and Humanity i. e. Manhood of Christ Jesus that as he is true God and he is most glorious Man our Mediator and Advocate we livingly believe and have often sincerely confessed in our Publick Testimonies and Writings On this I noted That whatever seeming Confessions they have given in their publick Testimonies to this and other Doctrines yet seeing they have contradicted them most evidently in their printed Books and will not allow that they are chang'd in any one of their Principles they do Fallaciously and put a Cheat upon the Members of Parliament and the whole Nation A Quaker reply'd Dost thou think that the Members of Parliament are not more Wise than to suffer themselves to be cheated by the Quakers I answer'd It is one thing for the Quakers to put a Cheat upon them it is another thing for them to be cheated by them a Cheat may be put on Men and yet they not receive it I hope they are so wise as not to be deceived by them Some of the Quakers objecting That this tended to Persecution so to represent them I answered it tended to no Persecution being to rescue such from those Errors who were corrupted by them and prevent their further spreading and would they take my advice I would shew them a way to secure the Toleration unto them and that is by a free and plain Retractation of their gross Errors And for an evidence of their fallacious way of Speaking and Writing besides what was quoted and proved at the former Meeting to prove them grosly Erroneous concerning Christ his Humanity and Incarnation his Soul Body Flesh and Blood I brought a Quotation out of that call'd A Testimony for the true Christ printed 1668 and given forth as in the Title-Page from some of them call'd Quakers In page 4. As he speaks of Humane with relation to Nature and Body it hath relation to the Earth or Humus the Ground of which Man was made which the first Man is of not the second tho' he was really Man too but Humane or Humanity in the other sence with relation to Gentleness Mercifulness and the like this we know was and is in the Image of God in which Man was made and his Gentleness Kindness Mercifulness c. is manifested in Christ who is the Image of the invisible God and First-Born of every Creature which Image is not earthly for that must be put off but heavenly and so to be put on by all that come to know the Glory of the terrestrial in its place and the true and real Humanity as oppos'd to that Cruelty Envy and Inhumanity which is got up in Man since the Fall so that Humanity and the Unreasonableness of Beasts are two things Note Thus we see how they own Christ's Humanity not in the sence of Scripture and of all sound Christians viz. That the Word did take the real Nature of Man consisting of Soul and Body into a Personal Union with himself his Divinity and Humanity being two Natures distinguished in him but not divided and that he took a Body of Flesh and Blood the same in Nature with ours even our earthly Nature like to us in all things but without Sin but this they plainly deny That Christ had Humanity as it signifies Earthly but they tell in what sence they mean his Humanity viz. as it signifies Gentleness Mercifulness as oppos'd to Cruelty Envy and the unreasonableness of Beasts in which sence they may affirm all this of Christ's Divinity and Godhead That his Godhead is Humane i. e. Gentle Merciful Kind and yet believe not one tittle of Christ's Humanity as the Scripture holds it forth that is that he was really made of a Woman and had his Flesh of her Substance but this they not only here deny but G. F. expresly denyeth That Christ's Body was Earthly or of the Earth G. M. p. 322. He quotes his Opponent saying That Christ had and hath a Carnal Body A Carnal and Humane Body united to his Divinity In opposition to which he saith And Carnal Humane is from the Ground Humane Earthly the first Adam's Body and Christ was not from the Ground let all People read what thou say'st but he was from Heaven his Flesh came down from above his Flesh which was the Meat his Flesh came down from Heaven Again He quotes his Opponent saying That the Flesh of Christ is not in them he answers The Saints eat his Flesh and they that eat his Flesh hath it within them Again He quotes his Opponent That there is as much difference between a Body and a Spirit as there is between Light and Darkness he Answers Christ's Body is Spiritual and that which is Spiritual does not differ from the Spirit and so there is a spiritual Body and there is a natural Body and there is a spiritual Man and there is a natural Man and each hath their Body Note He plainly here denies a difference or distinction between Christ's Body of Flesh and his Spirit for he saith The Saints eat his Flesh and they that eat his Flesh hath it in them Now what Flesh can they have of Christ in them but what is merely Spirit whereas his Opponent and all Christians when they speak of Christs Flesh they meant a real Body as real as the Body of any other Man And whereas G. F. saith Christ's Flesh was not from the Ground or Earth the Scripture saith no such thing but the contrary that he did partake of the same Flesh and Blood with the Children wherefore he is not asham'd to call them Brethren * Heb. 2. 11 14. G. F. doth both Ignorantly and Fallaciously play and quible about the Word Carnal against his Opponent who said Christ had a Carnal Body he Answers Carnal indeed is Death saith the Scripture but here he belyes the Scripture it saith not the Carnal Body is Death but to be Carnally-minded is Death Could G. F. be so sottish as not to distinguish between a Carnal Body and a Carnal Mind His Opponents who said Christ had a Carnal Body united to the Divinity they meant not Carnal as it signifies Vicious or Corrupted but as it signifies Material i. e. a real Body as real a Bodily Substance as any other Man hath and tho' Christ's Body now in Heaven is a Spiritual Body yet it is a Body still and the same Body in Substance it was on Earth And when it was on Earth it was both a Material Body and yet in a sense a Spiritual i. e. a pure immaculate Body without all stain of Sin a most holy Body and in the like sense it might be said even when on Earth it was a heavenly Body to wit as opposed to sinful corrupt and tainted with Sin and not only so but in respect of its miraculous Conception by the Holy Ghost and the holy and heavenly Virtues it was endued with above the
