Spirit and these three are really one yet in his former Books particularly in his Sandy Foundation never yet retracted by him he hath sufficiently discovered his gross and vile error in that fundamental Doctrine of the Christian Faith thus arguing not only against their being Three Persons but their being Three otherwise than Nominally which was the Sabellian Heresie 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 God's And he bringeth Five Arguments against their being a Holy Three P. 12 13 14. In his Third Section he seemeth to profess his and his Brethrens Faith in Scripture terms But this his professed Faith is quite inconsistent with what he hath delivered in his other Books here he saith That the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among Men and was and is the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth his beloved Son c. who tasted Death for every Man and dyed for Sin that we might dye to Sin But as it hath been above shewed out of his Sandy Foundation he hath argued against any such distinction as of the Father and the Son in the God-head as inferring a plurality of God's and though here he professeth to believe that this only begotten Son dyed for Sin yet in his Serious Apology Page 146 he saith That the outward Person that suffered was properly the Son of God we utterly deny And in his guide mistaken P. 25. Christ Co-essential and Co-eternal with his Father c. of being made Man of his Dying Rising and Ascending into Heaven c. he saith of all this that it is confused Babble and by Rote Canting by paths of vain Tradition and Invention results of Factious and corrupted Counsels And in his Rejoinder to John Faldo Page 299. he plainly denyes that the Body of Christ was any constitutive part of Christ and for seven leaves together contends against John Faldo That Christ did not Dye nor hang on the Cross but only the Body which he will not have to be any part of him To this Doctrine of W. P. doth that of G. Whitehead agree a Man as great or rather much greater among the Quakers as W. P. who saith in his Dipper Plunged P. 13. Jesus Christ God-man is not Scripture Language And in his Christian Quaker P. 140. 141. though he grants that Christ had a humane Body of Flesh and Bones yet he denys that he consisted of it and saith he distinguisheth betwixt Christ's having a Body and consisting of it And in a Book given forth by the Quakers from their second days Meeting whereof G. W. is supposed the Author called A Testimony for the true Christ and his Light in confutation of R. Cobbet printed 1668. They deny the Humanity of Christ as Humanity signifieth the Earthly Nature of Man's Body as coming from Humus the Ground but as Humanity signifies Meekness Gentleness Mercifulness as opposite to Cruelty in this last sence they own Christ's Humanity but deny it in the former which yet is the true sense of Scripture and of all true Christians Section 2. His Fallacy in pretending to own Justification by Christ the Propitiation in Contradiction to what he hath delivered in his Serious Apology and Sandy Foundation and his fallacious way of stating the Doctrine of Justification wherein he misrepresents his Opponents IN his fourth Section as seemingly Orthodox as he professeth himself to be as fallacious and insincere he is seeing he knoweth in his own Conscience that what he hath here delivered is utterly inconsistent with what is extant in his other Books never as yet retracted by him nor doth either he or his Brethren own any change of perswasion from what they had ever since they came under the profession of Quakers but as one of them hath lately said in Print As God is the same and Truth is the same so his People are the same viz. the Quakers I shall first set down his present profession of what he believes concerning Justification as followeth That as we are only Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation and not by works of Righteousness that we have done so there is an absolute necessity that we receive and obey to unfeigned Repentance and amendment of Life the Holy Light and Spirit of Jesus Christ in order to obtain that Remissionand Justification from Sin c. But in contradiction to this see what his Doctrine is in his Serious Apology P. 148. And indeed says W. P. this we deny viz. Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us and boldly affirm it in the Name of the Lord to be the Doctrine of Devils and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption which does now deluge the whole World Note Reader If according to W. P's former words we Only are Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation and not by works of Righteousness that we have done then it is plainly evident by the same Doctrine that we are Justified by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us for these two manners of Speech are perfectly equivalent viz. That we are only Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the propitiation and that we are Justified by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person wholly without us The word Only plainly importing the Righteousness of Christ Wholly without us unless there be some great fallacy in W. P's words as the sequel will make appear a little after But if we take these two quotations in their genuine Sense the one that we are Justified by the Righteousness of Christ Only i. e. Wholly without us from the guilt of Sin and the other that this we deny i. e. that we are Justified