by seven Quakers the Passage is this Is the Moral Law or ten Commandments a Rule to the Christian's Life Some Account from Colchester p. 9. to the End or is it not Ans Thou might as well ask if the moral Law as thou callest it be a Rule to Christ For the Christian's Life and Rule is Christ who is the End of the Law for Righteousness who came not to destroy but to fulfil it Note In their Answer they groslly equivocate in taking the Word Christian's Life in another Sense than was meant in the Query and is meant in common Speech By a Christian's Life is meant in the Query and common Speech a Christian's Practice and manner of Life with respect to his Thoughts Words and Actions Now though Christ is called in Scripture the Christian's Life by the Figure of a Metonimy being the Author of their Life yet he is not their Practice or Manner of Life their thinking speaking and acting and whereas they make it absurd to suppose that the moral Law was a Rule to Christ Here they shew their Ignorance and Error for the Man Christ had the moral Law for his Law and Rule and it did oblige him to Obedience and he fulfilled it in his own Person for he was made under the Law and though the Law is not a Rule to the Spirit of Christ in Believers yet it is a Rule of the Spirit whereby he rules them Next they say The said Answer appears not to be intended to make void the moral Law or ten Commandments but the contrary in asserting Christ to be the End of the Law for Righteousness and that he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it therefore the Righteousness thereof remains and is binding by the holy Spirit in every true Believer though not under the Law but under Grace which effectually teaches both to deny Vngodliness and worldly Lusts and to live righteously soberly and godly in this present VVorld Tit. 2. 11 12. which answers the Substance and End of the Law Note whereas they say The Righteousness of it remains and is binding by the holy Spirit in every true Believer how is it binding by the Spirit if it be not a Rule to every true Believer Doth the Spirit bind Believers to that which is no Rule or Law Again By their Limitation and Restriction of binding by the Spirit they make the moral Law as it is outwardly delivered in the holy Scriptures to have no Obligation upon Believers at all but only as it is inwardly revealed and given by the Spirit and thus Christ's Prophetical and Kingly Office as he outwardly delivered that Law to us is of no Force by their Answer whereas that Law and all the other Laws of Christ have their binding Authority over Believers from Christ the great Prophet and King and Head of his Church as without them delivered by him to them and sealed by his Spirit in their Hearts and though the Spirit of Christ in Christ himself and in the Prophets and Apostles was a Lawgiver to Men yet the Spirit is not a Lawgiver as in us because his Law is sufficiently given already by Christ and by his Spirit in Christ and in his Prophets and Apostles But the Work and Office of the Spirit in us and all Believers is to perswade us of the Truth and Authority of the Laws of Christ already given to enlighten our Minds to understand them and inwardly to strengthen us by his Grace and gracious Influences and Operations to obey them But to hold that the holy Spirit is any Lawgiver to Believers since the Days of Christ and the Apostles is of no less dangerous Consequence than to overthrow Christianity and introduce Deism and Mahumetism For indeed upon that Pretence the Laws of the Turks Alcoran are set up and by the same Pretence G. F. did throw down Christ's Institutions of Baptism and the Supper and Church-Government by Pastors and Elders and set up Laws and Rules that he pretended to have given him by the Spirit and this was the Pretence of the ancient Montanists Yea W. Penn on this very Pretence rejects Baptism and the Supper affirming That the same Spirit that led the Apostles to reject Circumcision hath led the Quakers to reject the outward Baptism and Supper Lastly whereas they say A Believer is not under the Law but under Grace this doth not justifie their vile Heresie That the moral Law is not a Rule of Life to Christians for though they are not under the Curse and Condemnation of it nor as it is a Law of Works so as thereby to be justified yet they are under it even as outwardly given by Christ and his Prophets and Apostles as a Rule of Life And thus as they disannul and make void the moral Law of the Ten Commandments so all the other positive Laws and Commands of the Gospel making the Gospel nothing but the Light within all Mankind and Gospel Commands nothing but what that dictates though they are not agreed about the Commands of the Light within either their Number or Duration or whether there are any new Commands given in this Age as G. F. pretends was given to him and by him to the Quakers But again How doth it appear that their Answer doth not make void the moral Law or Ten Commandments when they reject the Morality of the fourth Commandment and do not allow that one Day of seven is to be observed and to be sanctified by abstaining from servile Labour and giving that Day to religious Exercise as appears from another Quotation in that called An Account from Colchester taken out of G. W's Truth defending To which they pretend to give answer in that called Some Account from Colchester p. 11. Did that Quaker sin therein or not who brought lately on the Lord's Day an old Doublet into Dr. Gell ' s Church in London and sate upon the Communion Table mending it while the Dr. was preaching the Parishoners forbidding him In their Answer they expostulate with him as if it were Popery 〈◊〉 it a Crime Sin to work upon the Communion Table as if it were a more holy Place than another But though it have no inherent Holiness yet it being dedicated to that Use every sober Christian will say it was a great Sin by diverse aggravating Circumstances as done in Contempt of the Institution of our Lord himself who appointed the Practice of breaking of Bread and that there should be a Table is evident from Scripture that mentions the Table of the Lord. Secondly The doing of it while the Dr. was preaching Thirdly The wilful Offence designedly given to the People present upon Pretence of bearing witness against their Idolatry and idolatrous Practice as the Quakers were wont to censure it Fourthly The doing of it on the first Day of the Week set apart from servile Labour to the Worship of God Fifthly The Breach of that golden Law of Equity Not doing as they would be done by
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 implyâ— 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 Alleâ—â—â—y as they hold for they make Christ as both without the Figure and Allâ—â—â—â—â— 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
had only opposed the Doctrine of the glorified Saints in Heaven not being perfect which is a most deceitful Evasion by mistating the Controversie R. Hub. here is not disputing against the Papists who maintain a Purgatory but against a Protestant Author who did hold That all the deceased Saints are perfect with a sinless perfection but it doth not therefore follow that they do not in that sinless state hope for the Resurrection of their Bodies which yet is R. Hubb.'s inference by which he doth plainly discover his and his Brethrens infidelity in that great Article of the Christian Faith viz. the Resurrection of the Body Again in Coll. p. 275. he gives us his sense of the Resurrection The Seeds he saith are but two in the whole World viz. the Seed of the Woman and the Seed of the Serpent having each Seed its own Body and in every one until the one be cast out and every one of these two Seeds in every Man shall arise in its own order the one shall rise unto everlasting Life the other unto Condemnation Christ the Seed made his Grave IN the Wicked and IN the Rich in his Death and out of that Grave shall rise with his Body unto everlasting Life if thou canst receive it thou may'st be satisfied Are not these Words horrid Perversions of Scripture and containing abominable Blasphemy Again G. F. in his Distinction betwixt the Two Suppers p. 20. saith And the Apostle said that there shall be a Resurrection of the Dead both of the Just and Unjust and for Preaching the Resurrection of the Dead namely Christ Jesus he was called in question Acts 24. 