Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	great_a	lord_n	year_n	6,316	5	4.5357	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47145	George Keith's Fourth narrative of his proceedings at Turners-hall divided into three parts : detecting the Quakers gross errors, vile heresies, and antichristian principles, oppugning the fundamentals of Christianity, by clear and evident proofs (in above two hundred and fifty quotations) faithfully taken out of their books, and read at three several meetings, the 11th, the 18th, and 23d of Jan., 1699 before a great auditory of judicious persons, ministers, and others, more particularly discovering the fallacious and sophistical defences of George Whitehead, Joseph Wyeth, and seven Quakers of Colchester, in their late books on all the several heads contained in the printed advertisement : to which is prefix'd, the attestation of five ministers of the Church of England, to the truth of the said quotations, and a postcript [sic] / by George Keith.; Fourth narrative of his proceedings at Turners-Hall	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1700 (1700)	Wing K167; ESTC R2430	153,412	130

G. W. so to charge W. B. and mistate the Controversie between W. B. and him nothing but deceit it self could invent such a forgery in G. W. as this to charge it on W. B. as if he had either said or thought that the Meritorious cause of Man's Justification was laid by him upon the Act of the Soldier that thrust the Spear into our Saviour's Side for neither did he say it nor can it be gathered from his Words by the least shadow of any just Consequence his Words being thus as G. W. cites them The shedding of the Blood upon the Cross that was let out by the Virtue of the Spear being thrust into his Side was the Meritorious cause of Man's Justification See Light and Life p. 64. The shedding of the Blood c. is the true English of the Latin Words Effasio Sanguinis which being A Noun Verbal hath a Passive as well as Active signification and that W. B. meant it in the Passive signification and not in the Active as with respect to the Soldiers Act is evident from the Words both of Jer. Ives and also of W. B. quoted by G. W. Light and Life p. 64. he quotes Jer. Ives saying My Brother Burnet meant Christ's Passion and not the Act of wicked Men. And again G. W. quotes W. B. saying Yes Brother it is proper to say It was Christ's Act to shed his Blood His meaning is obvious to any impartial Reader that it was Christ's Act freely to give his Blood to be shed for the remission of our Sins as he said himself no Man taketh my Life from me I lay down my Life and I take it up again Without all doubt though Christ was not Active to Kill himself by any Bodily Act of violence that he did to himself yet his giving up his Blood to be shed and his Life to be taken away was a most noble act of his Soul and Will who by a most noble act of Obedience and Resignation to the Will of God for the Salvation of Men gave up his Blood to be shed for that the shedding of Christ's Blood was necessary for remission of Men's Sins and their Justification before God is clear from his own words This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood shed for the remission of the Sins of many and as the Scripture saith Without shedding of Blood is no remission so that had not Christ's Blood been shed Men's Sins could not be forgiven and yet what but deceit it self can infer from this That the merit or stress of remission of Sin or Justification is laid upon the act of the wicked Soldier that thrust his Spear into our Saviour's Side Note again Seeing G. W. hath imposed such a Forgery upon W. B. without any just ground as if he had placed the Merit of Men's Justification upon the act of the wicked Man that thrust the Spear into our Saviour's Side By the like forgery he may charge the Church of England with the same absurdity though most unjustly for in the Prayer immediately before Baptism in the Office of Baptism for those of Riper Years she thus Prays Almighty everliving God whose most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our Sins DID SHED OUT of his most precious Side both Water and Blood and gave Commandment c. Here we see it 's said that Christ SHED OUT of his most precious Side both Water and Blood Can therefore G. W. from thence infer that the Church of England believeth that she layeth the Merit of remission of Sin and Justification upon the act of the Soldier or that Christ by any act of Violence killed himself or commanded others to do it and if no just consequence as this can be gathered out of the Church of England's Words nor can they from the Words of W. B. that are of the same importance But it 's no wonder that G. W. will have the shedding of that Blood which came out of Christ's Side when it was pierced to be only the Soldiers act when T. Elwood in his Truth Defended p. 99. denyeth the Blood that came out of Christ's Side and its shedding after he was Dead to have been to compleat the Offering for this he saith and again repeats the same Words and justifies