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
Part of God Their Inferences are weak as That Christ is the Bishop of the Soul The Soul is in Transgression in Death The Soul redeemed rejoyceth in God All this doth not prove that George Fox did hold that the Soul of Man in all these Considerations was not a Part of God For according to him the Soul being a Part of God this part rejoyceth in God the Fulness and God or Christ considered as the Fulness is the Bishop of the Soul that is a Part of him the Soul being like a Drop of Water returning into the Ocean so taught the Ranters and that all Creatures were Parts of God who was the Substance of all things and so saith George Fox expresly Great Mistery page 99. and Edward Burrough see the Collection of his Works pag. 827 828. And George Fox denieth That either Christ or Men have a Humane Soul or that Christ hath either a Humane Soul or Body Great Mistery pag. 99 100. His Objection is idle against Humane as signifying Earthly from Humus the Ground which is but a Cloak to cover his gross Eerror None of his Opponents said the Soul was from the Earth He might as much object against the Language of Scripture that calleth Christ the second Adam the Word Adam signifying Red Earth That the Soul is in Transgression in Death proves not that George Fox did not hold it to be a Part of God for he and other Teachers among the Quakers teach That what they call the Seed Christ is crucified in the wicked and is held in Satans Chains and what are these Chains but Sins as is above proved out of Truth 's Def. p. 49. But for a full and clear Evidence that George Fox did hold the Soul of Man to be a Part of God in answer to Magnus Byne his Book called The scornful Quakers answered Great Mistery p. 90. Is not the Soul without Beginning coming from God returning into God again who hath it in his Hand And in Answer to Jonathan Clapham his Book called A Discovery of the Quakers Doctrine Great Mistery page 100. Is not this that cometh out from God which is in God's Hand part of God of God and from God and to God again which Soul Christ is the Bishop of It is to be noted and well observed that this Opposition that George Fox made to those Men and his other Opponents as Richard Baxter and the five Ministers of New Castle about the Soul which they denied to be a Part of God or without Beginning and he affirmed it was By Opposition to them was not about any divine Soul in the Soul that was the Life or Soul of it as George VVhitehead would have it by which he means God or the Holy Ghost for in all Disputes the Subject of the Dispute is one betwixt the Opponent and the Respondent and though sometimes where the Matter is intricate and nice the Subject is hard to find out and the Opponent may mean one thing and the Respondent another yet in a Case that is clear and easie to be understood as this Case is there can be no Difficulty about the Subject of the Dispute as indeed here there is none which Subject of Dispute betwixt George Fox and his Opponents above mentioned was purely and simply the Soul of Man and not any divine Principle in the Soul As to instance from Magnus Byne the Beginning of this Controversie betwixt Magnus Byne and George Fox about the Soul was by a Question that Magnus Byne put to Thomas Lawson a Quaker which was this see in Magnus Byne The scornful Quaker answered page 103. VVhat is the Soul of Man and the Preciousness of it seeing Christ says It is more worth than all the VVorld To this Thomas Lawson the Quaker answers The Ministers of Jesus who come by the Will of God such know the Soul and watch for the Soul Heb. 13. 17. But thy watching is for the Fliece and art querying what the Soul is which lies in Death and State and Condemnation so long as it lives and the false Accuser lives and it the First-born knows not nor the Preciousness of it who prefers the World and obeys it before the Light of Christ and so sells the Soul for the World as thou dost who professest him in thy Lip-talk but denies him in Practice Ways and Conversation though Christ saith The Soul is more worth than all the World To which Magnus Byne his Opponent thus replieth In all this Answer there is not a Tittle unto-the Question here it appears thy perfect knowledge fails thee Here thou guessest that the Soul is Christ for he is the First-born the Scripture mentions and so according to thy Blasphemy Christ it seems may be damned and cast into Hell for so it is said of the Soul Fear him who is able to cast Body and Soul into Hell See how dark thou art in making no Difference between the Soul and Christ the Soul is indeed a precious thing there is a kind of Infiniteness in it which all the World cannot satisfie and therefore the Man was a Fool that said Soul take thine Ease because thy Barns are full and yet notwithstanding this kind of Infiniteness in the Soul as being restless till it return to God yet it cannot be Infiniteness it self it cannot be the First-born for of whole Man it is said whereof the Soul is the more noble Part VVhat is Man that thou art mindful of him Heb. 2. 6 7. Man you see is inferior unto the Angels much more inferior to the Son of God And farther saith he though the Soul be the Seat of Christ and Christ be hid there as a Treasure in a Field even in the innermost Room of the Soul yet the Soul cannot comprehend the infinite Majesty so Christ in his diviner Essence or Being much less can it be Christ who is God over all blessed for evermore And though there be indeed a blessed Union and Fellowship between Christ and an holy Soul yet still there is a vast Difference between the Essence or being of the Soul and Christ the one being still a Creature and the other the Creator of it Next he comes to give his own Definition of it The Soul saith Magnus Byne is a most noble Power a living Being an Essence that quickens the Body and yet dies not sleeps not when the Body dies and sleeps but returns unto God who gave it This Soul is a little Map of the great World and makes Man a little World for in his Soul is comprehended the Life of Plants the Sense of Beasts the Reason of Men and Angels This Soul quickens and makes Man a living Creature a sensitive Creature a rational Creature After he has described the Soul of Man which he expresly calls a Creature as above quoted in its several Powers and Faculties of the Mind Reason Judgment Will Memory Fancy Appetite and Affections to wit the created Soul of Man He saith God is the Life of
but they have turned altogether to his inward Coming which they say they witness already fulfilled in them and they look for no other Coming Ninthly Concerning the Resurrection of the Body that Dyeth G. W. instead of answering to the Quotations brought out of his and his Brethren's Books against the Resurrection of the Body that Dyeth has not so much as produced them or any part of them they are so broad-fac'd Proofs to evidence his and his Brethren's Infidelity in that great Article of Faith that he seems asham'd so much as to mention them And whereas he saith their Arguments not being answer'd by their Opposers he shall need say the less to them and concludes That he would have them so Charitable that they would not condemn them as Blasphemers for believing that their Resurection-Bodies shall be Spiritual and Glorious far excelling these natural carnal and earthly Bodies for else how should the Saints Bodies be like unto Christ's Glorious Body Note here again He seeks to cloak his and his Brethren's Infidelity by perverting the true state of the Question which is not That the Resurrection-Bodies of the Saints shall not be wonderfully changed and far excelling these natural carnal and earthly Bodies and made Spiritual and Glorious like to Christ's Glorious Body for that is acknowledged But the true Question is Whether the Saints Bodies at the Resurrection shall be so changed that they shall not be the same in Substance or Essence of Bodies and consequently in no respect the same for if the Substance be not the same to be sure the Accidents are not and consequently nothing of that Body that dyeth either in Matter or Manner in Substance or Modification riseth again for our Lord's Body tho' it was wonderfully changed in Manner and Qualities at his Glorification yet it remained the same in Substance or Essence of a Body And yet more fully to detect their Fallacy the following Quotations will prove That they look for no Resurrection of the Body out of the Grave at the end of the World but all the Resurrection they look for is The New Birth or what they expect as some of them say immediately after Death which to be sure is no part of the Body that is laid in the Grave But whereas he saith that W. P.'s and T. Elwood's Arguments about the Resurrection have not been answer'd by their Opposers is false they have been sufficiently Answer'd again and again as The Snake in the Grass Satan Disrob'd and in my First Second and Third Narratives G. Whitehead in Christian Quaker p. 353. brings T. Danson saying The happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body its dear and beloved Companion the Soul having a strong desire and inclination to a re-union to the Body as the Schools not without ground determine c. To this G. W. Answers Both Calvin T. Danson the Schools and divers Anabaptists are mistaken in this very matter and see not with the Eye of true Faith either that the happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body or that the Soul hath a strong desire to a re-union to the Body while they intend the terrestrial elementary Bodies for this implies the Soul to be in a kind of Purgatory or disquietness till the supposed Resumption of the Body To the same effect doth W. P. argue against T. Hicks Reason against Railing p. 137. He quotes T. Hicks arguing for the Resurrection of the Body the Joy's of Heaven imperfect else To this W. Penn opposeth I Answer Is the Joy of the Ancients now in Glory imperfect Or are they in Heaven but by halves If it be so unequitable that the Body which hath suffer'd should not partake of the Joys Celestial is it not in measure unequal that the Soul should be rewarded so long before the Body This Principle brings to the Mortality of the Soul held by many Baptists or I am mistaken But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Widow and so in a state of Mourning and Disconsolateness which state is but a better sort of Purgatory Note We see from both their Reasonings they would infer divers absurdities that would follow upon that Doctrine that the Souls of the deceased Saints now in Glory do look for a re-union to their Bodies which they put off at the Bodily Death So that by their manner of Reasoning as well as their express Words they declare themselves in their own behalf and in the Name of the Quakers whose Faith they pretend to give an account of to be positive Unbelievers as concerning any Resurrection of the Body that Dyeth or any re-union of that Body to the Soul to which it was formerly united before the Bodily Death But still G. W. as his manner is perverts the true state of the question by his saying While they intend the terrestrial elementary Bodies For if he mean that the Bodies after they are raised shall have the same terrestrial elementary Qualities Passions and Accidents that they had before Death he wrongs his Opponents for none of them have so affirmed But if he mean the same Substance or Essence of Bodies under more excellent Qualities and Endowments as far excelling the former as Spiritual excells Natural or Animal and Carnal Immortal and Incorruptible excells Mortal and Corruptible and Heavenly excells Earthly they are the same For in all changes that Bodies are capable of as well as Souls or Spirits from worse to better the subject of these changes must remain the same and that is what is justly called the Substance as when the Soul or Mind of Man is converted and changed from Earthly affections to Heavenly the Subject or Substance which is the Soul or Mind is the same and by as good Reason when a Body is changed from Earthly qualities to Heavenly the Body is still the same Substance or Subject tho' changed in Qualities and Conditions For further proofs out of both G. W. and W. P. I refer to my Third Narrative p. 26 27 28. Again Rich. Hubbertborne a great Author among the Quakers in his Coll. p. 121. proceedeth at the same rate against the deceased Saints looking for the Resurrection of their Bodies And these are they saith he that plead for a Life in Sin while they are here and that say that the Saints glorified in Heaven do yet hope For the Resurrection of their Bodies and so not come to the end of their hope tho' in Heaven when as the Saints upon Earth witnessed the end of their hope the Salvation of their Souls Now these may well deny perfection on Earth who deny it in Heaven which the Saints we and the Scriptures do witness it in both and against all such who are not fit to speak of the things of God See further in my Third Narrative p. 29. Note Here again G. W.'s gross Fallacy and Sophistry Truth and Innoc. p. 59. as if Rich. Hubberthorne
