mean another thing But what a doltish man is this Is it not common for men yea have not the best of men done it to word a matter other wise and yet intend the very same as they did at first wording Let him see how Luke words the matter in giving account of some of Christ's last words to his diciples where he saith thus And behold I send the promise of my Father upon you but tarry ye in the city of Hierusalem until ye be endued with power sromon high Luke 24 49. Now compare this with the account he gives of the same thing Acts. 14 and see if he do not otherwise word the matter and yet intend the same thing for there he hath it thus And being assembled together with them commanded them that they should not depart from Hierusalem but wait for the promise of the Father which saith he ye have beard of me And many such like instances may be sound in scripture but least D. L. should dislike scripture instances under pretence of their being corrupted I will give him one out of his Friends G. K's late book of Explanations and Retractations not again retracted as I hear of yet let him Look in p. 5. where G. K. saith Though I cite scripture and make use of them in arguing this point yet I can truly say I have not my knowledge from them Note this he cites out of his book entituled Immediate Revelation p. 54. which he here explains by other wise wording the mâ—tter thus Here note I say from them as being the efficient cause c. Now though he here otherwise word the matter yet his intention are still the same For he saith himselfe in the same place What I then hold meaning what he held in 1668 he held in 1697 though he have other wise worded the matter But what Author shall I fetch to convince D. L. better than him self For in this very book of his p. 33 he finding fault with and ridiculing G W about his charging a contradiction upon John Newman saies D L Pray judge if this meaning Newman's assertions â—e any more then to say four pence in one place and a gro at in another Importing that to be one and the same thing and so indeed it is Therefore wether to say four pence in one place be not one way and agroat in another place be not another way of wording the matter and yet intend the same thing We see D. L. has resolved in the affirmative I come next to his p. 25. where he cites G. W. again Divinity of Christ p. 82. in these words while we were sinners Christ died for us it was Christ that dyed To which he sopposes John Whitehead s Refuge Fixed p. 38. thus Nothing that was mortal was called Christ Answ What John Wâ—â—e head wrote he declares twâ—â— as being eclxasive of the soul and spirit of Christ and we know exclusive from the sould and spirit his flesh was called the body of Jesus as it is said Joseph of Arimathea begged the body of Jesus and this was mortal and dyed But as whilst living his Godhead soul and spirit was united to that body so when that body dyed it was called the death of Christ though his Godhead soul and spirit dyed not so that if exclusive there from his body was properly and intirely the Christ then Christ was not from the beginning But we believe according to scripture that Christ was from the beginning and that the Rock that followed Israel in the Wilderniss was Christ 1 Cor 10 4. and yet also according to scripture he took on him the body that was mortal and that which he suffered in that body was also called the sufferings of Christ For as much saith the Apostle then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh c. 1 Pet 4 1. And though the scripture calls it's suffering the death of Christ yet it also implyes that Christ was that day in Paradise Luke 23 43 though that which was mortal was in the grave till three dayes after As to his comparing our Friends writings to those Priests whom Samuel Fisher in his Rusticus p 773. for their inconsistent arguments against our Friends twits with his rounds of No so so no c. I shall only say thus much that I hope I have shewed and yet shall shew here in that there is no comparison to be made between them For the occasion of Samuel Fisher's so treating the priests was the so different terms they at times gave to the light which D L. may disprove if he can whereupon saies S F. One while he calls it meaphorical not proper another while proper not metaphorical one while natural as opposite to civil and not moral spiritual not supernatural another while and in other respects he makes it civil moral and spiritual one while common to all universal but then not saving other while sufficient and saving but then particular only and particular to a few This with much more was what S. F. grounded his No. so so No. c. upon which D L. should not have concealed from his Reader But it is no wonder a man should do so who strives for victory more than truth Again in p 30. 