Body of Adam in Innocency And thus the comparison is made betwixt the First Adam and the Second the first Man even as he was in Innocency is of the Earth Earthly his Body was Created or Made by God Almighty but was neither so wonderfully framed nor endued with such excellent Virtues as our Lord's Body was Tho' the Substance of both was the same in Specie or Kind yet the difference was great both in the manner of Production and the Virtues and Properties wherewith Christ's Body was endued above Adam's Body and chiefly in respect of the Hypostatical and Personal Union betwixt Christ's Body or Flesh and the Eternal Word Eternally Begotten of the Father It was an old Heresie of the Manicheans That Christ's Body that was Born of the Virgin had no part of her Body but did penetrate her Body as the Beams of the Sun penetrate Christal and did entirely come from Heaven which Heresie was reviv'd by Meno a Dutch-man but is effectually and solidly refuted by Calvin in his Institutions lib. 2. c. 13. And as to the Quakers arguing from 1 Cor. 15 47. The first man of the earth earthly the second Man the Lord from heaven that therefore his Body had not an earthly Substance which is the same Argument Manicheus used of old Calvin answereth solidly thus Manicheus aereum fabricatur Corpus quia vocetur Christus secundus Adam de Coelo Coelestis at neque illic essentiam corporis Coelestem inducit Apostolus sed vim spiritualem quaed Christo diffusa nos vivificat Sect. 2. i.e. Manicheus maketh him viz. Christ to have a Body of Air because he is call'd the Second Adam from heaven heavenly But neither doth the Apostle there infer that the Essence of his Body is heavenly but that there is a spiritual Virtue which being diffused from Christ doth quicken us Again Whereas G. W. saith Art 7. of that Paper Our really Believing and Confessing the Lord Jesus Christ his Passion Sufferings Death Atonement and Reconciliation made for us and his Resurrection Ascention and Glorification as without us according to Scripture cannot be to allegorize these away as if only transacted within us as we have been unduly accused for they were really done and transacted without us by our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ tho' our true knowledge of the Power and Effect of his Resurrection and Fellowship of his Sufferings and our being conformable to his Death must be experienc'd within us if ever we live and reign with him And in their Paper annexed Art 2. they say we sincerely Believe and Confess that Jesus of Nazareth who was Born of the Virgin Mary is the true Messiah the very Christ the Son of the Living God to whom all his Prophets gave Witness And we do highly value his Death Sufferings Works Offices and Merits for the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind together with his Laws Doctrine and Ministry Note That all this seemingly fair Confession cannot but be judged extremely Fallacious seeing they will not Retract any of their former assertions expresly contradictory to the same as is in great part already proved out of the above-given Quotations How do they sincerely Confess that Jesus of Nazareth who was Born of the Virgin Mary was the very Christ the Son of the Living God seeing they profess to be of one Faith with W. P. who saith That that Outward Person that Suffered at Jerusalem was properly the Son of God we utterly deny as above-quoted And to be of E. B.'s Faith who denyeth that Christ is in Heaven in our Nature And of G. F.'s Faith who denyeth That Christ's Body was from the Earth But yet more fully to detect their Fallacies Whereas G. W. saith Their really Believing and Confessing Christ's Passion Sufferings Death Atonement and Reconciliation made for us c. cannot be to allegorize these away as if only tranfacted within us as we have been unduly accused To detect his Fallacy here Note I know none that accuse them for holding that Christ's Birth and Death was only transacted within them they grant that a Man call'd Jesus of Nazareth was outwardly Born and Suffered Death but some of the chief of them have said That that Man was not properly the Christ nor Son of God but was by the metonymy of the thing Containing for the thing Contained so called so W. P. as above-quoted Next they make his being outwardly Slain and his Blood outwardly Shed and what was outwardly transacted by him both Actively and Passively a Figure of what he was to do and suffer in Men of his inward Crucifying his Blood inwardly Shed his Burial Resurrection and Ascension within them These outward transactions saith W. P. are so many facile representations of what was to be accomplished in Men as above-quoted and G. W. beside the Proofs already given out of his Books to that Effect he hath lately affirmed in his * Antidote p. 39. Antidote against the Venom of the Snake Printed in the Year 1697 That that Blood of his viz. Christ's outward Blood as well as the Water that came