our Life and Soul of our Soul he proceeds very regularly to tell That in this Soul of Man or in the Spirit or Mind of it as the highest Power when it is regenerated and resigned lives the great King manifested here he dwells as in Mount Sion here he delights to be as in his Temple And in this Soul of Man unenlightened and unrenewed Christ lies hid and is as one dead note he doth not say dead as the Quakers say but is as one dead and unsavory unto the Soul and so the Soul is in Darkness Weakness Sinfulness Sorrow Fear Bondage Thus we see Magnus Byne doth so clearly state the Subject of the Controversie betwixt him and the Quakers his Opponents which was the Soul of Man the created reasonable Soul that is neither God nor Christ though he owneth that God and Christ are in the Souls of Men both regenerate and unregenerate but after different Manners that he leaves no room for any of the least Capacity of Understanding to mistake the true Subject of the Controversie and therefore George Fox whom Joseph Wyeth magnifieth as the APOSTLE in this Age could not be such a Sot as not to understand the true Subject of the Dispute which was the Soul of Man the reasonable Soul that which thinks wills loves which dieth not when the Body dieth and which again and again he calleth a Creature and the created Soul distinguisheth it from Christ in the Soul which he saith is the Life of our Life and Soul of our Soul The same Expression used by George VVhitehead in his Truth and Innocency Yet notwithstanding all this clear stating the Subject of the Dispute which was the Soul of Man and not that divine Principle in the Soul George Fox doth make a great Difference with him and sets himself in great Opposition to him and will needs have it That the Soul to wit the Soul of Man which was the only Subject of the Dispute is without Beginning coming from God returning to God again Also he opposeth Magnus Byne's Saying There is a kind of Infiniteness in the Soul viz. with Respect to the Largeness of its Desires which the whole World cannot satisfie as he explained himself but it is not Infiniteness it self which George Fox wrongly quotes by adding the Word IN making him say It is not Infiniteness IN it self which mars the Sense But George Fox in Opposition to M. B. will have the Soul of Man which was the Subject of the Dispute to be Infiniteness it self without Beginning Note Here a Quaker Daniel Philips objected That Disputants might differ about the Subject of the Dispute so as the Opponent might mean one thing and the Respondent another But I answered They might so when the Matter is intricate and obscure by Ambiguities of Words but it could not be so here the Subject of the Dispute being so clearly proposed that none but a Sot or Cheat could or would mistake the Subject which the Quakers will not allow G. F. to be having so great an Esteem of his Wisdom as the Apostle in this Age. And the like is to be said of all the Disputes betwixt George Fox and his other Opponents about the Soul which were only about the Soul of Man and not at all about God or Christ in the Soul for they all did contend there was a real Distinction betwixt the Soul and God or Christ who was in it But George Fox would allow none but still contended That the Soul concerning which they and he disputed was a Part of God without Beginning c. And in his Great Mistery page 91. he blames Magnus Byne for calling the Soul a Creature and saith he is in Babylon and Confusion And in his Dispute with the five Ministers of New Castle Great Mistery pag. 227 228. he saith The Soul whereof Christ is the Bishop is divine and immortal also he most grosly wrongs the five Ministers of New Castle and charges them with holding it to be their own Principle Great Mistery page 227. That the Soul is a Part of the divine Essence And in his Great Mistery page 29. he saith to them And so you five have judged your selves to be Blasphemers who said The Soul was Part of the divine Essence and yet it is Blasphemy to say so This he most unjustly chargeth in them quoting their Book called A Discovery of that Generation of Men called Quakers but in that very Book which was produced and the Words quoted as they are in that Book page 5. the five Ministers deliver it not as any Position of theirs but as one of the Quakers Positions having this Title on the Top Quakers Positions being the third in Number and in all being seventeen That the Soul is a Part of the divine Essence What Excuse can George VVhitehead or any of his Brethren find for this palpable Injustice in George Fox Could he be so sottish as not to distinguish betwixt the five Ministers Positions and what they call the Quakers Positions and which they expresly blame and disown and give their Arguments against And if he was not so ignoratly sottish in the Case what can it be construed but a wilful Lie thus for him to charge them And for a further Confirmation that George Fox did hold That that very Soul of Man which George VVhitehead calls the reasonable and rational Soul Truth and Innocency pag. 7 8 9. and which George VVhitehead confesseth hath sinned doth not sin and is not at any time a sinful Soul consequently is according to him a Part of God I bring a Quotation out of his Great Mistery page 337. George Fox quotes his Opponent saying The Soul of Man is a reasonable sinful Substance To this George Fox answers How can that which is sinful be reasonable And if that which is unsinful be reasonable and sinful be reasonable both then they are one in Vnity The Lord will take the Soul for an Offering for Sin Isa 5. 3. See how thou and the Prophet agrees here But what is that Soul that the wicked is not able to kill Is it not that which God hath in his Hand And this is a Lye to say That which is reasonable is sinful Note how grosly he perverts that Place in Isa 53. 10. When thou shall make his Soul an Offering for Sin This is understood of the Soul of the Man Christ who suffered without us and not of any Soul within us which yet is George Fox's Notion and this very Soul in Men this reasonable Soul George Fox will have it to be the Odering for Sin And because it is so therefore he concludes it is not sinful not capable of sinning yet George Whitehead saith The reasonable Soul is capable of sinning and hath sinned in Men though it never sinned in Christ See how these two Apostles do now contradict one anoother and yet none of them fallible Note again how George Fox thought he put a very puzzling Query to his Opponent to
convince him that the reasonable Soul in Men did not sin What is that Soul that the wicked cannot kill Surely by this Query George Fox meant the Soul that the wicked cannot kill was not the Soul that could sin wherein he sheweth his great Ignorance for though the wicked cannot kill the sinful Souls of Men yet as Christ said in the following Words He is to be feared to wit God that can cast both Soul and Body into Hell Fire Now what Soul can be cast into Hell Fire but the Soul that sinneth But lastly By George Fox's Argument That if the sinful Soul be reasonable and the unsinful Soul be reasonable also then they are one in Unity which he would have to be a great Absurdity thus he hath plainly disclosed the Mistery of his profound Doctrine that is a Branch of Ranterism viz. that there are but two Principles one good in Man that never sinneth or doth evil the other bad that sinneth and never doeth good the one is God or a Part of God the other the Devil or a Part of the Devil And his denying that one and the same Soul doth sin at one Time and doth well at another Time clearly proveth that according to him there is not any Soul of Man but what is either a Part of God or of the Devil And he discovereth his great Ignorance in denying that the reasonable Soul is sinful the contrary whereof is true that no Soul but a reasonable Soul is or can be sinful for what is it that makes the Beasts uncapable of sinning but that they are not reasonable And whereas his Opponent had very well argued that the evil Spirits are both sinful and reasonable George Fox answereth This is a Lie for reasonable is not sinful unreasonable is sinful quoting 2 Thess 3. 2. And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked Men for all Men have not Faith But this doth nothing favour his Manichean Notion he was so ignorant as not to distinguish betwixt the Faculty of Reason and the Act of Reason when Men that are reasonable and have reasonable Souls act contrary to Reason they are said to be unreasonable to wit in Act but still the Soul that sinneth is reasonable with respect to the rational Faculty nor could evil Spirits sin if they were not reasonable i. e. indued with rational Faculties Besides the Greek Word in 2 Thess 3. 2. is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is not so properly translated Unreasonable but as it is on the Margin Absurd i. e. such who though they have Reason yet will not give place to Reason but act contrary to it and George Fox had he had the right Use of his Reason might have seen that it is no more an Argument against the Soul of Man being reasonable that it acts unreasonably than it is an Argument that the Soul is not enlightened by the Light within because it often acts contrary to the Dictates of it Again for a further Confirmation of George Fox's Doctrine That the Soul that sinneth is not the Soul that is to be saved and that therefore the Soul that is saved or is to be saved is only Christ the Seed within Men Hear what George Fox saith Great Mistery page 324. he quotes his Opponent saying That the Seed to whom the Promise of Salvation is made is or hath been Sinners This he opposeth saying The Promise of God is to the Seed which hath been laden as a Cart with Shaves by the Sinner which Seed is the Hope Christ that purifies even as God is pure So this Promise is not to Seeds as many but to one the Seed which is Christ Note In the same Paragraph he saith So here is the Creature come to know its Liberty amongst the Sons of God and the Seed Christ never sinned in the Male nor in the Female Note what he means by the Creature that comes to know its Liberty which hath not sinned and hath the Promise of Salvation seems not intelligible for he denieth that the Seed is a Creature and yet it is that to which the Promise of Salvation is to wit the Seed Christ in the Male and in the Female that never sinned but he grosly perverts that Place in Gal. 3. 16. for by the Seed Christ is there meant Christ as he came outwardly according to the Flesh out of Abraham's Loins to whom the Promise was that in him all Nations of the Earth should be blessed but this was not to a Seed within that needed Salvation Like to this is what he saith in Great Mistery p. 15. having quoted his Opponent saying There is nothing in Man to be spoken to but Man To this he thus opposeth How then Ministred the Apostle to the Spirit and Christ spake to the Spirits in Prison and Timothy was to stir up the Gift that was in him and the Spirit of the Father speaks within them and the Light it shines in the Heart Here the Scriptures are for Correction of thee and Reproof of thee who said there is nothing to speak to in Man but Man Again In Great Mystery p. 187 he quotes his Opponent saying It would be good News if the Quakers should go and preach to the Spirits in Hell To this he answers The Quakers have been among the Prisoners that be in Hell and ministred to that and the CORRUPTIONS shall go into the Fire that hath no End and they that do wickedly and forget God shall go into Hell and Death and Hell shall go into the Lake of Fire and there is more in these Words yet than thou canst receive for God is the Salvation of all Men but specially them that believe Note thus we see he is very charitable and the Quakers Ministers are very charitable that they have been among the Prisoners in Hell and preached to that But how is this great Charity consistent with his saying That that which sinneth is not saved unless he mean that Sin is not saved though the Creature is The very same Doctrine concerning the Soul I find asserted by Edward Burrough in his Works Coll. page 27. Thou sayest one of us told thee That that which sinned could not be saved I answer saith Edward Burrough It is out of the Reach of the Wisdom and thy vulturous Eye shall never see it I say as the Scripture saith The Soul that sinneth must die and every Man must die for his own Iniquity If thou hast an Ear thou mayst hear Thus we see the Agreement of these two great Teachers of the Quakers about the Souls that sin that they shall not be saved nor can be saved But how grosly doth Edward Burrough pervert those Scriptures to prove his most corrupt Doctrine that is plain Ranterism Because the Scripture saith The Soul that sinneth must die doth it therefore follow That it cannot afterwards be saved both from Death and Sin that is the Cause of it Indeed Sin hath brought a Spiritual Death
Ministers have most justly charged them concerning God Christ and the holy Scriptures 11thly and 12thly Concerning Baptism and the Lord's-Supper IN a Book call'd Some Principles of the Elect People of God in Scorn call'd Quakers p. 75. The Baptism we own which is the Baptism of Christ with the Holy Ghost and with Fire but we deny all other for there is but one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all add they who would have one Baptism outward and another inward would have two Baptisms when the Scripture saith the Baptism is but one and whosoever hath the Baptism outward are the same they were before but the Baptism of Christ makes a new Creature And now I see the other to be formal Imitation and the invention of Man and so a meer Delusion and all are Heathens and no Christians who cannot witness this Baptism Matth 15. 4. who can witness this DENIES ALL OTHER for the Scripture saith the Baptism is but one And in p. 76. And are without feeding upon the Husk and Shadow which is carnal for the Bread which the World breaks is Carnal and Natural and only feeds the outward carnal Body and goeth into the Belly and so passeth out into the Dunghil and so likewise the Cup which they drink and so the Communion and Fellewship of the World passeth away but this is no nourishment to the Soul but still the Soul lies in Death and here is no Commnnion but natural outward and carnal of several Minds and Hearts full of Filthiness and Uncleanness which IS THE TABLE OF DEVILS Eating and Drinking their own Damnation not discerning the Lord's Body which is Spiritual which the natural Man discerns not W. P. in his Reason against Railing p. 108. I affirm by that one Scripture Heb. 9. 