31. he cites G. F's Great Mistery p 289. thus God was in Christ and they are one the Creator the father in the son and the Son in the father and Christ in you and God in Christ the Creator And Quakers Plainness p. 24. by G W The son is co worker with the Father To these he opposes G. W's Light and Life p 47 as follows viz What nonsense is this to tell of God being co Creator with the Father Where upon D. L. makes this Note Does not G. W. here accuse both G. F. and himself also with Non sense for what 's the difference between Co worker and Co Creator Answ As blind as D L. renders me in his p 45. about the Resurrection yet I shal shew him that I can see a great deae of difference may be betwixt a Co worker and a Co Creator For the saints were Co workers together with Christ but surely they cannot be said to be Co Creators with him And though Christ being man as well as God may be said to be Co-worker with the Father yet to tell of God being Co Creator with the Father does as G. W. saies imply two Gods And what G. F. said of Gods being in Christ and they are one the Creator the Father in the son and the Son in the Father c. is true and scriptural and it brings him no waies under accusation of G. W. as this quarrel picker would render him In his p 37. he quotes R. B.'s Apology p 95. in these words viz Wherefore as we believe he Christ was a true and real man so we also believe that he continues so to be glorified in the heavens in soul and body Upon which D. L. notes W. P. saith Christ as
G. F. answer to the Priest was but by way of query which does not alwaies conclude a judgement For when Christ asked the Pharisees what think ye of Christ whose son is he they said unto him The son of David Christ answered by way of query How then doth David in spirit call him Lord Matt. 22. 42 43. Now by this his answer Christ did not deny himself to be the Son of David for that would have contradicted the scripture which calls him the son of David c. Matt. 1 1. And so G. F's asking a question cannot be said to be a denyal of W. P's assertion therefore no contradiction I come now to his p 17 18 to what he cites from G. F about the soul To which I say 1st It hath been often answered by our Friends particularly G. W. and W. P. 2dly Though D. L. slights their answers counting them fallacious c. Yet his peculiar Friend G. K. hath but in the year 1692 vindicated both G. F. doctrine about the soul and also W. P's answers to the Professours about the very same subject of G. F.'s which D. L. cites see his Serious appeal p 60 not yet retracted where it may be seen that what D. L. calls in G. W. and W. P. Fallacious equivocation his Friend G. K. calls a Sufficient vindication Now what curious wire drawing will D L. use here to clear himself from contradicting his great Friend G. K. But since among so many learned and Wise men there have been so many opinions about the Soul unless he could define better than other folks what the Soul is and what the Breath of life is which God breathed into man by which he became a living Soul his raking up seeming contradictions about it tends to no bodies profit that I know of As fot what he tells us of the Raniers saying The Soul is a part of God therefore to talk of going to hell is an idle story is very idle in D. L. to cite For I do believe as man continued a living soul to God by vertue of that life which God breathed into him and as he is restored thereto again by Christ in that state Hell is not his portion Yet till then the Soul is not living to God but death and hell is it's poâ—tion for the Soul simply is one thing and its being a living soul to God is surely another thing In p 18 19 he cites G F again thus Great Mistery p 205 and p. 63. The Saints came to se the end of Sabbaths and New-Moons and witnessed the body Christ before the day was made for the body is the light of the world the body is the life given for the life of the World in whom there is rest Christ gave himself his body for the life of the World he was the offering for sin Now D. L. to make W. P. contradict G F quotes out his Serious Apology p. 146 as follows But that the outward person that suffered was properly the Son of God We utterly deny A Body best thou prepared me said the Son sot he Son was not the Body though the body was the Son's Upon which saies D L. Let W P. reconcile these and also tell us who is the Father of that outward person Answ Easily reconciled For as W P. denies the outward person to be properly the son of God so G F's words as here laid down by D L do import the same For he being there answering a Priest who was mightily crying up the outward Sabbath which according to scripture was a shadow of things to come Coll 2. 16 17 derected him to Christ the substance or body of that shadow and said the body is the life of the world and the light of the world c. Now what is this to W P's saying The outward person is not properly the son of God For surely the body which is the substance of the shadowy things under the law is Christ indefinitely which G F. calls the light of the world c. But what W P. meant was restricted to his outwatd visible person only which surely none will say that that of its self was properly the light and life of the world so that what W P. and G. F. both do say is true and therefore no contradiction And doth not D. L. know that the words body of Christ have various significations in scripture As first his Church is called his body Coll 1. 18. The bread of the passover is called his body by Christ him self Matt 26 26. And that which suffered on the cross was also his body Again the substance of shadowy ordinances which is Christ is called the body which was the body in G. F's sence in this place mentioned by D. L. And where as D. L. would know of VV. P who is the Father of that outward person I presuming that VV. P hath matters of more weight to exercise him self in than to answer such sort of cavilling folks shall therefore undertake to tell him and that according to scripture He was the son of David Matth. 1. 