them in his pretended Answer to my first Narrative p 220 221. This offering up himself and giving himself a ransom for all included all his sufferings both inward and outward and made it a compleat and perfect Sacrifice in which his Blood was comprehended and concerned as well as his Flesh before his Side was pierced by the Spear for he had pronounced that great Word Consummatum est it is finished had bowed his Head and given up the Ghost before his Side was pierced with the Spear This is not only contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England as above quoted in the Office of Baptism but of all Orthodox Christians throughout the World who teach according to Scripture That the Water and Blood that came out of our Lord's Side after his Death was a special part of the Offering as well as his Death and the wounds in his Hands and Feet and the Blood that came out of them before his Death which gross Error of T. Elwood is the Error of the Second Days meeting at London who approved his Book and of G. W. who professeth the same Faith with them is deservedly censured and refuted in Satan disrob'd p. 47. His Body pierced and his Blood shed after his Death were truly and properly a part of the Sacrifice as much as what he suffered before he expired As the legal Sacrifice was not compleated by the Death of the Beast but by the Burning of it and offering the Blood afterwards that was shed and those who reject that Blood do mutilate his Sacrifice and render it ineffectual to themselves Note again How neither G. W. nor the Colchester Quakers in their Some Account c. give any answer to what was objected against him out of his Light and Life p. 61. Though quoted by them p. 15. Where he positively asserts That to seek our Saviour above the Clouds and Firmanent i. e. to pray to him as he is in Heaven without us above the Clouds and Firmament is contrary to the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 10. 6. And to look to the Blood that was shed at Jerusalem for Justification is contrary to Deut. 30. 13 14. and Rom. 10. which seeking or looking to Christ and his Blood as is above-quoted and proved was not by any outward or bodily act but by Faith and yet even such seeking or looking is denyed and opposed by G. W. and his Colchester Quaker Brethren But whereas G. W. doth argue so much and so frequently against that Blood that was outwardly shed by the Spear its being the meritorious Cause of Justification because that Blood is not to be found at Jerusalem for it 's not in being says W. B. as G. W. quotes him

as much Charity not only to Judaising Christians that would practise outward Circumcision but to Insidels Jews and Mahometans yea and the most Superstitious and Idolatrous Papists for no doubt many of them practise what they believe is their Duty when they pray to the Virgin Mary and other Saints and adore the Bread in the Mass being misled by an erring Conscience to believe it is the real Body of Christ But they falsely infer that because unworthy Persons do partake of the outward Supper that therefore it is the Table of Devils and the Cup of Devils Paul did not say he that Eats and Drinks unworthily Eats at the Table of Devils But he that eats this Bread and drinks this Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord 1 Cor. 11. 27. Thus we see that according to Scripture that Cup which the unworthy drink is the Cup of the Lord and not the Cup of Devils and that Bread which they eat is the Bread of the Lord as Augustine said the unworthy they eat Panem Domini but not Panem Dominum the Bread of the Lord but not the Bread which is the Lord Some of the Quakers said George seeing thou art for the outward Baptism and the Supper why dost thou not practise them To this I gave the following account which many declared was satisfactory unto them that not having an outward Call I ought not to administer them to others upon the pretence of an inward extraordinary Call which too many pretend to have And for my Speaking at Turners-Hall and elsewhere as I had occasion I do not pretend to any extraordinary Call in so doing but what I did was what a private Christian who has a Spiritual Gift and Ability given him of God especially to oppose Heresie may and ought to do to teach his Neighbours Catechistically not to set up any Sect or make any Schism as Origine taught in Christian Assemblies when a Lay-man before he received Ordination and so did others as Eusebius showeth in his Church-History And as to Baptism I was satisfied with what I had received in Infancy being Born of Christian Parents for I believe That Baptism being a Seal of God's Covenant of Grace doth as really belong to Infant Chirdren of Believers under the New Testament as Circumcision did to Infant Children of Believers under the Old Testament Next as concerning the Lord's-Supper after it pleased God to convince me that it is an Institution of Christ and let me see my Error and Sin in rejecting it for which I have been humbled before God and asked his Forgiveness and which I hope God for Christ's sake