10. Circumcision is as much in force as Water-Baptism and the Paschal Lamb as Bread and Wine they were both Shadows and both elementary and perishable And we can testifie FROM THE SAME SPIRIT by which Paul renounced Circumcision that they are to be rejected as not now required neither have they since the false Church espoused and exalted them ever been taken up afresh by God's Command or in the leading of his Eternal Spirit and the Lord will appear to gather his People out of them but never to establish or keep People in them Note Notwithstanding the severe Censure that the Quakers have passed on the outward Administration of Baptism and the Lord's-Supper in the former Quotation and W. Penn in this latter Quotation in the one they say Baptism with Water and the Lord's-Supper with Bread and Wine are to BE DENYED WE DENY say they ALL OTHER and in the other W. P. saith they are to be REJECTED and this he saith they can testifie from the same Spirit by which Paul renounced Circumcision yet W. Penn in his Key Printed at London 1699. saith Hence it is that the People call'd Quakers cannot be said to deny them viz. the outward Administration of Baptism and the Supper that is saith he too hard a Word But they leave them off as fulfilled in Christ who is in them their hope of Glory Is there not here a palpable contradiction betwixt W. Penn and his Brethren He saith in his Key p. 28. The People call'd Quakers cannot be said to deny them that 's too hard and yet in the former Quotation they have used that very same Word WE DENY ALL OTHER say they and call it the Invention of Man and so a meer Delusion But it is fearful Delusion in them to call these so solemn Institutions of our Blessed Saviour expresly enjoyn'd to the end of the World and his coming to Judgment by such Names yea and the like contradiction is found betwixt W. P. in his Reason against Railing in the Year 1673. and the same W. P. in his Key Printed 1699. In the former he saith We can testifie from the same Spirit by which Paul rejected Circumcision that they are to be rejected In the latter he saith The People call'd Quakers cannot be said to deny them that 's too hard a Word yet we see they have denyed them both by Practise and verbal Confession yea and rejected them and with no less pretended Authority than the same Spirit by which Paul rejected Circumcision Where is now the Unity they boast of seeing in this as well as in divers other things of great weight they are so contradictory and unconstant to themselves and yet without all change if we will believe them And notwithstanding the severe Censure that the Quakers in general and G. W. in particular have passed on Baptism and the Lord's-Supper outwardly Administred calling them the Invention of Man a meer Delusion and Idolatry and the Lord's-Supper The Table of Devils and the Cup of Devils yet G. W. in his Antidote p. 114. Printed 1697 pretends a great deal of Moderation and Charity to some who practise them but without any change in him And tho' too many now are very Formal and Superstitious in those outward Observations and Shadows laying so much stress for Salvation upon them that they neglect the Substance yet others being more conscientiously tender in the observation thereof we are the more tender to these so as not to censure or condemn them meerly for practising that which they believe is their Duty either in breaking of Bread or Water Baptism yet desire they may see further Note What can this smooth Language of W. P. and G. W. concerning Baptism and the Supper now of late Years import or signifie to all impartial Persons but that thereby they seek to deceive the weak and simple seeing they will not acknowledge that they are changed in any respect from what they were in the beginning either in point of Perswasion or Charity They mean the same now as when they called them universally and without exception beggarly Elements worldly Rudiments Idolatry Invention of Man and meer Delusion But seeing they are not changed in their Faith and Perswasion concerning Water Baptism and the Supper they cannot with any good Conscience be changed in their being more charitable now then formerly so that G. W.'s saying they do not censure or condemn them who are more conscentiously tender in the observation thereof meerly for practising that which they believe is their duty is a meer fallacy Do they not condemn all visible Christian Societies but their own and call them Apostates the World Idolaters Worshippers of Baal and the Preachers belonging to those Societies Priests of Baal c. Do they not censure them who practise Idolatry and Man's Invention and meer Delusion as they have past Judgment on those outward practises to be such And if People's practising what they believe is their Duty being misled by an erring Conscience and Ignorance of Mind as the Quakers think all are so misled who practise the outward Baptism and Supper can excuse them from censure according to G. W.'s way of Argument they may extend
George Keith's FOURTH NARRATIVE OF HIS PROCEEDINGS AT TURNERS-HALL 1699. WE whose Names are under written having at Mr. Keith's Request and by the Allowance of the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London carefully examin'd the Quotations of this Narrative do testifie the Faithfulness of them and that they exactly agree with the Books out of which they are taken And as we commend his Integrity in retracting publickly his Errors and his Christian Zeal for the reducing of his Brethren who are yet entangled with them so we hope they will follow his Example and discern the Perniciousness of their Ways and be led by the Grace of God to the Acknowledgment of the Truth and to the Communion of the Church Z. Isham D. D. Rector of St. Botolph Bishops-gate W. Bedford D. D. Rector of St. George Botolph-Lane R. Altham B. D. Rector of St. Andrew Vndershaft Will. Whitfield Rector of St. Martins at Ludgate J. Adams Rector of St. Alban Woodstreet George Keith's FOURTH NARRATIVE OF HIS PROCEEDINGS AT TURNERS-HALL Divided into Three Parts Detecting the Quakers Gross Errors Vile Heresies and Antichristian Principles oppugning the Fundamentals of Christianity by clear and evident Proofs in above Two Hundred and Fifty Quotations faithfully taken out of their Books and read at three several Meetings the 11th the 18th and 23d of Jan. 1699. before a great Auditory of Judicious Persons Ministers and others More particularly discovering the Fallacious and Sophistical Defences of George Whitehead Joseph Wyeth and seven Quakers of Colchester in their late Books on all the several Heads contained in the printed Advertisement To which is prefix'd The Attestation of five Ministers of the Church of England to the Truth of the said Quotations And a POSTCRIPT By GEORGE KEITH LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill 1700. Advertisement THIS is to signifie that it is my purpose God-willing and by his Assistance to be present at Turners-Hall in Philpot-Lane by Fanchurch-Street in London being our ordinary Meeting-place Licensed by Authority on the Eleventh Day of the Eleventh Month called January in the Forenoon there to detect and discover Gross Errors and Anti-christian Principles plainly repugnant to the Fundamentals of Christianity in the Books of the approved Authors and Writers of the People called Quakers by ocular Inspection presenting them in fair and full Quotations to as many as are willing to be present and make Inspection into them And also to lay open the great Fallacy and Sophistry of George Whitehead and Joseph Wyeth and some of their Brethren at Colchester which they have used in their late printed Defences of their Own and their Brethrens most Erronious Passages contained in their Books in order to Cloak and Hide their Antichristian Principles and vile Errors not only to the great Scandal of all true Protestants in this Nation of whom they pretend to be the more refined Part but of all true Christians any where And I do hereby desire George Whitehead and Joseph Wyeth and their Brethren of the Second Days Meeting at London who have approved their late Books to be present at the said Meeting for which I have Permission by Civil Authority or any others who think themselves concerned at the Time and Place above-mentioned to hear and see out of their own Books their Errors and Fallacies detected who if they have any thing to offer in their own or Brethrens Defence shall be fairly heard The particular Errors that I intend God-willing to discover them guilty of out of their Books and Authors are Concerning their Pretences to Infallibility and sinless Perfection Concerning the Scriptures Concerning the Holy Trinity Concerning Christ his Incarnation his Soul and Body and Blood his coming to Judgment at the Last Day Concerning Justification Concerning the Soul Concerning the Light within Concerning the Resurrection Concerning the outward Baptism and the Supper Concerning doing servile Work on the First Day George Keith London 18th 10th Month 1699-1700 A few Words of PREFACE TO THE IMPARTIAL READERS IMpartial Readers I have these few things to acquaint you with and recommend to your Consideration First that I found just and necessary Cause to recite diverse former Quotations given in my former Narratives and in other Books formerly publish'd against the Quakers Errors to detect the fallacious and sophistical Defences that they have made in their late Books in Vindication of those Quotations to cover their vile Errors Secondly Beside the former Quotations above mentioned I have brought many new Quotations which are neither in my former Narratives nor in any other Books that hitherto have been published against them which obviates the cavelling of the Quakers who would be ready to say There is nothing to be expected of new Matter but what is contained in other Books and which hath been already answered by them The contrary whereof will sufficiently appear to any that shall compare this fourth Narrative with any other Books before this published against them Thirdly Whereas the common Objection of the Quakers is That their Books are neither fully nor fairly quoted To remove the Ground of any such Objection I have got the Attestation of Persons of known Integrity and Judgment to the Truth of them as I got the like Attestation from some the former Year to attest to my third Narrative I have given the Quotations as fully and fairly as is requisite to satisfie any reasonable Persons But the Men I have to deal with for all this will I expect renew their unjust Complaint and will tell their Readers This and the other Passage going before or following should have been inserted in the Quotations whereas the not inserting of them makes not their Cause one whit the worse nor the inserting them makes their Cause one whit the better as could be shewed in many Instances and is shewed in their late Books for when so much is quoted out of any Book that gives the full Sense of the Writer whatever is more is superfluous Note for a Proof on the last Head That the Quakers deny the Moral Law or Ten Commandments to be a Rule to the Christian's Life and thereupon do not blame but justifie doing servile Work on the first Day yea and in the Face of a Congregation while the Minister was preaching See p. 28. of this Narrative G. K. George Keith's Fourth Narrative OF HIS Proceedings at Turners-Hall 1699. For the Detecting the QUAKERS ERRORS The first Part giving an Account of his Proofs on the first four Heads contained in his printed Advertisement viz. Concerning I. Their Infallibility II. Their sinless Perfection III. The Scriptures IV. The Holy Trinity Proofs out of the Quakers Books on the first Head concerning their Infallibility 1. GEORGE Fox Great Mystery pag. 105. For who witness these Conditions that they were in that gave forth the Scriptures They witness Infallibility an infallible Spirit which is now possessed and witnessed among those called Quakers Glory to the Highest for
on the Sea or flie in the Air to that remote Place The next thing in reference to their Infallibility is their Pretence to the infallible discerning of Mens Hearts without respect to their Works good or bad This is differently stated by them and wherein we shall find a real Contradiction among them G. F. in his Gr. Myst pag. 89. had said Here thou hast shewed that the Quakers have a Spirit given to them beyond all the Forefathers which we do witness since the Days of the Apostles in the Apostacy and they can discern who are Saints who are Devils and who are Apostates without speaking ever a VVord they that be in the Power and the Life of Truth This discerning of Mens Hearts G. VVhitehead had formerly placed upon outward Signs in the Countenances of wicked Men or Women which he still justifieth in his Antitode pag. 69. Proud and haughty Looks wanton and scornful Eyes envious and fallen Countenances are rendred in Scripture as outward Signs or Marks of such wicked Hearts which also the Gift of discerning perceiveth and gives to see many times through such outward mediums Note G. VV. here layeth a great Stress upon outward Signs in the Countenance which he owneth to be outward mediums through which the Spirit of discerning perceiveth and giveth to see Mens Hearts but yet he will not allow the Scriptures to be the medium of Faith so preferreth outward Signs in the Countenance to the Scriptures but then he much throweth down this sort of discerning by Mens Countenances by saying many times for this leaveth their discerning to be many times fallible and though the Scripture and common Experience proveth that the Countenances of some openly vicious and extreamly wicked are Signs of their wicked Hearts yet the Scripture giveth no universal Rule in the Case but giveth us the Command of Christ Isaiah 11. 3. John 7. 24. Judge not according to Appearance but judge righteous Judgment and it was said of Christ He shall not judge after the Sight of his Eyes nor reprove after the hearing of his Ears But G. VV. will not take Christ in the case for his Example but he pleads further That the Gift of discerning of Spirits is given to some Members especially and still is continued in the true Church and from which discerning Satan cannot be hid however he transforms himself Here is another minching of their Infallibility of discerning that it 's given to some Members especially but he doth not allow it to all Members however he seems to plead for all the Ministers having it Truth and Inn. p. 12. for he makes it an Evidence of great Darkness in his Opponents to hold that a Minister that is fallible is in the Spirit a Minister of Christ and yet cannot discern another Man's State or Condition so as to give an infallible Character of him And he contends so earnestly for this infallible discerning in the Church that he saith If there must be no discerning of Spirits no infallible or certain Character to be given of other Men's States or Conditions by an inward Sense or discerning of Spirits then Christ's Sheep may follow Strangers VVolves Dogs c. and so be devoured contrary to his own Doctrine and below the Sense and Instinct of the very Sheep which leads them to shun Dogs and VVolves when they make at them whether they bark or howl or be mute Note By this manner of G. VV's arguing not only the Teachers but all and every one of the People if they be Sheep must have this infallible discerning whereas he pleads for the Ministers having it or some Members so it seems the People must rely on the Ministers discerning by an implicit Faith or if not be in danger of perishing But in plain Contradiction to this Doctrine of G.VV. who pleads for the infallible discerning of Men's Hearts to every Minister let us hear Jos VVyeth who saith Switch p. 95. But though this holy Spirit can discover unto one the Heart and Thoughts of another as of Ananias to Peter Acts 5. yet as that is not usual so neither is it necessary nor is it that which we pretend to nor hath G.F. in the fore-quoted Places pretended to it referring to the above-quoted Passage where he makes this Observation Switch p. 90. VVhich does very plainly shew that G. F. did not attribute this Knowledge or Discerning to the Quakers or any Man but to the Power and Life of Truth where it is manifested This Gloss as it is directly contradictory to G. Fox's Words which say They i.e. the Quakers that be in the Power and Life of Truth can discern so to the Words of G. W. who doth affirm That some of the Members especially have it But both G. F. and G. VV. hath carried this discerning farther than by the outward medium of Men's Looks and Glances so that they can know the inward States of their Hearers without looking to their Faces yea though their Backs be toward them and not only what they are at present but what they have been and shall be from Eternity to Eternity For Proof of this G. F. Gr. M. quotes his Opponents G. M. p. 229. saying VVill a discerning of the Gospel Mysteries prove a Power to discern the State and Condition of Souls what it shall be to all Eternity And after some Words he answers And so who are come into the Bishop Christ they are one Soul they know the Hand of God which the Soul lives in which is the Power and so knows it from Eternity to Eternity And so ye Priests which do not discern the Soul and its State to Eternity and from Eternity ye are not in the Mystery of the Gospel which gives Liberty to it neither have ye it And you five Priests have shamed your selves that do not know the Soul from Eternity to Eternity and on this horrid Presumption that they knew the State of Men's Souls from Eternity to Eternity Rich. Hubberth passes this severe Sentence on his Opponent Truth 's def pag. 92. Thou art ordained of old for Condemnation and for Perdition among the ungodly ones and art a Reprobate And p. 93. So here thou art cursed and cast out eternally Note this was only for his asking What is original Sin And here he speaks of the several States of the Soul as when the Soul is in Death and when it liveth and God hath Pleasure in it By which Soul he must needs understand the Soul of Man for of the Souls of Men his Opponents did speak Next G. VV. in his Truth defending the Quakers hath gone as far as G. F. with respect to his Infallibility in knowing Men's Hearts The Question being put to him in Truth def p. 24. qu. 54. Do not you G. W. blasphemously take to your self an Attribute of God while you pretend ordinarily to know the Hearts of Men. And tell Mr. Townsend of Norwich in the second Page of your Ishmael That the Light of God is