by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us and boldly affirm it in the Name of the Lord to be the Doctrine of Devils c. it is a perfect inconsistency and contradiction And yet now W. P. doth teach the same Doctrine which formerly he called the Doctrine of Devils without any change of his perswasion as he plainly tells in the conclusion of his Paper This saith he hath all along been the general stream and tendency both of our Ministry and Writings as our books will make appear But what a Forehead of Bras must W. P. have with so great confidence to assert so known an untruth Again the same W. P. in his forecited Serious Apology thus argueth P 148. against Christ's imputative Righteousness Death came by actual Sin not imputative therefore Justification unto Life came by actual Righteousness not imput ative Note Reader If we are not Justified by Christ's imputed which he calls imputative Righteousness as here he asserts
Propitiation in order to remission of Sins can hardly disbelieve any Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion so by good consequence contrariwise whoever believes not in Christ as a Propitiation in the true sense of Scripture generally received by all true Christians to wit as outwardly Crucified Dead and Raised again c. can hardly believe any Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion but W. P. believes not in Christ as a Propitiation in order to remission of Sin c. in the true sense of Scripture generally received by all true Christians therefore W. P. hardly believeth any fundamental Article of the Christian Religion to wit as peculiar to the same The first proposition is proved by the Rule of contraries from W. P's assertion as I think he will readily confess the second proposition which is the Assumption is fully proved from what is above at large quoted by me out of his former Books never to this day retracted by him And though he reckoneth up the Doctrine of the Trinity viz. of the Father of Christ the Son and of the Holy Ghost the Doctrine of Heaven and Hell the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Just and Unjust to be Fundamental Doctrines yea and the main of Christian Doctrine yet from what is above proved out of his Books he hath plainly opposed the true Christian Doctrine both of the Holy Trinity and of Heaven and Hell and as plainly he hath opposed the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Just and Unjust in their respective Bodies as I have fully proved in my third Narrative and so have his Brethren G. Whitehead Richard Hubberthorne and others only at present I shall quote these following passages out of some of his former Books in his Reason against Railing in answer to Tho. Hicks P. 138. he thus plainly argueth against the deceased Saints looking for any future Resurrection of the Body which Tho. Hicks argued for Is the Joy of the Ancients saith W. P. now in Glory imperfect or are they in Heaven but by halves But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Window to be without its beloved Body a better sort of Purgatory Again P. 134. If a thing can be the same and notwithstanding changed for shame let us never make so much stir against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation for the absurdity of it is rather out-done than equalled by this carnal Resurrection Again in his answer to J. Faldo called the Invalidity of J. Faldo's Vindication P. 369. It 's sown a Natural Body It 's raised a Spiritual Body and I do utterly deny saith he that this Text is concerned in the Resurrection of Man's carnal Body at all but the States of Men under the First and Second Adam Men are sown into the World Natural but they are raised Spiritual through him who is the Resurrection and the Life and so they are Sons of the Second Adam Nor need any to wonder why W. P. and his Brethren should disbelieve all these fundamental Doctrines of Christianity which now he professeth to own and that as Fundamental but still quite in a most differing Sense from all true Christians for with what certainty can he or they believe them they acknowledge not the Holy Scriptures to be the Rule of their Faith in any of these things or indeed of any others they have no certainty of the Truth of any of these he now calls Fundamentals from the Rule of Faith set up by them which is the Light within them with respect to its ordinary Discoveries given to Mankind but none of these Fundamental Doctrines above mentioned fall within these ordinary Discoveries as W. P. hath confessed for they belong to extraordinary Revelation And if he should affirm they did belong to the ordinary Discoveries given to Mankind he cannot prove it What obscure Knowledge any of them called Heathen Philosophers had of any of these great Mysteries W. P. cannot prove they had it from the Light within but Traditionally either from the Jews and ancient Patriarchs and Prophets or from some among themselves prophetically inspired as it is reported of the Sybils the which report were it true doth not prove that the Knowledge and Faith of these great Fundamentals did fall within the ordinary discoveries of the Light within given to Mankind in general Section 5. His uncivil Treatment of the Bishop as if he did render the Text 1 John 5. 