has given me I had some considerable time of hesitation about the lawful and due Administrator and after I had clearness in that I delay'd for some time for the sake of some others lest my forwardness should be an hindrance and offence to them but through Mercy that being much removed I became uneasie to delay it longer so that I declar'd I did intend God willing with the first opportunity to receive it And whereas my Adversaries among the Quakers did object against me that I am a Member of no visible Society and on that pretence refuse to have any publick Dispute or Conference with me To this I answer'd first Supposing it were so why should that be made a Crime in me which W. P. in his Preface to G. Fox's Journal esteem'd so great a Virtue in G. Fox viz. That he was of no particular Society but secondly I told them I was a Member of the Catholick Church of Christ and I did own the Church of England to be a part of the Catholick Church and other Protestant Churches to be other parts of the same In the close of the Meeting I told the Auditory I was ready by God's Assistance to prove against my Adversaries the Chief Leaders and Teachers of the Quakers particularly George Whitehead Jos Wyeth and them of the Second-Days-Meeting at London who have approv'd the Quakers Books That they do not believe One Article of that call'd the Apostles Creed in the true sense of Scripture and of all true and Orthodox Christians throughout the World and I desir'd the Quakers present to acquaint their Brethren with my said Proposal I also told the Auditory that the false pretences of the Quakers Teachers to extraordinary prophetical Inspirations gave them the just Character of false Prophets and all such who had the like false pretences with them and that none could justly be so called however otherwise unsound or mistaken that had not those high pretences That it was some of the most crying Sins committed in this Land that so many false Prophets should abound in it speaking Lyes in the Name of the Lord and saying Thus saith the Lord pretending the fame Immediate Message and Authority that the true Prophets had whenas they can give no proof of it but many undeniable proofs can be given to the contrary as particularly their vile Antichristian Errors publish'd in their Books and that lewd Swearing and open Prophanation of the Name of God are not greater Sins nor so great nor dangerous in many respects as their speaking Lyes in the Name of the Lord and entituling their vile Errors and Blasphemies to the Spirit of God as they commonly do POST-SCRIPT FOR an Evidence of my owning the Church of England to be a part of the true Catholick Church of Christ I did with great inward Peace and Satisfaction I bless God receive the Lord's-Supper by D. Bedford in his Church in Buttolph-lane with others of that Congregation the first Lord's Day of the Month of February 1699 and since again in the same place by the same Person the first Lord's Day of this Instant Month of March 1699. On which same day Robert Bridgeman and Margaret Everard and some other of my Friends formerly under the profession of Quakers and in great repute among that People whom God in his great Mercy hath of late times enlightned to see their former Error and to renounce it did receive the Lord's-Supper in Huntington and have declar'd that they receiv'd it with great inward Peace and Satisfaction the account whereof I have from the said Robert Bridgeman by his Letter to me bearing Date the 5th of this Instant in which Letter he also informs me and in another of a former Date of about Ten of my Friends in Huntington and Godmanchester and there-about who formerly were Quakers all of good repute who now go to Church there and that Margaret Everard has had her youngest Son and three Daughters lately Baptized Also by Letters from Bedford I have an account that some both in the Town and County of Bedford are come off from the Quakers and gone to Church particularly W. Mather and his Wife also at Reading divers who were formerly Quakers and were so Educated have gone to Church and have been Baptized and some there have brought their Children to be

he had Witness to prove it G. F. told him He was a Judas and he went away and after a while hanged himself and Christ in the Male and in the Female if he speak he was Christ the Seed and the Seed was Christ but he did not speak it as a Creature Note he grants he spoke the Words That he was Christ but he did not speak it as a Creature therefore he thought he was something more than a Creature the Seed in him spoke it which was Christ and that was not a Creature but what Seed was in him or in other Quakers that was not a Creature I cannot find out any other in his Writings but his Soul or invisible Part that he makes to be Christ and a Part of God as will afterwards appear on a distinct Head But he has yet another Defence to save the like blasphemous Saying of F. Howgel They that have the Spirit of God are equal with God in Nature but not in Stature It having been objected against the Quakers that some of them have