Church who yet have not arrived to a sinless Perfection but are in that Time of Travel But what if they die in that Time of Travel before a sinless Perfection be attained G. VV. has passed a nibst severe and uncharitable Censure on them Voice of VVisdom p. 42 43. This sinless Perfection for that 's the true State of the Question all must come to witness who ever come to be saved for there is no unclean thing must enter into Christ's Kingdom therefore People must either expect Freedom from Sin in this Life or never Note Thus he has passed a most uncharitable and cruel Sentence nor only upon many who were in a sincere Travel towards Perfection and yet have not attained to a sinless Perfection before their Decease but also upon his deceased Brethren many of whom deceased as I judge he must confess while they were in the Travel towards it for Quakers commonly are not longer lived than other Men they die at all Ages young as well as old and many die that are but Novices in their Way And certainly G. Fox and E. Burr Fr. Hougel Rich. Hubb and some of their greatest Saints lived in great Ignorance Error and Unbelief in divers great Fundamentals of the Christian Faith and in great Uncharitableness towards such as differed from them and remained in these Sins to their dying Day shall we therefore be so uncharitable to them as G. Ws Doctrine is to conclude they are all damned and parished eternally God forbid we will be more charitable to them than his Doctrine alloweth But then again in Contradiction not only to G. F. but himself he pleads in his Voice of Wisdom That the Believers Works are perfect and God hath wrought all their VVorks in them citing Isa 26. 12. So these VVorks of God which true Believers witness are perfect and the Believers have ceased from their own VVorks which were imperfect and are come into God's VVorks which are perfect But then what saith he concerning them who are in the Travel towards Perfection Are not they Believers Have they no Faith Thus their Confusion is evident They do not consider that though the Work of Faith Labour of Love and Patience of Hope in Believers are the Works of God yet they are also the Works of those Men in whom they are wrought it 's they who believe who love and hope by God's Operation or working in them and therefore they being imperfect though God is a perfect Being and Agent their Faith Love and Hope are imperfect it being the Property of all Effects to be according to the weaker and more imperfect Causes according to that true Maxim Bonum ex integra causa malum ex quolibet defectu a perfect Effect must have all its Causes perfect But whatever Charity we may suppose they may have for their deceased Brethren they have little or none for any such who do not believe to the Hight of their Doctrine of a sinless Perfection before Death their Doctrine obligeth them to judge that none of other Societies are saved because they do not believe the Quakers Doctrine of Perfection before they die the contrary of which they call the Doctrine of Devils the which if any die and do not renounce before their Decease by the Quakers Principle they cannot be saved But some of them now begin to go into the same Road with others of other Professions and after a large Circumference wherein they have far departed from them who say That the Souls of Believers are at the instant of Death made perfect in Holiness yet return and say the same thing concerning their imperfect Brethren who are deceased and yet before their Decease arrived not to a sinless Perfection which if it may be allowed to imperfect Quakers may be as well allowed to others sineere Travellers towards Perfection many of whom no doubt have arrived to greater Perfection before their Decease than any among the Quakers Worthies of whose Perfection they so much boast who lived in great Error and Unbelief in the great Fundamentals of Christianity and Uncharitableness towards others and of whose Repentance for the same we never heard any Account Again G. F. in his G. M. p. 251. in Defence of his and his Brethrens sinless Perfection thus answers to that in Eccles 7. 20. There is not a just Man upon the Earth which doth good and sinneth not This just this wise Man upon the Earth which doth good and sinneth not that was the Estate of the Law which Christ is the End of who is a greater than Solomon who is the just and Righteousness it self and makes Men free from Sin Note that G. F. in Contradiction to his own Gloss in the same Page to prove a sinless Perfection brings the Examples of Job and David both which were long before Christ came and to prove David's sinless Perfection he brings David's Words and David said He had seen the End of all Perfection Is not this a rare Proof for a sinless Perfection But if G. F. did not mean Christ without but Christ within to be the End of the Law As this is a false Gloss on Paul's Words so that imports that Solomon was not come to the Light within him which G. F. calls Christ within but how then could Solomon pen such Books of the Scripture which the Quakers confess to have been writ by Divine Inspiration if Solomon had not come to the Light within him But let us hear another as nonsensical Gloss of G. VV. on the same Place Voice of VVisd p. 18. Eccles 7. 20. Ans The Conversation of the Saints is in Heaven Eph. 2. 6. Philip. 3. 20. And they are redeemed from the Earth and from the Vanity where Solomon saw all things in the Days of his Vanity in which all were Sinners Note Is this any Proof that the Saints such as Paul who writ these Words were not real Men upon Earth And is not G. W. a Man upon Earth so long as he eats drinks sleeps c Thus we see how they pervert the Scriptures to prove their sinless Perfection for if G. W. will own he is one of these just Men on Earth that Solomon writes of he must confess himself to be a Sinner if he will not own himself to be a just Man upon the Earth yet he must allow his Body to be upon Earth unless he will say our Sight deceives us when we see him in the Streets and then either his Body is no Part of him or if it be it hath Sin and consequently he also hath Sin if he will own his Body to be a Part of him But let us yet again hear another nonsensical Gloss of G. F. to maintain his and his Brethrens sinless Perfection on the Words of James In many things we offend all G. M. p 309. Mark saith G. F. In the many things we offend all but we are come to the one thing Christ Jesus the End of the many things and in him there
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
greater but indeed it hath none at all against three distinct Persons for there is a plain Distinction of a Medium in created Beings betwixt Substance and Nothing the three Dimensions of a Body Length Breadth and Depth are neither three Nothings nor three Substances the Understanding Will and Locomotive Power of Man's Soul are neither three Nothings nor three Substances and yet they are but one Soul though all Creaturely Similitudes are improper to express this Mystery Beside how could a Manifestation become Flesh or take Man's Nature as the Son did And how could one Manifestation send another or beget another or a third Manifestation proceed from two other Manifestations But whereas Jos VVyeth saith in his Switch p. 184. VVe own their Distinction in all the Instances of it recorded in Holy VVrit In contradiction to this hear F. Hougil in his Collection p. 251. he calls it damnable Doctrine to say That Christ must be distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost Before in God and now from God their Quibble about separate doth not help them for some that have so called them have declared they meant nothing by separate but distinct and now if Jos VVyeth and G. VV. will have distinct to signifie separate seeing they pretend to own the Distinction of the Father and the Son they must own the Separation And whereas the Teachers among the Quakers profess they are not changed in any thing of Doctrine or Practice from what they were from the Beginning for Truth is one say they and changes not and as God is one and Truth is one and changeth not so his People are one Now let us compare the Doctrine of G. VVhitehead what it was in the Year 1659. when he writ his Truth defending the Quakers which he said was written from the Spirit of Truth concerning the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and what it was in the Year 1697 when he wrote his Antidote against the Venome of the Snake In his Truth defending c. printed 1659. in p. 2. he saith VVhat the Scripture saith of the Godhead the Father the VVord and the Spirit which are one 1 Joh. 5. 7. we own but deny the Popish Term of three distinct Persons which you call God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost which tends to the dividing God and to the making three Gods Note here he not only denies the three Persons but the Orthodox and Scriptural Explanation of them of God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost And thou who hast vindicated such a Dream could never prove it by the Scripture when thou wast put upon it And do not you Priests in your Divinity as you call it affirm that a Person is a single rational compleat Substance and differing from another by an incommunicable Property And art thou so blind as to think that there is such a Difference in the Godhead Seeing Christ is equal with his Father who is a Spirit then what incommunicable Property can he differ in from the Father that is not communicable to the one as well as the other Here we see he not only opposes the Terms Three Persons but the Distinction of the Three their incommunicable Properties which are these That the Father begot the Son from everlasting the Son was begot of the Father from everlasting and the Holy Ghost did proceed both from the Father and the Son from everlasting and surely the Father's Property is incommunicable to the Son and so is the Son 's to the Father and the Holy Ghost's Property to both for it cannot be said that the Son begot the Father or that the Son is the Father c. or that the Holy Ghost is either the Father or the Son But now let us hear his late Doctrine in his printed Antidote 1697. p. 139. Though 't is true saith he in one Sense the Father Son and Holy Ghost are not essentially distinct as to their divine Being which is but one they are but one God but in respect to their Properties of Relation as Father Son and Holy Ghost as such they are distinct but not divided nor separate either in themselves or VVork of the old or new Creation First G. VV. should tell us where doth he find in Scripture in express Terms that they are distinct in respect to their Properties of Relation Secondly Whether these Properties of Relation are communicable or incommunicable Properties Surely he must say incommunicable and that he did in his Book Truth defending expresly deny For if he should say these Properties are communicable such as God's absolute Properties are as holy wise good c. then the Son might beget and the Father might be begotten And lastly Seeing he now owns a Distinction of Properties of Relation though in unscripture Terms he must by good consequence own three Persons to be the Subjects of those Properties for no Properties or Predicates or Attributes can be without their proper Subjects for though it is the Father's Property to have begot the Son from everlasting yet the Father is not a Property but the Person or Subject that has that Property Thus we see how Proteus-like G. VV. has changed his Shapes in the Years 1659. and 1697. and yet there is no Shadow of Change in him for all this if we will believe him But further by some of his late Books we shall find him not only owning the Distinction of the three in respect to their Properties of Relation but advanced much nearer so far as to disown his former Opposition to the Terms Three Persons which in his Book called Ishmael that was his jointly with others he had charged his Opponent to have conjured out of one and told him that both they and he are shut up in perpetual Darkness for the Lake and this he doth in two several Books one printed in the Year 1690. called The Christianity of the People commonly called Quakers where he sets down the Words quoted out of his Ishmael more largely the other called Truth and Innocency printed this very Year 1699. where he leaves out the most offensive Words and puts an c. in their room as being I supose ashamed of them and well he might but he is not ashamed to affirm he is not changed in his Faith But let us hear how he excuseth what he writ in his Ishmael that was printed in the Year 1655. Truth and Inn. p. 51. Though his Name is at the Book yet he positively disowns the Words and affirms They are none of his and that he writ not that Part of the Answer to Townsend And in his Book called The Christianity c. above mentioned he saith He looks on the Words as wrong writ or wrong printed and that he raced them out or corrected them long since where he has met with that Answer But is not this a Piece of dull Sophistry to save the Credit of his Infallibility Had he not better more like a Man and a Christian