15 21. And in p. 21. quoting 2 Tim. 2. 17 18. he saith But Hymenaeus and Philetus concerning the Truth erred who said that the Resurrection was past already such overthrew People from the Faith that stands in Christ who is the Resurrection and the Life through which Faith they attained to the Resurrection and had their vile Bodies changed and made like unto his Glorious Body Note How he perverts the Scripture both in words and sense the Scripture words Who shall change our vile or low Bodies respecting the time to come at the Resurrection of the Dead but he saith they attained the Resurrection and had their vile Bodies changed as a thing already fulfilled Also he makes the Resurrection that Paul Preached in the Acts 17. 18 22. and 23. 6. to be Christ himself perverting our Saviour's words who called himself the Resurrection and the Life to a literal sense which as is obvious to all intelligent Persons contain a figurative sense to wit the metony my of the Cause getting the Name of the Effect as is frequent in Scripture and in all Authors as when God is call'd in Scripture the Saints Hope and Confidence and Salvation i. e. the Author and Cause of their Hope Confidence and Salvation Tenthly Concerning the Quakers Notion of the Light Within THE true Doctrine and Sense of the Light Within as a Divine and Supernatural Gift of God given to all faithful Christians of whom it is truly said as David said concerning himself The Lord is their Light and their Salvation and also that Christ the Eternal and Essential Word who was in the beginning with God and was and is God is that true Light that doth enlighten every Man that cometh into the World even Heathens and all Individuals of Mankind with a common and universal Illumination Discovery and Knowledge of certain moral Principles of Justice and Temperance and also of some general knowledge of God as the great Creator and Ruler of the World and of some general moral Duties towards him as such whether by certain innate impressions preventing the exercise and actings of the rational Faculty or by exciting and awakening the rational Faculty of the Soul as it is enlightned and assisted by God Almighty as the primary Cause and by the works of Creation and of general Providence as secondary Causes whether one or both of these ways is not so necessary at present to determine is a Doctrine well warranted by Scripture and consented unto by the generality of Professors of Christianity and which I not only consent unto but highly value as an excellent Principle labouring daily by the Grace of God practically to improve whatever true Light within I have both Common and Special and I hope ever I shall so do and so I pray that God may enable all and me to do the same But the Quakers Notion of the Light within held in general by them and authentickly received from their Principal Teachers particularly G. F. G. W. E. Bur. and others is extremely contrary to the Holy Scriptures and also to the best dictates of our rational Faculties to which no divine Light either within Men or without Men can contradict To show which hath been a principal part of my business in all the the three Meetings above-mention'd and is the same in all the three Parts of this Narrative the which contrariety I intend to show in a short Scheme of their absurd unscriptural as well as irrational Notions of what they call the Light within which upon due examination will be found to be Darkness and not Light within 1. It 's natural to Man to have a Supernatural Light W. P.'s Prin. Christ p. 15. 2. There is no natural Light in Men Prin. Christ p. 30. There are not two Lights in Men p. 31. Thus he allows no distinction betwixt natural Reason which is a good and true Light and Gift of God to Men and the Light of Faith given to all true Christians and the Light of prophetical Inspirations given to the holy Prophets and Apostles but confounds them by making them all to be one and the same thing whereas they are all very distinct tho' all coming from one Fountain and Author God the Father of Lights 3. Man at his coming into the World hath a Light from Christ which is more than Conscience G. F.'s G. M. p. 209. 4. And seeing the Light is but dim in Heathens and Christians and Prophets and Apostles by Prin. Christ as above-quoted no Man has or ever had any other Light but what he had at his coming into the World 5. The Light within not only true Christians but within all Men Heathens Turks Jews is sufficient to Salvation without any thing else G. W.'s Antid p. 28. Thus the Man Christ without us who is both God and Man and his Death and Sufferings and Blood outwardly shed and Mediation for us in Heaven are all excluded from being so much as concurring Causes of our Salvation 6. The Light within every Man litterally understood without any Metonymy is God Christ the Holy Ghost the Unction or Anointing is blinded in some by the God of this World G. F. News out of the North p. 19. is Crucified Imprisoned Slain in wicked Men and its Blood is shed in them and that is the Blood that they trod under feet see
again and is at the Right Hand of God in our Nature as the great Object of their Faith But this the Inspirations of the chief Teachers of the Quakers have led them not to regard In the whole System of his Orthodox Principles the Substance whereof he tells us he has given there is not one intire Article of the Creed commonly called the Apostles Creed mentioned nay nor so much as implyed And indeed he cannot nor any of his Brethren by any real Evidence convince any Man that their Inspirations have taught them so much as one intire Article of that Creed in the true Sense generally received by true Christians and according to their Principles they must not say that the Spirit has given or wrought the Faith of the Articles of the Creed in them by the medium or means of the outward Word for that is contrary to G. Fox's Doctrine above delivered and as expresly contrary to the Doctrine of G. Whitehead in his Brief Discovery of the dangerous Principles of John Horne G. W's brief Discovery p. 18. pag. 18. who blames J. Horne and T. Moor for having affirmed that the Scriptures are the medium of Faith i. e. the means by which Faith is wrought in Believers There is no such Scripture saith G.W. as saith the Scriptures are the Medium of Faith Note seeing the Quakers have not the Faith of Christ as he was outwardly crucified and died for our Sins and rose again neither by the Light within them nor by the medium of the Scriptures as the Instrument of the holy Spirit as other true Christians have it it is a plain case they have no Faith of it at all other than a meer historical Faith as they have of any common History and indeed many of them have not that G. Whitehead in his Quakers Plainness p. 70. brings a quibbling Distinction betwixt a means and the means he grants The Bible may be a means instrumentally as God bestows a Blessing upon or accompanies the serious reading thereof as it directs to Christ Jesus or to his Light and Spirit which openeth the Vnderstanding in the holy Scriptures And a little before he saith Mark the Difference betwixt a means and the means as between the Bible and Christ that may be a means which is not the means Christ being the absolute way and means by way of Eminency for Man to come to know God But to shew the Fallacy of this Quibble By the means are generally understood the instrumental and subordinate Causes to the principal Agent and Efficient which ought not to be confounded Christ is the Author and principal Efficient of our Knowledge of God and the Bible i.e. the divine Oracles and Testimonies contained therein are the means and to say the means or a means is equivalent among all that know true English as when we say Food and Raiment are the means to preserve our natural Life or a means the Sense is the same But it is proved already out of G. F's Gr. Myst p. 243. that G. F. denyed that the things of the Gospel and of the Spirit are attained by an external means will G. W's Distinction here serve him Will he again distinguish betwixt a means and an external means But let us apply this subtile Distinction of G.W. to the Words of G. F. in Saul's Errand p. 6. who being charged that he said He was the eternal Judge of the World he confesseth it and brings several Proofs as he thinks to prove it as that the spiritual Man judgeth all things and the Saints shall judge the World Now seeing G. W. will needs have a Distinction betwixt a means and the means why not also betwixt a Judge of the World and the Judge yea the eternal Judge of the World as he professeth himself to be It was not enough that G. F. should be a Judge of the World but the Judge yea the eternal Judge of the World and by G. W's Logick G. F. was not a Judge but the Judge by way of Eminency yea the eternal Judge of the World But G. F. after his manner of frequently corrupting the Words of Scripture as well as his Opponents Words doth corruptly and falsly argue from that Scripture 1 Cor. 6. 