for would not the Quakers account it a great Sin and Trespass if any of the Church of England or Dissenter should sit in one of their Galleries where they stand to preach and kneel at Prayer and mend an old Doublet while they are preaching in their Meeting Places Surely they would greatly aggravate it and call it rude and unmannerly and profane Again whereas they query Where dost thou read in the Scripture that Men must do no Work on the first Day of the Week And this Query is made to justifie the Quaker's sitting on the Communion Table to mend an old Doublet on the first Day in time of Divine Service Is not this a great Shame to print and reprint such avowed Profanation of the Lord's Day and Worship also in the Face of a Protestant Nation that zealously profess to be against the Profanation of it and where are standing Laws against the Profanation of it Note here that whereas the Quakers affirm that what they speak and write is immediately and infallibly from God their professed Principle obligeth them to hold that what they speak and write is of greater Certainty and consequently of greater Authority than the Scriptures because they are certain of what they speak and write from the Spirit in themselves but they are not certain of the Writings of the Scriptures as W. P. argues in his Discourse concerning the General Rule They have not the Autographa the Copies differ and so do the Translations but they have their own Autographa and their Books and Writings are from the Original immediately Thus when G. W. sent me his Curse Thus saith the Lord c. and signed G. W. This had more Authority with him than the Scripture by his own Doctrine and if he please let him add simply considered as without the Spirit Proofs on the fourth Head Concerning the Holy Trinity GEorge Whitehead G. W's Truth and Inn. p. 50. in his Truth and Inn. and Jos Wyeth in his Switch pretends That it is not the Doctrine or thing intended that they deny i. e. the Father the Word and Holy Spirit which three are one And saith Jos Switch p. 184. Wyeth We own their Distinction in all the Instances of it recorded in Holy Writ The only thing they pretend to scruple at or deny is the calling them three Persons which they say are not Scripture Terms and they are wholly for keeping to Scripture Terms in Matters of Doctrine But to this I say ' first How many unscripture Terms do they freequently use Where do they find in Scripture the Term immediate Revelation immediate teaching of the Spirit immediate Word which they so commonly use Again where do they find in Scripture That see G. M. p. 324. the Seed to which the Promise of Salvation is is Christ within Several Papers c. p. 47. And that Expression where do they find it in Scripture That the same Spirit takes upon it the same Seed which is Christ now as ever c. That God the Father took upon him Humane Nature That the Spirit is the Rule and many more not only unscripture Terms but contrary to Scripture But why do they call them Three Witnesses as G. W. hath so expresly called them Where do they find them in Scripture so called That Place in John's first Epistle doth not call them Three Witnesses but Three bearing Record or witnessing But it is not only the Words Three Persons wherewith they are offended thâ— unjustly for personal Acts and Properties are given to them and therefore according to plain Consequence from Scripture they may be called Persons but the Doctrine or thing intended they deny for they allow not that they are distinct otherwise than in Manifestation see G. W's Divinity of Christ p. 94. he saith The Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit or the Father Son and Holy Ghost are one and inseparable no where in Scripture called three separate Persons nor finite in Personalities though Three in Manifestation and so testified of as Three Witnesses for the Confirmation of the Gospel Note Seeing G. W. doth not own them to be Three otherwise but in Manifestation this is not only to deny the Names or Words Three Persons but to deny that they were Three from all Eternity or before all Ages for there was no Manifestation either of One or Two or Three from Eternity His calling them Three in Manifestation is to call them three Manifestations and seeing all Manifestation has a Beginning with Time by his Doctrine there were not Father Son and Holy Ghost three any wise distinct from Eternity There was no God the Father from Eternity that did beger nor no Son from Eternity that was begotten nor Holy Ghost that from Eternity did proceed from the Father and the Son by G. VVhitehead's Doctrine And F. Hougil in his Collection p. 308. delivers the same erronious Doctrine He saith That the Holy Ghost is called another than Christ Another is not understood of another Life of another Substance but is understood of another Manifestation or Operation of the same God who subsists in the same Power in which the Father the Son and the Spirit subsist as I said unto thee before Another as to distinguish of the Operation and VVork of the Spirit and of the Son we do not refuse By this Doctrine of F. Hougil they are but distinct Manifestations Operations and Works Now if G. VV. or the Author of the Switch will say that there were three Manifestations Operations or Works in the Godhead from all Eternity It is absurd to suppose such Manifestations beside that they are unscripture Terms the same Arguments that they use against three Persons will as much and indeed much more be of Force against three Manifestations for if the Father be a Manifestation from Eternity of what is he a Manifestation Can he be a Manifestation of himself Or is he a Manifestation of the Son who as they say is a Manifestation Thus one Manifestation would be the Manifestation of another Manifestation but then what would the Holy Spirit be a Manifestation of And seeing in God there are no Accidents these three Manifestations are not three Accidents nor three Subsistences nor three Substances nor three Persons and consequently according to these Men they are nothing at all but their own Inventions But VV. Penn in his Sandy Foundation has not only argued against three Persons but against the Holy Three for he bringeth five Arguments against their being a Holy Three Page 12 13 14. one of which is this in express Words Since the Father is God the Son is God and the Spirit is God which their Opinion necessitates them to confess then unless the Father Son and Spirit are three distinct nothings they must be three distinct Substances and consequently three distinct Gods Now let his Argument be applied to the unscripture Terms three Manifestations and it will have the same Force or rather