out of his Side with it had an ALLEGORICAL and MYSTERIOUS SIGNIFICATION as well as an Outward and Literal even of the Spiritual Blood and Water of Life which Christ our High Priest Sprinkleth and really Washeth our Hearts and Consciences withal which we hope no sensible Soul will say is an Outward or Literal Sprinkling or Washing but an Inward and Spiritual Note When we charge G. W. and his Brethren with Allegorizing away Christ's Birth Passion Death Burial Resurrection Blood Atonement and Reconciliation made for us c. the sense is obvious which is this That tho' they grant that a Man called Christ was outwardly Born Dyed had his Blood shed c. yet all this was an Allegory and had an Allegorical Signification of Christ truly and really without an Allegory Born within them Crucified and Dead within them his Blood shed within them Buried Risen Ascended within them Atonement Reconciliation made within them Now that this is so we have G. W.'s plain Confession in the Words just now quoted So that according to him Christ's Sufferings without his Blood shed without is the Allegory or Allegorical Signification of Christ's Sufferings within of his Blood shed within the Atonement made within as Hagar and Sarah who were real Women yet as Paul hath declar'd they are an Allegory of the Two Covenants and Types or Figures of them and as far short of the things signified by them as the Type is short of the Substance or thing signified for that is the true definition of an Allegory Where one thing is expressed and another thing is understood Now if Christ's Birth Sufferings Blood c. without Men be an Allegory or Allegorical Signification of Christ's Birth Sufferings Blood shed and sprinkled within Men that Within must be the Reality or Excellent thing signified or typified by the outward but both cannot be the Allegory as to say that as Christ's Blood
Suppose W. B. had positively said as if they had been his words originally That Blood is not in being yet he was far from inferring thence that we are not justified by that Blood this was G. W.'s consequence and not W. B.'s for W. B. did strongly assert that Men are justified by the Blood that was then shed tho' it was not now in being but said he the Efficacy of it is still in being but G. W. did draw a quite contradictory Conclusion to that of W. B. as thus That Blood that was shed by the Spear is not in being saith W. B. therefore G. W. concludes Men are not justified by it which Argument of G. W.'s has equal force against Christ's Death and Bodily pains as well as his Souls Dolours and Griefs they are not now in being therefore Men are not justified by them And his Argument has the like force against Men's being justified or having their Sins pardoned by the Merit of Christ's Blood before Christ came in the Flesh for example David had not the remission of his Sins by the Merit of Christ's Blood because G. W.'s Logick in David's time the Blood was not in being But as I shewed in the Meeting the Words that Blood is not in being were not originally W B's but some Quakers Words or some other that held the like false notions with them which W. B. calls a Cavillation Capital Principles p. 40. Of late saith he I have frequently met with a Query by way of Cavillation Which is whether that Blood spilt upon the Cross run not on the ground c. If so how then can Man be justified by that which is not in being Thus we see W. B. censures the consequence of that Argument to be invalid but G. W. again and again I know not how frequently makes use of it and thinks the Conclusion to be good and I said in the Meeting had G. W. been present I would have asked him what was his Answer to that Question Is the Blood that was shed on the Cross now in being If he happen to reply to this 4th Narative I desire him to give a positive answer to it seeing he makes it the Foundation of his Conclusion that Men are not justified by the Merit of that Blood because that Blood is not in being but seeing I had not G. W. there I asked Dan. Philip who was present and sat near where I stood and is one of the Quakers in the Unity whither that Blood was in being He replied he knew not whither I meant the Blood that was without Christ's Body or within it I told him the Blood that went out of his Body whether that Blood was in being but he gave no reply I asked him again whether he believed that the Blood that was outwardly shed was Meritorious to Justification and that true Believers were justified by it he said he knew not what I meant by the Word Merit or Meritorious I told him it was a shame for him to pretend to be so Ignorant of the signification of the Word that an ordinary School Boy did know seeing he was a Scholar and did not long ago commence Dr. of Physick at Leiden and had there a Latin Oration However I gave him the signification of it that Merit signified that it was of that Worth and Value by way of Atonement and Expiation to make satisfaction to God for the guilt of our Sins He also pretended he knew not what I meant by the Word Atonement I told him it signified reconciling and bringing Men into savour with God I asked again were Believers justified by the Merit of the Blood that was outwardly shed he answered it was a part of the Offering but I asked were Believers justified by it He said that Blood will justifie none that are not Sanctified I replied that was not the question nor is it any part of the Controversie I further asked him what did he mean by the Offering whether Christ only as without us or as within us or both without and within and both by Christ's Blood without us as outwardly shed and by the Blood of his God-Head as inwardly shed in