7. defective whereas the Bishop only charg'd the Defect on W. P 's Confession which though given in Scripture words yet not in the true Sense of Scripture His Fallacious Argument against the Holy Trinity answered His Fallacy and Equivocation about his calling him who was born of the Virgin Mary Jesus Christ and the Son of God whereas he hath denied him to be properly so And his abusive Treatment of the Bishop on that Head IN his Page 30 he proceeds in his unchristian and uncivil Treatment of the Bishop unjustly charging him as if the Text 1 John 5. 7. were defective with the Bishop and as if he did render the Text it self short which saith W. P. with submission I think is a bold Attempt in one of his Station If he believes the 39 Articles But all this is nothing but a Scandalous Reflection on the Bishop and a Shuffling and Cover wherewithall to hide his own Error and Incredulity The Bishop might well enough without charging any defect on the Text as he doth not in the least charge a defect on this Confession of W. P. and his Brethren because though given in one Scripture Text yet he had just cause to question not to be given in the true sense of that Scripture for most that are unsound as touching the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity even Socinians as well as others will profess yea and have professed to give their Faith in the Text yea and all other Texts of the like nature who yet are professed Unbelievers of the true Doctrine of the Holy Trinity And though W. P. and his Brethren will frankly confess they believe that the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are one God one in Substance and Essence and thus think to clear themselves of Sociniansm yet he and they at the same time are grosly guilty of Sabellianism acknowledging no distinction betwixt Father Son and Holy Ghost other than Nominal or at most in Manifestation and Operation ad extra and with relation to the Creatures So that W. P's Notion and Faith of the Holy Trinity which he calls the Scripture Trinity but it is not the Scripture Trinity but the Sabellian Trinity is no other than this that as the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God one Essence and Being so the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father and the Holy Ghost is the Son and the Son is the Holy Ghost for as I have quoted him above in his Sandy Foundation he disputeth not
only against their being Three Persons but against their being Three or Three He 's arguing That if the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God then unless they are Three distinct Nothings they are Three distinct Substances and consequently Three distinct God's Which is as weakly and Sophistically argued by W. P. as if he had argued If the three Dimensions of a Body be three distinct Dimensions then unless they are three distinct Nothings they are three distinct Substances and consequently three distinct Bodies which I only bring to shew the silly Sophistry of his Argument but not that I think this glorious Mystery of the Trinity can be duly represented by this Similitude or any other natural Similitude whatsoever though it is a certain truth that the distinction of the three divine relative Properties in the divine Essence prove them no more to be Three Gods than the distinction of the three Dimensions in a Body prove that they are three Bodies And had W. P. given the Profession of his Faith in all the other Texts of Scripture that are commonly understood by true Christians to prove the true distinction of the Father Son and Holy Ghost in their relative and personal Properties Yet seeing as hath been fully proved W. P. hath quite another sense of all those Texts than the true Scripture sense received by all true Christians the Bishop might well enough charge W. P's Faith with being defective for his imposing a wrong sense on the sound Scripture words as he hath done and which it is like the Bishop had just occasion of suspicion he had done in some of his books Doth W. P. think that if a suspected Papist to clear himself of being free of that Popish Error of Transubstantiation should profess his Faith in that one Text of Scripture Take eat this is my Body would this justly clear him of that Suspicion seeing he may be guilty of that Error for all his Scripture Confession it being the common Policy of the greatest Hereticks to profess their Faith in Scripture words while by their other words they have made it appear that they have a Heretical Sense as in the present case is fully evident In Page 31. To excuse his Equivocation about his owning Jesus Christ to be the Son of God he tells the Bishop we call him the beloved Son of God the only begotten of the Father And in Page 32 and 33 he tells they have called him Christ who was born of the Virgin Mary and Conceived by the Holy Ghost again and again yea that they have not confessed his Name less than nine times in that Paper And from this takes occasion to blame the Bishop with uncharitableness and being beside the business And if we have said so saith W. P. must not the Bishop be extreamly beside the business His uncharità bleness is as obvious I will not say his Untruth What shall I say to his Story of some of our Friends whom he makes to affirm that Christ is not ascended into Heaven he is in us Can it touch us or should he have said it and not have proved it Is that fair and candid Is it charitable supposing it were true which does not appear Or is it just to insinuate upon the People as dubious But let it be never so true saith he it cannot conclude the People if not the Act of the People The Church of England has Doctors of very different Sentiments would the Bishop