1 and as Paul said to the Romans 1 3 He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh which was the outward person VV. P. meant Well! but how was he the son of God why the next verss shew viz And dedared to be the son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness c. And now I cannot but often observe how D. L. by his striking thus against the Quakers does often hit his Friend G. K. a greivous box on the ear for in The VVay cast up p. 104. G. K. saith He was the son of Mary David and Ahraham according to the flesh but according to his heavenly nature even as man he was the son of God And in p. 102 he saith It is not the outward flesh and blood that is the man but it is the sould or inward man that dwelleth in the outward flesh and blood that is the man most properly such as Christ was from the beginng Surly now if D L. be impartial he must take in in G. F's errours in his next anniversary book D. L. falls upon VV. P. again p. 19. quoting his Reason against Railing p. 91 as follows Forgive us our debts as we forgive our Debtors were saith he nothing can be more obvious than that which is forgiven is not paid and if it is our duty so forgive without a satisfaction received and that God is to forgive us as we forgive them then is a satisfaction totally excluded Now to make as if he contradicts him self he cites Rejoynder p. 284. where saith D. L. VV. P. cites and defends We believe that Christ in us doth offer up a living sacrifice to God for us by which the wrath of God is appeased to us Where upon saith D. L. Note a self contradiction for in the one he totally excludes a satisfaction and in the other he grants it Answer Can D. L.
have life without respect to his dying for us and rising again c. Neither did W. P. So D. L. is here again pinched â—oo hard to squeeze out a Contradiction Again in p 41. he cites W. P's Address to Protestants p 119 Let us saith he 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 Upon which D. L. makes this note viz Tho W. P. allegorizes Christ and makes him nothing but virtues yet his Brother G. W. tells W Harwoth as above that Christ is something else viz a man consisting of spirit soul and body the same body as dyed c. Answ The more wickedly done then of D. L. in his p 23. very falsly to accuse G. W. of saying Christ has not the body of man yet now rather than he will want any thing that may make up his pretended contradiction to W. P he now freely assents that G W. owned Christ to have both spirit soul and body which surely make up a compleat man And W P's enumerating what Christ is as to virtues and that he has all those virtues in perfection does no waies deny him to be a man consisting of body soul and spirit according to G. W No it was only to shew that those who are in measure thus Christ like qualified are not to be denyed all share in Christianity as the book plainly shews And though he saies What is Christ out meekness justice c. denies him not to be a man consisting of spirit soul and body any more than Paul's saying Who then is Paul and who is Apollo but ministers mark but ministers by whom ye believed Cor. â— 5 denies him self to be a Tent maker Acts 18. 3 But D L s design is for mischeif and he veâ—â—ures to act it at what â—ate he pleaseth In p. 44 he qâ—otes The Christiâ—n Quaker by G W p 375. as follows viz That this thâ—â—â— tends to 〈◊〉 and to make men Atheists viz other mens self confidence in asserting things contrary to reason and manifest experience and in particular in their affirming that these self same terrestrial bodies of flesh and bones shall be made spiritual immortal and incorruptible T is true says G W Hen More had finer and more excellent notions about the Resurrection than many other learned men and aimed at the truth and spirituality there of from the vision of the holy men recorded in the scriptures And then in order to make G W. oppose him self as he would seem to suppose he offers a quotation out of p. 372 of the same book viz this manner viz G W. cites H More about the Resurrection saying Flesh and blood can not in herit the kingdom of God and I think saies he there is the same reason of flesh and bones viz. I understand natural flesh and bones not glorified Thus he cites G W. and then adds this Note G W. commends this notion of H More as savouring of truth and spirituality and yet renders those Atheists that believe the same for H More does not here deny the Resurrection of the same body that dyeth only understands it must be glorified Answ Here he has abused G VV. by leaving out the last part of his words for after the words immortal and incorruptible G VV. adds and yet the same for matter and substance which words he has skipt over I suppose because they did not suit his purpose Then he saith in his note G W. commends this notion of H More as savouring of truth and spirituality Whereas G VV. says no such thing of him as appears by Daniel Leeds own quotation before produced It is true he said he had siner and more excellent notions and aimed at the truth c. Which much differs from savouring of it a man may aim at a thing which he may never come so near to as to â—iâ—e of or savour And where as he saith H More does not deny the Resurrection of the same body that dyeth Neither doth he shew that G. VV. does so it s true G. VV. seems to oppose the notion of the self same terrestrial body of flesh and bones being made spiritual immortal and incorruptible and yet he the same for matter and supstance â— as now they are which last words and yet be the same for matter and substance D L. has very unfairly