Men as G. W. will have it now at last but to this he gave no positive answer and though in all his answers he gave on this or other heads he greatly foiled himself He is as I am informed so confident that he tells in private how he foiled me But seeing neither he nor any of the Quakers there present offered any answer to that question Is that Blood of Christ that was outwardly shed in being I told them I believed the substance of it was still in being for not the least atome of any Bodily substance was ever annihilated but to enquire where that Blood now was or whether Christ did take it back again into his Body which no doubt he was able to do having all power was a curious and unnecessary question to be resolved And here I brought a saying of B. Burnet whose Name I mentioned with due respect to the same effect in his Exposition on the xxxix Articles of the Church of England and also sometime afterwards at the same Meeting I quoted him in the same Book to show my Agreement with him as I do with all sound Christian Teachers that our Lord has the same Body in substance he had on Earth and that his Body is not changed in substance but in the different Contexture of parts And on this Head also I queried Dan. Philips Whither Christ's Body was the same in Substance now in Heaven that it was on Earth and whether it was when on Earth a terrestrial Body he said He did not know what I meant by Substance I told him the same that others meant who had any true skill in Natural Philosophy and it was a shame to a Dr. of Physick to profess his being ignorant to define a Substance however I told him that a Substance understanding a created Substance was a Being or Thing that did only depend on God Almighty the first Cause and was the subject of certain Accidents that did depend on it and could not be without it He asked whether a Substance could be without Accidents I answer'd him it could be without Accidents of this or that kind and could be wonderfully changed in Accidents and yet remain the same Substance I asked him again Was our Lord's Body earthly when it was on earth He answered it was like ours in all things Sin excepted I again asked but was it earthly when on earth Here he demurred and would not give a positive Answer a Minister that stood by said by his confessing it was like ours he has confessed it was an earthly Body I said to them that are sound in the Faith it is so but not to the Quakers for they will not allow that an earthly Body and an heavenly Body can be the same Body in Substance or that a natural Body and a spiritual Body are the
same in Substance for which I quoted G. W.'s Light and Life p. 69. Who calls him a very blind and ignorant Man that will affirm That Bodies Celestial and Terrestrial differ not in Substance whereby he has proved himself to be both blind and ignorant by his ignorant Assertion And I told the Auditory how the Quakers ignorance and false Notions of Philosophy destroy'd their Faith and hindred them to believe that necessary and fundamental Article of the Christian Faith That Christ's Body that he had on Earth is the same in Substance it was in Heaven and tho' when on Earth it was earthly and is heavenly now yet the change was not in Substance but in Accidents for if it be not the same in Substance it is in no respect the same for take away the Substance and no Accidents can remain of any thing And by the like false Philosophy both G. W. and W. P. have argued against the resurrection-Resurrection-Bodies of the Saints that they shall not be the same in Substance with the Natural Bodies they had on Earth And I further shewed that Muggleton said Christ's Body was like ours and yet would not own it was the same Substance with ours for he held that Christ's Body that hung on the Cross and was laid in the Sepulcher was the Godhead yea was God the Father Son and Holy Ghost Nor is G. W. and his seven Colchester Brethren less fallacious in his and their Defence of Solomon Eccles's Blasphemous saying That the Blood of Christ that was forced out of him by the Soldier after he was dead was no more than the Blood of another Saint In their Some Account they quote G. W.'s Antidote for his defence p. 223 224 225. 1. He saith he shewed a dislike of S. E.'s Expressions before-cited but how in that he did not allow them as an Article of their Faith But nor did he censure them as contrary to their Faith which he ought to have done and would have done had he been in the true Faith And that his dislike did not proceed from any detestation of the Error is very apparent that he said in his defence of S. E. That S. E. did highly speak in esteem of the Blood of Christ and New Covenant as more excellent and living and holy and precious than is able to be utter'd c. which G. W. faith might have satisfied any spiritual or unbyass'd Mind therefore it seems it satisfy'd G. W. But the deceit of G. W. lyeth in this That the Blood which S. E. did so highly esteem was not that Blood that was let out of his Side after Christ was dead as S. E. plainly confessed in his Letter to R. Porter but another kind of Blood that is the Blood not of the Humanity but of the Godhead the Blood of the New Covenant which is Inward and Spiritual saith G. W. 2. He saith he shewed in part his estimation of the Blood and whole Sacrifice or Offering of Christ both in respect to the blessed Testimony Value and Efficacy thereof more than that of any other Saint or Saints But I find no such Testimony in all that Book to any Value or Efficacy of it by way of Merit as it was shed for the remission of Sins For it is a great part of his work throughout his whole Book Light and Life to contend