ever Again a little after So Isay the Devil false Prophets Antichrists Deceivers Beast Mother of Harlots none of these can witness an infallible Spirit But being out of the Spirit that Christ the Prophets and Apostles was in that gave forth Scriptures they are not infallible as they were but with that they are all judged out II. Great Mystery pag. 98. And thou and you all that speak and write and not from God immediately and infallibly as the Apostles did and Prophets and Christ but only have gotten the Words you are all under the Curse in another Spirit ravenned from the Spirit that was in the Apostles Saul 's Errand to Damascus pag. 7. They are Conjurers and Diviners and their Teaching is from Conjuration which is not spoken from the Mouth of the Lord and the Lord is against all such and who are of God are against all such Truth defended by G. F. and Rich. Hubb p. 104. Our giving forth Papers or printed Books it is from the immediate eternal Spirit of God to the shewing forth the filthy Practices of the World's Teachers c. George Whitehead Voice of Wisdom pag 33. his Opponent Th. Danson having said As for our Want of Infallibility 't is no valid Plea against our Ministry G.W. answers His Falshood here appears plainly for they that want Infallibility and have not the Spirit of Christ they are out of the Truth and are fallible and their ministry is not of the Spirit seeing they speak not from the Spirit but from their own Hearts which are deceitful where they want Infallibility so out of the Abundance of the Heart the Mouth speaketh Note Jos Wyeth in his Switch for the Snake p. 87. states the Question concerning their Infallibility fallaciously in three several Particulars 1. That the holy Spirit of God is infallible c. This is no Part of the Controversie 2. That the holy Spirit leads all such who obey him infallibly into all Truth necessary to Salvation This is wrongly stated the true State of the Question being Whether the Holy Spirit leads us into all Truth necessary to Salvation without the external Doctrine externally delivered in the holy Scriptures by preaching and reading and without all external means This they affirm as shall hereafter be proved but this all sound Christians deny who yet grant that all the Faithful are infallibly led into all Truth necessary to Salvation by the infallible Spirit in the Use of the holy Scriptures which contain the infallible Truths of the Gospel 3. That the Ministers who are sent forth in the Work of the Ministry have or may have if they diligently attend to the Voice of the infallible Spirit speaking in them a certain infallible Knowledge and Assurance of the Truth of what they so deliver This also is wrongly stated the true State is not what they have or may have but what they really have in all they preach and write as is clear from the above given Quotations of G. F. and G. W. their great Leaders To say they may have implies that they may not have and in that case they are fallible and so by their own Verdict are under the Curse Conjurers Deceivers Note that their great Teachers and Leaders G. F. and G. W. have taught that the infallible teaching of the Spirit is not by the medium or external Means of the Scriptures and that Faith is not given by the external Word doth appear from their Books 1. G.F. Gr. Myst pag. 350. Ye tell People of an outward ordinary means by which Christ communicates the Benefit of Redemption The means of Salvation is not ordinary nor outward but Christ is the Salvation who is eternal 2. Gr. M. p. 133. His Opponent T. Moor having said The Scripture is the absolute Rule and Medium of our Faith In pag. 134. he answereth The Scriptures is not the Author nor the Means of it nor the Rule but Christ who gives it and he encreaseth it 3. Gr. Myst pag. 243. And the things of the Gospel and of the Spirit are not attained by an external means 4. Gr. Myst pag. 320. His Opponents having said God works Faith in us inwardly by his Spirit and outwardly by his Word He answers Here thou goest about to make the Spirit and the Word not one is not the Word Spiritual and Christ called the Word Gr. Myst p. 168. Them that never heard the Scripture outwardly the Light that every Man hath that cometh into the World being turned to it with that they will see Christ with that they will know Scripture with that they will be led out of all Delusion come into Covenant with God with which they will come to worship God in the Spirit and serve him Note the Quakers that say they are turned to the Light yet are not led out of all Delusion but many of them are under great Delusions and Error concerning the great Truths of the Gospel as doth evidently appear by these and the following Quotations A Quotation being brought out of Gr. Myst in the Snake of the Grass G. Myst p. 213. Switch pag. 79. Thou cast not know the Scriptures but by the same Degree of the Spirit that the Prophets and Apostles had Jos Wyeth saith in his Switch By the Error of the Press the Word ALL is left out For which he quotes Gr. Myst pag. 212. In answer to this hear what G. F. saith in Gr. M. pag. 120. And he that hath found the true Record the Spirit of God with that he shall know ALL the Scriptures and is come within the Book where all things are written and which writes all things forth the Spirit Note G. F. no doubt and G. W. did think they had found the true Record the Spirit c. and therefore they knew ALL Scripture and had the same Degree that the Prophets and Apostles had G. F. G. M. p. 222. The Light c. is the Substance of all Scriptures opens all Scriptures and that all Scriptures ends in Le ts see all Scripture But that the Quotation of the Switch G. M. p. 212. is lamely made the following Words prove that some of the Quakers at least did understand as they thought ALL Scripture The Passage is this But they cannot know all Scriptures but as they vttain to the full Measure of the Spirit of the Prophets and Apostles and to the Measure and Stature and Fullness of Christ And if they do not attain to all this they are not able to know all the Scriptures and the Work of the Ministers of God was to bring People to this to the Measure and Stature and Fullness of Christ. Note that they thought their Ministry had brought some of the Quakers to this we shall see hereafter and no doubt they judged they were come to it viz. G. F. and G. W Gr. M. p. 47. The Light which every one hath that cometh into the World is sufficient to Salvation without the Help of any other Means or Discovery But which
Fox makes him to have contradicted the Apostle and also the Assembly of Divines at Westminster and judged both himself and them This I think so evident a Proof that G. F. thought himself equal with the Father that neither G. W. nor Jos Wyeth nor any of their Brethren with all their little Craft and Sophistry can clear this Passage from that down-right Blasphemy That G. F. was equal with God for neither the Assembly of Divines at Westminster nor C. W. deny the Equality of the Son and of the Holy Ghost for G. Fox grants they owned it but the Equality which C. Wade cryed against was the Equality of G. F. or any of the Saints with the Father But here we find the Strength of G. Fox's Logick The Son and Holy Ghost are equal with the Father therefore G. F. is equal with the Father the Proof of which Consequence must be one of these two following Assertions the one is That G. Fox thought himself to be the Son of God or such a Son as was equal with the Father the other is That because the Son of God was revealed in G. Fox as he thought that therefore G. Fox was equal with the Father As to the first of these Assertions as it is utterly false that G. Fox was the Son of God to wit the only begotten Son of God the Word made Flesh so the other is utterly a false Consequence that because the Son of God was revealed in him that therefore he was equal with the Father but surely if the Son of God had been revealed in him that Revelation would have taught him not to utter such horrid Blasphemy But that C. Wade did not deny but own as