acknowledged his Error than to lay the Fault upon as wrong writ or wrong printed And if he corrected them long since how comes it that he never published his Correction in any of the Books he has published since betwixt the Year 1655. and 1690. containing the space of 36. Years But for evidence against him that he hath not sincerely said That he writ not that Part of the Book it is enough that he owned it and this I can prove that without Exception he owned it to be his jointly with these others who signed it with him as appears from his Truth defending the Quakers p. 1. printed four Years after the Ishmael And he belches out the like antichristian and profane Expressions against the three Persons in the Godhead in Terms equivalent to those in the Ishmael He saith in his first Page in Answer to the first Question Do not you repent for your endeavouring vainly to defend August 29. 1659. in so great a Congregation these Positions printed in a Book writ by George Whitehead He answers for himself and his Brethren thus The Positions we defended are according to the Scriptures of Truth and them we need not repent of These were they contained in that very Book called Ishmael as doth appear out of the Book Ishmael it self here the Book was produced one of which Positions were in asserting the Scriptures or Writing not to be the Word Another was That there is no such Word in the Scriptures as Three Persons in the Trinity but it is a Popish Doctrine as the Mass or Common-Prayer-Book mentions it Fourthly And thou that affirms three distinct Persons in the Godhead art a Dreamer and he that dreams and tells Lies contrary to the Scriptures of Truth which we own he with his Imaginations and Dreams is for the Lake Here it is plain that by his Imaginations and Dreams G.W. meant the Ministers Doctrines of calling the Scriptures the Word and affirming that there are three Persons in the Godhead so whereas he said in his Ishmael Townsend and the three Persons are shut up in perpetual Doctrines Here in Truth defending c. he saith He with his Imaginations and Dreams that is the three Persons is for the Lake Now this is not one whit more sober than his Words in the Ishmael how then is it that G. Whitehead has not found some shift to put this part of his Truth defending upon another Again in his Truth defending c. p. 25. he plainly owns that Book called Ishmael to be his four Years after it was printed and now though in his Truth defending c. he saith That he and his Brethren need not repent of the Positions laid down in that called Ishmael yet now in the Year 1690. in his Christianity he saith He was sorry his Name was to that Paper and yet as before is mentioned in Truth defending p. 1. he saith They need not repent of it Is not this a plain Change in G. W. He need not repent of what was writ and yet was sorry that it was writ Formerly he owned that Book in the Year 1659 and in the Year 1690 He writ not that Part and was sorry it was writ and all this without any Change in his Mind But when People are sorry for what they do we commonly reckon they repent of it This offensive Passage objected against G. Whitehead out of his Ishmael was objected against him by Christopher Wade in his Quakery slain p. 9. printed in 1657. And though G. W. printed against C. Wade in his Truth defending 1659. yet he then took no notice of that Passage to disown it to be his But how is it that G. W. disowns what was written in the Book called Ishmael against the three Persons Doth he now own the three Persons not to be Popish as he formerly charged them Truth def p. 2 Though he has not in the least retracted his abusive and reviling Speeches against this glorious Truth both in the Ishmael and in his Truth defending c. for that would reflect upon his Infallibility yet he would seem now to own the Doctrine of the three Persons since the Act for Toleration came forth for that Act of Toleration does except those who deny in their preaching or writing the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity as it is declared in the Articles of Religion viz. the 39 Articles But that G. W. may have the Benefit of the Act which at present he has not by Law whatever he has by Indulgence he ought also to disown some other abusive Expressions of his and sophistical Arguings he has used in his other Books as particularly not only in his Truth defending c. above mentioned but in his Divinity of Christ signed by the two Letters G. W. see p. 18. he hath these Words As to T. D ' s telling of the Son of God's Incarnation the Creation of his Body and Soul the Parts of that Nature be subsisted in c. To this I say saith G. W. if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both created doth not this render him a fourth Person And as nonsensical and abusive is the reasoning of G. Fox their great Apostle in the Epistle prefixed to the Divinity signed by him and John Stubbs where in the 9th Page of that Epistle they thus argue And he speaks again in his 14th Page of three distinct Persons are one with the Godhead Now Reader is not here four to wit three Persons and the Godhead And thus G. F. and G. W. make no less by their wild and nonsensical Reasonings than five Persons in the Godhead an Absurdity they would fix on the Doctrine of three Persons for by their Arguments the Godhead is the fourth Person and Christ's created Soul and Body is the fifth Do not these Passages require a Retractation and will they say they are Protestants and one with the Church of England in Matter of Doctrine and in the common Principles of Christianity and yet boldly stand in the Defence of those abusive Passages But whereas they argue ad hominem that there must be five Persons if Father Son and Holy Ghost be said to be three Persons seeing G. W. calls them three Witnesses by their nonsensical Argument there must be five Witnesses that bear Record in Heaven viz. the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost and the Godhead these are four and the created Soul and Body of Christ that is the fifth But G.W. has a way to evade this last by denying that Christ has any created Soul or Body as in the Words in p. 18. above mentioned doth appear for which I shall have some use hereafter Jos Wyeth in his Switch p. 184. would make his Readers believe It 's only the Word Person they object against as too gross We cannot saith he but think the VVord Person too gross to express them But to detect this Fallacy pray let us take notice that G. F. whom he calls an Apostle has expresly
to constitute one Christ which is by a miraculous and extraordinary Union that no other Creatures neither Angels or Men are dignified with and though Christ as Man was the Son of God miraculously conceived and born in Time and also as God was by a Generation from Eternity before all Worlds and Times yet he is but one Son of God and because of the personal Union of the Word with his Manhood both as God and Man he is properly the Son of God But there is yet another Fallacy in G. W's Words which is that neither the visible Body nor Manhood that was born of the Virgin was any Part of the true Christ or Son of God and first As to that visible Body of Flesh and Bones he denies that Christ consisted of it I distinguish said he between consisting and having Christ had visible Flesh and Bones but he did not consist of them Christian Quaker p. 139 140. This shews us the very Heart of their Heresie In like manner W. P's Rejoinder p. 299 to 307. W. P. argues for 16. Pages in his Rejoinder against Faldo That Christ never died for they will not have any thing properly to be the Christ but his Godhead which they make to be all one identically and essentially with his Heavenly Mandhood consisting of Heavenly Flesh and Blood that he had from all Eternity Here a Quaker called John Whiting opposed in Defence of W. Penn and said W. Penn did not deny that that outward Person was the Son of God I askt him whose Son was he properly He said The Son of Mary I replied Mary was his Mother but who was his Father properly He said He was conceived by the Holy Ghost I again replied But that 's no Answer to my Question who was his Father Every Son must have a Father and seeing Christ had no immediate Father but God then surely he was properly the Son of God as the Scripture plainly testifieth To this he made no Reply but opposed in Defence of G. W. I having said that G. W. denied that visible Body that hung on the Cross to be any Part of the true Christ I replied I have proved it already by the late Quotation here read wherein he says He denies that Christ consisted of Flesh and Bones I distinguish said he between consisting and having Christ had Flesh and Bones but did not consist of them as a Man has a Coat or Garment but doth not consist of it and that outward Person that suffered at Jerusalem was Christ by a Metonimy saith VV. P. of the thing containing having the Name of the thing contained And at this rate VV. P. himself may be called Christ because he hath Christ in him The Excuse That Christ did not Meerly consist of Flesh and Bones signifies nothing for that was no Part of the Question betwixt G.VV. and his Opponent None ever said That Christ did meerly consist of Flesh Blood and Bones no Socinian will so affirm for that were to say Christ was meerly a Body of Flesh and Bones without a rational Soul whatever hath Parts doth consist of those Parts incompleatly of one or more Parts compleatly of them all The Foundation of the Quakers great Error on this Head lieth here That because Christ was before the Body was therefore that Body is no Part of him which is easily answered thus Christ was before that Body was but he was not compleatly and in all Respects fitted to be the anointed Saviour of the World until the Word was made Flesh i. e. until the Word did take our Flesh and whole Nature into a personal Union with himself the which was necessary to the compleat Performance of his Mediatory Offices of King Priest and Prophet and especially of his Priestly Office And not only G. VV. hath denyed Christ to have any created Body whereof he consists but he hath denyed that he hath any created Soul in his Answer to T. Danson ' s Synopsis p. 18. As to T. Danson's telling of the Son of God's Incarnation the Creation of his Body and Soul the Parts of that Nature he subsisted in c. To this I say if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both created doth not this render him a fourth Person For Creation was in Time which contradicts their Doctrine of three distinct increated coeternal coessential Persons in the Deity seeing that which was created was not so But herein whether doth not his and their Ignorance of the only begotten of the Father and their Denial of Christ's Divinity plainly appear yea or nay VVhere doth the Scripture say that his Soul was created For was not he the Brightness of his Father's Glory and the express Image of his Divine Substance But supposing the Soul of Christ was with the Body created in time I ask if from Eternity he was a Person distinct from God and his holy Spirit without either Soul or Body and where doth the Scripture speak of any Person without either Soul or Body T. Elwood to cover this gross Error of G.VV. in his pretended Answer to my first Narrative saith That G. W. only denyed that Christ had a created Soul as God But this was not the State of the Question for neither T. D. nor any other Man were ever so gross as to affirm that Christ as God had a created Soul And the like Evasion doth G. VV. use himself in his Antidote p. 191. This Question saith he is no Determination that it was or was not Christ as God his Soul was increated as Man his Soul or Spirit was not the Deity but formed and assumed by the VVord But it 's Evident that his accusing T. D. and others of Ignorance for saying it was created determines it sufficiently But as is above said G. W. and his Brethren will have only the Godhead to be the Christ which they call The Heavenly Man having Soul and Body Flesh Blood and Bones uncreated and existing from all Eternity which they call The Seed within them the Seed of the Woman that bruiseth the Serpent's Head which G. F. as is above quoted denyeth to be a Creature What the Seed spoke in him he said he spoke it not as a Creature therefore that Heavenly Man or Seed consisting of Heavenly Flesh and Blood which they say is in them not being a Creature must needs in their Sense be from all Eternity and not from the Beginning of the World only This appears yet more fully from R. Hubberthorn When was that Christ created R. Hub. Coll. p. 49 50. which you say must as a Creature judge the World And if in Mary's Time who was Judge of the World till then Was not the Person of Christ Jesus before the World was Note here he owns Christ to be a Person and by G. W's Argument above mentioned he must being a Person have both Soul and Body before the World was And when had the Man Christ Jesus his Beginning If you can declare it how is