against the Merit and Value or Efficacy of it for Men's Justification and Salvation as is largely above-proved out of many Quotations in that very Book and can be further proved Yea he would not so much as allow it to be concerned in any part or respect as the meritorious Cause of Men's Justification Light and Life p. 56. For We are not saith he to suppose two kinds of Saviours and Sanctifiers that is both a Natural which is not in being as is said of the Blood that was shed and the Spirit which still liveth Thus he wholly excludes the outward Blood which he calls Natural and placeth all upon the Spirit arguing most weakly and impertinently That to say we are saved by the Blood of Christ that was outwardly shed as the meritorious Cause of our Justification and Sanctification and Salvation and by the Spirit of Christ as the internal Agent and Efficient that applyeth to us the Merit and Efficacy of that Blood that was outwardly shed is to inser two kinds of Saviours and Sanctifiers he might by as good an Argument infer That a Medicine and he that applyeth the Medicine to the Patient are two Doctors of Physick as to argue that Justification or Sanctification by the Blood of Christ and by the Spirit of Christ is to suppose two Saviours But how will G. W. answer his own Argument who of late but without any Retractation of his former Error doth own Redemption both by the natural Blood outwardly and by the Spirit inwardly Antidote p. 232 233 234. And it still remains as a vile Error justly charged on G. W. which he hath never to this day fairly answer'd nor any for him that in Light and Life p. 59. he blames W. B. for saying That Blood that Christ shed in order to the effecting the Salvation of Man must needs he visible and material Blood in opposition to which he plainly denies That the material Blood of the Sacrifices was a Type of the material Blood of Christ for that were to say saith he that material Blood was a Type of that which was material this to give the Substance no Pre-eminence above the Type which clearly proveth that G. W. held that the material Blood of Christ was not the Substance signified by the Blood of the Sacrifices that were offer'd under the Law but a Type or Figure of some inward thing to wit their spiritual Blood within which they call the Life and the Light 3. But after all tho' G. W. would seem at last to be full and plain in his passing censure on S. E.'s words he remains still Fallacious and Sophistical as much as formerly I disown saith he his said Comparison of the Blood of Christ with that of another Saint and believe he was not in the Counsel or Wisdom of God therein Here he nothing blames the matter of his Words but saith he was not in the Counsel or Wisdom of God therein that is to say He was not wise nor well advised to disclose that great Secret or Mystery among the Quakers so as to let the World know it that the Quakers held as a Principle among them That that Blood was no more by way of Merit than that of an ordinary Saint for in effect G. W. himself as to all the real worth of it above that of other Saints by way of real Merit for Men's Justification or real necessity to Salvation hath plainly excluded it not only by his many impertinent and nonsensical Arguings and Quibblings against it as above-quoted but by his plainly asserting in his Antidote p. 28. That the Quakers are offended with G. K. for saying
Now in Ver. 15. it 's said That we which are alive and remain unto the Coming of the Lord. Now I ask saith he if they did live and remain to a personal Coming of Christ in the Clouds yea or nay Or can it be reasonably thought to be a Coming that is not yet that they lived and remained unto Note How G. W. here most weakly but very plainly to discover his Infidelity argues against Christ's Coming at the latter end of the World and whereas in my First Narrative I did show That when Paul said We which are alive and remain to the Coming of the Lord he spoke by an Enallage Personae We for They we which remain i.e. such of our Brethren who shall be found alive at Christ's last Coming c. To this T. E. Answers in his pretended Answer to my First Narrative p. 162. Why might not the Apostle speak in the first Person We as supposing that great and extraordinary Appearance and Coming of Christ the certain time of which no Man knew Matth. 24. 36. was so near at hand that it might probably fall out in his Life-time and for this sense he quotes Heb. 1. 2 9 26. 1 Pet. 1. 20. 1 Joh. 2. 18. 1 Cor. 10. 11. 1 Pet. 4. 7. as because the times after Christ came in the Flesh are called the last times that therefore the Apostles thought the end of the World was not far off i. e. in his sense That Paul and the other Apostles thought that Christ would come to Judge the Quick and the Dead before they dyed This gross and absurd sense as it is contrary to G. W.'s words so it renders Paul to have spoke an untruth even by Divine Inspiration for said Paul This we say unto you by the word of the Lord. J. Wyeth in his Switch p. 297 298. and his Brethren their common excuse here and elsewhere that these were but Queries signifie nothing to defend them the very import of these Queries implying a positive denyal See this Fallacy of T. E. more fully detected in Satan Disrob'd being a Reply to his pretended Answer to my First Narrative Again G. W. in Light and Life p. 41. saith But Three Comings of Christ not only that in the Flesh at Jerusalem and that in the Spirit but also another Coming in the Flesh yet to be expected we do not read of but of a Second Coming without Sin unto Salvation which in the Apostles days was looked for And these words of Paul The dead in Christ shall rise first he expounds of an inward Death To this G. W. Answers very fallaciously in his Truth and Innoc. p. 61. But is this to deny or oppose Christ's coming to Judge the Quick and the Dead 'T was never so intended And questioning some Men's carnal Expectations of a fleshly coming of Christ to be seen with their carnal Eyes was this to deny his coming in the Glory of his Father with his Angels to reward every Man according to his works quoting Matth 16. 