2. Do ye not know that the Saints shall judge the World Note the Words shall judge in the future which G. F. corruptly applyeth to himself in the present or preterit Tense that he was or is the Judge yea the eternal Judge of the World Lastly To come yet more closely to G. W. himself I will shew you how he denyeth the Scriptures to be a means for the Conversion of Jews and Heathens to the true Faith in Truth defending the Quakers by G. W. qu. 35. pag. 51. And what is that the Gospel must be preached to in the Heathens that will receive it And whether they that preach to Turks and Heathens ought to preach out of a Text and prove their Doctrine by Scripture to them as the Priests do in England yea or nay Note By this Query he not only excludes the Scripture from being the means but a means for converting Turks and Heathens nor will his common Excuse of saying it was but a Query help him This sort of querying being the strongest way of denying or affirming both in Scripture and all other Writings Next let us hear W. Penn 's Confession concerning means in his Key printed 1699. p. 12. pervers 8. The Quakers assert the Spirit of God to be the immediate Teacher and that there is no other means now to be used as Ministry Ordinances c. He answereth They never spake such Language ... for they never denied the use of means but to this Day from the Beginning they have been in the use of them but then they are such means as are used in the Life and Power of God Note with what presumptuous Confidence W. P. dareth to say they never spake such Language when G. F. their great Apostle had plainly said as above-quoted that the things of the Gospel are not attained by AN external means That they have been all along in the use of some means as preaching writing and reading is but to say their Practice contradicts their Principles which is very common to them But to cover their Error their way is to mistate the Question as W. P. doth here which is not whether outward means can truly profit without the inward Aid and Assistance of the Spirit for this is generally granted that they cannot which is equivalent to his Phrase that the means then only profit when used in the Life and Power of God And in very deed their holding the Light within every Man sufficient to Salvation without any thing else as they do commonly teach destroyeth all necessary use of outward means as who should say a Man has that within him that is sufficient to carry him to America without any thing else as Boat or Ship should be understood to say he can walk
Fox makes him to have contradicted the Apostle and also the Assembly of Divines at Westminster and judged both himself and them This I think so evident a Proof that G. F. thought himself equal with the Father that neither G. W. nor Jos Wyeth nor any of their Brethren with all their little Craft and Sophistry can clear this Passage from that down-right Blasphemy That G. F. was equal with God for neither the Assembly of Divines at Westminster nor C. W. deny the Equality of the Son and of the Holy Ghost for G. Fox grants they owned it but the Equality which C. Wade cryed against was the Equality of G. F. or any of the Saints with the Father But here we find the Strength of G. Fox's Logick The Son and Holy Ghost are equal with the Father therefore G. F. is equal with the Father the Proof of which Consequence must be one of these two following Assertions the one is That G. Fox thought himself to be the Son of God or such a Son as was equal with the Father the other is That because the Son of God was revealed in G. Fox as he thought that therefore G. Fox was equal with the Father As to the first of these Assertions as it is utterly false that G. Fox was the Son of God to wit the only begotten Son of God the Word made Flesh so the other is utterly a false Consequence that because the Son of God was revealed in him that therefore he was equal with the Father but surely if the Son of God had been revealed in him that Revelation would have taught him not to utter such horrid Blasphemy But that C. Wade did not deny but own as much as the Scripture warranteth That God the Father as also Christ the Son were manifested or revealed in the Saints I shall quote a Passage in his Book being originally the Words of one T. Moor that wrote against the Quakers whom J. Nailer had charged That he would exclude God and Christ out of the World and that he should no more dwell in his People till Doomsday In Opposition to which C. Wade quotes the following saying of T. Moor which he approves pag. 23. of Quakery slain That the Majesty of God whose Throne is in Heaven is in his Inspections Influences and Operation every where and in his gracious and spiritual Presence and manifested Nighness in and through his Son dwelling in Sion even in the Hearts and Societies of his People Now let us hear what Jos Wyeth and G. Whitehead say in Defence of that blasphemous Passage above-mentioned quoted from Saul's Errand to Damascus p. 8. He that hath the same Spirit that raised up Jesus from the dead is equal with God Jos Wyeth doth plainly justifie it by the like false Consequence as G. Fox made Switch pag. 59. he saith For when Men are guided by the Holy Spirit they are certainly guided by God for the Father Son and Holy Spirit are one God and therefore equal and that which is equal as G. Fox he saith often expresseth it But doth it therefore follow that because the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are equal that therefore he that hath either the Son or the Holy Ghost is equal either with the Son or Holy Ghost or with the Father yet this is Jos Wyeth's blasphemous Consequence to justifie G. F's Blasphemy But G. W. hath found two other Ways to defend the above-said Blasphemy of G. F. in the Supplement to the Switch he saith p. 528. And if any among us have writ of them who are perfect in Christ Jesus being led by his Spirrt as in that Sense equal I understand equal only as like unto God or in Vnion with him being united unto him by his Spirit as he that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit Note first The Word Equal no where that I know either in Scripture or other Books or common Speech in any Language signifieth only as like therefore this is a meer Force put upon the Word and a strained Sense But Secondly That could not be the Sense intended by G. Fox because as I have above shewed in a former Quotation he proves that he is equal with God the Father because the Son and Holy Ghost are equal with the Father Now will G. W. say That the Equality betwixt the Son and the Holy Ghost and the Father is only an Equality of Likeness as to say the Son and the Holy Ghost are only like the Father but are not really equal with the Father This was the Arian Heresie that the Son was like the Father but not equal or of the same Substance with the Father they said he was Homoiusios but not Homouisios But he hath yet another String to his Bow in his Truth and Innocency pag. 10. Therefore the Words He that hath in the said Instance should be left out being contrary to G. F 's and our Principle and to his own very Words and Confession a little before in the same Book quoting Saul's Errand p. 5 6. where G. F. saith It was not so spoken as G. Fox was equal with God