said They that have the Spirit of God are equal with God To this F. Howgel answers after some foregoing Words F. Howgel's Col. p. 232. He that is born from above is the Son of God and he said I and my Father are one and where the Son is revealed and speaks the Father speaks in him and dwells in him and he in thy Father there is Equality in Nature though not in Stature Here it is a plain Case that F. H. places this Equality in Nature but not in Stature betwixt him that has the Spirit of God who is born from above and God himself for to place it betwixt Christ as he was the Son of God before all Ages and God the Father were to say That the Son is equal with the Father in Nature but not in Stature which has a twofold Error in it first To make a Distinction betwixt God's Nature and Stature Secondly Suppose that Distinction That the Son is equal to the Father in Nature but not in Stature both which are most gross and blasphemous and no less gross and blasphemous it is to affirm That the Saints are equal with God in Nature but not in Stature Now let us hear G. VVhitehead's Defence Truth and Inn. p. 10. The Equality in Nature objected relates to the Divine Nature which the Child of God partakes of in Measure though not in Stature relates to the Child that Divine Nature is one and unchangeable but our participating of it and Growth in it is gradual until all i. e. Christ's whole Church and Body come into the Measure of the Stature of the Fullness of Christ But doth all this Saying of G. VV. prove that the Children of God are equal with God either in Nature or Stature The Saints are said in Scripture to be Partakers of the Holy Ghost are they therefore equal to the Holy Ghost Which yet is the Way of G. VV's reasoning the Equality in Nature he says relates to the Divine Nature but who is it that is equal to God in the Divine Nature but not in Stature was it the Son or Holy Chost that is equal to God in the Divine Nature but not in Stature Nay therefore it must be the Saints or Believers here a Proposition is framed They that have the Spirit of God are equal with God and then this Distinction is given They are equal in Nature but not in Stature This Proposition hath for its Subject They i. e. the Saints or Children of God In all Propositions all the Parts of the Predicate belong to one and the same Subject the which Parts are equal in Nature but not in Stature But it is an unaccountable Liberty that G. VV. takes in his Way of defending these Blasphemies not only to change the Signification of Words from all common Use but the unalterable Rules of right Reason as in the present Case like as if one should say G. VVhitehead is equal to A. B. in Nature but not in Stature Nature relates to G. W. but not in Stature relates to another but who is this other who can tell Or as if one should say G. W. is a Man but not honest Man relates to G. Whitehead but not honest relates to another It is a real Shame that such pittiful Sophistry should be used by G. W. to defend his and his Brethrens vile Errors and Blasphemies whereby he makes himself guilty of them and all to save his and their pretended Infallibility It were much more Manly as well as Christian fairly to acknowledge and retract those most erronious Passages and own their Fallibility and Error and be contented to be lifted among fallible Men for humanum est errare labi decipi and not only so but to be greatly humbled for the Presumption that being Men they should equal themselves to God But the general Conceit of their sinless Perfection as they are a Body of People is such that both G. W. and Jos Wyeth doth justifie W. P's objecting to the Church of England their praying from seven to seventy Lord be merciful to us miserable Sinners G. VV. saith in Truth and In. p. 15. Alas poor Sinners Is not a Sign of Laughter at ●hem but rather of Lamentation and Pity over their miserable Estate who are always 〈◊〉 but not forsaking their Sins The like Answer doth J. VVyeth give in the Note Is not this a plain Evidence of the great Pride that is among the Quakers concerning their sinless Perfection As a Body of People and their great Uncharitableness towards not only the Church of England but all others called Christians throughout the whole World yea all Christians in all Ages and the universal Church of God both under the old and new Testament who always used Confession of Sin and prayed for Forgiveness of Sin find as Christ taught his Disciples to pray daily for their daily Bread so to pray daily for Forgiveness of Sins So under the old Testament there were daily Offerings for Sin and the High Priest however so holy yet offered both for his own Sins and the Sins of the People Doth it therefore follow that their Confessions and Offerings were hypocritical But doth not G. VV. know that as there is a gradual going unto Perfection so there is a gradual forsaking of Sin and a putting off the old Man with his Deeds Must not they who feel themselves wounded with Sin seek for a Cure And should not the diseased come daily to the Phisician till they be cured And as to the Quakers Uncharitableness and G. VV's especially towards all in the Church of England whom he chargeth without Exception that they are still confessing but not forsaking their Sins How can he more prove this Charge against them than his own Society or himself Many both in the Church of England and other Protestants can compare with the best of the Quakers for Holiness of Life and exceed them in many Virtues especially in