much as the Scripture warranteth That God the Father as also Christ the Son were manifested or revealed in the Saints I shall quote a Passage in his Book being originally the Words of one T. Moor that wrote against the Quakers whom J. Nailer had charged That he would exclude God and Christ out of the World and that he should no more dwell in his People till Doomsday In Opposition to which C. Wade quotes the following saying of T. Moor which he approves pag. 23. of Quakery slain That the Majesty of God whose Throne is in Heaven is in his Inspections Influences and Operation every where and in his gracious and spiritual Presence and manifested Nighness in and through his Son dwelling in Sion even in the Hearts and Societies of his People Now let us hear what Jos Wyeth and G. Whitehead say in Defence of that blasphemous Passage above-mentioned quoted from Saul's Errand to Damascus p. 8. He that hath the same Spirit that raised up Jesus from the dead is equal with God Jos Wyeth doth plainly justifie it by the like false Consequence as G. Fox made Switch pag. 59. he saith For when Men are guided by the Holy Spirit they are certainly guided by God for the Father Son and Holy Spirit are one God and therefore equal and that which is equal as G. Fox he saith often expresseth it But doth it therefore follow that because the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are equal that therefore he that hath either the Son or the Holy Ghost is equal either with the Son or Holy Ghost or with the Father yet this is Jos Wyeth's blasphemous Consequence to justifie G. F's Blasphemy But G. W. hath found two other Ways to defend the above-said Blasphemy of G. F. in the Supplement to the Switch he saith p. 528. And if any among us have writ of them who are perfect in Christ Jesus being led by his Spirrt as in that Sense equal I understand equal only as like unto God or in Vnion with him being united unto him by his Spirit as he that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit Note first The Word Equal no where that I know either in Scripture or other Books or common Speech in any Language signifieth only as like therefore this is a meer Force put upon the Word and a strained Sense But Secondly That could not be the Sense intended by G. Fox because as I have above shewed in a former Quotation he proves that he is equal with God the Father because the Son and Holy Ghost are equal with the Father Now will G. W. say That the Equality betwixt the Son and the Holy Ghost and the Father is only an Equality of Likeness as to say the Son and the Holy Ghost are only like the Father but are not really equal with the Father This was the Arian Heresie that the Son was like the Father but not equal or of the same Substance with the Father they said he was Homoiusios but not Homouisios But he hath yet another String to his Bow in his Truth and Innocency pag. 10. Therefore the Words He that hath in the said Instance should be left out being contrary to G. F 's and our Principle and to his own very Words and Confession a little before in the same Book quoting Saul's Errand p. 5 6. where G. F. saith It was not so spoken as G. Fox was equal with God but the Father and the Son is one But the Fallacy lyeth here he did not say George Fox to wit the Name George Fox or the outward visible Body that bears that Carnal Name as he somewhere calls it but the new Name that he hath that is the He that is equal with God because that He is the Son and as to what G. W. saith of Union with God that G. F. did not mean Union by Faith and Love but a personal Union appears from G. M. p. 100. He brings in his Opponent saying God dwells not in the Saints as a Personal Union In Opposition to which he answers How comes the Saints then to eat of his Flesh and to be of his Flesh and Bone Note it should be by a personal Union And God dwelling in them and have Vnity with the Son and the Father and to be of his Body which is the Church and Christ the Head Yea he blames his Opponent G. M. p. 258. for saying To say that God is substantially in Man as essentially one with him can be no other but the Man of Sin But whereas G. W. saith He that hath should be left out pray who put them in That they were G. Fox's Words the Book called Saul's Errand affirms if this Liberty be allowed to transpose leave out and add Words in a Sentence nothing so vile and blasphemous or atheistical but may be justified by G. W. who hath used all these three Methods to defend his and his Brethrens vile Errors But let us hear one Passage more of G. F. out of G. Myst p. 299. to let us know what Conceit he had of himself as being more than a Creature he tells That one had raised a grievous Lye against G. F. and said he said he was Christ p. 298. to the End This Man having so charged him and having told him
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
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
work by the Spirit 's help that are meritorious of Justification But this will not excuse them from Popery for even Bellarmine a great Popish Author and the other Popish Authors plead only for the merit of such good Works which merit by Condignity as wrought by the help of the Holy Spirit assisting them And his Sophistry is as dull in his drawing an Argument from 1 Cor. 1 30. That Christ is made unto us of God Wisdom and Righteousness and Sanctification and Redemption therefore that Believers are justified by an Infinite Righteousness wrought in them and that Christ is formed in them Gal. 4. 19. And thus he will have Christ as held forth in that Text 1 Cor. 1. 30. not to be Christ God-Man without us from and by whom we receive Justification and Redemption and also divine Wisdom and Sanctification by his holy Spirit that he sendeth into our Hearts and by his holy Doctrine outwardly taught us but Christ formed in us he will have to be all this unto us Judgment Fixed p. 330. and Christ formed in us is the Seed and the Seed is God over all blessed for ever as above-quoted both out of G. W. and W. P. But what then is become of his Exposition that he gave in his Judgment Fixed above-quoted That this Birth viz. Christ formed in true Believers is not Christ Jesus for he is that incorruptible Seed and Word of Life which begets forms and brings forth the Soul of Man into his own Nature and Image and so Christ may be said to be formed in us in a Mysterious and Elegant way of speaking the Property and Effect being put for the Cause Thus we see how he wavers to and fro betwixt So and No and No and So sometimes This and sometimes That and sometimes neither This nor That a Phrase that S. F. used to some of his Opponents but very justly apply'd to G. W. But differing senses and meanings are more tolerable for a Man to put on his Words than plain contradictions and especially in Matters Fundamental as these are Next let us hear what W. P. hath said on the Doctrine of Justification and how J. Wyeth in his Switch defends him W. Penn in his Serious Apology p. 148 gives the charge of his Opponent thus That we deny Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us and therefore deny the Lord that bought us W. P. Answers And indeed this we deny and boldly affirm it in the Name of the Lord to be the Doctrine of Devils and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption which does now deluge the whole World What saith Jos Wyeth that hardy Champion to this Switch p. 238. Yes it is still true and that we do deny and boldly affirm to be the Doctrine of Devils and for our so denying and affirming we have the warrant of Holy Writ wherein is abundantly testifyed of the Spirit of Christ in Man to which he must be obedient in order to his Justification for which he quotes Rom. 3. 