but the Father and the Son is one But the Fallacy lyeth here he did not say George Fox to wit the Name George Fox or the outward visible Body that bears that Carnal Name as he somewhere calls it but the new Name that he hath that is the He that is equal with God because that He is the Son and as to what G. W. saith of Union with God that G. F. did not mean Union by Faith and Love but a personal Union appears from G. M. p. 100. He brings in his Opponent saying God dwells not in the Saints as a Personal Union In Opposition to which he answers How comes the Saints then to eat of his Flesh and to be of his Flesh and Bone Note it should be by a personal Union And God dwelling in them and have Vnity with the Son and the Father and to be of his Body which is the Church and Christ the Head Yea he blames his Opponent G. M. p. 258. for saying To say that God is substantially in Man as essentially one with him can be no other but the Man of Sin But whereas G. W. saith He that hath should be left out pray who put them in That they were G. Fox's Words the Book called Saul's Errand affirms if this Liberty be allowed to transpose leave out and add Words in a Sentence nothing so vile and blasphemous or atheistical but may be justified by G. W. who hath used all these three Methods to defend his and his Brethrens vile Errors But let us hear one Passage more of G. F. out of G. Myst p. 299. to let us know what Conceit he had of himself as being more than a Creature he tells That one had raised a grievous Lye against G. F. and said he said he was Christ p. 298. to the End This Man having so charged him and having told him
VVade mentions no less than twelve particular Lyes wherewith G. F. had belyed him in matter of fact as to his Quotations all which I have considered and so may others if they have the Books and will find them indeed to be abusive Perversions and Lies of G. F. upon this C. VVade but I shall give only two Instances more that out of the Mouth of two or three Witnesses that is plain matter of fact G. F. is guilty of false Quotations and belying the Innocent and yet these impudent Men will defend his Infallibility one of them is that G. F. in his G. M. p. 246. chargeth C. VVade to say O Luciferian Pride to save Souls to this C. VVade fully and effectually answereth and plainly detects the Lie and Perversion in his second Book where he shews out of the seventh and eighth Page of his Quakery slain that his Words were His crying out against James Milner ' s Luciferian Pride to save Souls as Christ did C. Wade's second Book p. 4. because he pretended himself to be Christ and audaciously took upon him to save Souls as Christ did by his suffering Death and hereupon James Milner did in a juggling manner die and in a juggling inchanting manner with a Knife and a Bason he pretended his Blood was shed to save the Souls of two VVomen this manner of saving Souls only C. Wade blames which G. F. either justifies or renders himself a Lyer by blaming C. Wade See the Places themselves The other Lye and Slander which G. F. is guilty of against C. Wade is that in his G. M. p. 247. he makes C. Wade to say God limits the Supreme Holy One by the inspired Writings of the Apostles but C. Wade's Words were That the Devil limits the Supreme Holy One see C. Wade's second Book p. 5. compared with p. 13. of Quakery slain Note If either the Switch or G. Whitehead could prove the like Perversions and Lies against the Author of the Snake as C. Wade hath here proved against G. F. how would they have sentenced him as indeed they have for things of small moment in comparison of what is here justly proved against their infallible Apostle as they pretend he was G. F But I do not know one Quotation of the Author of the Snake out of their Books wherein he hath in a substantial matter wronged him as G. F. here hath wronged C. Wade not only in these three but many more There yet remains two Quotations out of G. W's own Book called Truth defending the Quakers which he most fallaciously and sophistically endeavours to justifie The Question being put Whether the Quakers did esteem their Speakings to be of as great Authority as any Chapter in the Bible Truth and Inn. p. 16. 'T is answered That which is spoken from the Spirit of Truth in any is of as great Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are and greater This same Quotation is objected in a late printed Sheet called An Account from Colchester where the following Words are set down that G. W. blames the Norfolk Priests for leaving out which he calls the annexed explanatory Words and they are these As Christ's VVords were of greater Authority when he spoke than the Pharises reading the Letter and they in whom that Spirit speaks not are out of the Authority of the Scriptures and their speaking we deny But first These Words are not explanatory but a sophistical Argument to prove the former Assertion for G. VV. argues That because Christ's preaching was of greater Authority than the Pharisees reading the Scriptures that therefore what the Spirit speaks in the Quakers and by them is of greater Authority than the Scriptures which is both a false and foolish Consequence for it supposes that the Spirit of God speaks in the Quakers when they preach or speak in Meetings as it did in Christ and in the Apostles viz. by the same divine Inspiration in kind and manner immediately and infallibly which cannot be granted and the Falsehood of it appears by the many false things that they speak and write contrary to the Scriptures And though he mentions not Quakers yet that he does understand them and none else is clear from his own Words He saith They in whom that Spirit speaks not their speaking we deny This supposeth he grants that the Spirit spoke in some which they did not deny and who were these but the Ministers among the Quakers seeing they deny the Ministry of all others in our Days Next he has an impertinent Question as to the Division of Chapters and Verses Can these Men say that was done by Divine Authority But this is wholly from the purpose Another Evasion is That the Spirit of Truth immediately ministring in Man or by any spiritual Minister is of greater Authority Power or Efficacy than the Chapters are simply considered as without the Spirit But simply considered as without the Spirit is wholly remote from the Question and is no ways to be allowed for any true Vindication because the Spirit doth as truly and frequently accompany the Scriptures when read as when preached or whatever is preached by the Spirit 's Assistance if the Hearers in reading be as sincere as the Hearers in preaching But if the Hearers be careless suppose Men preach by the Spirit it doth not follow that carnal and careless Hearers hear by the Spirit more than that they read or hear what is read by the Spirit But if he will needs have the Words simply and abstractly considered without the Spirit be added to reading let them by the like reason be added to preaching what he adds of Christ and the Apostles living and powerful preaching being of greater Efficacy Power and Authority than the outward Writing or Scripture it self simply or abstractly considered as distinct from the Spirit As it was no Part of the Question nor Answer given by him in Truth 's Defence so it is altogether impertinent But he equivocates upon the Word Authority taking it for the effect it hath on the Hearers but that was not the Sense of the Word Authority in the Question asked but its Sense as it 's generally among all that treat of Scripture Authority above other Writings so taken the Obligation or Right that doth oblige or induce us to believe the Truth of them and that they are of divine Inspiration This is quite another thing than the Effect or Impression that Men feel in reading or hearing them read as well as when preached upon by way of expounding for whether the Effect or Influence and Impression be great or little as it is sometimes great and sometimes little and sometimes perhaps none upon hardned Hearts yet their Authority is still the same neither greater nor less at one time than another The other Quotation is taken out of his Truth defending and is objected against in that called An Account from Colchester to which a pretended Answer is given in that called Some Account from Colchester signed