for would not the Quakers account it a great Sin and Trespass if any of the Church of England or Dissenter should sit in one of their Galleries where they stand to preach and kneel at Prayer and mend an old Doublet while they are preaching in their Meeting Places Surely they would greatly aggravate it and call it rude and unmannerly and profane Again whereas they query Where dost thou read in the Scripture that Men must do no Work on the first Day of the Week And this Query is made to justifie the Quaker's sitting on the Communion Table to mend an old Doublet on the first Day in time of Divine Service Is not this a great Shame to print and reprint such avowed Profanation of the Lord's Day and Worship also in the Face of a Protestant Nation that zealously profess to be against the Profanation of it and where are standing Laws against the Profanation of it Note here that whereas the Quakers affirm that what they speak and write is immediately and infallibly from God their professed Principle obligeth them to hold that what they speak and write is of greater Certainty and consequently of greater Authority than the Scriptures because they are certain of what they speak and write from the Spirit in themselves but they are not certain of the Writings of the Scriptures as W. P. argues in his Discourse concerning the General Rule They have not the Autographa the Copies differ and so do the Translations but they have their own Autographa and their Books and Writings are from the Original immediately Thus when G. W. sent me his Curse Thus saith the Lord c. and signed G. W. This had more Authority with him than the Scripture by his own Doctrine and if he please let him add simply considered as without the Spirit Proofs on the fourth Head Concerning the Holy Trinity GEorge Whitehead G. W's Truth and Inn. p. 50. in his Truth and Inn. and Jos Wyeth in his Switch pretends That it is not the Doctrine or thing intended that they deny i. e. the Father the Word and Holy Spirit which three are one And saith Jos Switch p. 184. Wyeth We own their Distinction in all the Instances of it recorded in Holy Writ The only thing they pretend to scruple at or deny is the calling them three Persons which they say are not Scripture Terms and they are wholly for keeping to Scripture Terms in Matters of Doctrine But to this I say ' first How many unscripture Terms do they freequently use Where do they find in Scripture the Term immediate Revelation immediate teaching of the Spirit immediate Word which they so commonly use Again where do they find in Scripture That see G. M. p. 324. the Seed to which the Promise of Salvation is is Christ within Several Papers c. p. 47. And that Expression where do they find it in Scripture That the same Spirit takes upon it the same Seed which is Christ now as ever c. That God the Father took upon him Humane Nature That the Spirit is the Rule and many more not only unscripture Terms but contrary to Scripture But why do they call them Three Witnesses as G. W. hath so expresly called them Where do they find them in Scripture so called That Place in John's first Epistle doth not call them Three Witnesses but Three bearing Record or witnessing But it is not only the Words Three Persons wherewith they are offended th● unjustly for personal Acts and Properties are given to them and therefore according to plain Consequence from Scripture they may be called Persons but the Doctrine or thing intended they deny for they allow not that they are distinct otherwise than in Manifestation see G. W's Divinity of Christ p. 94. he saith The Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit or the Father Son and Holy Ghost are one and inseparable no where in Scripture called three separate Persons nor finite in Personalities though Three in Manifestation and so testified of as Three Witnesses for the Confirmation of the Gospel Note Seeing G. W. doth not own them to be Three otherwise but in Manifestation this is not only to deny the Names or Words Three Persons but to deny that they were Three from all Eternity or before all Ages for there was no Manifestation either of One or Two or Three from Eternity His calling them Three in Manifestation is to call them three Manifestations and seeing all Manifestation has a Beginning with Time by his Doctrine there were not Father Son and Holy Ghost three any wise distinct from Eternity There was no God the Father from Eternity that did beger nor no Son from Eternity that was begotten nor Holy Ghost that from Eternity did proceed from the Father and the Son by G. VVhitehead's Doctrine And F. Hougil in his Collection p. 308. delivers