think it fair the common Belief of the Church should thereby be concluded And in Page 35 he saith So that though we did not dwell upon Points but were concise in our Expressions yet whatever is implied or is implicable from any Assertion Justice as well as Charity always grants and so would the Bishop have done had they been uppermost in his Mind when his Pen run so fast against us It is prodigious Fallacy and Presumption in W. P. thus to treat the Bishop or any Christian Man when he did know in his Conscience how far both he and his Brethren for all his seeming fair Confessions were and still are guilty in both these things in which the Bishop very modestly doth but blame them for not expressing those Matters more fully and clearly to take away Suspicion out of the Minds of some who might be jealous of their Sincerity as they have but too great ground so to be For as to the first viz. Whither he that was born of the Virgin Mary and dyed c. was the Christ and the Son of God truly and properly To this W. P. hath expresly opposed in his Serious Apology p. 146. That the outward Person that suffered was properly the Son of God we utterly deny It 's true W. P. hath called him that was so born Christ and the Son of God yet that will not prove that he believed him so to be truly and properly The Socinians call Christ the Son of God and yet deny his eternal Generation And so W. P. and G. W. and others of them call the Man that was born of Mary Christ and the Son of God by some Figure because the Son of God the true Christ was in that Man as the thing containing gets the Name of the thing contained by a Metonimy But still they deny that that Man was properly the Son of God or that he was God And accordingly G. W. hath found fault again and again with that Expression of Christ his being God-man calling it unscripture Language and alledging it is no where to be found but in the Pope's Canons Hence it is that they deny that Christ hath our Nature in Heaven or that he consisteth of a Humane Nature or Body though they grant he had a Body but deny that he consists of it as any part of him as a Man may have a Coat or Garment but doth not consist of it The Foundation of which Error is that they do not believe the Hypostatical or Personal Union of the two Natures so as to constitute one Christ they will have Christ to be nothing properly but the Godhead and that is the Father and the Holy Ghost as well as the Son as I have plainly proved in my third Narrative especially And as concerning their denying Christ's Ascension into Heaven first seeing W. P. denieth the Locality of Heaven as well as of Hell he must needs grant that Christ's Body is either no where ascended or is every where which last he seems to be for p. 35. quoting Eph. 4. 10. that he ascended far above all Heavens that he might fill all things Then saith he he is in Man certainly But as he was the Divine Word he did fill all things and was in Man before he ascended but this Text doth not prove that his Body filleth all things for the Question is not Whither the Godhead is present in all things which yet is well known some of the Quakers have denied and some of them in Pensilvania charged me
that the Discoveries that he sets up for are not the same to all Nations and Persons as can easily be proved Ten thousands would break through the Hedge of his General Rule of binding them to the common Discoveries given to all Mankind as most of the People called Quakers do and would highly pretend to new and special Discoveries given to them by the Light within and to none others and the reason they will alledge that it is not given to others is their Unfaithfulness and especially that like Corah they Rebel against their Spiritual Guides and Leaders Thus we may see the great need of an outward Rule and the great Goodness of God that he hath given us one full and perfectly sufficient to be a Rule of our Faith and Life in all necessary Cases And besides If W. P's Argument have any Truth in it it would infer that Christ or the Spirit abstractly considered from all Revelation both Internal and External should be the Rule because he is the Ruler If the Ruler and the Rule must still be one and the same thing then suppose all Revelation Internal as well as External should cease Christ or the Spirit should be the Rule because the Ruler Who sees not the Fallacy and Sophistry of W. P's Argument here Hath not every common Artificer his Rule of Wood or Brass that is not the Man himself but the Instrument that he hath made and prepared for his use The Prophets Rule by which their Faith was ruled in what they Prophecied was not the Spirit but the internal Revelation of the Spirit the Spirit was their Guide and Ruler but not to speak properly their Rule but the Revelation they had or things revealed that was their Rule and so now the external Revelation of the same Truths is the Rule of our Faith whereby to believe them as the Spirit inwardly by his secret Illumination perswades us of their Truth and certainty not by any new verbal Record but by Sealing to the Record outwardly given Section 12. His falsly alledging that he has the first Reformers Fathers and Martyrs on his side viz. That the Scripture is not the Rule of Faith but the Light in every Conscience His Fallacy in this detected in the late Book called The Deism of W. P. and his Brethren c. The Spirits being superior to the Scripture proves not that the Spirit is the Rule of Faith His pretended ground of his