24 28. Rom. 5. 1. Titus 3. 7. and concludes then not wholly without us Note Here J. Wyeth acts the dull Sophister as much as his Elder Brother G. W. by perverting the true state of the Question as is their frequent manner The Question is not What is necessary by way of Instrument or Instrumental Application or Preparatory Condition in order to Justification such as Faith and Repentance for such are granted to be necessary in order to Justification as the stretching out the Hand is necessary to receive an Alms or free Gift and the opening the Mouth is necessary to receive Food but the true state of the Question is What is the procuring and purchasing Cause of our Justification before God by way of Merit or the Meritorious Cause of our Justification whether the Righteousness of Christ that he wrought without us by his Active and Passive Obedience above Sixteen Hundred Years ago Yea or Nay If Yea surely that is wholly without us but this says W. P. and J. W. is a Doctrine of Devils and G. W. chargeth T. D. with ignorance and false Doctrine for affirming it as above-quoted and yet it is the very plain Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures Isa 53. 4 5 11 12. Rom. 3. 21 22 23 24 25 28. Rom. 4. 4 11. Rom. 5. 18. Gal. 3. 22. 2 Cor. 5. 21. There are other Arguments which W. P. useth in his Serious Apology some of which I shall mention not to refute them for the least Child in Christianity may do that but to show his Error one of which is Death came by actual Sin not imputative therefore Justification unto Life comes by actual Righteousness and not imputative Another is This speaks Peace to the Wicked Another is Men are Dead and Alive at the same time by this Doctrine Note He perverts the state of the Question his Opponents do not say That Wicked and Unsanctified Persons are justified but if none be justified but who are Perfect vvith a Sinless Perfection and have not the least impurity then neither W. P. nor any Quaker ever vvas or is justified for vvhatever they boast of their Sinless Perfection their vile Errors Pride and Uncharitableness as vvell as other their Imperfections demonstrate the contrary Another of his Arguments is against our Justification by Christ's Righteousness without us Our rejoycing must be in our selves and not in another thus perverting Paul's Words Gal. 6. 4. But let every Man prove his own work and then shall he have rejoycing in himself and not in another But doth this exclude our rejoycing in Christ Jesus our Head who to be sure is another O sad How contrary to this is Philip 3. 3. For we are the Circumcision which worship God in the Spirit and rejoyce in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the Flesh by this Argument of W. P. he for himself and his Brethren whose Faith he pretends to deliver renounces all Rejoycing as well as Faith and Righteousness in Christ without us yea and in Christ within them also for Christ within them if he be within them is Another Dare W. P. or G. W. say Christ in W. P. or G. W. is W. P. or G. W. But whereas G. W. in his Printed Paper above-quoted call'd A Few Positions c. saith We highly do value and esteem his Christ's Sufferings Death Precious Blood and whole Sacrifice for Sinners For a Proof of his Insincerity and Sophistry in this I shall produce some following Quotations what G. W. means by his Precious Blood and whether he put the due value upon Christ's Blood that was outwardly shed or upon another sort of inward Blood I cannot say of his and his Brethrens inventing but what they received from Familists and Ranters tho' they pretend to have it by immediate Inspiration to wit an inward Blood that is the Atonement and Sacrifice for Sin which Blood G. W. will not allow to be the
he had Witness to prove it G. F. told him He was a Judas and he went away and after a while hanged himself and Christ in the Male and in the Female if he speak he was Christ the Seed and the Seed was Christ but he did not speak it as a Creature Note he grants he spoke the Words That he was Christ but he did not speak it as a Creature therefore he thought he was something more than a Creature the Seed in him spoke it which was Christ and that was not a Creature but what Seed was in him or in other Quakers that was not a Creature I cannot find out any other in his Writings but his Soul or invisible Part that he makes to be Christ and a Part of God as will afterwards appear on a distinct Head But he has yet another Defence to save the like blasphemous Saying of F. Howgel They that have the Spirit of God are equal with God in Nature but not in Stature It having been objected against the Quakers that some of them have said They that have the Spirit of God are equal with God To this F. Howgel answers after some foregoing Words F. Howgel's Col. p. 232. He that is born from above is the Son of God and he said I and my Father are one and where the Son is revealed and speaks the Father speaks in him and dwells in him and he in thy Father there is Equality in Nature though not in Stature Here it is a plain Case that F. H. places this Equality in Nature but not in Stature betwixt him that has the Spirit of God who is born from above and God himself for to place it betwixt Christ as he was the Son of God before all Ages and God the Father were to say That the Son is equal with the Father in Nature but not in Stature which has a twofold Error in it first To make a Distinction betwixt God's Nature and Stature Secondly Suppose that Distinction That the Son is equal to the Father in Nature but not in Stature both which are most gross and blasphemous and no less gross and blasphemous it is to affirm That the Saints are equal with God in Nature but not in Stature Now let us hear G. VVhitehead's Defence Truth and Inn. p. 10. The Equality in Nature objected relates to the Divine Nature which the Child of God partakes of in Measure though not in Stature relates to the Child that Divine Nature is one and unchangeable but our participating of it and Growth in it is gradual until all i. e. Christ's whole Church and Body come into the Measure of the Stature of the Fullness of Christ But doth all this Saying of G. VV. prove that the Children of God are equal with God either in Nature or Stature The Saints are said in Scripture to be Partakers of the Holy Ghost are they therefore equal to the Holy Ghost Which yet is the Way of G. VV's reasoning the Equality in Nature he says relates to the Divine Nature but who is it that is equal to God in the Divine Nature but not in Stature was it the Son or Holy Chost that is equal to God in the Divine Nature but not in Stature Nay therefore it must be the Saints or Believers here a Proposition is framed They that have the Spirit of God are equal with God and then this Distinction is given They are equal in Nature but not in Stature This Proposition hath for its Subject They i. e. the Saints or Children of God In all Propositions all the Parts of the Predicate belong to one and the same Subject the