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
Works are meritorious of Condemnation therefore good Works wrought by us in the Spirit are a meritorious cause of our Justification But T. Danson doth effectually Answer the Argument by denying the Consequence and that it can have no force unless the good Works we work even by the help of the Spirit Voice of Wisdom p. 36. were in all respects Perfect and Sinless and that we had always perfectly fulfilled the Law from first to last which no Man ever did but Christ And he gives another good reason why he denyeth the Consequence Because the Righteousness which God works in us is but Finite as well as other effects his sense is obvious No Righteousness can Merit our Justification before God but that which is of an Infinite value and therefore the Righteousness of a meer Man had it been Perfect and Sinless from the first moment of his Life to his Death could not be of Merit for the Justification of others and indeed strictly speaking not of Merit for his own Justification he could only have been justified by his own good Works assisted to do them by the Spirit by fulfilling the terms of the Law or Covenant of Works but because Christ was not meer Man but both God and Man therefore his Righteousness and Obedience is of that Infinite Value and Merit that is sufficient for all that lay hold on it for Justification by a true and lively Faith Now to both these good and solid Reasons G. W. Answers most Ignorantly First in asserting That the good Works which we work by the Spirit or which the Spirit works in us are Perfect and are the fulfilling of the Law and therefore deserving Justification but to this I have answered above and discovered his Ignorance see the First Part p. 13. To his 2d Reason G. W. Answers The Righteousness which God effects in us is not Finite but Infinite Voice of Wisdom p. 36. for Christ is God's Righteousness and Christ is formed in us Gal. 4. 19. and so that Righteousness which God works in us by his Spirit is of the same Kind and Nature with that which worketh it for the Saints are made partakers of the Divine Nature Thus we see how he magnifies the Righteousness wrought by the Spirit in Men not only to be Perfect with a Sinless Perfection but DEIPIES it so as to make it equal to God himself arguing that the Righteousness which God works in us is of the same Nature with that which worketh it surely whatever is of the same Nature with God is equal to God yea is God for because Christ as he is the Eternal Word is of the same Nature with God therefore he is equal with God and is God But observe a prodigious Fallacy in G. W. to defend his Blasphemy In his Truth and Innoc. p. 60. in defence of that passage above-quoted out of his Voice of Wisdom he saith My meaning simply of the word Infinite was that God's Righteousness which he effects in us is Everlasting and without end Psal 119. 142. And Christ is said to be of God made unto us Wisdom and Righteousness and Sanctification and Redemption 1 Cor. 1. 30. I hope saith he none will deny him to be Infinite or his work of Righteousness and the effect thereof to be quietness and assurance for ever And thus he would heal himself by giving us his sense of the word Infinite that he meant simply that it was Everlasting and without end But to detect this prodigiously dull Sophistry I call it not prodigious for the Wit of it but the Dulness of it the nature of G. W.'s Argument did not only carry the sense of the word Infinite to be endless but to be every way Infinite his Argument being grounded on this That that Righteousness which God worketh in us is of the same Kind and Nature with that which worketh it Now the Nature of God is not only endless but Infinite every way his Righteousness and Holiness not only extendeth beyond all Times and Ages but beyond all Degrees and Measures of Created Perfection But whatever sense the word Infinite may be allowed in other cases to have as to say a Nation is Infinitely Rich as Nahum 3. 9. yet in this case of the Controversie betwixt T. Danson and G. W. the word Infinite can have no such limited or strained sense neither did T. Danson understand it in that sense as only to signifie Endless And G. W. did he know the true Law of Disputants should know That when he answereth to his Opponent's Argument he should take the word of his Opponent in the sense of his Opponent because the force of the Argument lies upon that sense For T. Danson's Argument had not this sense That because the Righteousness that God works in Men is not Endless therefore it is not Meritorious of Justification for granting it to be Endless that is Infinite in G. W.'s sense as the Apostle Paul saith of Charity it never faileth every degree of it is Endless but it will not therefore follow that it is meritorious of Justification because it hath no end of duration for so the Soul it self should be meritorious of Justification because it is Endless yea the Souls of bad Men and Devils are Endless and Infinite in G. W.'s sense do they therefore merit Justification But the force of T. Danson's Argument lyeth in this That Righteousness alone can be meritorious of our Justification before God that is Infinite in Value and Worth that is equivalent and infinitely more than equivalent to the Righteousness not only of all the most holy Angels that never sinned but of all the Men that ever lived or shall live had they by Supposition lived as holily and righteously as the holy Law of God required them to live from first to last yet such a Righteousness as this of all such holy Angels and Men being but a Finite Righteousness with respect to its intrinsick worth and value could not be sufficiently meritorious for the Justification of one Man that has sinned tho' suppose but once all his Life time But because the Righteousness of Christ to wit his most holy and perfect Obedience which he performed without us was not the Righteousness of a meer Man but of him who was both God and Man therefore it is an Infinite Righteousness i. e. of Infinite value before God by way of merit to obtain the Justification of true Penitents and Believers and when sound Christian-Teachers say The Righteousness of Christ which he performed without us for our Justification is an Infinite Righteousness they mean not that it was Physically Infinite but Morally i. e. of Infinite value before God by reason of the Hypostatical Union of the Humane Nature of Christ with the Essential and Eternal Word But G. W. thought to excuse S. F. and himself from the imputation of Popery on the Point of Justification and that very handsomly why because the Quakers say It 's only the works that they
by natural Generation Indeed many of the Quakers deny any conveyance of Original Sin by natural Generation as the Pelagians denyed of old because they cannot comprehend with their Reason how such a conveyance can be to be sure it is altogether remote from all rational Comprehension as well as from Scripture that such a Noble Principle as the Seed of God should come by natural Generation and so come to all Men even the Children of Heathens as well as the Children of Believers as the Quakers commonly Teach yea G. F. saith G. M. p. 209. Every Man AT HIS COMING INTO THE WORLD hath a Light from Christ him by whom the World was made which is more than Conscience But if every Man has that Light at his coming into the World then Heathen Infants have it and seeing they have it from Christ whether they have it Immediately conveyed or Mediately by natural Generation through their Parents as they have their natural Flesh If Immediately from Christ it is more rational to suppose it is not crucified nor killed at its first reception Beside how can it be a slain or dead Thing in them when it convinceth them of the sins of Lying Thieft and the like and speaketh to them in their Hearts and Consciences and teacheth them their whole duty to God and Man if they will obey it yea an entire Systeme of Orthodox Divinity If J. Wyeth can be believed how can it do all this and be a dead or crucified thing in them These are but some of the inexplicable and unintelligible