the same erronious Doctrine He saith That the Holy Ghost is called another than Christ Another is not understood of another Life of another Substance but is understood of another Manifestation or Operation of the same God who subsists in the same Power in which the Father the Son and the Spirit subsist as I said unto thee before Another as to distinguish of the Operation and VVork of the Spirit and of the Son we do not refuse By this Doctrine of F. Hougil they are but distinct Manifestations Operations and Works Now if G. VV. or the Author of the Switch will say that there were three Manifestations Operations or Works in the Godhead from all Eternity It is absurd to suppose such Manifestations beside that they are unscripture Terms the same Arguments that they use against three Persons will as much and indeed much more be of Force against three Manifestations for if the Father be a Manifestation from Eternity of what is he a Manifestation Can he be a Manifestation of himself Or is he a Manifestation of the Son who as they say is a Manifestation Thus one Manifestation would be the Manifestation of another Manifestation but then what would the Holy Spirit be a Manifestation of And seeing in God there are no Accidents these three Manifestations are not three Accidents nor three Subsistences nor three Substances nor three Persons and consequently according to these Men they are nothing at all but their own Inventions But VV. Penn in his Sandy Foundation has not only argued against three Persons but against the Holy Three for he bringeth five Arguments against their being a Holy Three Page 12 13 14. one of which is this in express Words Since the Father is God the Son is God and the Spirit is God which their Opinion necessitates them to confess then unless the Father Son and Spirit are three distinct nothings they must be three distinct Substances and consequently three distinct Gods Now let his Argument be applied to the unscripture Terms three Manifestations and it will have the same Force or rather

mean Jesus of Nazareth who is both God and Man the Word made Flesh as is clear from the foregoing Words even Christ crucified as being the Author of those Graces Blessings and Virtues unto all sincere Believers in him by bestowing on them his holy Spirit to indue them with Wisdom and Sanctification and freely imputing his Righteousness that he wrought in his own Person without them for their Justification and Redemption Also David in calling the Lord his Light and Salvation had a Respect to God in Christ even the Man Christ who was to come out of his Loins as the Object of his Faith for Redemption and Salvation But the whole Tendency of W. P's Discourse in that Passage and in other Passages going before and following is to perswade that Men are Christians if they have these moral Virtues without Faith in Christ as he was outwardly crucified for in the Enumeration of these Virtues he has not the least Word of Faith in Christ crucified as necessary to Christianity but pleads for a false Notion of the Christian Faith p. 118. At he that believes in Christ believes in God so he that believes in God believes in Christ Thus making Faith in Christ to be nothing else but a Belief in God as a Creator without any Respect to Christ crucified And p. 119. a little after that scandalous Passage above quoted he saith Christians ought to be distinguished by their Likeness to Christ and not their Notions of Christ which is likewise scandalous as imply● That Men may be like Christ without true Notions of him and Faith in him 〈◊〉 Christ Jesus of Nazareth that died and rose again yea he pleads p. 118. That a meer just Man ought not to be excluded the Communion of Christians and that to exclude him is partial and cruel And at this rate professed Infidel Jews and Mahumetans if they be but meer just Men are to be received into Christian Society as good Christians indeed good enough to be Members of the Quakers Church But now let us see how the following scandalous Passages quoted out of G. VV's own Books are defended by the Colchester Quakers in that they call Some Account from Colchester Some Account from Colchester p. 11. When you tell us you have Faith in Christ do you mean Christ whose Person is now ascended into Heaven above the Clouds or do you mean only a Christ within you Ans saith G.VV. Here thou would make two Christs a Christ whose Person is above the Clouds and a Christ within but how provest thou two such Christs VVe have Faith in that Christ that descended from the Father who is the same that ascended far above all Heavens and this Christ we witness in us who is not divided Note in their Vindication of this Passage they say This Answer appears pertinent to detect and reprehend an impertinent and foolish Question which whether it does not imply two Christs let the serious judge from the natural Import and Sense of the Question in the disjunctive Part of it or do you only mean a Christ within you Here their pretended Grammatical Skill of the Term disjunctive fails them To ask the Question disjunctively