which Parts are equal in Nature but not in Stature But it is an unaccountable Liberty that G. VV. takes in his Way of defending these Blasphemies not only to change the Signification of Words from all common Use but the unalterable Rules of right Reason as in the present Case like as if one should say G. VVhitehead is equal to A. B. in Nature but not in Stature Nature relates to G. W. but not in Stature relates to another but who is this other who can tell Or as if one should say G. W. is a Man but not honest Man relates to G. Whitehead but not honest relates to another It is a real Shame that such pittiful Sophistry should be used by G. W. to defend his and his Brethrens vile Errors and Blasphemies whereby he makes himself guilty of them and all to save his and their pretended Infallibility It were much more Manly as well as Christian fairly to acknowledge and retract those most erronious Passages and own their Fallibility and Error and be contented to be lifted among fallible Men for humanum est errare labi decipi and not only so but to be greatly humbled for the Presumption that being Men they should equal themselves to God But the general Conceit of their sinless Perfection as they are a Body of People is such that both G. W. and Jos Wyeth doth justifie W. P's objecting to the Church of England their praying from seven to seventy Lord be merciful to us miserable Sinners G. VV. saith in Truth and In. p. 15. Alas poor Sinners Is not a Sign of Laughter at â—hem but rather of Lamentation and Pity over their miserable Estate who are always 〈◊〉 but not forsaking their Sins The like Answer doth J. VVyeth give in the Note Is not this a plain Evidence of the great Pride that is among the Quakers concerning their sinless Perfection As a Body of People and their great Uncharitableness towards not only the Church of England but all others called Christians throughout the whole World yea all Christians in all Ages and the universal Church of God both under the old and new Testament who always used Confession of Sin and prayed for Forgiveness of Sin find as Christ taught his Disciples to pray daily for their daily Bread so to pray daily for Forgiveness of Sins So under the old Testament there were daily Offerings for Sin and the High Priest however so holy yet offered both for his own Sins and the Sins of the People Doth it therefore follow that their Confessions and Offerings were hypocritical But doth not G. VV. know that as there is a gradual going unto Perfection so there is a gradual forsaking of Sin and a putting off the old Man with his Deeds Must not they who feel themselves wounded with Sin seek for a Cure And should not the diseased come daily to the Phisician till they be cured And as to the Quakers Uncharitableness and G. VV's especially towards all in the Church of England whom he chargeth without Exception that they are still confessing but not forsaking their Sins How can he more prove this Charge against them than his own Society or himself Many both in the Church of England and other Protestants can compare with the best of the Quakers for Holiness of Life and exceed them in many Virtues especially in
us and by the Power of thy divine Life and Spirit raise us up over all Tentations and indue us with a Measure of the same Patience and Resignation that dwelt so fully in thee and which thou didst so abundantly manifest in all thy Sufferings in the Days of thy Flesh Thou art the same that thou wert thy Heart is the same towards thy Servants as when thou wert outwardly present with them in the Flesh Thou art our Advocate and Mediator in Heaven with the Father Our merciful High Priest who is not untouched with the feeling of our Infirmities Thou even thou blessed Jesus thou knowest our most secret Desires and Breathings which we offer up unto thee in the Enablings of the blessed Life and Spirit that thou mayest present them unto thy Father and our Father that in thee we may be accepted and our Services also and for thy sake our Defects and short Comings our Sins and Transgressions that we have committed may be forgiven us The Prayer being read divers Ministers and others said it was a good Prayer but they never heard that any such Prayer was used in any of the Quakers Meetings A Quaker called Daniel Philips standing by near where I stood said that Book was approved by the second Days Meeting at London which was a great Untruth I told how I wrote that Book in Scotland and from Scotland sent it to a Correspondent in Holland who printed it there and when it came over to London in the Year 1678. it met with great Opposition from divers of the Preachers of the Quakers at London as Stephen Crisp William Shewen William Mede and Samuel Newton and one of the chief things they blamed in my Book was this very Prayer and especially that Part of it Jesus Son of David have mercy on us Some of them said it was half Popery for though G. K. would not pray to Mary the Mother of Jesus as the Papists do yet he was for praying to the Son of Mary Others said it was Common Prayer A larger Account of things relating to the Opposition I met with from the Quakers for that Prayer and some other things in that Book ye will find in the late Book called A Defence of the Snake in that called A Collection from p. 16. to 38. I further shewed that what I had delivered in that Book and others of my Books in former times when I was reckoned in Unity with the Quakers did plainly evidence that I held the Faith of the Fundamentals of Christianity with all true Christians though in some lesser Matters I was biassed and misled by them into divers Errors particularly in rejecting the Sacraments of Baptism and the Supper which I have since retracted and for my holding the fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith as appears by that Book and other Books of mine All the Time of my Quakerism a Quaker in Ponsylvania who was a Justice of Peace his Name was Arthur Cook said unto me George thou never was a right Quaker all thy Days but an old rotten Presbyterian The reading of that Passage in my Book containing the Prayer aforesaid which the Quaker brought to make against me had a far contrary Effect to what he intended for many some Ministers and others present said This makes for G. K. not against him let the Quakers bring any such Passage out of their Books to prove they were of that Faith with him Some of the Quakers that objected against that Prayer in my Book asked me in one of the Meetings that were appointed to hear the Objections against my Book and my Answers Where did I ever hear any English Friend of the Ministry pray after that manner Possibly said they some Scots Friends who were thy Proselytes thou hast heard to pray so I confess they guessed right they were some Scots Friends whom I had heard to pray so and so I had prayed and being at a stand to instance any English Friend that I had heard so pray W. Penn told them he had so prayed and that not long ago but he said It was in private G. W. said Let the Scripture decide it whereupon he calls for the Bible and reads in 1 Cor. 1. 