left out to pervert G W's real intentions Besides how doth it appear that Henry More doth not deny the Resurrection or the same body that dyeth Hear what G W. hath cited out of his works in p. 373 of the Christian Quaker viz I dare challenge him to produce any place of scripture out of which he can make it appear that the mystery of the Resurrection implies a Resuscitation of the same numerical body The most pregnant of all is Job 19 which later Interpreters are now so wise as not to understand at all of the Resurrection The 1 Cor. 15 that chapter is so far from asserting this curiosity that it plainly says it is not the same body but that as God gives to the blâ—des of corn grains quite distinct from that which was sown so at the Resurrection he will give the soul a body quite different from that which was buried as different as a spiritual body is from a natural body or an heavenly from an earthly Thus far Henry More as cited by G W. in the said Christian Quaker Now how far H M. doth own or deny the Resurrection of the same body that dyeth may be easily guessâ—d at not witstanding D L's confident assertion that he doth not deny it And now having traced and detected this dis ingenious unfair envious and conceited man through the divers quotations before specified wherein he would charge our Friends with contradictions I think this sufficient with any reasonable man to invalidate the credit of the resâ— Neither in deed have I all the books he offers his pretendedly contradictory quotations out of to examine and he having justly forfeited his credit in divers passages before mentioned I think it not worth my while to set pen to paper to enervate those suppositions citations wherein his stained reputation must be relied upon for the faithful quoting thereof I shall therefore only further take notice of three very obvious abuses put upon G W. and W P as a corrobocrating proof of my above charge and then leave this chapter of pretended contradictions and proceed to the next The st in his â—3d page and is this G VV's Nature of Christianity p. 29 Christ has not the body of man Answ Now as there is no such word so neither can any such thing be justly deduced from what G VV. there wrote that subject of which he treated in that place being not at all wether Christ had the body of man or not but about the manner of his saving and justfying men which
G VV. would not have R. Gordon to expect should be as he imagined in his book p 30 viz That Christ as the Son of Mary should outwardly appear in a bodily existence to save But here 's not one word of denying Christ to have the body of man as D L. falsly cites him and sure it 's one thing for Christ to appear to save men by his ingrafted word which is able to save the Soul Iames. 1. 21 which the Quakers press people to come to witness and an other thing to say Christ has the body of man outwardly to come on the last day to reward every man according to his works which the Quakers also believe Then 2 dly in the same page D L. cites the same book in p. 41 thus paraphrasing upon it And in p. 41. he denies Christ's bodily existence without us Answ There is no such word neither But G VV. speaking of R G s pretended adoration and claim of salvation being to Christ only as the son of Mary existing outwardly and bodily without us There upon G VV. saith I ask him if he have so considered God the saviour or the Son from the substance of the Father and then he asks him What scripture proof he hath for Christ's existing outwardly â—odily without us at Gods right hand By all which it plainly appears that G. W. only opposed those terms viz Christ existing outwardly bodily without us because that would seem to exclude his being as he is God and as he is in men and therefore saies to R. G. And is Christ the saviour as an outward bodily existence or person without us distinct from God and upon that consideration to be worshipped as God yea or nay c. Now though G. W. opposes R. G's doctrine of Christ's being or existence to be outwardly and bodily without us yet it does not at all follow from thence that he believes Christ hath not a body that hath a being or existence without us It is one thing to maintain that Christ the Saviour of the World hath a body existing whithout us wich G. W. denied not and another thing to hold or maintain that that bodily existence it self is Christ the saviour of the world which and no less R. G ' s. words seem to import The outward bodily existence of a man cannot be said strictly to be the man for them when it dies and the bodily existence is put off the man would cease to be And where it is said of Christ that he bare oursins in his own body on the three 1 Pet. 2. 