pitying the Bishop for his supposed Ignorance Causeless and Fallacious His false Accusation and Charge against the Bishop and Church of England and all Protestant Opponents to the Quakers that they confine the Operations of the Spirit to the first or Apostolical Times That the Ministers among the Quakers are less acted by the Spirit of God in their Praying and Preaching than the Ministers among their Protestant Opponents evidently proved AND this leads me to detect another Fallacy of his which shall be the last I intend to notice though I could detect many more but these I think will suffice to shew how Fallacious he is Let us therefore hear him once more In his Page 106 and 107 after he has most grosly alledged that he has the concurring Testimony and Assent of the best and first Reformers as well as Martyrs and Fathers to confirm his Fundamental viz. That not the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures without but the Light within is the Rule of Faith and Life and that the Light or Spirit within is something at least co-ordinate if not superior and antecedent to the Scripture Which is more saith he than we said before and consequently is the Rule of Faith and Life superior to the Scripture Having in my late Treatise of W. P's Deism rescued the Fathers and first Reformers from his Perversions I shall only now take notice of his fallacious Inference by this his Argument The Light or Spirit within is something superior and antecedent in way of Excellency to the Scripture therefore it is the superior and antecedent Rule above the Scripture the Proposition is granted and I know none that ever denied it to wit That the Spirit which is God is greater and more excellent than the Scripture But then it followeth not that it is the greater or more excellent Rule because properly speaking it is no Rule at all Right Logicians will tell him if he will go and learn of them which it is to be suspected for all that he was a Student at Oxford he has great need to do that things in a different kind are not to be compared If it were asked of W. P. whither a Knife of Gold or a Knife of Steel were the best Knife he would answer surely though Gold is superior to Steel and more excellent yet it is not fit to be a Knife and Men make not the blades of Knives of Gold So though the Spirit be superior to the Revelation of it whither Internal or External yet not the Spirit but his Revelation is the Rule and Internal Revelation was the Rule to the Prophets whereby they believed their Prophecies and what internal Revelation was to them external Revelation is to us though we have not that internal Revelation that they had which was Prophetical and Extraordinary but the Spirit internally by way of Seal Sealing to us the Truth and Certainty of the external Revelation gives us as sure ground for the certainty of our Faith as they had of theirs But this inward Seal of the Spirit is no Rule either co-ordinate with the Scripture or subordinate to it because it doth not propose to us by it self all the things necessary to be believed by us in verbal Propositions as the Seal of a Bond though it is a Proof and Evidence to the Truth of the Bond yet it tells us not the Contents of it And now because the Bishop found fault with his calling the Scripture without and the Illumination of the Spirit within the double and agreeing Record of true Religion as indeed well he might so do in W. P's sense though in a qualified and sober sense it may be acknowledged as perceiving the fallacious sense that W. P. had of those words well observed by the Bishop That they will not believe what Scripture saith except the Light within them dictate the same And yet none of them can justly say that the Light within doth dictate to them by it self one Article of that called the Apostles Creed yea W. P. doth not so much as pretend that it doth to him yet most uncivilly he falls upon the Bishop p. 107 telling him It must be his turn now to pity the Bishop And truly saith he I do it with all my Heart And this it seems in retaliation of the Bishop's tender Expression of his Pitty and Compassion towards some well-meaning Persons among them who are mislead by their Teachers But for what must he needs Pity the Bishop Why for his supposed Ignorance that he will not allow the Spirit to be
to forgive us as we forgive them then is a Satisfaction Totally excluded And from Acts 10. 9. he concludes so that Remission came by believing his Testimony and obeying his Precepts and not by a Pretended Satisfaction Thus Reader do but observe how Proteus like he changes his shapes one while to argue against any Satisfaction of Christ to God for the Debt of our Sins by which the nature of Christ's propitiatory Sacrifice is wholly destroy'd Another while after he has thrown down Christ's being our Propitiatory Sacrifice without us he sets up an Imaginary Sacrifice of Christ the Lamb slain within the high Priest within Whereas were his Arguments of any force as they are not they would be as much against Christ's being a Propitiation by his Satisfaction to Divine Justice for our Sins within Men as without them In one thing his Cunning is observable though mix'd with horrid Ignorance and Folly and bold Presumption that he makes the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity that distinguisheth betwixt the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and the Doctrine of Justification by Christ's imputed Righteousness so closely joyned together