Christ the only begoten Son of God if he be a Creature Or how can God beget a Creature And if the whole Person of Christ was not before the Barthly Adam how was the Creation made by him or how can he be of the Nature of fallen Adam and not Earthly and defiled and is the Flesh of Christ Heavenly or Earthly or is he Christ without his Flesh Agreeable to this He Goarâ— Horn p. 11 12. is the Doctrine of both G. W. and E. B. G. Whitehead doth severely blame John Horne and T. Moor for saying That Christ took upon him their Nature And though they did well distinguish betwixt our Nature as in us it is corrupt by Sin since the Fall and as in Christ not corrupt and filthy yet by no means will he allow this Distinction nor will he allow That it 's one and the same Nature in the Gentiles by which they did the things contained in the Law and by which they broke the Law and he makes the sinful Nature and the pure Nature to be two Natures this agrees with G. F's Doctrine afterwards quoted That the Nature in us that doth the Will of God is Christ the Seed but the Nature in us that sinneth is the Devil the Serpent the Lust so that there is nothing in Mens Bodies but Christ or God and the Devil the Serpent Sin and Lust there is no reasonable created Soul in Men that at one time sinneth and afterwards is cleansed from Sin and obeyeth the Will of God yet still remaining one and the same Nature in Essence and Substance Next let us hear E. Bur. in his Collection p. 301. Thou sayest in that Answer that Christ ascended to the Right Hand of the Father in your Nature Mark now thy Nature and your Nature who are one with thee is sinful and wicked and of the Devil for so are all Liers and it is Blasphemy to say sinful wicked devillish Nature such as John Bunnion's is and his Fellows is at the Right Hand of God in Heaven Oh Horrible Again he saith p. 306. That Christ ascended into Heaven in our Nature viz. in his Nature and they that are one with him and he and they are proved to be in corrupt Nature as they will confess it O what Wickedness is it to hold forth That Christ is at the Right Hand of God in sinful Nature as his Words hold forth from his own Mouth Note His Opponent did not say sinful Nature but our Nature But seeing E. B. makes them both one that it cannot be our Nature that Christ hath in Heaven except it be sinful Nature This is to make Sin to be essential to our Nature which is a most vile and gross Heresie and agrees with that above mentioned of G.F. and G. W. That there are but two Natures in Man's Body the one that is divine and of God's Essence that neither doth nor can sin the other of the Devil that sinneth and can do no good So there is no Soul left in Man that is neither God nor the Devil nor any Part of either by these Mens Doctrine But what doth G. W. and his Brethren then say to W. Penn in his Primitive Christianity where he saith p. 85. That we do we bless God religiously believe and confess to the Glory of God the Father and the Honour of his dear and beloved Son that Jesus Christ took our Nature upon him and was like unto us in all things Sin excepted And p. 87. We say that he then overcame our common Enemy foiled him in the open Field viz. at his Death and in our Nature triumphed over him that had overcome and triumphed over it in our Forefather Adam and his Posterity and that as truly as Christ overcame him in our Nature in his own Person c. But possibly some will say W. P. by our Nature did mean the Quakers Nature which is not sinful but not the Priests Nature which is sinful But first was not the Quakers Nature once sinful as really as the Nature of other Men And doth no Sin cleave to the Nature of any Quaker at this Day But secondly W. P. tells us Our Nature which Christ took was that over which our common Enemy had triumphed in our Forefather Adam and his Posterity Now except the Quakers will say They are none of Adam ' s Posterity they must grant that according to W. P. Christ did take not only the Nature of the Quakers but the Nature of other Men which hath been defiled by Sin both in them and us What shall we now say of the great Unity that the Teachers of the Quakers boast of in Doctrine as well as in Spirit Whereas we see that what W. P. owns as a Part of his and his Brethrens Faith and for which he saith They bless God E. Burrough who was owned as a Prophet among them and was in greater Repute and more deserving then than ever W. P. was or now is E. B. hath past Sentence on it That it is horrible Blasphemy For if Christ took our Nature and triumphed over the common Enemy in our Nature surely he rose from the dead in our Nature and ascended into Heaven in our Nature which E. B. hath judged to be Blasphemy and Wickedness Here I asked John Whiting of which of these two Faiths he was whether that of G. W. and E. B. who said Christ was not in Heaven in our Nature or that of W. P. who said Christ took our Nature and triumphed in our Nature He replied He was of the Faith of both By which Answer he made himself very ridiculous and obnoxious to the general Censure of the Auditory who cried out against him as at several other times many cried out at his and his Brethrens Impertinencies and absurd Answers After the same manner doth W. Penn labour to excuse and cloak his and his Brethrens vile Heresie That he who died at Jerusalem was not properly the Son of God as is set down at the End of Truth and Innocency recommended by G. W. And W. P. thinks he has fairly defended himself Truth and Ion. p. 72. by what he formerly said viz. That he that laid down his Life and suffered his Body to be crucified by the Jews without the Gates of Jerusalem is Christ the only Son of the most High God But to assert the Body which suffered and died was properly the entire Son of God this brings him more under the Charge of making him but a meer Man than us who acknowledge him to be one with the Father and of a Nature eternal and immortal But here are two Fallacies one is He that laid down his Life and suffered his Body to be crucified is Christ the only Son of the most High God But by this HE he means only the Godhead or the Word This is the entire Christ by his Doctrine and this HE suffered his Body to be crucified but how was it his Body Not as any Part of the
intire Christ but only as a Vail or Garment that is a Man's Garment but is no Part of him The other Fallacy is that he would cast it upon his Opponents that they held The Body that suffered was properly the entire Son of God which were to make him but a meer Man But none of his Opponents said That that Body without the Soul of the Manhood and without the Godhead of the Word was the entire Christ nor could it be so much as meer Man without a Soul even a created Soul belonging to it Whether Christ's coming in the Flesh was a Figure THE next thing I charge to be a vile Error in the Quakers Books especially G. F. and G. W. That Christ's coming in the Flesh and his Sufferings without us in the Flesh and his outward Flesh and Blood was a Figure and But a Figure of Christ and what he suffereth in us and of his Blood shed in us This being charged in Saul's Errand That R. Hubberthorn writ That Christ's coming in the Flesh was but a Figure It is answered in Saul's Errand in two several Places first in p. 8. thus Christ in his People is the Substance of all Figures Types and Shadows fulfilling them in them and setting them free from them but as he is held forth in the Scripture Letter without them and in the Flesh without them he is their Example or Figure which is both one that the same things must be fulfilled in them that was in Christ Jesus for which he quotes 1 Pet. 2. 21. 1 Pet. 4. 1. 1 Pet. 1. 15. Joh. 13. 15. Again in Saul's Err. p. 14. Q. Whether Christ in the Flesh be a Figure or not and if a Figure how and in what Ans Christ is the Substance of all Figures and his Flesh is a Figure for every one passeth through the same way as he did who comes to know Christ in the Flesh there must be a suffering with him before there be a rejoycing with him Christ is an Example for all to walk after and if thou knewest what an Example is thou wouldst know what a Figure is To come up to the same Fulness Note Had R. Hubb and G.F. taught That Christ is our Example and if by Example they only meant to be our Example to follow him in the Virtues of Love Humility Self-denial Patience Resignation c. none would have blamed them but what they talk of his being such an Example is but mainly to hide their vile Heresie For first saith G.F. Christ is an Example for all to walk after to come up to the same Fulness No sound Christian ever taught so for the Apostles never taught That they or any other were by following Christ's Example to come up to the same Fulness but still spoke of the Measure as with respect to all others To come up to the same Fulness is to come to be as much Christ as he was and according to VV. Penn see his Preface to R. B's Collection the Passage quoted in my third Narrative p. 10. attested c. The VVork of Regeneration is a greater Mystery than God manifest in the Flesh without us And saith G.F. Christ in his People is the Substance of all Figures Types and Shadows fulfilling them in them and his Flesh is a Figure Now that by Figure or Example they meant not only or indeed so much that he is our Example in holy living and walking which none ever found fault with of any called Christians but that as he was outwardly born was crucified had his Blood shed was buried rose and ascended so he is inwardly born and has been crucified in the Quakers and all other Saints buried risen and ascended and is King Priest and Prophet in them and G. VV's Light and Life p. 44. Christ in them offers up himself in the Nature of a mediating Sacrifice to appease the VVrath of God That not the outward Blood that was outwardly shed is the Blood of God by which he purchased his Church but God being a Spirit his Blood his inward and spiritual as G.VV. hath expresly affirmed in his Light and Life p. 44. And VV. P. in his Rejoinder to I. Faldo p. 336 337. comparing Christ his dying as a Malefactor by his Death to reconcile us to God to what was to be accomplished in Man saith 'T is strange that should be reputed most misterious which was the Introduction to the Mistery and those Transactions counted most difficult that were by the divine VVisdom of God ordained as so many facile Representations of what was to be accomplished in Man c. And a little before comparing the outward with the inward in Relation to Christ he saith The History is made the greatest Mistery which he blames in I. Faldo for making Christ without us a greater Mistery than Christ within us so that whether by Figure or Example the Quakers mean the same thing it is horribly offensive that Christ without us and what he did and suffered without us is such an Example as is to be wrought and accomplished in us by a greater Missery so that the Work or the thing wrought and effected is greater and more excellent t han the Example according to which it is wrought as the building some great Fabrick the Example Type or Figure according to which it is built is made perhaps of Wood or Past-board in a small Model whereas the Fabrick is great and consisting of rich and very precious Materials Thus they magnifie the Flesh and Blood of Christ within them above his Death and Sacrifice without them and well they may if Christ's Flesh and Blood with in them be unerected and from all Eternity and that Christ's material Blood on the Cross was the Type of Christ's inward ward and spiritual Blood he had from all Eternity for the Word Example in this case is fully as offensive as Figure and can signifie no other than Figure for if there be any such inward and spiritual Blood of Christ and Flesh that he had from all Eternity and if the material Blood be the Example of it and Christ's material Flesh the Example of that Heavenly increated Flesh It must needs be granted that the thing exemplified is greater than the Example of it in the case and the shedding of that Heavenly Blood which Christ had from all Eternity and which was shed in Adam when he sinned is more excellent than the shedding of that material Blood which is but its Figure according to them But now let us hear how G.VV. first defends himself and next VV. P. in his Truth and Inn. p. 53. He gives a lame Quotation objected against him out of his Truth defending the Quakers Christ's coming in the Flesh was but a Figure i. e. a Figure or Type of the inward Christ or Light within Here is a lame Quotation which at full is thus Truth defend p. 21. Did R. Hubberth well in writing That Christ's coming in the Flesh was but a Figure Ans
Lines immediately going before the Quotation W. Burnet clears the matter That he was not for having People go on Pilgrimage to Jerusalem either for Christ or to Christ W. Burnet in his Capital Principles p. 24. Israel of old he saith were commanded to go up to the literal Temple at Jerusalem to worship but now God's Worshippers may worship him each one in his Respective Place Yea G.W. in his Light and Life takes that to be W. Burnet's Sense That Christ was to be sought and found at such a Distance by Faith and yet he still objects against Christ sought at a Distance without us even by Faith as in Heaven above the Clouds or as he suffered at Jerusalem I ask saith he if the Object or Foundation of the Faith he divided from the Faith From which reasoning it is evident he is against Christ as without us as at a distance either as he suffered at Jerusalem or as he is now in Heaven to be the Object of our Faith And whereas in that called Some Account from Colchester they quote Rom. 10. 6 7 8. and set down the Words at full Length why do they not quote and set down the Words in p. 9 10. That if thou shall confess with thy Mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thine Heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved By all the things that have been objected against G.W. to move him to give some confession of his Faith in the Man Christ as he suffered and rose again without us and is now in Heaven without us in that very created Nature of the Soul and Body of Man he had on Earth as in Union with the eternal Word and that as such he is the great Object of our Faith for Remission of Sin yet he cannot be drawn to it which still shews he remains in his vile Antichristian Doctrine As to his seeming Confession to Christ without in his Supplement to the Switch we shall see ere long in its Place In his Truth and Inn. p. 54. he seeks to excuse W. P's Saying in his Quakerism a new Nick-name p. 6. Faith in Christ's outward Manifestation has been a deadly Poison these later Ages has been infected with G. W's Defence is 'T is making Faith in the History thereof that is in Opposition to his Power and Work in the Soul and to Godly living as is evident in the Place quoted But did I. Faldo W. P's Opponent make Faith in Christ's outward Manifestation in Opposition to his Power and Work in the Soul Nay surely nor did any other of their Opponents teach such Doctrine But this is the common way of G.W. and his Brethren to cloak their own vile Errors they will misrepresent their Opponents Principles It 's sufficiently evident from G. W's Doctrine that he has all along opposed Faith in Christ's outward Manifestation as necessary to Salvation and it will yet further appear Again he excuses W. P's Saying Truth and Inn. p. 55. And since they believe that outward Appearance i.e. of Jesus at Jerusalem they need not preach what is to be main by telling us he means They need not always preach it where it is believed and comesseth all true Quakers own that visible Appearance of Christ Note this is an evidenly apparent Strain W. P's Reason why the Quakers need not preach Christ's outward Appearance as he suffered Death was that it was not to be again which makes it unnecessary to be preached But this Liberty of G.W. and I. Weyeth and others of adding and taking away material Words is so intolerable where the plain Sense will bear no such Addition nor taking away that at this rate nothing