27. Luke 9. 6. no sure for that 's confessed and undeniable Note His and his Brethren's common evasion to hide their Infidelity is to quibble about the Word FLESH as if their meaning were only to deny That Christ is to Come in a fleshly Body subject to the like Passions it had in his state of Humiliation when upon Earth as Hunger Thirst Pain Death c. But this is no part of the Controversie betwixt the Quakers and their Opponents But why may not Glorified Flesh be taken to signifie Spiritual Flesh as distinct from Mortal Flesh as well as Glorified Body signifies Spiritual Body without any change of Substance But it is evident that G. W. not only denyed that Christ would Come to Judge the World in a Body of natural and passible Flesh but that he would not Come in the same Substance of that Body he had on Earth which was a mortal and passible Body of the same Nature with ours for he makes it most absurd That an earthly Body and an heavenly Body can be the same Substance as above-quoted Now That he denyeth that Christ was in Heaven in a bodily Existence or would come to Judgment as the Son of Mary in a bodily Existence to wit having any thing of that Body which he had on Earth is evident from his Nature of Christianity p. 29. Dâ—st thou look for Christ as the Son of Mary to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence to save thee according to thy words p. 30. If thou dost thou may'st look until thy Eyes drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him Note To excuse his great Infidelity he useth a gross Fallacy in his Truth and Innoc. p. 61. and giving a lame Quotation of his own words This is true in Fact saith he for those very Eyes decay and perish But this was no part of the Controversie betwixt G. W. and his Opponent who did not presume to say or think That Christ's coming to Judge the World in that bodily Existence would be before his Death but the thing earnestly asserted was That Christ as he was now really in Heaven in a bodily Existence at God's Right Hand so he would come in that very bodily Existence to Judge the World for which G. W. doth evidently oppose him as above-quoted The Phrase Thy Eyes will drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance is equivalent to this Thou wilt never see such an Appearance nor any other Man sor thee as that common Phrase at the Greek Calends And whereas he adds And Christ's last Coming in Power and great Glory in his Glorious Body accompanied with his mighty Angels at the Resurrection must be seen with stronger clearer and more celestial Eyes than perishing Eyes Here he still hides his vile Error What are these more celestial Eyes seeing he will not have Christ's Coming to be without Men in a bodily Existence For in his Light and Life he quotes Matth. 16. 27 28. and Luke 9. 26 27. in plain opposition to Christ's outward Coming saying When was that Coming to be Is it now to be looked for outwardly and seeing he is not to Come outwardly but inwardly these celestial Eyes in his sense must be inward Eyes But then how shall the Wicked see him for the Scripture saith Every Eye shall see him even they who have pierced him must they have celestial Eyes wherewith to see him And tho' the Wicked shall not see him in the same manner that the Godly shall see him yet certainly according to Scripture and the Faith of all true Christians all that ever lived as well as they that shall be found alive in the Body at his Coming both good and bad shall see him as an object without them yea Christ told the Chief Priest and the Jews Mat. 26. 64. Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven At which saying the High Priest rent
Church who yet have not arrived to a sinless Perfection but are in that Time of Travel But what if they die in that Time of Travel before a sinless Perfection be attained G. VV. has passed a nibst severe and uncharitable Censure on them Voice of VVisdom p. 42 43. This sinless Perfection for that 's the true State of the Question all must come to witness who ever come to be saved for there is no unclean thing must enter into Christ's Kingdom therefore People must either expect Freedom from Sin in this Life or never Note Thus he has passed a most uncharitable and cruel Sentence nor only upon many who were in a sincere Travel towards Perfection and yet have not attained to a sinless Perfection before their Decease but also upon his deceased Brethren many of whom deceased as I judge he must confess while they were in the Travel towards it for Quakers commonly are not longer lived than other Men they die at all Ages young as well as old and many die that are but Novices in their Way And certainly G. Fox and E. Burr Fr. Hougel Rich. Hubb and some of their greatest Saints lived in great Ignorance Error and Unbelief in divers great Fundamentals of the Christian Faith and in great Uncharitableness towards such as differed from them and remained in these Sins to their dying Day shall we therefore be so uncharitable to them as G. Ws Doctrine is to conclude they are all damned and parished eternally God forbid we will be more charitable to them than his Doctrine alloweth But then again in Contradiction not only to G. F. but himself he pleads in his Voice of Wisdom That the Believers Works are perfect and God hath wrought all their VVorks in them citing Isa 26. 