2. What say ye to this Friends said G. W Ye see that Paul did approve the Corinthians that called upon the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ Their Answer was Paul was dark and ignorant in that thing as G. K. is for our Parts we know better Here note the Fallacy both of G. W. and W. P. who for all this seemingly owning Faith in the Man Christ Jesus by confessing they were to pray to him yet in their printed Books have opposed that Faith without any Retractation Proofs on the third Head First That the Scriptures according to the Dictates of their greatest Teachers are not the Word of God THat the Scripture is not the written Word see G. Myst p. 68 75. The Word not contained in Scripture p. 232. The Scriptures not the Word of Reconciliation but Christ p. 186. The Scriptures not infallible nor divine but humane p. 302. He chargeth C. Wade with Blasphemy for affirming the Scriptures are the Word of God G. M. p. 246 247. Thus the Church of England and all Protestants are guilty of Blasphemy by his Assertion Note This Controversie betwixt all true Protestants and the Quakers whether the Scriptures are the Word of God which the Quakers have formerly most earnestly denyed and fiercely disputed against though some now begin to acknowledge it and yet they are still the same infallible Men is not a meer Strife of Words but a most material and important Controversie for when many Places of Scripture are brought to prove that God's Spirit doth inwardly teach us by means of the Word and that Faith comes by the Word of God outwardly heard or read that we are born of the Word and sanctified by it and all spiritual Effects that are attributed in Scripture to God Christ and the Spirit as the principal Agent and to the Word as instrumental they will not allow of any instrumental external Word but makes the Word to be the Spirit to be Christ and God which is in effect to render them of no use to us at all seeing by denying them to be the Word they deny them also to be the external Means or Medium whereby the Spirit teaceth us by his inward Operation in our Hearts and works any saving Knowledge and Faith in us and this also they have denyed viz. that the Scriptures are the Means or Medium But that the Scriptures are the Word of God and the Word most frequently so called in Scripture is clear from abundant Places to wit the external Doctrine contained in the Scriptures Our Gospel came unto you said Paul to the Thessalonians 1 Thess 1. 5. not in Word only by Word here is meant Doctrine Isaiah 28. 13. The Word of the Lord was unto them Precept upon Precept Line upon Line Here the Precepts and
by seven Quakers the Passage is this Is the Moral Law or ten Commandments a Rule to the Christian's Life Some Account from Colchester p. 9. to the End or is it not Ans Thou might as well ask if the moral Law as thou callest it be a Rule to Christ For the Christian's Life and Rule is Christ who is the End of the Law for Righteousness who came not to destroy but to fulfil it Note In their Answer they groslly equivocate in taking the Word Christian's Life in another Sense than was meant in the Query and is meant in common Speech By a Christian's Life is meant in the Query and common Speech a Christian's Practice and manner of Life with respect to his Thoughts Words and Actions Now though Christ is called in Scripture the Christian's Life by the Figure of a Metonimy being the Author of their Life yet he is not their Practice or Manner of Life their thinking speaking and acting and whereas they make it absurd to suppose that the moral Law was a Rule to Christ Here they shew their Ignorance and Error for the Man Christ had the moral Law for his Law and Rule and it did oblige him to Obedience and he fulfilled it in his own Person for he was made under the Law and though the Law is not a Rule to the Spirit of Christ in Believers yet it is a Rule of the Spirit whereby he rules them Next they say The said Answer appears not to be intended to make void the moral Law or ten Commandments but the contrary in asserting Christ to be the End of the Law for Righteousness and that he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it therefore the Righteousness thereof remains and is binding by the holy Spirit in every true Believer though not under the Law but under Grace which effectually teaches both to deny Vngodliness and worldly Lusts and to live righteously soberly and godly in this present VVorld Tit. 2. 11 12. which answers the Substance and End of the Law Note whereas they say The Righteousness of it remains and is binding by the holy Spirit in every true Believer how is it binding by the Spirit if it be not a Rule to every true Believer Doth the Spirit bind Believers to that which is no Rule or Law Again By their Limitation and Restriction of binding by the Spirit they make the moral Law as it is outwardly delivered in the holy Scriptures to have no Obligation upon Believers at all but only as it is inwardly revealed and given by the Spirit and thus Christ's Prophetical and Kingly Office as he outwardly delivered that Law to us is of no Force by their Answer whereas that Law and all the other Laws of Christ have their binding Authority over Believers from Christ the great Prophet and King and Head of his Church as without them delivered by him to them and sealed by his Spirit in their Hearts and though the Spirit of Christ in Christ himself and in the Prophets and Apostles was a Lawgiver to Men yet the Spirit is not a Lawgiver as in us because his Law is sufficiently given already by Christ and by his Spirit in Christ and in his Prophets and Apostles But the Work and Office of the Spirit in us and all Believers is to perswade us of the Truth and Authority of the Laws of Christ already given to enlighten our Minds to understand them and inwardly to strengthen us by his Grace and gracious Influences and Operations to obey them But to hold that the holy Spirit is any Lawgiver to Believers since the Days of Christ and the Apostles is of no less dangerous Consequence than to overthrow Christianity and introduce Deism and Mahumetism For indeed upon that Pretence the Laws of the Turks Alcoran are set up and by the same Pretence G. F. did throw down Christ's Institutions of Baptism and the Supper and Church-Government by Pastors and Elders and set up Laws and Rules that he pretended to have given him by the Spirit and this was the Pretence of the ancient Montanists Yea W. Penn on this very Pretence rejects Baptism and the Supper affirming That the same Spirit that led the Apostles to reject Circumcision hath led the Quakers to reject the outward Baptism and Supper Lastly whereas they say A Believer is not under the Law but under Grace this doth not justifie their vile Heresie That the moral Law is not a Rule of Life to Christians for though they are not under the Curse and Condemnation of it nor as it is a Law of Works so as thereby to be justified yet they are under it even as outwardly given by Christ and his Prophets and Apostles as a Rule of Life And thus as they disannul and make void the moral Law of the Ten Commandments so all the other positive Laws and Commands of the Gospel making the Gospel nothing but the Light within all Mankind and Gospel Commands nothing but what that dictates though they are not agreed about the Commands of the Light within either their Number or Duration or whether there are any new Commands given in this Age as G. F. pretends was given to him and by him to the Quakers But again How doth it appear that their Answer doth not make void the moral Law or Ten Commandments when they reject the Morality