Difficulties beside many more that might be mentioned which the wild Notions and Phrases of G. F. and G. W. especially as far from Scripture Language as Darkness is from Light have led them into and many others whom they have bewildred with them notwithstanding G. W.'s fallacious pretences of his Brethren and Himself being an innocent plain simple People that most affect Scripture Language when indeed no Society call'd Christians nay not the Church of Rome have so much deviated from Scripture Language as well as Scripture Doctrine and Sense as they have done But let none from this infer that I do not own the Doctrine and Faith of Christ within and of his Divine Teachings Inspirations and Illuminations for that I do withal my Heart as truly as ever I did and I hope rather better only I deny the Quakers wild extravagant and blasphemous Notions of Christ within and particularly of G. F. and G. W. above-mention'd who affirm that Christ is Crucified in all unregenerate Persons and that the Flesh of this crucified Christ in them is the Offering for Sin and the Belief is to be in this Flesh and the Blood of this Flesh cleanseth from all Sin Which Flesh was crucified in Adam when he Fell but how from Adam it came into them either crucified or alive is not intelligible and therefore no proper object of Faith but if they say it is alive in all Men at its first reception or at their first coming into the World then all Men are Born Sanctified and spiritually Regenerated Heathens as well as Christians for the great difference that the Quakers give betwixt Regenerated and Unregenerated Persons lies in this That the Seed Christ is alive in the Regenerated but crucified and dead in the Unregenerated But yet again to shew how much G. W. acts the Sophister in his late pretences to own the Merit of the Blood of Christ that was outwardly shed which yet he hath so plainly denied in his Light and Life and mightily opposed it That the shedding of that Blood upon the Cross was the meritorious cause of Man's Justification in p. 8. Of Light and Life he blames W. B. For laying a twofold stress upon that Blood 1. Merit to Salvation 2. Work to Sanctification and infers against W. B's twofold assertion That in his so doing he hath set it viz that Blood up above God for God could not save he saith and yet is not in being gross absurdity saith G. W. Here the force of G. W.'s Sophistical Argument against the Merit of Christ's Blood is very apparent To say that Blood is the Meritorious cause of our Salvation is to set it up above God which is a most absurd consequence and his proof of his consequence he grounds upon an absolute forgery whereby he manifestly wrongs his Opponent W. B. in his alledging on him that he said God could not save whereas W. B. did not say God could not save But that Christ as he was God without being Man he could not save Man See W. B.'s Capital Principles p. 35 36. which is almost Orthodox Doctrine rightly understood viz. Seeing God hath appointed to save Man after that manner G. VV.'s further opposition to the Blood of Christ as outwardly shed being the Meritorious cause of Man's Justification is evident from his words Light and Life p. 61. But mark how one while W. B. makes that Blood and the shedding of it his Justifier and Redeemer c. VVhich he has confessed is not in being Another while People must seek their Saviour above the Clouds and Firmament contrary to the righteousness of Faith Rom. 10. 6. Another while they must look to Jerusalem for Justification and to the Blood that was there shed contrary to Deut. 30. 13 14. And Rom. 10. And if Men should look to Jerusalem for that Blood it is not there to be found for it is not in being says W. B. The Seven Colchester Quakers in their Printed Paper called Some Account above mentioned p. 16. pretended to answer this passage by producing some words of G. VV. in his Light and Life which they think will justifie him but all in vain unless to detect his and their dull Sophistry VV. B. having said The shedding of the Blood upon the Cross that was let out by Virtue of the Spear being thrust into his side to be Meritorious or the Meritorious cause of Man's Justification To this G. W. Answereth The shedding of that Blood let out by the Spear was an act of a wicked Man and the Spear an Instrument of cruelty which to lay the Meritorious cause or stress of Justication upon is false Doctrine for there is a great difference between Christ's offering up himself by the eternal Spirit a Lamb without Spot to God and the acts of wicked Men inflicted upon him as it is said by wicked Hands they put him to Death And they conclude saying But the making the very act of shedding his Blood by the Spear to be the Meritorious cause of Man's Justification we therefore ask them if they really believe the same Here Note Both G. W.'s and the Seven Colchester Quakers fallacy thereby to cover G. W.'s vile Heresie He most unjustly chargeth it upon W. B. his Opponent that he laid the Meritorious cause or stress of Justification upon the Act of the wicked Man that thrust the Spear into our Saviour's Side but this is a piece of gross forgery in
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
are sprung forth of the corrupt Tree which now is to be burned and its Fruit rejected Now these are all the Books and Catechisms published by any others but themselves Again in p. 23. they say And though some have known him viz. Christ after the Flesh yet henceforth know they him so no more as say the Scriptures of Truth Note Here they pervert the true Sence of Paul's Words as they commonly do in their Books and Preachings giving Paul's Words for a Reason why they do not preach Faith in Christ as he came in the Flesh died and rose again c as necessary to Salvation because say they VVe are no more to know Christ after the Flesh whereas it was the great Subject both of Paul's Preaching and of all the Apostles to wit Jesus Christ as he came in the Flesh died for our Sins and rose again and ascended c. insomuch that they did with one Accord declare That the Gift of the Holy Ghost with all the saving and sanctifying Graces of the Spirit do come to Men by Christ through Faith in him as he came in the Flesh died rose and ascended and that this Faith was wrought in Men by hearing the VVord outwardly preached Again in p. 23. they say Now Children the Scriptures of Truth do declare of God and Christ and the Spirit of Truth which are one but the Scriptures cannot bring you to know God and Christ and the Spirit of Truth And yet they say concerning this Primmer and the Contents of it p. 2. That they are very useful for Children and others to Learn that they may be turned unto the Light which is the Gift of God Here they seem to prefer their Primmer to the Scriptures for they say of the Contents of their Primmer That they are very useful for Children and others to Learn To learn what Surely some Knowledge of God and Christ they will say and yet they will not allow so much to the Scripture and on a diligent Search I find not in all this Primmer one simple Direction to Children and others to read the Scriptures and what they have quoted of Scripture in it is but little and much even of that grosly perverted and misapplied as in p. 44 45. they say They that hear the Light that is in all Men and common to all Men they hear God for God is Light and they that hear God they hear Christ also for God and Christ are one as saith the Scripture and they that hear Christ hear the Author of the true Faith and so hear the Saviour of their Souls and the Light is that Prophet which all that hear not him are to be cut off Here we see how grosly they pervert that Place of Scripture Deut. 18. 15. Acts 3. 22. 7. 