24 It might as well be said that the body bare our sins on his own body on the tree So that to conclude I say it is a manifest falsehood in D. L to say that G. W. denies Christ's bodily existence without us Christ's body doth exist without us Yet that bodily outwardly existence is not the Christ without his soul spirit and God head And 3 dly D L. in p. 25 falsly charges VV P. in these words And saies VV P. We deny that person that dyed at Jerusalem to be our Redeemer Referring to VV P s Apology p 146. Answ These are not the words of W P but of his Adversary Jenner cited by W. â— in the aforesaid book Jenner having thrown it upon the Quakers as their principle W. P. in answer thereto calls it a hoâ—râ—d impâ—tation and then acknowledges in these express words That he who laid down his life and suffered his body to be crucified by the Jews without the gates of Jerusalem is Christ the only begotten son of the most high God and though he there denies the outward person that suffered properly to be the son of God yet the stress oâ— the mâ—tte◠〈◊〉 only upon the word outward by which W. P. meant his outward body as is clear from his following words viz A body hast thou prepared me said the son then said W. P. The son was not the body though the body was the sons And if D. L. should say The body was the son theâ— this absurdity will follow viz Christ bare our sins in his own son instead of his own body on the tree And if D. L. say the outward person was properly the son of God and yet will be imparâ—tial then let him fall upon G. K. for asserting That it is not the outward Flesh and Blood that is the man but it is the soul or inward man that dwelleth in the outward flesh or body that is the man most properly such as Christ had from the beginning As his express words are in his Way Cast up p. 102. not yet retracted But whether he will believe his peculiar friend G. K. or not to be sure he has belyed W. P as above is shewn and it is not his pleading â— little failure in Syntax a thing he banteringly accuses G. W. within his book no nor otherwise wording the matter neither will do without an open and free Retraction of these his abuses Furthermore having after I had proceeded a good way in this work met with the book called The Quakers Plainness I have therein found fresh cause to take a little further notice of D. L's perfidiousness which I purpose a little more to detect before I proceed to any other matter see News of a Trumpet Numb 5. where he hath it thus Sâ—ndy Founda p 15 W. P. saith In the fullness of time God sent his son who so many hundred years since in person restified the virtue c. Now to make G. W. coÌ„tradict this he quotes Quakers Plainess p. 24. affirming that G. W. saith The title person is too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God Now Reader that thou may see how unfairly D. L. hath laid down G. W. words taken them as laid down by himself thus That Christ is not a person without â—s p 21. is our doctrine or phrase that I know of or remember only that the title is thought too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God many men having gross apprehensions about the phrase Person without But Christ is confest us both as without us and within us Well Where is the contradiction in all this Why here W. P saies That God sent his son so many hundred years ago in person and G. W saies The title person without is thought too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God Mark person without us was what was thought too low to be spoken concerning the son of God it was not thought too low for it to be said of him that so many hundred year since he appeared in person For it is one thing to say That the son so many hundred years ago appeared in person and another thing to say That the son or Christ of God is a person without us especially when it is spoken in opposition to those who deny him to be within us For though we sincerely believe Christ to be in heaven without us yet
we also believe according to scripture that he is within us the hope of glory and that if Christ be not in us we are Reprobates Now whether D. L will reckon the title person without us too low to give to the Christ of God or not yet to be sure it is unscriptural For though it is clear the scripture speaks of Christ in us in more express words than it doth of Christ without us yet we believe him to be without us also But to sum up the matter two omishons of D L's in this quotation out of G W s book manifest his baseness as any intelligent Reâ—daâ— may observe the rectifying of wich by inserting them very much alters the case as â—â— he leaves out the woras without us and 2 dly He makes G. W to say The title person is too low where as his words are The title person is thought too low so that that qualifying word thought being here omitted t is unfarily done of D. L. I come now to his seconâ— Chapterent it used Opposition â—â— Unity and having as I hinted before since I finished my answer to what he calls Contradictions met with G W s â—ook 〈◊〉 The Quakers Plainness I shall examine the use he makes of some of it in the said Chapter In p â—7 48. he brings in G. W laying down some oâ— the Mâ—ggletonians false doctrines and then endeavours to shew that G W holds the same my present business therefore is to shew D L's folly in so doing The first of Muggletons doctrines that he brings out is That death took Christ's soul into it and that Christ's soul dyed when the body dyed Now to shew that we hold the same he turns us to his Numb 37. 38 39 Where saith he they deny the body to be Christ and that it was Christ that dyed And that both body and soul was sacrifized see Numb 42. Answ First If the body was properly the Christ how was it sayd That by Christ God made the Worlds Heb. 1 â— since it was many thousand years after the world was made ere Christ took up that body 2dly If the body was properly the Christ how is it that Christ sayd to the Thief on the Crosâ— To day shalt thou be with me in paradise Luke 23. 