so false but shall be made to seem true But why need they not always to preach it Suppose the Quakers believe it do not they preach always the Light within and do not the Quakers generally believe it and divers other Principles they prosess How shall their Children have the Faith of it without preaching Doth the Light within so reach it that they have it without preaching But how do they believe it Only histostically It is no necessary Article of their Faith to be preached or believed to Salvation the Light within is sufficient to Salvation without any thing else The like Fallacy and Sophistry he useth to excuse W. Shewen's Saying Not to Jesus the Son of Abraham David and Mary but to God the Father all Worship Honour and Glory is to be given But to hide his Fallacy he gives a lame Quotation The Words being Not to Jesus the Son of Abraham David and Mary nor to Saint nor Angel but to God the Father he saith he knows his Intent was Not to Jesus only as the Son of Abraham But then if the Word Only must be added as explanatory to one Part of the Sentence it must be added to the other Part of the same Sentence and so it will run thus Not to Jesus the Son of Abraham David Mary nor to Saint and Angel only but to God the Father all Worship c. Is not this a fair Excuse by which to cover their vile Heresie they will run into Popish Idolatry they are not to give Worship to Saints and Angels only but to God Note G.W. writes this contrary to what he knoweth in his Conscience to be true for he was present at that Meeting in London 1678. where W.S. and others blamed me for praying to Jesus Christ in the Passage above quoted in my Book called The Way cast up c. Beside it was no Part of the Controversie betwixt the Quakers and the Church of England or Dissenters That Christ was to be prayed to only as the Son of Abraham But is G.W. now in good earnest in thus excusing W.S. Is he for giving divine Worship to Jesus the Son of Abraham David and Mary in any respect seeing he hath denied that the true Jesus did consist of a Body of Flesh and Bone or that he hath a created Soul and Body as above quoted But let us once more hear how he excuseth that Passage of W. Penn his Address to Protestants p. 119. Let us but soberly consider what Christ is and we shall the better know whether moral Men are to be reckoned Christians what is Christ but Meekness Justice Mercy Patience Charity and Virtue in Perfection G.W. saith W.P. did not design thereby to lessen the Power or Dignity of Christ who is the Author of these Virtues no more than the Apostles did in saying He Christ is made of God unto us Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption spoken in the Abstract and the Prophet saying God is my Light and my Salvation though God and Christ also be the Author of Redemption and Salvation This is also a sophistical Evasion when Paul said Christ was made of God unto us Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption he meant not the Light within as it is in meer moral Heathens but so W.P. meant 〈◊〉 but Paul did really
Body of Adam in Innocency And thus the comparison is made betwixt the First Adam and the Second the first Man even as he was in Innocency is of the Earth Earthly his Body was Created or Made by God Almighty but was neither so wonderfully framed nor endued with such excellent Virtues as our Lord's Body was Tho' the Substance of both was the same in Specie or Kind yet the difference was great both in the manner of Production and the Virtues and Properties wherewith Christ's Body was endued above Adam's Body and chiefly in respect of the Hypostatical and Personal Union betwixt Christ's Body or Flesh and the Eternal Word Eternally Begotten of the Father It was an old Heresie of the Manicheans That Christ's Body that was Born of the Virgin had no part of her Body but did penetrate her Body as the Beams of the Sun penetrate Christal and did entirely come from Heaven which Heresie was reviv'd by Meno a Dutch-man but is effectually and solidly refuted by Calvin in his Institutions lib. 2. c. 13. And as to the Quakers arguing from 1 Cor. 15 47. The first man of the earth earthly the second Man the Lord from heaven that therefore his Body had not an earthly Substance which is the same Argument Manicheus used of old Calvin answereth solidly thus Manicheus aereum fabricatur Corpus quia vocetur Christus secundus Adam de Coelo Coelestis at neque illic essentiam corporis Coelestem inducit Apostolus sed vim spiritualem quaed Christo diffusa nos vivificat Sect. 2. i.e. Manicheus maketh him viz. Christ to have a Body of Air because he is call'd the Second Adam from heaven heavenly But neither doth the Apostle there infer that the Essence of his Body is heavenly but that there is a spiritual Virtue which being diffused from Christ doth quicken us Again Whereas G. W. saith Art 7. of that Paper Our really Believing and Confessing the Lord Jesus Christ his Passion Sufferings Death Atonement and Reconciliation made for us and his Resurrection Ascention and Glorification as without us according to Scripture cannot be to allegorize these away as if only transacted within us as we have been unduly accused for they were really done and transacted without us by our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ tho' our true knowledge of the Power and Effect of his Resurrection and Fellowship of his Sufferings and our being conformable to his Death must be experienc'd within us if ever we live and reign with him And in their Paper annexed Art 2. they say we sincerely Believe and Confess that Jesus of Nazareth who was Born of the Virgin Mary is the true Messiah the very Christ the Son of the Living God to whom all his Prophets gave Witness And we do highly value his Death Sufferings Works Offices and Merits for the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind together with his Laws Doctrine and Ministry Note That all this seemingly fair Confession cannot but be judged extremely Fallacious seeing they will not Retract any of their former assertions expresly contradictory to the same as is in great part already proved out of the above-given Quotations How do they sincerely Confess that Jesus of Nazareth who was Born of the Virgin Mary was the very Christ the Son of the Living God seeing they profess to be of one Faith with W. P. who saith That that Outward Person that Suffered at Jerusalem was properly the Son of God we utterly deny as above-quoted And to be of E. B.'s Faith who denyeth that Christ is in Heaven in our Nature And of G. F.'s Faith who denyeth That Christ's Body was from the Earth But yet more fully to detect their Fallacies Whereas G. W. saith Their really Believing and Confessing Christ's Passion Sufferings Death Atonement and Reconciliation made for us c. cannot be to allegorize these away as if only tranfacted within us as we have been unduly accused To detect his Fallacy here Note I know none that accuse them for holding that Christ's Birth and Death was only transacted within them they grant that a Man call'd Jesus of Nazareth was outwardly Born and Suffered Death but some of the chief of them have said That that Man was not properly the Christ nor Son of God but was by the metonymy of the thing Containing for the thing Contained so called so W. P. as above-quoted Next they make his being outwardly Slain and his Blood outwardly Shed and what was outwardly transacted by him both Actively and Passively a Figure of what he was to do and suffer in Men of his inward Crucifying his Blood inwardly Shed his Burial Resurrection and Ascension within them These outward transactions saith W. P. are so many facile representations of what was to be accomplished in Men as above-quoted and G. W. beside the Proofs already given out of his Books to that Effect he hath lately affirmed in his * Antidote p. 39. Antidote against the Venom of the Snake Printed in the Year 1697 That that Blood of his viz. Christ's outward Blood as well as the Water that came out of his Side with it had an ALLEGORICAL and MYSTERIOUS SIGNIFICATION as well as an Outward and Literal even of the Spiritual Blood and Water of Life which Christ our High Priest Sprinkleth and really Washeth our Hearts and Consciences withal which we hope no sensible Soul will say is an Outward or Literal Sprinkling or Washing but an Inward and Spiritual Note When we charge G. W. and his Brethren with Allegorizing away Christ's Birth Passion Death Burial Resurrection Blood Atonement and Reconciliation made for us c. the sense is obvious which is this That tho' they grant that a Man called Christ was outwardly Born Dyed had his Blood shed c. yet all this was an Allegory and had an Allegorical Signification of Christ truly and really without an Allegory Born within them Crucified and Dead within them his Blood shed within them Buried Risen Ascended within them Atonement Reconciliation made within them Now that this is so we have G. W.'s plain Confession in the Words just now quoted So that according to him Christ's Sufferings without his Blood shed without is the Allegory or Allegorical Signification of Christ's Sufferings within of his Blood shed within the Atonement made within as Hagar and Sarah who were real Women yet as Paul hath declar'd they are an Allegory of the Two Covenants and Types or Figures of them and as far short of the things signified by them as the Type is short of the Substance or thing signified for that is the true definition of an Allegory Where one thing is expressed and another thing is understood Now if Christ's Birth Sufferings Blood c. without Men be an Allegory or Allegorical Signification of Christ's Birth Sufferings Blood shed and sprinkled within Men that Within must be the Reality or Excellent thing signified or typified by the outward but both cannot be the Allegory as to say that as Christ's Blood
without us is the Allegory of his Blood within so his Blood within is the Allegory of Christ's Blood without this is as great Nonsense as who would say as Hagar and Sarah were an Allegory of the Two Covenants so the Two Covenants are an Allegory of Hagar and Sarah And thus G. W. and his Brethren stand justly charged with Allegorizing away Christ's outward Birth Sufferings Blood Atonement by making them the Allegory of his Birth Sufferings Blood Atonement made within Men tho' they deny not Christ's Birth Death Blood without simply as Historically related yet seeing they deny the Merit and Efficacy of his Death and Blood without and of what he did and suffered without us they are justly charg'd to Allegorize it away that is to make no other account of it than of the History of Hagar and Sarah and other Types Symbols and Allegories of the Old Testament Besides If Men will be wilful denyers of the Historical Truth of Christ's outward Birth Death Burial Resurrection Ascension according to G. W.'s and his Brethren's way and method of expounding Scripture we have no way to convince them of their Error If we bring Isaiah 9. 6. to prove that Isaiah Prophesied of Christ's Birth and that the Child that should be Born should be both God and Man and his Mother should be a Virgin according to Isaiah 7. 14. And if we bring Isaiah 53. to prove that Christ should be wounded for our Sins be killed be buried and make his grave with the wicked or That Christ should suffer without the Camp they may Answer All these and the like places are to be meant not of any Birth Death or Burial of a Christ without us but of Christ Born Slain and Buried in Men and for their Proof vouch G. W.'s Authority and his Brethren's to confirm it who as above-quoted have expounded these places of Christ Born Slain Buried within Men. But if G. W. will say these and other the like places have two meanings one Outward and Literal and the other Inward and Spiritual to this I say First G. W. in his Voice of Wisdom pag 21. hath severely blamed his Opponent T. D. for giving two meanings to one place I agree to the most Judicious and Orthodox Expositors of Scripture that the Scriptures have but one sense or meaning properly and strictly speaking viz. That the thing principally and properly intended is but one and what other senses or meanings may be put upon some places of Scripture besides that is rather an Allusion or Allegory than the real meaning which so far as we have Scripture warrant is allowed as Paul's calling Hagar and Sarah an Allegory but otherwise is dangerous and in the present case is most Heretical as in G. W.'s and his Brethrens making Christ's Birth Sufferings Death Burial without Men the Allegory and his Birth Sufferings Death Burial within the Reality and Substance or thing principally intended in these places of Scripture That the Spirit of God with his sanctifying Gifts and Graces is called Water of Life and Living Waters whereby God doth really Purify and Cleanse the Hearts and Consciences of the Faithful and that this Work of Sanctification is Inward and Spiritual in them is no part of the Dispute or Controversie for this is not only granted but earnestly taught and pleaded for against Pelagians and others who deny it or at least the necessity of such an inward and spiritual Operation Therefore G. W. in this as in most of his late Defences doth purposely mistake the true Case to hide his vile Heresie as if the debate betwixt him and his Opponents were only about the inward Operations of the Spirit of God for the cleansing and sanctifying the Hearts of the Faithful but this is his ordinary Fallacy The true state of the Question then is this Whether there is any Inward Blood or Water that Christ Crucified in Men lets out or is pressed out of him crucified within them that is the Blood of Atonement is the Price and Ransom and Meritorious Cause of the Remission of our Sins is the satisfactory and propitiatory Offering for Sin either in whole or in part Also whether any such supposed Blood or Water or Spirit thus flowing from Christ as Crucified and Wounded within Men is the meritorious and procuring Cause either of Men's Justification before God or of the saving and sanctifying Graces of the Holy Spirit and whether the Gift of the Holy Spirit given to Believers with the sanctifying Graces thereof proceeds from Christ Crucified within having made the Atonement and Satisfaction by his Blood shed within Risen and Ascended within Sitting at the Right Hand of God within Men making Intercession for them or from Christ as he was crucified without us having made the Atonement and Satisfaction without us by his Blood shed without us Risen and Ascended and sat down at the Right Hand of God without us and there Interceding for us This is the true state of the Controversie all true Christians say that all this is from Christ without us as outwardly Born Crucified Risen Ascended from him thus only considered as without us all Believers have the free gift of the Remission of Sins free Justification freely by God's Grace being the real effect of Christ's Purchase and of the Merit of his Precious Blood and also the Holy Spirit with the sanctifying Gifts and Graces thereof inwardly to renew and sanctifie them So that the Work of Christ or of the Spirit in Believers is not at all either in whole or in part to suffer for our Sins or to procure by way of Merit the pardon of our Sins and our Peace and Reconcliation with God for that 's wholly and only done by Christ without us but to work the sincere Faith of all that he hath done and suffer'd for us without us and give us the Spiritual Knowledge and Comfort of it in our Hearts and Souls The Plaister and healing Medicine of Christ's Body and Blood was prepared for us when he gave his Precious Body to be broken for us and his Blood to be shed for us this was once done and is no more to be doue again Christ having once dyed dyeth no more by the one Offering of himself once only offered without us his Soul Body and Blood he hath intirely and completely prepared the wholsom Medicine and Food of Life for us But now the work of Christ and his Spirit in us is to apply it effectually to us that is to enable us effectually to apply it to our selves for our Eternal Health and Salvation to give us a Spiritual discovery and sight of that living Food a Hunger and Appetite after it and to teach us spiritually by Faith to receive it and feed upon it to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood not by the bodily Mouth but by the Mouth of the Soul which is Faith a true and living Faith wrought in us by the powerful Operation of Christ in us or his Spirit