37. which is not to be understood of the common Illumination given to all Mankind but of the Man Christ as he outwardly came in the Flesh and did execute his prophetical Office on Earth by preaching and teaching and as he doth now still execute his prophetical Office in his Church by his Word outwardly preached and his Spirit inwardly accompanying it to make it effectual Again p. 82. they run into the same wild Notion that others Familists and mad Enthusiasts run into of the Blood of Christ within them For say they and all wait together in the Light viz. as it is common to all Mankind Infidels Jews Mahumetans Heathens for so they understand it and believe in it that ye may be the Children of the Light and therein watch unto Prayer and one over another and this will beget ye into unfeigned Love and walk in the Light ye will have true Vnity and Fellowship one with another and the Blood which is the Life of Jesus Christ ye will feel cleansing you from all Sin and so ye will come into Vnity with God Note By this it is evident as will more fully appear on a particular Head following that by the Blood which they call the Life of Jesus Christ they meant not his Blood outwardly shed or his Life that he outwardly laid down viz. the Life of his Manhood without us for the Remission of our Sins and cleansing therefrom But according to their usual Cant and Phrase The Blood that is the Life and the Life is the Light within So that they make the Blood the Life and the Light within them to be one and the same thing but neither in this Primmer nor in any other of their Books do I find the least Direction to Faith in the Blood of Christ as it was outwardly shed on the Cross therefore in this Primmer and in their other Books they give Poison to poor Children to suck or receive instead of wholesome Food George Keith's Fourth Narrative OF HIS Proceedings at Turners-Hall 1699. For the Detecting the QUAKERS ERRORS PART II. Containing the Proofs out of the Quakers Books on the fifth Head concerning Christ his Incarnation his Soul Body and Blood And on the sixth Head concerning the Souls of Men. Read at the second Meeting at Turners-Hall January 19. 1699. W. P. in Serious Apology p. 146. saith That the outward Person which suffered was properly the Son of God we utterly deny This is expresly contrary to many Texts of Scripture and to a great Fundamental Article of our Christian Creed yea in a manner it overthrows the whole Christian Creed See the following Scriptures Mat. 16. 13 16. Luke 1. 32. Mat. 14. 33. Mark 1. 1. John 1. 14 34. John 9. 35. 10. 36. Acts 8. 37. Rom. 1. 4. Mat. 27. 54. G.W. in his Truth and Inn. p. 52. excuseth W. P ' s Words thus Here I take him to mean the Son of God in respect to his Divine Being as he is of one Substance with the Father which his Body that suffered Death was not though he was truly the Son of God as he took upon him that Body and as made of a Woman Gal. 4. 4. Being conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary The Fallacy of this is easily detected the Question in Debate betwixt W. P. and his Opponents who were Presbyterian Ministers in Ireland was not whether the Body was the Son of God abstractly considered from the Soul of Christ and his Godhead for no Presbyterian ever held that neither will any Socinian that denyeth the Godhead of Christ say that that meer Body without his created Soul was the Christ or Son of God But the true State of the Question was and is whether he that outwardly suffered Death without the Gates of Jerusalem whom W. P. calls that outward Person in Distinction from the Light within which the Quakers will have to be the whole Christ according to G. Fox's Doctrine was and is not properly the Son of God which all sound Christians say according to Scripture he was and is being both God and Man and yet one Person one Christ one Son of God having his Godhead-Nature and his Manhood-Nature so united as
Could Christ have been said to have been transfigured if his coming in the Flesh had not been a Figure or Example till his Glory was revealed And hast thou not read That he was the express Figure of his Father's Substance instead of which it is translated he is the express Image c. Note This Quotation was objected in a late printed Sheer called An Account from Colchester And a pretended Answer was given to it in another printed Paper signed by seven Quakers of Colchester And the like Answer is given by G.VV. in his Truth and Innocency p. 53. They abuse me still in this saith he it was none of my Assertion That Christ's coming in the Flesh was but a Figure I positively disown these Words as a downright Forgery put upon me Ans How can he in Conscience disown these Words and charge them to be a downright Forgery put upon him when in his Answer to that Charge against R. Hubb he finds no Fault with the Phrase But a Figure but brings two Places of Scripture to justifie it which are most ignorantly and impertinently brought to prove it Why did he not then except against the Word But a Figure But instead of excepting against it he brings two Scriptures to prove the Assertion alledged against R. Hubb the one is That Christ was said to have been transfigured which because it sounded in English like his being made a Figure therefore in his great Ignorance of the Word Transfigured as well as of the Sense intended he thought it was a good Proof that Christ as he came in the Flesh was but a Figure but transfigured there signifies nothing other but transformed the Greek Word has no Relation either to Figure or Example for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Metamorphosed a Word some use in English and what that Transfiguration was Matthew tells us Mat. 17. 2. that His Face did shine as the Sun and his Raiment was white as the Light Now what Relation has this either to Figure or Example in that Sense for which G.W. brought it to prove R. Hubb's Saying Christ's coming in the Flesh was but a Figure Of what was Christ's Transfiguration a Figure Or how was it our Example to follow But that G.W. meant not an Example of Imitation but a Type or Figure that was to vanish or be laid aside is evident from his own Words Could Christ have been said to have been transfigured if his coming in the Flesh had not been a Figure or Example till his Glory was revealed Thus we see how long G.W. thought that Christ's coming in the Flesh was to continue a Figure viz. until his Glory should be revealed to wir by his inward coming into the Hearts of the Disciples which was the Substance of that Figure for thus G.W. and his Brethren argue for the Disuse of outward Baptism and the Supper they were but Figures of the inward Substance and were to continue but until that was revealed so here Christ's coming in the Flesh was but a Figure till his Glory was revealed So whether G.W. makes it Figure or Example he tells us how long it was to be our Figure or Example till his Glory was revealed But taking Example for an Example that we ought to follow in all holy living and walking we shall find the Scriptures set him forth for our Example after his Glory was revealed 1 Pet. 2. 21. Because Christ also suffered for us leaving us an Example that ye should follow his Steps this was after his Glory was revealed in and among the Believers And as the Quakers Reason why they cast off outward Baptism and the Supper is because the Substance is revealed in them whereof they were Figures so for the same reason they think Christ's Death at Jerusalem is not to be minded nor preached because it was a Figure Christ in his People is the Substance of all Figures And his Flesh is a Figure Here Figure in both Places hath the same Signification He doth not say Christ without his People but Christ in his People is the Substance of all Figures And as a Proof of this a Quotation was brought against the Quakers out of one of their ancient Books called The Doctrine of Perfection vindicated So when you come to know this to wit the Operation of Christ or the Light within you will cease remembring his Death at Jerusalem and will come to see how he hath been crucified in you and what it is that hath crucified him Thus we see how according to him Christ's Death at Jerusalem being but a Figure of Christ crucified within the Substance the Use and Remembrance of it ceaseth Is not this horrid Blasphemy Why have they not all this time retracted this To this G.W. answers Truth and Inn. p. 55. I do 〈◊〉 believe this to be justly or impartially quoted let them produce it at large and whose 〈◊〉 it is But the Book being produced it did appear to be justly and impartially â—â—ored and the Book to be a Quakers Book and printed for R. VVilson the Quakers Bookseller at that time the Author's Name is John VVhitehouse who shews how and by whom he was brought over to Quakerism But let us see how that other Place of Scripture brought by G.W. to prove R.H. his Assertion That Christs coming in the Flesh is but a Figure will clear him or rather indeed render him guilty of the same Error with R.H. the Place is most impertinently quoted by G.W. to prove That Christ's coming in the Flesh was either a Figure or Example for us to follow as he would have us to understand him That by Christ's coming in the Flesh his being a Figure that is an Example of our lmitation Truth and Inn. p. 24 25. Heb. 1. 