43 Since Ioseph begged his body and laid it in a Sepulchre v. 52 53 from whence it rose not until the third day ch 24 v. 6 And as for their saying it was Christ that dyed it is no more than the Apostle saith in express words How that Christ dyed for our esins 1. Cor 15 3 So that D L is as really quarrelling with the scriptures as with us And what if G W declares That Christ's soul was sacrifized doth not Isaiah speak of God's making his soul an offering for sin see ch 53. v 10 What can be a plainer proof Yet it doth not follow that his soul dyed But if D L say otherwise then it is he and not we that holds those Muggletonian doctrines however I am sure we do not And so having done with this I shall pass the rest of this chapter all is it being pretty much of a sort and it being not my intention to answer every paragraph in the book as I have already told my Reader and given him a very good reason too viz because I have not many of the books by me out of which he produces his quotations to examine them by neither would it be necessary if I had since with any unbyassrd persons I must â—eeds have spoiled his credit in laying open the unfairness and forgeries he is guilty of in the beforegoing I shall now proceed to his third Chapter which I find much like his former it being grounded upon his not being willing to distinguish in ascriptural sense between Christ as he was from the beginning and as he came in the body in the fulness of time As for what he here saith of John Whitehead I refer the Reader to Tho. Ellwood's book Called Truth Defended c. p. 124. As for his saying That The true Chrstians believe that the true Christ hath a body of flesh and bones c. To this I answer That how or after what manner Christ's body is now in heaven I shall by no means undertake to determine ' it being I believe a bove the capacity of us Mortals so to do But I shall tell D. L. that he hereby brings his great friend G. K. under his censure of not being a true Christian for G K. expresly saith of Christ's body that It is no more a body of flesh blood and bone but a pure Aethereal heavenly body see Way cast up p. 131 not retracted Then for his bantering W P. about his calling Christ's body holy saying Can this be other than hypocrisy for as is noted at Numb 49 50 he holds the body to be earthly and perishing I would have the Reader note it proceeds from W P's vindicating this saying so Jsaac Peningtons ' That which Christ took upon him was but the garment of our nature which is of an earthly and perishing nature To which I answer That Christ's body was a holy body according to W. P. Surely D. L. will not deny Yet that it was the garment of our nature is not me thinks hard to make out For it is said Heb 2 14 For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same Mark of the same Now how it is the same if not of the same nature for my part I know not though Christ defiled not his nature by sin as we have done ours is Certain and there fore a holy body according to W P Yet in as much as he took on him the seed of Abraham he surely took on him our nature unless the seed of Abraham be not of our nature and that this is the garment which Is. P meant I suppose D. L. will not deny Nay the scripture saith expresly v. 17. In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethern Yet though Christ was in all things made like unto his brethren though he took â—hould of the seed of Abraham and took part of the same flesh and blood with us which flesh and blood of ours is surely of an arthly and perishing nature Yet I utterly deny D L's inference that W P. renders Christ's body earthly and perishing For though he took part of the same flesh and blood with us which flesh and blood of ours as I said is of an earthly and perishing nature yet by the mighty power of God Christ's body was raised from the dead and saw no corruption and so he dieth no more death hath no more dominion over him but he ever liveth to make intercession for us in his soul and spirit and glorious and heavenly body I come next to touch upon one passage in his Chap. 4 where he thinks he hath gotten I know not
man was finite viz. came to an end But here R. B. says he continues a real man in soul and body and so is not finite And then D. L. says Chuse which of these you will believe Answ Not D. L. to be sure That Christ continues a real man c. is true according to scripture as well as according to Robert Barclay But that therefore he as man is not finite it follows not For D. L. continues to be a real man for ought I hear yet he is finite But to be sure R. B's meaning was that Christ as man was to continue without end Well the same is believed likewise concerning the Saints yet are they finite for all that But whereas D. L. tells us that W. P. saies Christ was finite viz came to an end it is a great abuse upon W P and great untruth in D L for W P hath no such words vis came to an end as D L wickedly renders it to insense the world as â—â— W P believed that the man Christ was come to an end An Abominable Forgery I come In The last paragraph I conviected D L of a great forgery and now in this I am about to convict him of another as great In his Number 58 he cites G VV's Divinity of Christ p 27 thus The God whom we serve and believe in is infinite the only wiâ—e God and nothing relating to him or his being finite Against which he brings VV P thus Sandy Foundation p 20 VV. P there calls the man Christ The finite impotent creature Answ I must needs desire the Reader to take notice of the greate heat D. L. hath imposed upon him and the great abuse he hath put upon VV. P here in in saying that he calls the man Christ The finite and impotent creature and there upon in divers places