that they fall together if the first of them falls and so he makes his bold attempt against the first that by throwing down the first he may throw down the second and by that means the third and having as he thinks effectually done the business he entitles his Book The Sandy Foundation shaken which is in effect to say The Foundation of the Christian Faith and Religion shaken in order to introduce Deism and Heathenism into Christendom But he shall one day know if he know it not before he dye which God grant that he may that the Foundation he calls The Sandy Foundation is not Sandy but stands on that Rock on which the Church of Christ is built that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against and if he repent not of this Blasphemy which I pray God he may this Rock will grind him to powder There is yet one main thing further that is needful to be noticed in this fourth Section before I leave it and that is That whereas he asserts there is an absolute necessity that we receive and obey to unfeigned Repentance and amendment of Life the Holy Light and Spirit of Jesus Christ in order to obtain that Remission and Justification from Sin for which he cites Rom. 3. 22 to 26. 8. 1 2 3 4. 1 John 5 7. he mentions not one word of the absolute necessity of Faith in Jesus Christ as he outwardly suffered Death for our Sins and thereby became the Propitiation for Sin though he expresly asserts the absolute necessity of Repentance Obedience and amendment of Life and though one of the Scriptures quoted by him in Chapter and Verse viz Rom. 3. 22 to 26. expresly mentions Faith in his Blood for Remission of Sin yet he knowing himself in his own Conscience that he was not for any such necessity of Faith in Christ or in his Blood as above express'd he did purposely omit it And if he or any for him shall say he implied it though he did not express it I say as he did not express it so he did not imply it which I prove from the following Reasons 1. Seeing he not only express'd Repentance but asserted it to be absolutely necessary to Remission of Sin had he thought Faith in Christ as he outwardly died absolutely necessary to our obtaining Remission of Sins no doubt he would have expressed that too either there or some where at least in some of his Books but upon all the search I have made I have not found it any where in his books and indeed very rarely in any of the books of his Brethren 2. But on the contrary I have found that both he and G. W. especially and diverse others as I have proved by Quotations out of their books in my third Narrative have expresly opposed this Faith to wit in Christ as outwardly Crucified and in his blood as outwardly shed by way of Propitiation and satisfaction to Divine Justice for our Sins W. P. in his Quakerism a new Nick-name for old Christianity p. 6. saith Faith in the History of Christ's outward Manifestation is a deadly Poyson these latter Ages has been infected with And in his Rejoynder to John Faldo p. 333. he saith Christ in the Gentiles is a greater Mystery than Christ as he was made manifest in the Flesh It 's strange saith he in opposition to J. F. who asserted like a true Christian That Christ as he was made manifest in the Flesh was a greater Mystery than Christ in the Gentiles that should be counted most mysterious which was the Introduction to the Mystery and these Transactions counted most difficult that were by the Divine Wisdom of God ordained as so many facile Representations of what was to be accomplished in Man And page 335. In short saith he it is to exclude the true Mystery of Godliness which is Christ manifested in his Children Thus we see he makes Christ's Death and Sufferings without us which he calls Transactions as so many facile Representations of what was to be accomplished in Man i. e. of his being Crucified within and his blood inwardly shed and his offering himself inwardly in his Children in the nature of a mediating Sacrifice to appease the Wrath of God Thus also we see how he hath destroyed the great Object of the Christian Faith which is Christ as he was outwardly Crucified being the great Propitiation for our Sins And G. Whitehead his elder Brother in Ignorance and Error hath given him a Copy to write after in his Truth defending the Quakers p. 65. he saith Faith in Christ without Men is contrary to the Apostles Doctrine And p. 66. he saith The Blood of Christ's Humanity the Apostle doth not tell us of Christ's Blood is Spiritual And in his Light and Life p. 56. he saith The Blood of the Covenant is inward and Spiritual P. 59 60. Christ's Blood that was outwardly shed not the Antitype or Substance signified by the Blood of Beasts shed under the Law And p. 8. he saith To look to Christ Crucified at Jerusalem and in Heaven and to be revealed in us by his Spirit is a Contradiction 3. According to that Fundamental Principle laid down by W. P. in his Discourse of the General Rule of Faith and Life he must needs exclude Faith in Christ as he was outwardly born died and rose again not only from being absolutely necessary to our Salvation but from being given to us at all otherwise than barely historically for seeing according to him the Light in every Man only as giving the ordinary Discoveries that all Mankind have is the Rule of Faith to every Man no Man either doth or can believe otherwise than barely historically what the Light within hath not revealed but the Light within as it hath not revealed the Birth Death and Sufferings of