3. Christ is there called The Brigthness of his viz. God ' s Glory and the Express Image of his Person and this G.W. brought to confirm R. H's Assertion telling us from his pretended great Learning that he is the express Figure instead of which he saith it is translated express Image And he is at great Pains to shew that Type or Figure sometimes points at a thing to come sometimes it denotes a present Example and that either of Imitation or of Warning and Caution But how can he make it appear That by the Description given of Christ Heb. 1. 3. his being the express Image of his viz. the Father's Person that Christ is there set forth to be our Example either for Imitation or Caution for he is not there said to be our Example or Image but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in the Greek of the Father's Person or Hypostasis But the Word Character can no wise justly here be understood to be an Example of our Imitation and C.VV. was but idle to render it Figure to quadrate with R. H's Assertion and to make the ignorant think he could mend the Translation but his now turning it to Example makes it Blasphemy as to say
work by the Spirit 's help that are meritorious of Justification But this will not excuse them from Popery for even Bellarmine a great Popish Author and the other Popish Authors plead only for the merit of such good Works which merit by Condignity as wrought by the help of the Holy Spirit assisting them And his Sophistry is as dull in his drawing an Argument from 1 Cor. 1 30. That Christ is made unto us of God Wisdom and Righteousness and Sanctification and Redemption therefore that Believers are justified by an Infinite Righteousness wrought in them and that Christ is formed in them Gal. 4. 19. And thus he will have Christ as held forth in that Text 1 Cor. 1. 30. not to be Christ God-Man without us from and by whom we receive Justification and Redemption and also divine Wisdom and Sanctification by his holy Spirit that he sendeth into our Hearts and by his holy Doctrine outwardly taught us but Christ formed in us he will have to be all this unto us Judgment Fixed p. 330. and Christ formed in us is the Seed and the Seed is God over all blessed for ever as above-quoted both out of G. W. and W. P. But what then is become of his Exposition that he gave in his Judgment Fixed above-quoted That this Birth viz. Christ formed in true Believers is not Christ Jesus for he is that incorruptible Seed and Word of Life which begets forms and brings forth the Soul of Man into his own Nature and Image and so Christ may be said to be formed in us in a Mysterious and Elegant way of speaking the Property and Effect being put for the Cause Thus we see how he wavers to and fro betwixt So and No and No and So sometimes This and sometimes That and sometimes neither This nor That a Phrase that S. F. used to some of his Opponents but very justly apply'd to G. W. But differing senses and meanings are more tolerable for a Man to put on his Words than plain contradictions and especially in Matters Fundamental as these are Next let us hear what W. P. hath said on the Doctrine of Justification and how J. Wyeth in his Switch defends him W. Penn in his Serious Apology p. 148 gives the charge of his Opponent thus That we deny Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us and therefore deny the Lord that bought us W. P. Answers And indeed this we deny 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 What saith Jos Wyeth that hardy Champion to this Switch p. 238. Yes it is still true and that we do deny and boldly affirm to be the Doctrine of Devils and for our so denying and affirming we have the warrant of Holy Writ wherein is abundantly testifyed of the Spirit of Christ in Man to which he must be obedient in order to his Justification for which he quotes Rom. 3. 24 28. Rom. 5. 1. Titus 3. 7. and concludes then not wholly without us Note Here J. Wyeth acts the dull Sophister as much as his Elder Brother G. W. by perverting the true state of the Question as is their frequent manner The Question is not What is necessary by way of Instrument or Instrumental Application or Preparatory Condition in order to Justification such as Faith and Repentance for such are granted to be necessary in order to Justification as the stretching out the Hand is necessary to receive an Alms or free Gift and the opening the Mouth is necessary to receive Food but the true state of the Question is What is the procuring and purchasing Cause of our Justification before God by way of Merit or the Meritorious Cause of our Justification whether the Righteousness of Christ that he wrought without us by his Active and Passive Obedience above Sixteen Hundred Years ago Yea or Nay If Yea surely that is wholly without us but this says W. P. and J. W. is a Doctrine of Devils and G. W. chargeth T. D. with ignorance and false Doctrine for affirming it as above-quoted and yet it is the very plain Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures Isa 53. 4 5 11 12. Rom. 3. 21 22 23 24 25 28. Rom. 4. 4 11. Rom. 5. 18. Gal. 3. 22. 2 Cor. 5. 21. There are other Arguments which W. P. useth in his Serious Apology some of which I shall mention not to refute them for the least Child in Christianity may do that but to show his Error one of which is Death came by actual Sin not imputative therefore Justification unto Life comes by actual Righteousness and not imputative Another is This speaks Peace to the Wicked Another is Men are Dead and Alive at the same time by this Doctrine Note He perverts the state of the Question his Opponents do not say That Wicked and Unsanctified Persons are justified but if none be justified but who are Perfect vvith a Sinless Perfection and have not the least impurity then neither W. P. nor any Quaker ever vvas or is justified for vvhatever they boast of their Sinless Perfection their vile Errors Pride and Uncharitableness as vvell as other their Imperfections demonstrate the contrary Another of his Arguments is against our Justification by Christ's Righteousness without us Our rejoycing must be in our selves and not in another thus perverting Paul's Words Gal. 6. 4. But let every Man prove his own work and then shall he have rejoycing in himself and not in another But doth this exclude our rejoycing in Christ Jesus our Head who to be sure is another O sad How contrary to this is Philip 3. 3. For we are the Circumcision which worship God in the Spirit and rejoyce in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the Flesh by this Argument of W. P. he for himself and his Brethren whose Faith he pretends to deliver renounces all Rejoycing as well as Faith and Righteousness in Christ without us yea and in Christ within them also for Christ within them if he be within them is Another Dare W. P. or G. W. say Christ in W. P. or G. W. is W. P. or G. W. But whereas G. W. in his Printed Paper above-quoted call'd A Few Positions c. saith We highly do value and esteem his Christ's Sufferings Death Precious Blood and whole Sacrifice for Sinners For a Proof of his Insincerity and Sophistry in this I shall produce some following Quotations what G. W. means by his Precious Blood and whether he put the due value upon Christ's Blood that was outwardly shed or upon another sort of inward Blood I cannot say of his and his Brethrens inventing but what they received from Familists and Ranters tho' they pretend to have it by immediate Inspiration to wit an inward Blood that is the Atonement and Sacrifice for Sin which Blood G. W. will not allow to be the
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