bestowing his discanting sort of vaunts and taunts upon W. P. after such a rate as if he had a sicence to abuse men at pleasure As first in the same page he saith Here I cannot but take notice that though VV P. blasphemously calls the Man Christ the finite impotent creature c. And in p. 39 he speaks again of VV P's calling Christ's whole man the finite impotent creature And in p. 39. he speaks again of W P's calling Christ's whole man the finite impotent creature And a little lower he ironically hath it thus The man Christ must be called The finite impotent creature by this high and elevated dust and as his W. Penn. Nay he is so fond of the lye that when he comes to p. 24. he hath it again thus I cannot but mind VV P's devised distinction and unscriptural expression if it were no worse in calling the man Christ The finite and impotent creature c. Now Reader do but behould how this D L. has made a man of straw and then fights with it For I do affirm there is no such saying or irreverent expression in the whose book as that the man Christ is a finite and impotent creature No neither expressly nor implicitely nor so much as consequentially By which it may be clearly enough seeâ— that D L. was not influenced to this work by a Moâ—ion heavenâ—y and well would it have been for him if he said no more in the case than what by a little otherwise wording matter he could have made out to have been in the main at least the truth But Alas poor Daniel The case is otherwise with him for no otherwise wording the matter will do here he can do no less in justice than according to the example of his friend G K. who has retracted wil out cause to openly and freely retract it he having so much cause so to do or else it wil assuredly lye hard at his door and likewise prove as hard to make good his assertion in the close of his preface that his proceeding here in viz in his book were good and sincere Well in p 140 he again cites G F's Great Mistery p 222 thus Priest sais Christ is without the saints in respect of his bodily presence G F. answers How then are they of his flesh and bone And the D L. brings in VV P. thus Christian Quaker p 9â— The body of Christ is not so much as in any one Upon which D L. notes That VV P. is still clashing against G F al most on every hand Answ It is clear that the body meant by VV P. was the visible body of flesh and blood c. in which sense I can hardly beleive D L. thinks that G F meant that that visible body is in us however G F's following words shew that purport of this passage to wit And eat his flesh and drink his blood and how have saints his mind and spirit and he with them and they with him and sit with him in heavenly places and he is the head of the Church How then is he absent c. Thus G F by which it appears to me that the reason of this his answer was because the Priest would not allow that Christ was in us by reason his bodily outward presence is absent from us Besides G F did but query and G K saith in his Truth Defence p 59 That to query a thing will not conclude the Questionist doth positively affirm or deny In the same page he offers a quotation out of W P s Rejoynder p 13 viz That Christ his coming was but mark but to bring the World to a more improved knovvlege and large enjoyment of that divine povver vvisdom life and righteousness vvhich former ages had comparatively but an obscure sight and imperfect sense of To oppose vvhich he cites Truth 's Principles by I Crook If Christ had not dyed man must have perished in sin this being the vvay found out by God to recover him Upon vvhich D L notes Here 's one Christian he grants the merit of Christ's coming and death But W. P makes the benefit of his coming to be no more but â—o shevv man more plain vvhat he savv before as through a glass c. Answ O strange Hovv soon has D L forgot himself For in his quoting W P he makes him to ovvn and assert that Christ's coming was as vvell to bring the World to a more large injoyment of life mark enjoyment of life as vvell as power and Rightousness But in his Note she saith W P makes the benefit of his coming to be no more mark no more but to shew man more plain what he saw before c. As if there vvere no difference betvveen seeing and enjoying I think vvhat W. P said in the matter is very comprehensive as to the end of Christ's coming to vvit to give the World a more clear knovvledge of him and to cause us to enjoy life by him For I am come saith Christ that they might have life and that they might have it more abundantly Iohn 10. 1â— And surely Christ did not intent by this that we should
what advantage against W P He cites VV P's Reason against Railing p. 165. where D. L. saies W. P. justifies and declares that he abides by there ill names given by E. Burrough p. 30. c. to wit Thou Iesuit thou Sot thou Sorcerer thou art a Serpent c. And yet saies D L in Address to Protestants p. 242 he at once unchristians himself and all his Brethren for so doing for saith he Men that call names for Religion may tell us they are Chistians if they will but no body would know them to be such by their fruits to be sure they are no Christians of Christ's making Upon which D. L. cries out Good Reader take notice of it Alas how has the man forgot him self Answ Alas how hath D L. abused VV P. and his Reader too For VV P. doth not declare that he abides by any ill names given by Edward Burrough for the word ill is not VVill. Penn's but added by D L which was ill done of him VV P's words