12. So these VVorks of God which true Believers witness are perfect and the Believers have ceased from their own VVorks which were imperfect and are come into God's VVorks which are perfect But then what saith he concerning them who are in the Travel towards Perfection Are not they Believers Have they no Faith Thus their Confusion is evident They do not consider that though the Work of Faith Labour of Love and Patience of Hope in Believers are the Works of God yet they are also the Works of those Men in whom they are wrought it 's they who believe who love and hope by God's Operation or working in them and therefore they being imperfect though God is a perfect Being and Agent their Faith Love and Hope are imperfect it being the Property of all Effects to be according to the weaker and more imperfect Causes according to that true Maxim Bonum ex integra causa malum ex quolibet defectu a perfect Effect must have all its Causes perfect But whatever Charity we may suppose they may have for their deceased Brethren they have little or none for any such who do not believe to the Hight of their Doctrine of a sinless Perfection before Death their Doctrine obligeth them to judge that none of other Societies are saved because they do not believe the Quakers Doctrine of Perfection before they die the contrary of which they call the Doctrine of Devils the which if any die and do not renounce before their Decease by the Quakers Principle they cannot be saved But some of them now begin to go into the same Road with others of other Professions and after a large Circumference wherein they have far departed from them who say That the Souls of Believers are at the instant of Death made perfect in Holiness yet return and say the same thing concerning their imperfect Brethren who are deceased and yet before their Decease arrived not to a sinless Perfection which if it may be allowed to imperfect Quakers may be as well allowed to others sineere Travellers towards Perfection many of whom no doubt have arrived to greater Perfection before their Decease than any among the Quakers Worthies of whose Perfection they so much boast who lived in great Error and Unbelief in the great Fundamentals of Christianity and Uncharitableness towards others and of whose Repentance for the same we never heard any Account Again G. F. in his G. M. p. 251. in Defence of his and his Brethrens sinless Perfection thus answers to that in Eccles 7. 20. There is not a just Man upon the Earth which doth good and sinneth not This just this wise Man upon the Earth which doth good and sinneth not that was the Estate of the Law which Christ is the End of who is a greater than Solomon who is the just and Righteousness it self and makes Men free from Sin Note that G. F. in Contradiction to his own Gloss in the same Page to prove a sinless Perfection brings the Examples of Job and David both which were long before Christ came and to prove David's sinless Perfection he brings David's Words and David said He had seen the End of all Perfection Is not this a rare Proof for a sinless Perfection But if G. F. did not mean Christ without but Christ within to be the End of the Law As this is a false Gloss on Paul's Words so that imports that Solomon was not come to the Light within him which G. F. calls Christ within but how then could Solomon pen such Books of the Scripture which the Quakers confess to have been writ by Divine Inspiration if Solomon had not come to the Light within him But let us hear another as nonsensical Gloss of G. VV. on the same Place Voice of VVisd p. 18. Eccles 7. 20. Ans The Conversation of the Saints is in Heaven Eph. 2. 6. Philip. 3. 20. And they are redeemed from the Earth and from the Vanity where Solomon saw all things in the Days of his Vanity in which all were Sinners Note Is this any Proof that the Saints such as Paul who writ these Words were not real Men upon Earth And is not G. W. a Man upon Earth so long as he eats drinks sleeps c Thus we see how they pervert the Scriptures to prove their sinless Perfection for if G. W. will own he is one of these just Men on Earth that Solomon writes of he must confess himself to be a Sinner if he will not own himself to be a just Man upon the Earth yet he must allow his Body to be upon Earth unless he will say our Sight deceives us when we see him in the Streets and then either his Body is no Part of him or if it be it hath Sin and consequently he also hath Sin if he will own his Body to be a Part of him But let us yet again hear another nonsensical Gloss of G. F. to maintain his and his Brethrens sinless Perfection on the Words of James In many things we offend all G. M. p 309. Mark saith G. F. In the many things we offend all but we are come to the one thing Christ Jesus the End of the many things and in him there