implies no more two Christs than it implies two George VVhiteheads to ask Is George VVhitehead a Londoner born or a North Country Man born in the North of England this doth not imply two G. Whiteheads But if one should say George Whitehead was born in the North of England some 64 Years ago and since that was born in London this would import two G. Whiteheads very plainly And no less indeed do the Quakers wild Notions that many of them have printed even the Men of great Note among them import not only two Christs but many Christs even thousands and they have no way to extricate themselves of this Difficulty but sophistical Evasions for if ye ask them Was that the true Christ who was born at Bethlehem of a Virgin called Mary above 1600 Years ago and do they believe in that Christ They will tell you yea but they have this sophistical Sense that he was the Light within that Person that was outwardly born who is by a Metonimy called Christ the thing containing for the thing contained See W. Penn's Rejoinder p. 304 305. But that that outward Person was properly the Son of God we utterly deny said W.P. as above quoted But the most true and proper Christ is the Christ born in them and growing up in them from a holy thing or Seed to a Child born and then to the Mighty God which three Steps are orderly set down by W.B. in his printed Collection p. 291. See third narrative p. 37. And he tells who is the Virgin in whom this Child is born not the Virgin Mary but every Quaker who is converted to the Light within And because this Child is not born in them all at once but at different times as they witness the Work of Regeneration and as many as come to witness Regeneration as many regenerated Persons there are in the World as many times Christ is born and though they say Christ is one in all and would defend their so saying by Scripture yet they mean not as the Scripture means for Christ as he is God is the same in all and as he dwells in all the faithful by his Spirit and by Faith yet not so as that Christ is really and truly begotten and born in regenerate Persons without any Alle●●●y as they hold for they make Christ as both without the Figure and All●●●●● and Christ as born within c. the Substance and on Supposition that the● 〈◊〉 so many real Births of Christ it is impossible they could be one Christ otherwise than specifically one though consisting of many Individuals as many Individuals of Men are called Man but they are not one numerical Man no more can Christ be one numerical Christ but many if he were really begotten and born in many as they say he is It 's true the Scripture speaks of Christ being formed in Believers but this is a metaphorical Expression and allegory even as the Image of Caesar on Gold or Silver is called Caesar so the true lively Image of Christ is called Christ in true Believers and that is the meaning of Christ formed in Believers so that if they would be content with the allegorical Sense of the Word Christ formed within begotten and born within as sound and sober Christians understand it none would blame them and that they laid no more Stress upon it than they should but the contrary they do so as to make the Christ thus born within the greater Reality and Mystery than Christ born without and to make that inward Birth to have no Dependence on Christ as born without us and as he died for our Sins and rose and ascended into Heaven in the true intire Nature of Man consisting of a created Soul and Body and so as to witness the inward Work of Regeneration to

Baptized and here at London divers of both Sexes who were educated under the profession of Quakers have been lately Baptized and go to Church one of whom is my Youngest Daughter my Elder Daughter having been Baptized above a Year ago so that to my certain knowledge above forty Persons within a few Months past are come off from Quakerism and brought to the Church which gives a good ground of hope that many others will follow which God in his great Mercy grant and prosper my sincere tho' mean Endeavours and Labours and other his Servants whom he has made instrumental in this Work and for the success he has been pleased to give us therein all Glory and Honour and Praise be given to his most worthy Name through Jesus Christ Amen And whereas my adversaries G. W. and other of the Preachers of the Second Days meeting at London had given it as a reason why they would not meet me at Turners-Hall to dispute with me at the former Meetings for the Years 1696 97 98 according to my published Advertisements that they knew none who had been in Unity with them since I came into England who did own me or were in danger by me to be brought off from them that Objection to their Knowledge and full Conviction is now quite removed for both R. Bridgeman and M. Everard besides divers others that might be mentioned were not only in Unity with them since my arrival into England but in great repute among them R. Bridgeman having been but lately a Member of their Men's Meetings at London and one of the Twelve who were entrusted with the