in the page quoted by D L. being these viz But let it suffice that Edward Burrouge gave no harder names than the scriptures by Rule allows We read oâ— dogs bears wosves sâ—â—ine serpents â—â—pers foxes childeren of the Devil and such like And as that nature to whom they were then given thought them hard so doth Thomas Hicks now But the same power that then give them hath now used them to the same end and purpose and I abide by it Thus far W P where observe W P doth not declare that he abides by any ill names for he useth not the word ill but hard names 2dly He sheweth how such like names have been given of oâ—d â—y good men yea it was by the best of men and saith that E B. doing it to the same end and purpose he abides by it and since D L. finds fault with it we may easily guess at his reason for so doing viz t was W P. that wrote it For of all the hard names his friend G K. hath given his opposers I cannot if it were for my life find that he blames him for one of them and to shew that not only the scriptures and our friends as above but that also G K. hath given hard names to his opposers I shall instance for brevity sake but one place out of but one of his books entituled The true Christ owned see p. 104. 105 thus His false accusations his beast with seven heads that he hath coniured out of the sea of his trobled imagination his Atheistical and blasphemous creed I have proved him man iâ—estly guilty of Sâ—â—inianisim Arrianisoum Anthropomorphitism Muggletonism Antichristianism and fast of all gross Atheirsm Now where will D L's sincerity and impartiality be if he deal not with G K as he hath dealt with us in this matter Then as to what he offers to prove that W P. unchristians him self and Brethren at once because he saith as D L. quotes him Men that call names for religion may tell they are Christians if they will c. I answer Here he hath very unfairly left out that part of VV P's words which would unquestionably have shewn such men he there discreyd to be no Christians For VV P. being there treating concerning and speaking against persecutors he hath it thus viz Men that call names for religion and fling stones and persecute for faith may tell us they are Christians if they will but no body would know them to be such by their fruits Now these words and fling stones and persecute for faith D L. hath concealed from his Reader and I am sure that is a worse errour than a little failure in Syntax But by inserting them my Reader may see what sort of men they were whom VV P. rejected as unworthy of that honourable name viz Perjecutors for faith flingers of stones as well as callers of names for religon And it is well known that such persecutors in formers and others would not only fling stones but throw diâ—t too and also call such names as these You Quaking Curr You Anabaptist Rogue You Fanatick Dog and the like Now it is clear that this was the calling names for Religion which W. P. meant and not the calling of names after the manner as the Prophet did when he called a sort of men Greedy Dogs c. nor after the manner as E B. did when he called such like men Sot Sorcerer c. But perhaps D L. will say in vindication of G. K that he hath retracted the hard names by him given to his Opposers Answ That Retractation is but a meer flam like some of the rest For how far hath he retracted this Why his words are of so large an extent that 's that I know no Professor of Christianity but both might and would say as much and yet retract just nothing at all neither would there be any service in it in order to give the least satisfaction to any concerned who might suppose themselves abused by hard names published for his retractation is only in general terms viz He retracts in general all the hard names that he hath given to such as did nor deserve them without discharding any particular person or society from the scandal of those hard names For instance G. K. in his Antichrists and Saducees detected hath bestowed many hard names upon me as Antichrist Saducee or rather Atheist Bold Ignorant Miller Philosopher c. Now since there is great probability that he doth not mean me to be one of those upon whose account he hath retracted the hard names given So also any of his former Opponents to whom he hath given hard names may say I know not that he means me to be one of them who have not in his Judgment deserved them and now although he seems to make an acknowledgment and blame himself for bestowing hard names on divers yet since he names none of those divers what satisfaction to me is his pretended retraction in this more than his charging them on me in his former and what sincerity doth he manifest in it For those divers he hints at either did occur to his memory at the writing of his book or thy did not If they did and he sincere in his pretension he should have named them but if they did not then it is a sign he put down what he published by meer rote and in short he had as good have said nothing about it since every particular person concerned in those hard names may say they are never the more satisfied there by and so all of them still lye at G K's door Upon pruisal of his 5th Chapter about prophesies I find not above one that he hath mentioned which hath failed For those he speaks of who have of late prophesied against several towns and places I never heard that any prefixed a time nor otherwaies than upon condition viz unless they did repent which whether there was not so much repentance in so