of the fourth Commandment and do not allow that one Day of seven is to be observed and to be sanctified by abstaining from servile Labour and giving that Day to religious Exercise as appears from another Quotation in that called An Account from Colchester taken out of G. W's Truth defending To which they pretend to give answer in that called Some Account from Colchester p. 11. Did that Quaker sin therein or not who brought lately on the Lord's Day an old Doublet into Dr. Gell ' s Church in London and sate upon the Communion Table mending it while the Dr. was preaching the Parishoners forbidding him In their Answer they expostulate with him as if it were Popery 〈◊〉 it a Crime Sin to work upon the Communion Table as if it were a more holy Place than another But though it have no inherent Holiness yet it being dedicated to that Use every sober Christian will say it was a great Sin by diverse aggravating Circumstances as done in Contempt of the Institution of our Lord himself who appointed the Practice of breaking of Bread and that there should be a Table is evident from Scripture that mentions the Table of the Lord. Secondly The doing of it while the Dr. was preaching Thirdly The wilful Offence designedly given to the People present upon Pretence of bearing witness against their Idolatry and idolatrous Practice as the Quakers were wont to censure it Fourthly The doing of it on the first Day of the Week set apart from servile Labour to the Worship of God Fifthly The Breach of that golden Law of Equity Not doing as they would be done by
owned the Person of the Father G. M. p. 247. But thou saith Christ doth not dwell in them personally doth not Christ dwell in his Saints as he is in the Person of the Father the Substance And are not they of his Flesh and of his Bone Again G. Fox G.M. p. 248. owns expresly Christ's Person for first having cited his Opponent's Words It is a false thing to say Christ's Person is in Man in his Answer without finding the least fault with the Term Person he makes Opposition thus VVhich is as much as to say none are of his Flesh or of his Bone nor eat it nor had not his Substance By this it appears that G. F. did not find fault either with the Word Person as belonging to the Father or with Christ's Person but he will not allow them to be two Persons but one Person But if any will say he allowed them to be two Persons then by the Arguments both of G. F. and G. VV. they must be two Gods for if three Persons infer by Argument three Gods by the same Argument two Persons will infer two Gods The above mentioned Words of G. F. in G. M. Doth not Christ dwell in his Saints as he is in the Person of the Father the Substance Jos VVyeth in his Switch recites as quoted out of the Snakâ— Here the Switch finds no fault with G. Fox's owning the Person of the Father which were G. F's own Words but labors to prove that by that spiritual Oneness betwixt Christ and his Followers G.F. did not mean to make the Soul of the same Person and Substance with God which how ineffectual his Labor is in that may be shewn afterwards Note that the Switch doth justifie G. F. his Saying That God the Father did take upon him Humane Nature p. 190. and in Truth 's defence by G. F. p. 85. The Son's Body is called the Father's they are one not two viz. the Son and the Father But here once more on this Head let us take notice of G. VV 's Fallibility and self Contradiction in most evident manner In his Light and Life p. 47. he blames his Opponent VV. B. for these Words following concerning Christ Now as he was God he was Co-creator with the Father and so was before Abraham and had Glory with God before the VVorld was and in this Sense came down from Heaven To this G.VV. replies VVhat Nonsence and unscripture Language is this to tell of God being Co-creator with the Father or that God had Glory with God Doth not this imply two Gods and that God had a Father let the Reader judge Note how he calleth it Nonsence and unscripture Language to say That Christ as God had Glory with God and that he had a Father which is a plain Evidence that G. VV. denied the eternal divine Generation of the Son contrary both to the Nicene and Athanasian Creed and Scripture also But let us see how he excuses himself in his Antidote p. 188. But the Phrase God Co-creator with God I think still implies two Creators and consequently two Gods 'T is not the Particle Co with in this case will excuse the matter for Co or Con is simul together as Co-workers Co-partners which are more distinct Agents than one but the Creator is but one God one VVord one Spirit and so one Creator Note Here we see the Force of G. VV's Argument against Christ the Word being God Co-creator with the Father is that it would infer the Father and the Son to be Co-workers and consequently two Gods This Antidote he writ in the Year 1697. but in the Year 1674. wherein he published his Quakers Plainness in p. 24. he allows the Father and the Son to be Co-workers in the following Words That the Distinction of the Father and the Son is not only nominal as this Opposer implies against us but real in the divine Relation of Father and Son the Son as being the only begotten of the Father and also known as Co-workers in the Order and Degrees of Manifestation and Discovery where it is plain by his late manner of arguing in his Antidote against the Father and the Son being Co-workers that it doth infer two Gods that in his Saying in his Quakers Plainness as above quoted That the Father and the Son are known as Co-workers he has rendred himself guilty by his own Argument of holding the Father and the Son to be two Gods This is not only a Contradiction to himself but a severe Censure on himself that in the Year 1674. he was guilty of Idolatry in holding That the Father and the Son are two Gods Note Reader that the Quakers use to object two things against my charging Contradictions upon G. W. and other their principal Authors First That I have contradicted my self in my former and later Writings To this I have answered What in my later Writings I have retracted of my former Errors is no Contradiction for that 's a Contradiction when a Man holds contradictory Propositions to be both true simul semel without retracting his Errors But what a Man retracts he is no more chargeable with let G. W. and his Brethren retract their Errors and I shall cease to charge them with them or with Contradictions Secondly they object That I may find as many Contradictions in the Scriptures as in their Books Thus we see how they undervalue the Scriptures to be as contradictory as their Authors but I deny there are any real Contradictions in the Scriptures but there are many in the Quakers Authors Again further hear a Quotation out of the Primmer of G. F. junior and S. Crisp p. 24. And they that come to see and know the Son they come to see and know the Father also for the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father as saith the Scriptures and they are called by one Name which is The Word or The Light For the Word is God and Christ is the Word and God is Light and Christ is the Light of the World and the Spirit of Life proceeds from God and Christ who are Light Note Seeing they hold that the Father and the Son are called by one Name which is The Word and that the Father is the Word and the Son is the Word it is evident they make no Distinction betwixt the Father and Son and therefore according to their false Doctrine seeing the Word was made Flesh and the Father is the Word the Father was made Flesh the Father was born of a Virgin the Father suffered Death on the Cross yea the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father which is a plain overturning the great Fundamentals of Christianity yet this Primmer is so highly magnified among the Quakers that almost every Family of them have it to teach it their Children and they call it in the Preface A Fruit of the Plant of Righteousness given forth for the removing the Vse of such Books and Catechisins as