Blood of Christ's Humanity but of his Godhead G. W. in his Truth Defended p. 66. quotes C. Wade saying The Lord hath Bought us and Redeemed us with the Precious Blood of his Humanity and saith your imagined Christ viz. their Notion of a Christ whose Blood is shed within them never had any Humane Blood to Redeem you with and to prove it he brings 1 Pet. 1. 19. G. W. Answers That Scripture 1 Pet. 1. hast thou perverted as thou hast done other Scriptures to thy own Destruction for there he witnesses to the Blood of the Lamb which Redeemed them from their vain Conversation but doth not tell them of Humane Blood to Redeem them with for that which is Humane is Earthly but Christ whose Blood is Spiritual is Lord from Heaven and he is not an imagined Spirit but a true Spirit And what say'st thou to this Was that Humane Blood which Christ saith Except a Man drink he hath no Life in him and which cleansed the Saints from all Sin who were Flesh of Christ's Flesh and Bone of his Bone Note Thus we see what Blood G. W. esteems the Precious Blood of Christ not his Humane Blood or Blood of his Humanity and that not only he denyeth that we are Redeemed or Cleansed by any Blood of his Humanity but denyeth that Christ had any Humane Blood or Blood of Humanity and giveth his Reason against it That Humane is Earthly but Christ whose Blood is Spiritual is Lord from Heaven But again For a further evidence of his undervaluing the outward Blood of Christ and denying it to be that Blood by which Christ purchased his Church in his Light and Life p. 56. It is confessed saith he that God by his own Blood purchased to himself a Church Acts 20. 28. Now the Blood of God or that Blood that relates to God must needs be Spiritual he being a Spirit and the Covenant of God is Inward and Spiritual Note This Quotation was lately published in the Printed Sheet call'd An Account from Colchester above-mention'd to which Seven Quakers at Colchester have given a pretended Answer call'd Some Account from Colchester c. In their Answer to this Quotation they quibble Sophistically upon the Word Spiritual We would ask these Men say they if God's own Blood be not Spiritual whether it be Carnal and the Blood of his Covenant such also But was not the Blood that was outwardly shed on the Cross which John said he saw and bare Record real material Blood as really as that of other Men And granting it to be Spiritual as Spiritual signifies Holy as a Holy Man is a Spiritual Man and yet is a Carnal Man with respect to his Body of Flesh yet it was Material and Corporal But G. W. by Spiritual meant inward Blood in Men and Women and so expressed it The Covenant saith he is Inward and Spiritual and so is the Blood of it so that Spiritual and Inward are with him Synonymous But for a further Answer they quote a passage in G. W.'s Antidote p. 233 234. where he grants contrary to his former Doctrine That God purchased his Church by Christ's Natural or Outward Blood but not only by that but principally by the Spiritual Blood or Life of Christ Jesus and this Spiritual Blood he holds to be Inward in Men The Blood is the Life and the Life is the Light of Men as W. Bailie phrased it perverting and confounding two sundry Texts of Scripture But the tenor and tendency of G. W.'s former Arguments were altogether against Redemption or Justification by any natural or outward Blood whatsoever for Humane is Natural but Humane Blood G. W. would by no means admit to be the Blood of Christ by which Men are Redeemed So now he will have God's own Blood to be no less than his own dear Son and the Blood to be both Natural and Outward and Spiritual and Inward by which we are Redeemed meaning by Inward Blood his Life Power and Spirit in Men and Women and yet in contradiction to himself he saith God's sparing not his own Son but delivering him up for us all includes the whole Sacrifice of Christ in Soul and Body which were offered Note If Christ's Soul and Body without us were the whole Sacrifice the outward Blood being a part of his Body then his Spirit Life and Light in us is no part of the Sacrifice and yet in contradiction to this in his Light and Life p. 44. He brings several Arguments and Scriptures but all grosly perverted to prove That Christ in us offers up himself a living Sacrifice refering to W. Burnets Book cap. prim p. 31. Where the words are more largely quoted thus out of W. Smiths Primmer We believe that Christ in us doth offer up himself a living Sacrifice unto God for us by which the Wrath and Justice of God is appeased towards us This layeth the whole stress upon Christ within Men being the offering but now G. W. would seem to give one part to Christ without and another part to Christ within Men to be the offering and to the Blood shed without that was Natural and Outward and to the Blood shed within Men that is Spiritual and Inward But then surely he gives very little to the Blood shed without that was but once and was Natural Blood the Blood of the Humanity but he gives very much to the Inward Blood shed within Men which is a more excellent Blood it is the Blood not of the Humanity but of the Divinity and is shed many Thousands yea Millions of times for it is shed in all Men who have lived in several Ages of the World And thus Christ hath offered up himself Inwardly Millions of times and had his Blood inwardly shed to appease the Wrath and Justice of God but this is directly contrary to the Scripture that saith That Christ by one Offering hath for ever perfected them that are Sanctified and by one Offering Heb. 9. 28. 10. 14. once offered not often offered he hath appeared to put away sin and as was Prophesied of him a Body thou hast prepared me not two Bodies or many Bodies And as Christ had not two Bodies to be offered for our Sins Heb. 8. so nor had he two Bloods the Scripture never mentioneth any Blood of Christ but one we no where read in Scripture of the Bloods of Christ plural but of Blood singular And according to G. W. the Blood of Christ in his former Books is but one and that is the Inward Blood the Blood of his Divinity but not of his Humanity yea he hath denyed the Body of Christ to be any part of him whereof he consisteth as above-quoted and consequently nor was the outward Blood shed on the Cross any part of him But suppose it were allowed to call the Spirit of Christ in Believers or the sanctifying and refreshing Influences thereof his Blood by way of metaphor as Wine is call'd in Scripture the Blood of the Grape
more which might be quoted out of them and others it evidently appears that the greatest things that are written of Christ either by Prophecy in the Old Testament or fulfilled in the New Testament his outward Birth his Incarnation his taking hold not of Angels but the Seed of Abraham his Sacrifice and Offering his Blood Death Burial Resurrection Ascension yea his being tempted by Satan in the World is all applied to the Seed Christ within as the great Mistery of Godliness yea as greater than God manifest in Flesh without as is quoted out of W. Penn and as concerning Christ's Flesh without that 's a Figure but Christ within is the Substance Now to apply all this in way of Allegory to Christ incarnate within the Seed that the Spirit takes hold of to use G. F's Words that looks like an Incarnation of the Holy Ghost in G. F. and his Brethren is too rash and goeth beyond the Bounds of Sobriety But to turn it all to the greatest Reallity and all that 's said of Christ without to be the Allegory and Figure of the Substance within as is effectually proved is a plain overthrowing the Christian Faith But it 's very hard to conceive how this Seed Christ within as G. F. holds it forth was or could be tempted of the Devil to lust after the Creature seeing as he will have it it is no Creature it self can it be supposed that the Devil would or could tempt the Godhead to lust after the Creature and what this Seed can be which G. F. calls Christ that 's buried in the wicked and elsewhere the Spirit and Spirits in Prison yea the Prisoners in Hell that the Quakers have preached to that 's no Creature nor God nor any Part of the divine Essence for that cannot be divided into Parts is unaccountable There yet remains three or four Passages which were objected in a printed Sheet called An Account from Colchester against G. W. and E. B. to which these seven Quakers in Colchester have given their Reply by way of Vindication but all grosly fallacious in that they call Some Account from Calchester as we shall see in what follows It was objected against G. W. out of his Truth defending the Quakers page 65. Christopher Wade affirmeth That our blessed Saviour doth instruct Men to lay fast hold of and to abide in such a Faith which confideth in himself being without Men. To this G. W. answereth That 's contrary to the Apostles Doctrine who preached the Word of Faith that was in their Hearts and the Saints Faith stood in the Power of God which was in them Their Defence is That George White head 's Intent in this Answer was not against C. Wade's excluding Christ's spiritual Appearance and Work of Righteousness out of his Saints by affirming That our blessed Saviour doth totally condomn all such Faith which doth trust that Men are righteous in their own Bodies by what Spirit soever either from Heaven or elsewhere that Righteousness is wrought in Mens Bodies p. ibid. Whereby â—e opposed Christ's Work of Regeneration in true Believers as also his affirming that the true Christ doth prove himself not to be a Spirit To this I say suppose C. Wade had erred on the one hand this doth not justifie this most scandalous Assertion of George Whitehead That it is contrary to Rom. 10. to confide in Christ without Men whereas Rom. 10. 8 9 10. teacheth us That to to believe in Christ without us and so to confess him is necessary to our Salvation It 's observable how both they and G. W. himself waves giving a plain and positive Answer to this great Objection They say indeed in page 21. As there is one Lord Jesus Christ and one true Faith in him this Faith respects Christ both as without us in the Heavens and as he is in the Hearts of his Saints But they do not tell what they mean by Christ as without us in the Heavens not one Word of their Faith in Christ as he is both God and Man and who as Man consisting of a created Soul and Body the same in Nature with the Nature of other Men but without Sin is in the Heavens in our glorified Nature This being the thing that is mainly objected on this Head and which they will not nor dare not give a plain Answer unto nor G. W. either for it will detect his and their gross Error or if they or he give a sound Answer it will prove they are changed and that will reflect on G. W's Infallibility But they grosly abuse C. Wade for his sound Doctrine which G. W. has not fairly nor duely represented for C. Wade in that very Page doth clear himself both against a lying Charge first in G. F. who charged him That he did totally exclude Works without any Distinction G. M. p. 298. And the like false Charge doth G. W. load him with That he opposed Christ's Work of Regeneration in true Believers which is an extremely false Charge against him as he sheweth at length but he did only exclude them from being the meritorious Cause of our Justification and the Foundation of our Faith so that though Sanctification and good Works are necessary and none can be either justified or saved without them yet we must not trust in them nor make a Saviour of them But it 's no Wonder that G. W. blames this Doctrine who in his Voice of Wisdom pleads for the Meritoriousness of good Works in Men as grosly as the grossest Papists yea and much more grosly as we may see in its proper Place But this is G. W. and his Brethrens common Work to misrepresent their Opponents to hide their own vile Heresies And as for C. Wade's saying Christ proved himself not to be a Spirit to wit a meer Spirit as he explains himself he quoted for it Christ's own Words Handle me and feel me for a Spirit has not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have and was not that a sufficient Proof that the Man Christ was not a meer Spirit Proofs on the sixth Head Concerning the Soul Whether the Soul of Man is a Part of God G. VVhitehead is at great Pains in his Truth and Innocency page 7. and 9. to prove that when George Fox said The Soul was a Part of God and of God's Being he did not mean the rational Soul of Man and which he calls the reasonable Soul or Spirit formed in Man but that divine Inspiration or Breath of Life whereby Man became a living Soul as the great and universal Soul of Mankind even the Soul or Life of the Soul as some phrase it And Joseph VVyeth in his Switch page 53. pleads That he meant not That the created Soul was a Part of God and will have it that George Fox held That the Soul of Man was created But none of them give the least effectual Proof out of his Books where George Fox mentions any created Soul to be in Man that is not a