receiving and distributing the Money collected for their poor in the City of London and Margaret Everard having for many Years till of very late been received and well owned as a Speaker among them both in City and Country And it is most certain that the Quakers refusing to meet with me at Turners-Hall to answer to the Quotations I produced out of their Books has been a great means to let many of those formerly in Unity with them see their sandy Foundation and the badness of their Cause and will yet be a further means to give many others the like discovery who are dissatisfied with their not appearing either to vindicate their Books and Authors or to acknowledge the great Errors contained in them and publickly to retract them They are indeed brought to a very pinching dilemma if they will not appear in publick view to answer to the charges of the vile Errors and Heresies yea and Blasphemes brought against them by plain Quotations out of their Books presented to the People present by ocular inspection they now see by experience of what is past what the consequence will be even that many of themselves will see they have a bad Cause which because they are not able to defend they find out and devise frivolous excuses why they will not appear And if they will appear there is the like and equal danger that their Errors Heresies and Blasphemies will be detected to their own People as indeed the last Meetings where some of them though none principally concerned did appear have had a good service in some owned by them to give them a discovery of them There remains but two shadows of Reason why they will not appear one is that it is offensive to civil Authority but this is a meer pretence for whatever offence it may be to some particular Persons that may too much favour their errors yet it can be no just offence to Civil Authority there being no Law against it and where no Law is there is no transgression nor can it be supposed that it can offend the civil Authority that such an innocent and probable way to reduce the Quakers from their vile Heresie which God has in measure manifestly blessed with some Success and to bring them to the Church is used to that effect For must not some means be used to reclaim them and what means so probable as this The Act of Tolleration to be sure doth not forbid any by fair Reason and Argument to deal with them for their Convincement and for an Instance that this manner of proceeding is not offensive to Authority I had the leave of the Lord Mayor of London for each of the Meetings I have yet had Their other shadow of Reason is That they think it better to Answer in Print to what is objected against them out of their Books than by Word of Mouth I confess indeed it is the most ready and expedient way for them to hide and cloak their vile Errors and boldly to deny them whenever so justly charg'd with them by their Sophistical Quibling and Evasions and particularly by their boldly asserting the Quotations to be falsely or lamely given when they are ever so truly and fully given which not one of many thousands simply by Reading their pretended Answers and Defences in Print can be able to judge whether the Quotations be true or false perfect or lame because they have not nor can they easily find out the Books out of which the Quotations are taken whereby to compare them and suppose the Books could be found yet few will bestow so much either time or labour to compare them whereas the presenting the Books and the Quotations contain'd in them by Ocular inspection to Persons present saves all that labour and is the surest and readiest way to find out the truth of Matters in point of Truth or Error and whether or not the Quakers are justly charged with those Errors Beside if they think their Answering to the Charges against them by Print be profitable to them had they Truth on their side they would be ready to defend their Principles and Profession both ways that is both by Word of Mouth and also by their Pens for still two ways are better than one if both be proper to the same true end which is the Discovery of Truth and Error But notwithstanding of their brags and telling that they have Answered me from time to time in Print yet this is but an empty flourish divers of my chiefest Books against them for the detection of their Errors they have not given the least Reply unto as my Second and Third Narratives my Book call'd The Quakers Arguments against Baptism and the Supper c. Examin'd and Refuted my Larger and Shorter Catechisms my Book call'd The Deism of W. Penn and that call'd The Fallacies of W. P. and his Brethren c. And tho' T. Elwood Printed a pretended Reply to my First Narrative yet the Answer given to it call'd Satan Disrob'd which hath effectually discover'd the falseness and folly of it hath not received an Answer from them to this Day And their usual way of answering Books writ against them is to Quible and Evade in some few particulars and wholly to pass by the most material things urged against them And yet to boast and brag that they have given a sufficient