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
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
Works are meritorious of Condemnation therefore good Works wrought by us in the Spirit are a meritorious cause of our Justification But T. Danson doth effectually Answer the Argument by denying the Consequence and that it can have no force unless the good Works we work even by the help of the Spirit Voice of Wisdom p. 36. were in all respects Perfect and Sinless and that we had always perfectly fulfilled the Law from first to last which no Man ever did but Christ And he gives another good reason why he denyeth the Consequence Because the Righteousness which God works in us is but Finite as well as other effects his sense is obvious No Righteousness can Merit our Justification before God but that which is of an Infinite value and therefore the Righteousness of a meer Man had it been Perfect and Sinless from the first moment of his Life to his Death could not be of Merit for the Justification of others and indeed strictly speaking not of Merit for his own Justification he could only have been justified by his own good Works assisted to do them by the Spirit by fulfilling the terms of the Law or Covenant of Works but because Christ was not meer Man but both God and Man therefore his Righteousness and Obedience is of that Infinite Value and Merit that is sufficient for all that lay hold on it for Justification by a true and lively Faith Now to both these good and solid Reasons G. W. Answers most Ignorantly First in asserting That the good Works which we work by the Spirit or which the Spirit works in us are Perfect and are the fulfilling of the Law and therefore deserving Justification but to this I have answered above and discovered his Ignorance see the First Part p. 13. To his 2d Reason G. W. Answers The Righteousness which God effects in us is not Finite but Infinite Voice of Wisdom p. 36. for Christ is God's Righteousness and Christ is formed in us Gal. 4. 19. and so that Righteousness which God works in us by his Spirit is of the same Kind and Nature with that which worketh it for the Saints are made partakers of the Divine Nature Thus we see how he magnifies the Righteousness wrought by the Spirit in Men not only to be Perfect with a Sinless Perfection but DEIPIES it so as to make it equal to God himself arguing that the Righteousness which God works in us is of the same Nature with that which worketh it surely whatever is of the same Nature with God is equal to God yea is God for because Christ as he is the Eternal Word is of the same Nature with God therefore he is equal with God and is God But observe a prodigious Fallacy in G. W. to defend his Blasphemy In his Truth and Innoc. p. 60. in defence of that passage above-quoted out of his Voice of Wisdom he saith My meaning simply of the word Infinite was that God's Righteousness which he effects in us is Everlasting and without end Psal 119. 142. And Christ is said to be of God made unto us Wisdom and Righteousness and Sanctification and Redemption 1 Cor. 1. 30. I hope saith he none will deny him to be Infinite or his work of Righteousness and the effect thereof to be quietness and assurance for ever And thus he would heal himself by giving us his sense of the word Infinite that he meant simply that it was Everlasting and without end But to detect this prodigiously dull Sophistry I call it not prodigious for the Wit of it but the Dulness of it the nature of G. W.'s Argument did not only carry the sense of the word Infinite to be endless but to be every way Infinite his Argument being grounded on this That that Righteousness which God worketh in us is of the same Kind and Nature with that which worketh it Now the Nature of God is not only endless but Infinite every way his Righteousness and Holiness not only extendeth beyond all Times and Ages but beyond all Degrees and Measures of Created Perfection But whatever sense the word Infinite may be allowed in other cases to have as to say a Nation is Infinitely Rich as Nahum 3. 9. yet in this case of the Controversie betwixt T. Danson and G. W. the word Infinite can have no such limited or strained sense neither did T. Danson understand it in that sense as only to signifie Endless And G. W. did he know the true Law of Disputants should know That when he answereth to his Opponent's Argument he should take the word of his Opponent in the sense of his Opponent because the force of the Argument lies upon that sense For T. Danson's Argument had not this sense That because the Righteousness that God works in Men is not Endless therefore it is not Meritorious of Justification for granting it to be Endless that is Infinite in G. W.'s sense as the Apostle Paul saith of Charity it never faileth every degree of it is Endless but it will not therefore follow that it is meritorious of Justification because it hath no end of duration for so the Soul it self should be meritorious of Justification because it is Endless yea the Souls of bad Men and Devils are Endless and Infinite in G. W.'s sense do they therefore merit Justification But the force of T. Danson's Argument lyeth in this That Righteousness alone can be meritorious of our Justification before God that is Infinite in Value and Worth that is equivalent and infinitely more than equivalent to the Righteousness not only of all the most holy Angels that never sinned but of all the Men that ever lived or shall live had they by Supposition lived as holily and righteously as the holy Law of God required them to live from first to last yet such a Righteousness as this of all such holy Angels and Men being but a Finite Righteousness with respect to its intrinsick worth and value could not be sufficiently meritorious for the Justification of one Man that has sinned tho' suppose but once all his Life time But because the Righteousness of Christ to wit his most holy and perfect Obedience which he performed without us was not the Righteousness of a meer Man but of him who was both God and Man therefore it is an Infinite Righteousness i. e. of Infinite value before God by way of merit to obtain the Justification of true Penitents and Believers and when sound Christian-Teachers say The Righteousness of Christ which he performed without us for our Justification is an Infinite Righteousness they mean not that it was Physically Infinite but Morally i. e. of Infinite value before God by reason of the Hypostatical Union of the Humane Nature of Christ with the Essential and Eternal Word But G. W. thought to excuse S. F. and himself from the imputation of Popery on the Point of Justification and that very handsomly why because the Quakers say It 's only the works that they