his Cloaths and said he had spoke Blasphemy It seems if G. W. had been present he would have given the same judgment Doth G. W. think that the High Priest and those Jews shall see Christ with celestial Eyes seeing according to his Philosophy no other Eyes but celestial Eyes can see him at his Coming But again Note G. W.'s palpable contradiction both to himself and to T. E. in his Truth and Innoc. above-quoted p. 61. he seems to own Christ's Coming as a thing yet to be at the end of the World tho' in Light and Life p. 41. from that very place which he now quotes for it Matth. 16. 27 28. he did argue against it and thus in express words doth T. Elwood in his pretended Answer to my First Narrative argue p. 160. That Coming saith he there spoken of by Christ Matth. 16. 27. could not be meant of his Coming at the end of the World because it was to begin in that very Age. And yet G. W. in his Truth and Innoc. contrary to his former gloss and T. Elwood also would seem now to understand it of Christ's coming as a thing yet to be at the end of the World and if he do not so understand it he most grosly deceives his Reader and if he do so understand it he palpably contradicts himself as well as his Brother T. E. and yet he is the insallible G. W. still without any change And for all G. W. his seeming now at last to be drawn to a plain confession of his Faith concerning Christ without us in his Appendix to the Switch p. 544. yet he is still fallacious and lurks like a Snake in the Grass He professeth to own his belief concerning Christ without us in Eight several steps from his Conception and Birth without us to his Resurrection and Ascension without us Being seen saith he to ascend without us and a Cloud received him out of their sight who beheld him ascend unto whom it was said by the Two Angels present This same Jesus which is taken up from you into Heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into Heaven Acts 1. 3 9 10 11. And doubtless when he so comes and all his mighty Angels with him it will be in great Glory and open Triumph and he will in that Day be greatly glorified in his Saints and admired in all them that believe 2 Thess 1. 7 8 9 10. Note How he gooth no further in his confession to Christ without us but to his Ascension and the Cloud receiving him out of their sight But in the other two following steps of the Christians Faith fully as necessary as the former Eight and without which the other Eight are of little or no signification to demonstrate a true Christian viz. Christ's being sat down without us at the Right Hand of God in the true Nature of Man consisting of a Created glorified Soul and Body the same he had on Earth the same in Substance but wonderfully changed in manner and condition and in that very glorified Nature of Man that he will come without us to Judge the Quick and the Dead he is altogether silent and his Words seem rather to imply a denial of them than any affirmation as with respect either to Christ's being now in Heaven without us in that Body which rose from the Grave or his coming without us from Heaven in that Body to Judgment Again take notice of another fallacy of G. W. in his answer to the question proposed whether they i.e. the Quakers believe in Christ as without them as without all other Men he varieth the terms of the question from a believing in Christ without them to a Historical Faith of their believing that Christ was Conceived without them Born without them Crucified without them all which he and his Brethren may believe Historically as they believe the Historical Relation of Moses's Birth Death c. and yet have no Faith in Christ without them as the great Saviour of Men for remission of Sin Justification and Eternal Life and Salvation Light and Life p. 64. as the great Object of saving Faith for this he hath fiercely opposed in his Light and Life arguing against W. B. who asserted Christ without us in Heaven to be the Object of our Faith for Justification Saith G. W. Is the Object and Foundation of Faith divided from the Faith But what the Cloud is that received Christ out of the sight of Men and with what Body Christ did ascend and whether as a Person without us Christ is to be Prayed unto and whether he is to return as a Person without us to Judge the World hear what W. Bailie a great Author among the Quakers saith In his Printed Collection p. 300. But methinks I hear some say in their Reasonings and Imaginations What Body hath he and where is it seeing it is said he is at the Right Hand of God This I shall Answer saith he with his own words which he spake here on Earth viz. No Man ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven the Son of Man which is in heaven he that hath an Ear to hear let him hear and take notice what Body that was which came down from Heaven when Mary said unto the Angel How can this be seeing I know not a Man Thus we see he falsifies our Saviour's words and will have no Body that ascended to Heaven but what came from Heaven whereas our Saviour in the place quoted mentions not the Word BODY Again In his Treatise Deep calleth unto Deep p. 30. he saith And so he taught them to Pray Our Father c. not to look at his Person and Pray to him as a Person without them but bad them Pray to their Father which seeth in secret c. Again in his p. 26. But indeed it is but a Cloud that hath received him out of the sight of the Gazers but saith the Lord to his Children I have blotted out your Iniquities like a thick Cloud And indeed this viz. the Cloud of their Sins hath hid both his Body and Face from you for the Kingdom of Heaven and the Lord from Heaven comes not with outward observation but the Kingdom is within And in his p. 29. I never read in all the Scriptures saith he as I can remember of a Third Coming of Christ personally in his own single Person or of a personal Reign besides what shall be in his Saints And G. W. in his Christ Ascended above the Clouds not only denyeth any personal Coming of Christ yet to be at the end of the World but denyeth him to have a personal Existence in Heaven without the Saints and chargeth it to be Anthropomorphitism and Muggletonism And indeed I know not one place of Scripture of the many that are justly brought by sound Christians to prove Christ's Coming without us in his Glorified Body to Judge the World at the great Day of Judgment